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
Severing the Southwest
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

A few additional ruminations regarding political dissolution:

– What accounts for the exceptionally low level of support for political dissolution among Jews?

The first thing that comes to mind is that a national breakup means the end of America’s global military hegemony. Many AIPAC members will be out of a job and the American wars for Israel will be over.

Or maybe a lot of Jews, as difficult as their neuroticism makes it for gentiles to pick up on, really do appreciate the US for being the best country in the history of the world to be a Jew in.

Or it could be the SWPL simulacrum effect–the tendency for American Jews to be especially liberal white liberals. Jewish support for peaceful secession is at 17.0%, but support among college-educated non-Jewish white liberals making at least $100,000 a year is only modestly higher at 23.4%.

– Much speculation on how political separation might play out assumes the Southwest will take a leading role in dissolution, and with good reason. Reuters-Ipsos groups states into eight geographical regions that are similar to the nine divisions the US Census employs:

The West Coast and the Southwest are the most supportive of secession. The Mountain States and the Southeast are modestly less so. The Plains, Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, and New England are the least supportive.

Z-Man often points out that for nearly all of the US’ history the country has been ruled by Yankees. In Albion’s Seed terms, the Puritans and the Midlanders want to hold the country together. The Cavaliers, the Borderlanders, and non-whites are more open to separation.

– In the previous post it was noted that support for secession did not track partisan affiliation, with a nearly identical 28.3% of Republicans and 28.5% of Democrats in support. The poll’s first wave occurred in 2014 while the second wave picked up in 2016 and ended in January of 2017. Though partisanship isn’t an especially large factor in predicting support for secession, when the ‘other side’ has the presidency, support tends to increase.

Support for secession, by partisan affiliation, during a portion of Obama’s second term and after Trump won the 2016 election through his inauguration:

(Republished from The Audacious Epigone by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 38 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. We are done.

  2. What accounts for the exceptionally low level of support for political dissolution among Jews?

    Higher IQ so they're more likely to understand the poorly-written question. Hence also why gentile whites aren't far behind and more generally the results track IQ and ESL.

    First, it's well-documented that asking loaded questions (i.e. with positive or negative descriptors) in a poll massively influences the result. The use of the modifier "peacefully" makes this a loaded question. You'll probably get about twice the support for "should X peacefully do Y?" than for "should X do Y?"

    Second, "withdrawing" is a ten-dollar word to most of the bell curve. Most people could not give you a reasonable definition of "withdrawing." The only context in which most people are familiar with the word "withdrawing" is as pertains to bank accounts.

    So the question as most/many people understand it is "would you support the idea of your state peacefully getting money from the USA and the federal government" or "would you support the idea of your state peacefully retrieving money it has deposited with the USA and the federal government."

    Obviously this is going to massively inflate the number of "yes" responses. I doubt it would break 10% with any demographic provided they properly understood the question.

    Also, it's very misleading to exclude the "don't know" responses. It's another well-known phenomenon that polling on yes/no referenda is virtually always more accurate when "don't know" is added to "no." That goes quadruple for extremely dramatic, controversial and risky changes such as this one.

  3. Agree 100% with snorlax's comment.

    I also want to point out that the hypothesis that Jewish guys are picking up that phone call from a pollster during dinner or the Yankee game, being hit with the question, and in the one second in which they formulate their response go over the various implications for AIPAC agenda, is silly.

  4. The managerial class in general, gentile and non-gentile, would lose clout with a breakup of the USA. Power would devolve to smaller entities, both nationally and globally. Local elites would compete more effectively. I think this is what's behind strong SWPL opposition to dissolution.

  5. AE: What accounts for the exceptionally low level of support for political dissolution among Jews?

    They haven't yet secured their planned egress to Asia as the next stage in the cycle of Jewish virulence — the current stage being the hyper centralization of wealth and power.

  6. I've a lot of personal experience living in California, Seattle, and Boston. Generally speaking, Bostonian whites feel a much stronger sense of being American than people in Seattle do. More flags, more displays of unironic patriotism, etc.

    Native-born Californian whites are strongly rooted to the American national identity, I think there are just too many foreigners who are attached to "Kalleefornya" (think Arnold Schwarzenegger).

    Pacific Northwestern whites, however, went west to form their own separate country.

    Jefferson envisioned a Pacific nation called Astoria arising other time, which would be an ally of the Atlantic and Great Lakes-holding America.

    As the 19th century continued, the steam engine meant that America could encompass the land between both oceans – no need for two countries. As such, it became expedient for white settlers along Pacific to join USA rather than forge their own country.

    California had more migrations of whites who were attached to America, though they're being replaced by foreigners.

    In short, I think the Atlantic, Great Lake, and Missippi River portions of the country have a strong sense of being American, with the exception of Texas. White settlers who ventured towards the Pacific did so with an eye towards making their own country, but they never had enough time for that to happen before trains and steamships made it easier to just become states in the USA.

    California was an exception. To reiterate, most Californian native whites have a strong sense of being American. I believe this is because lots of "standard Americans" moved to California between 1848 until the 1970s or so because of the perfect weather.

    In contrast, Pacific Northwest whites are much more thoroughly descended from the original settlers and people like them. (The weather in the PNW is not physically demanding, but is psychologically depressing). Hence they don't much care for the USA, and would be just as glad to be part of Cascadia with British Columbia.

  7. A superior option to secession is:

    1) Return all social policy to the States via instauration of the 10th Amendment, including State enforcement of their own borders and absolute authority over who may and may not reside within them — no questions asked — permitting exile to largely replace prisons. Through Passage on interstate corridors continues as at present.
    2) Conquering territory of nations that have invaded the US under color of "immigration" during the post-1965 violation of the consent of the governed, in proportion to the boots on the ground in US territory.
    3) Make those territories States, subject to the border enforcement of other States as per (1).
    4) Reallocation of territory between states based on census of States.

    Of course, Jews won't let this happen. That means centralized social policy must be as rational, which means allocating about $100B to a prize for lossless compression of a comprehensive longitudinal set of social data. Of course, Jews won't let THAT happen. That means BrLP better be real — the odds placed on that by most being <1%. That means there will be blood. And, no, peaceful secession isn't in the works.

  8. snorlax,

    Maybe, though here are the absolute % levels of support by income and then by educational attainment:

    LT $25k: 24.3
    $25-$50k: 21.6
    $50k-$75k: 22.7
    $75k-$100k: 29.4
    $100k-$150k: 24.8
    $150k+: 24.3

    LT HS: 25.8
    HS/some college: 22.3
    College degree: 20.8
    Beyond college: 30.2

    Doesn't seem to be any indication that there is an IQ/reading comprehension issue at play here. The clearest dividing line is on age rather than partisan affiliation, income, education, or race.

  9. Wow. Because sample sizes are so large, we can even break Jews up between those under 50 yo and those over 50 yo. HUGE difference. With DKs removed, support for secession:

    Jews under 50: 35.6%
    Jews over 50: 6.8%

    Older people of all demographic and political backgrounds are opposed. Younger people of all demographic and political backgrounds are much more open to the idea.

  10. Sid,

    Native-born Californians are the ones who are leaving California.

    On the other hand, Texas has by far the best history and sense-of-self for secession of any state in the country. Unlike the South (especially South Carolina), Texan independence isn't fully wrapped up in slavery.

    Those two states are the ones most likely to lead the way. Not sure which one is ultimately more likely to go first.

    Jim,

    Yes, and modern progressives are rediscovering the usefulness of the 10th amendment.

    Ledford ledford,

    Agree. If there were a way to ask those in the 'managerial class' about their support, it'd probably approach 0%!

  11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Nations_of_North_America from 1981

    New England (over-laps with the census)
    The Foundry (the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern Midwest)
    The Breadbasket (the Central Midwest, The Plains, and Northern Texas)
    Dixie (The South, the far Southern reaches of the Midwest, and East Texas)
    Mex America (SW Texas, New Mexico, most of Arizona, Southern CA)
    Eco-topia (a thin strip along the West Coast, stretching from the Southern coast of Alaska down to Santa Barbara in CA)
    The Empty Quarter (Northern Arizona, Nevada, far Eastern California, some of Colorado and most of Wyoming and Montana, Idaho, and most of Eastern Oregon and Washington)

    These areas were deemed to be out of place in the above regions:
    "Washington, D.C. and its surrounding area, specifically referring to the area "inside the Beltway".
    Manhattan south of Harlem (he placed Harlem, and by extension the Manhattan neighborhoods to its north, clearly within The Foundry), along with Connecticut's Fairfield County."
    Hawaii, which the author considered an Asian aberration as much as a North American aberration.
    Northern Alaska, despite its categorization on the front cover as part of the Empty Quarter, was listed in the aberrations section of the book.

    Interesting that Dixie and Mex-America were "allowed" to set the agenda since the 1960's.
    -LBJ was a Texan, Nixon was from California. Goldwater from Arizona was deemed to be too out of whack by normies across the country
    – Jimmy Carter was from Georgia, Reagan grew up in Illinois but lived in California for decades before becoming president in 1980, and then he defeated Minnesotan Walter Mondale in '84
    – Arkansas' Clinton defeated wannabe Texan George HW Bush in '92, and Kansan Bob Dole was a dud when he lost to Clinton in 1996.
    – Tennesee's Al Gore lost to Texan George W Bush in 2000. Connecticut's Ralph Nader earned a lot of support from Gen X-ers (because Nader actually had a track record of positive activism and populism), but Boomer liberals scorned Nader for "stealing votes" from Gore (in reality, people did not want a third term of Clinton).
    – 2012 was a turning point, w/ Romney and Obama not being from Dixie or Mex-America (though Obama grew up in Hawaii he tried to immerse himself in Midwestern culture after relocating to Illinois). Obama is probably hated the most by TrueCons from Dixie and Mex-America. Arizonian McCain, like Barry Goldwater 40 years before, was deemed to be a kook and he never had a chance to be elected (are we ever going to see a successful candidate from the interior West?).
    – 2016 saw a shift even further to the East, as Illinois' Hilary Clinton, who went to Arkansas w/Bill then went far East to New York later on, took on Trump who has always lived primarily in New York, w/ R&R in South Florida rather than Dixie or the Western US. Kooky Ted Cruz was a flop in New England and The Foundry, w/his attack on "New York Values" being a miserable failure.

    Kamala Harris would be a horrible choice for the Dems in 2020, given that Vermonter by way of Brooklyn Bernie Sanders showed the Dems how to win greater appeal (by telling them common sense derived from the most established regions of America, rather than giving us the airheaded sentiment derived from the newer regions in the South and Western US

  12. AE –

    Young people are far less likely to be familiar with the term "withdraw."

  13. "In contrast, Pacific Northwest whites are much more thoroughly descended from the original settlers and people like them. (The weather in the PNW is not physically demanding, but is psychologically depressing). Hence they don't much care for the USA, and would be just as glad to be part of Cascadia with British Columbia."

    The sense I get is that these are heavily British/Celtic/German whites (which was Kurt Cobain's ancestry), but whereas their cousins in the Southern, Eastern and Midwestern US are more devoted to looking out for each other, in the PNW they instead are devoted to all kinds of flaky crap. The flakiness gets worse the further North you go and the further you go into the Western interior (as I noted above, Arizona has produced the two kookiest pres. candidates of the last 60 years).

    "'ve a lot of personal experience living in California, Seattle, and Boston. Generally speaking, Bostonian whites feel a much stronger sense of being American than people in Seattle do. More flags, more displays of unironic patriotism, etc."

    As you go further East in America, people get more tribal. In the more shallowly rooted Western US, there's a lot more individualism. Interesting that in the post mid-60's cultural Awakening through the 80's and 90's Unravelling, we didn't get presidential candidates from New England, the Mid-Atlantic, or even the oldest parts of Dixie (e.g., Virginia). It looks like periods of experimentation and personal indulgence cause people to be wary of the Northeast (in 1978's Pumping Iron, Arnold lives the CA lifestyle and is upbeat, whereas sullen New Yorker Lou Feriggno trains in a dingy weight room in the overcast Northeast). Steve Sailer, among others, has contrasted the sunny suburbia of Mex-America and Dixie to the dystopian urban conditions that prevailed in the Northeast and Midwest by the early 1970's. There's an interview w/Trump from the early 80's, where Trump says that NYC will eventually get back on it's feet regardless of what naysayers think.

  14. AE,

    The native-born Californian whites who are emigrating from the state are Americans. The seeds of separatism are arising from non-American immigrants who feel attached to a new "Californian" identity.

    Personally I consider the land to be more important than the new Californians, so I'm more fond of mass deportations and cancellations of citizenship than ceding the land.

    In contrast, native-born Texan whites are Texan first, American second. Unlike California, the original settler population was not submerged by whites who considered themselves American and had no regional loyalties beyond that.

    California and Texas are alike in that they could be functioning independent countries… Though personally, I think the Silicon Valley would swiftly uproot itself for Northern Virginia and Hollywood would transfer to Vegas if California became its own country!

    Feryl,

    PNWers have an odd combination of extreme individualism and extreme conformist communalism. I never really understood them until I realized they were a separate nationality than me.

    The image of a coffeeshop full of SWPLs who all have their Apple notebooks turned on and believe they're completely unique is a very useful way to think about PNWers.

    NYC in anything made in the 1970s looks like the absolute worst place on Earth. Midnight Cowboy, Taxi Driver, etc. Compare that with the city at anytime before 1960. It blows my mind that the city rebounded in its own way, rather than crumple up and descend into ashes like Detroit.

  15. "Older people of all demographic and political backgrounds are opposed. Younger people of all demographic and political backgrounds are much more open to the idea. "

    Well, older generations can always fall back on "us" beating the Nazis and the Soviets. That's meaningless to people born in the 80's.

    When we get bogged in discussions of race and immigration, it makes it easier to overlook the fact that even if Millennials were as white and descended from native born Americas as Boomers, there still would be momentous changes in culture and geo-politics, because these things are supposed to shift as a generation ages and shapes society to it's liking. The younger a person is, the more disenchanted they are with the neo-liberal status quo that elite Silents and Boomers embraced. The immediate post-WW2 era reflected what GIs wanted (economic equality, low cost of living, modesty). The Awakening of the 60's and 70's, although driven by Boomer sentiment, was ultimately led by Silent Gen leaders trying to simultaneously work with GIs while listening to the complaints of Boomers. The neo-liberal and Christian Right driven Unraveling of the 80's and 90's was led by uppity Boomers who pushed "squishy" Silents out of the way as GIs chose to retire from positions of cultural influence, with only a handful of GIs left exerting any influence on our politics and economic ideology by the 1990's (indeed, GI Ross Perot was perhaps the last of his generation to attempt to thwart the corruption that was encroaching on us).

    As 216 loves to point out, Gen X-ers, who are not as out-numbered in Europe as they are in North America, have tended to vote against neo-liberal candidates more frequently than the Silent and Boomer voters do in Europe. And across the Western world, people born in the 70's and 80's are much less religious than older generations, so the theocratic dream of many Boomers will never be realized (indeed, Boomer type generations are the most religiously over-zealous, which tends to frighten people of other generations),

    Throughout most of the West, at the moment, Boomer dominated leadership is flailing about, because so many of them our indebted to a hands-off neo-liberal mentality WRT trade, labor protections, immigration, and the like. Younger and working class normies in France, England, Germany, America, etc. realize that corruption has surged under the "leadership" of the Boomer generation, who emphasize the glory of "opportunity" and "freedom" which has allowed some to win big….At the expense of many others.

  16. https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-populist-morass-lehmann

    This article talks about how clueless neo-liberal elites are, because they constantly want to explain away resistance to neo-liberalism as barbaric and neo-fascist in nature. These elites are totally removed from the everyday lives and concerns of most normies. They reason that the skilled game players (the "winners") got what they deserved, and they don't understand why anyone would resent them on a rational basis, because the system is perfectly fair and rational as is proven by the cloud people being rewarded for their bountiful virtue. Sure, there are losers, but they ought to be happy because they had their chance, but didn't take advantage of it. To the cloud people's thinking, rebellion to neo-liberalism must by default arise from primitive notions of tribal superstition and ignorance, which promotes the idea that we don't live and perhaps have never lived in a fair and rational system with atomized actors that fairly rewards hard work and brings civic calm.

    But since we are no longer in an Unraveling era, it's dumb to tell people that they should be happy with atomization and free agency. That they should ignore rising levels of narcissism and corruption, which will happen when heavy regulations on economic behavior (and a decline in society shaming economic decadence) are lifted so as to make it more possible for elites to make a lot of money

    Lastly, there's the dwindling resource argument; more and more people strove to get more and more, which has led to diminishing returns as Gen X-ers and Millennials enter workforces in which the greed of Boomers has caused promotions to be delayed, entry level wages to be terrible, a lot of great jobs to be off-shored, and massive waves of immigrant workers denying jobs to natives. Even if younger generations wanted an excessive amount of money and power (and they rarely do), it's much more difficult to acquire assets and good jobs nowadays in comparison to the 70's or 80's, which is when Silents and Boomers easily ascended to yuppiedom because GIs had little interest in being mindlessly competitive or acquisitive, to the point that they retired or accepted demotions much more quickly than Silents and Boomers have done.

  17. Feryl,

    The situation is especially bad for white millennials and Zs because there is an exception among the "winners" made for non-white "losers". It's really only the white "losers" who deserve to be losers.

  18. All so tiresome

    https://twitter.com/billy_penn/status/1063824806041317376

    Even, "our people" should have learned by now…

  19. The national breakdown by Reuters-Ipsos and the US Census along hard state lines as represented by the above map is misleading. A better presentation of the "nations" that make up the USA is provided in Colin Woodward's book American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America.

    I have lived most of my life in Seattle on the Left Coast, but my family roots and most of my travel has been to Eastern Washington State near the Idaho border. Woodward classifies this latter region as part of the Far West. Although admittedly anecdotal, my lifelong impression has been that the inhabitants of Eastern Washington despise the inhabitants of Western Washington and its increasingly degraded culture and politics. This is certainly true of my family and friends, and the same thoughts are often expressed in casual conversation with Eastern Washingtonians outside that immediate circle. Eastern Washington would very much like to secede from Western Washington, but I doubt that they want to secede from America. I have heard the same said of East versus West Oregon and East versus West California but cannot provide much evidence.

    As an aside, I believe that Eastern Washington was settled primarily by Southerners displaced by Reconstruction after the War Between the States. My family was from Tennessee. Western Washington was settled by Yankees from New England. Growing up, I became very aware of the multiple cultural differences between the two groups and much preferred the Southerners.

    Although the idea of secession predates the Confederacy and was actually first put forth by some New England states, very little attention seems to have been paid in the current era to the mechanics of breaking up. Perhaps this is because there is currently no plurality in favor. But if enough people wanted to secede, how would they begin? Do they break up along Woodward's cultural lines, along census state lines, or something else? Does the US completely die? How do the new nations form a collective military defense, or do they? What does each new nation do about trade with its neighbors and the world? How does each nation protect its culture and limit or entirely prohibit immigration.

    Another interesting detail to be addressed is the fate of the urban areas within each new nation. Although cities in the Far West such as Boise, Spokane, Las Vegas, Denver, etc. are not as bizarre or corrupt as Seattle, San Francisco, and Portland on the West Coast, they still track farther left than the rural areas in which they reside. Do we bring back the concept of the city state and let these metropolitan areas exist autonomously to minimize their control of their associated regions?

    Finally, even if separation is feasible, how do you do so peacefully? Although most of the Right seems to just want to be left alone, the Left appears to be increasingly pursuing a messianic world view that tolerates no dissent. How likely is it that a thin sliver of overpopulated coastal land from the Mexican border to Canada will suddenly acquire tolerance of people over the mountain ranges to their east when they've spent the last century attempting to control those people? And have the Yankees in New York City and New England learned to love the rednecks to their south? I don't see peaceful secession as likely.

  20. AE writes: "Yes, and modern progressives are rediscovering the usefulness of the 10th amendment."

    In the case of sanctuary cities I'd say "abusefulness" since the Feds have clear Constitutional authority over the national border. I could see relaxing that if States that wanted to admit immigrants were required to go out and conquer territory from the originating nations. Also, they seem to prefer attacking only in areas where the Bill of Rights explicitly mentions "State" and "People" such as the 2nd Amendment which can reasonably be interpreted to restrict States from infringing on the People's right to keep and bear arms. Again, I could see relaxing that so as to permit some States to infringe in exchange for progressives keeping their grubby mitts off of the power of States to exclude/exile/expel anyone for any reason whatsoever including race, creed, religion, sex, gender, age, blah blah blah. If progressives want an additional concession that There Shall Be No Prisons Only Exile — I'm more than fine with that. I don't want them throwing me in prison for Hate Speech or Looking Cross-eyed At A Person Of Protect Class or something before I can flee their grubby mitts.

  21. Do we bring back the concept of the city state and let these metropolitan areas exist autonomously to minimize their control of their associated regions?

    Interesting idea.  Let them do as they will for domestic policy… with NO vote in the US Congress or Presidency and no vote on foreign policy?  Letting them (and ONLY them) get what they ask for GOOD AND HARD seems like the only cure for their delusions short of slaughter.  Frankly, I'm for it.  Make the urbations their own semi-independent areas and deny them any power over the rest.  It's the only way they'll learn… well, some of them.  Most people are idiots and cannot.

  22. If you want to know the who, whom of Centralization vs Secession, I suggest studying the rise & fall of the Quebec Independence movement. Send J-F Gariepy a Superchat as he knows it better than anyone. Peruse vdare archives, and read Peter Brimelow's "Patriot Game" book. It was largely a coalition of Irish, Jewish, & a sprinkling of Cucked Anglos & Francophones who prevented Quebec leaving. They used massive propaganda campaigns, bribery by resource transfers, and Immigration from the 3rd world to change the demographics. Basically they spent 25 years bringing in Haitians, Africans & other migrants who would reliably to keep the Canadian "multicultural" monstrosity together. It was the immigrants who provided the 0.6% winning margin in Quebec's 1995 referendum.

  23. I'm on your side with regard to peaceful secession being the best possible outcome for America – but I think you're being too optimistic about what a 25-35% level of support really means.

    One of the closest examples to America, both geographically and culturally, is Canada, specifically the secession movement in Quebec. For decades they have had what is essentially a dedicated separatist party, with strong representation, and very close to 50% support on multiple referendums. They've never been able to crack 50. Even with nearly half the population ready for a divorce, it doesn't appear to be in the cards.

    Europe is different. There are millions of Europeans still alive today in every Euro country who can remember life before the EU, have clearly noticed the EU's pattern of bullying and broken promises, who are nostalgic for the old order, and who can directly associate the political union with massive decline and demographic shifts. There is precisely no one in America who was alive before the union, and very few who really even know anything about that period of history. Now, that doesn't mean they wouldn't choose secession anyway – but all of the preconditions that you think you're watching fall into place have already been in place right next door to us. Those conditions just aren't sufficient.

  24. Anonymous[] • Disclaimer says:

    LOL. guys.

    jews rely on the gentile US military to attack their enemies. how are they supposed to attack any country in the world at will, if they don't have that giant 6-6 300 pound guy standing behind them at the bar?

    just think about some small wimpy jewish guy at a night club running his mouth and slapping people in the face. are you wondering why nobody beats his ass? that's why.

    the jews use the US as their battering ram. no way they want to give that up. their main tool of global domination.

    notice how jewish enthusiasm for the US rises and falls depending on how vigorously the US military is attacking jewish enemies.

  25. Anonymous[] • Disclaimer says:

    deliberately leaving the US is the same as voluntarily giving up the parasitic death grip they have on the biggest, most powerful country in the world. no way they want to separate from the US. they control 200 million european zombies who reflexively defend them.

    outside the US, they are dead, without american parasite zombies showing up to save them all the time. they're surrounded by well earned enemies, almost everywhere, in any country.

  26. The first thing that comes to mind is that a national breakup means the end of America's global military hegemony. Many AIPAC members will be out of a job and the American wars for Israel will be over.

    Israel Attack Iran
    U.S. You got it!
    Israel No, dumbshit, that's Afghanistan, to the Left.
    U.S. Oh, sorry, I'll get on it.
    Israel No dumbshit, you went too far, that's Iraq, with a Q.
    U.S. Oh, well I've kind of spent my capital, but I could send in some planes to back up a rebellion.
    Israel OK, get on it, but don't fuck up this time.
    U.S. Alright, done.
    Israel You fucking moron, that's Libya.
    U.S. OK, I'll try a coup
    Israel Ukraine! Fucking Ukraine! Are you even trying?
    U.S. One last chance?
    Israel OK
    U.S. Done
    Israel No .. that's Syria.
    U.S. Oh shit. Well I'm out of ammo, but there is one thing I could do.
    Israel what?
    U.S. Sanctions
    Israel You mean the sanctions you already had that you got rid of while attacking every single country in the world except the one I told you too.
    U.S. Err, yeah and I'll move the embassy too.
    Israel GTFO.

    Anyway, in reality, American Jews were the most anti-Iraq war demographic and their opinions on foreign policy vis a vis Israel are as follows:

    Even Trump’s decision to move the American embassy to Israel is viewed negatively by a majority of the poll’s respondents. Fifty-six percent said they disapprove of the embassy move, while only 44 percent said they approved. These numbers could perhaps be related to an even larger number of respondents, 62 percent, who said they disapprove of Trump’s handling of U.S. relations with the Palestinians. In addition, 70 percent disapprove of his decision to withdraw from the nuclear deal with Iran.
    https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-despite-trump-s-israel-policies-american-jews-to-vote-for-democrats-poll-finds-1.6569599

  27. Greg,

    I wouldn't be so embarrassingly audacious as to imply that I have the answers to those questions. A devolution along state lines (or the lines of a compact of states) is the most likely outcome. It can be decided democratically (ie gubernatorial candidate runs on the platform of formal state secession and wins), the government infrastructure to handle it is already in place, no population movement is necessary, there is obvious historical precedent for it, etc. Questions about military invasion seem like red herrings to me.

    Parenthetically, I've spent a few weekends over the years in Wenatchee and found it a really charming place. I've also lived in Seattle and can confirm that the two places are may as well exist in different countries.

    MichiganWave,

    Digging into that has been in the queue since I first came across the the razor thin margin of the vote a couple of years ago. Really do need to get on it.

    Lance E,

    Agree you're probably correct. I suspect we are heading for an economic crash and global restructuring to a degree that will dwarf 2007/2008. It's in that environment that dissolution will become realistic.

    Gabriel,

    Those Israel-specific approval numbers are still far higher than Trump's general approval ratings with Jews are. Which of those military interventions did AIPAC oppose (not polemical–I genuinely don't know)?

    Imperfect as those actions are, there are plenty of non-Jewish Americans who'd say that's still a lot more benefit than America has received from her military since the turn of the century!

    If we do eventually get war with Iran, is that vindication of the assertion?

  28. Those Israel-specific approval numbers are still far higher than Trump's general approval ratings with Jews are.

    Not really. The gap between his overall numbers and the Iran deal numbers is less than 10% despite opposition tot he deal being the consensus among everyone Israel outside the very far left. That a majority of American 'Jews' oppose even a basic token of friendship like moving the embassy is I think really shocking.

    Which of those military interventions did AIPAC oppose (not polemical–I genuinely don't know)?

    I dunno. What's AIPAC's position on healthcare reform? Veterans Today tells me that Israel was backing Gaddafi, but probably Israel went back in time since then and changed sides when it became clear who the bad guys were.

    Imperfect as those actions are, there are plenty of non-Jewish Americans who'd say that's still a lot more benefit than America has received from her military since the turn of the century!

    The countries that have benefitted most from American military intervention are China, Iran and Qatar. At least in the latter case that may not be accidental.

    Anyway, clearly the most parsimonious explanation for why Jews oppose partition is because they correctly think that it would certainly lead to widespread economic chaos and, more likely than not, extensive bloodshed with no corresponding gains to them. Thick impatient liberals want dissolution because they think they are losing. Clever liberals know otherwise. Personally, I would like the U.S. to breakup, but I wouldn't think that if I lived there.

  29. AE –

    Which of those military interventions did AIPAC oppose (not polemical–I genuinely don't know)?

    They were officially for attacking Assad, moving the embassy and opposed entering into the Iran deal. They had no official position on Iraq nor on exiting the Iran deal, but it looks like much of their leadership lobbied for those in a personal capacity. They don't appear to have had much involvement, official or otherwise, with Afghanistan, Libya nor Ukraine (which wasn't a US intervention, but whatever).

    Gabriel –

    Not sure if you saw; I responded to our discussion from a few days ago here.

    Anyway, in reality, American Jews were the most anti-Iraq war demographic and their opinions on foreign policy vis a vis Israel are as follows

    But that's out of partisanship more than principled pacifism or Arabism. If it were a Democrat administration doing the same things, they'd be the demographic most in favor, or second most after blacks. But the point stands that their mind control uplinks are far more often tuned to the frequency of the Elderly Democrats than the Elders of Zion.

    despite opposition to the deal being the consensus among everyone Israel outside the very far left.

    This poll from last November is the most recent one I can find (in English obviously), and asks whether respondents agree with Netanyahu that Iran's nuclear program still threatens Israel's existence after the deal. (Couldn't find any recent ones that directly asked whether respondents support the deal, but this seems close enough).

    Anyway, excluding don't knows, 15.8% of Jews said they disagreed. Mapping that onto the 102 Jewish MKs, that would be the one from Maki, the four from Meretz and 11 of the 17 from Labor. Is that the "very far-left?" (Genuine question, not sarcasm).

    On the other hand, a surprisingly (to me) high 37.3% of Arabs agreed, excluding don't knows. Sunni v Shia (and Druze+Christian v Muslim) hostility? Self-interest since they're in the line of fire? Genuine identification with Israel? Or just confused by the question? And I wonder how different the number would be with noncitizen Palestinians. Repeating the exercise with the 18 Arab MKs, that would be the one Druze from Yisrael Beiteinu, Likud and Kulanu, the one Druze and Muslim from Labor and whichever two of the one Muslim from Meretz and the 12 from the Arab list are least friendly to Iran.

  30. Gabriel,

    The plan was to get Iran and it could still conceivably happen. Under a president Jabe or Rubio it could have already happened. If the US fractures, it definitely won't.

    A fun oldie regarding Iran as the biggest beneficiary of knocking out Sunni Iraq.

    snorlax,

    Thanks!

  31. What accounts for the exceptionally low level of support for political dissolution among Jews?

    Dissolution means a nation for American whites. Nazi etc.

  32. Not sure if you saw; I responded to our discussion from a few days ago here.

    Yes I appreciate the intro to Urbit. What I can't get my head around is that the whole project seems to totally antithetical both to his political programme and to his own opinions on coding. I just don't get it.

    But that's out of partisanship more than principled pacifism or Arabism. If it were a Democrat administration doing the same things, they'd be the demographic most in favor, or second most after blacks. But the point stands that their mind control uplinks are far more often tuned to the frequency of the Elderly Democrats than the Elders of Zion.

    Yep, that's the point. The voting behavior of non-orthodox Jews all makes perfect sense when you understand that they are strongly identifying highly partisan liberals with above average intelligence. To a large extent that's just what Jewish means in America. We've discussed the increasing number of 1/16th Jews who identify as Jewish purely for political reasons. I suspect it works the other way round too. A Jew whose only connection with Judaism is a Seder once a year and not eating on Yom Kippur, but who has conservative opinions probably just says he's white.

    Trying to understand non-orthodox American Jewry's political behavior using Jewness-based explanations invariably results in Occam's butterknife type explanations.

    This poll from last November is the most recent one I can find (in English obviously), and asks whether respondents agree with Netanyahu that Iran's nuclear program still threatens Israel's existence after the deal. (Couldn't find any recent ones that directly asked whether respondents support the deal, but this seems close enough).

    Anyway, excluding don't knows, 15.8% of Jews said they disagreed. Mapping that onto the 102 Jewish MKs, that would be the one from Maki, the four from Meretz and 11 of the 17 from Labor. Is that the "very far-left?" (Genuine question, not sarcasm).

    It doesn't quite map because the Israeli system is no longer a perfect PR system. Parties that don't get enough votes for 3 seats, don't get any seats. With that said, it's a fair point. I was basing my assessment on popular opinion at the time the deal was made, since then I suppose some status quo bias has set in. Even so, Labour supported dumping the deal so the only party that disagreed with Trump's move was Meretz and the Arab List, which most Israelis would describe as very far left, assuming they were being polite.

    FYI, I had to google Maki, we would either say Hadash or the communists.

  33. On the other hand, a surprisingly (to me) high 37.3% of Arabs agreed, excluding don't knows. Sunni v Shia (and Druze+Christian v Muslim) hostility? Self-interest since they're in the line of fire? Genuine identification with Israel? Or just confused by the question? And I wonder how different the number would be with noncitizen Palestinians. Repeating the exercise with the 18 Arab MKs, that would be the one Druze from Yisrael Beiteinu, Likud and Kulanu, the one Druze and Muslim from Labor and whichever two of the one Muslim from Meretz and the 12 from the Arab list are least friendly to Iran.

    The Arab List nearly split up over Syria with the communists supporting Assad very strongly, the Islamists supporting Al Nusra very strongly, and the Arab nationalists being very confused and supporting something called the 'Syrian people'. This division ASIK also exists among Palestinians in the liberated territories. Now this doesn't translate perfectly into attitudes towards Iran since Hamas was somehow able to maintain its funding from Iran whilst actually contributing troops to fighting Assad, but there is probably some subset of Arab opinion that shares the Arab world's general hostility to Iran.

    Druze in Israel are mostly gung-ho zionist types (Ayoob Kara is pretty nuts to be honest) so I assume they support ending the deal. The assimilated Arab population generally vote Labor (since like immigrants to America they assimilate to the wrong part of the country) so I assume their views are split in the same way.

  34. The plan was to get Iran and it could still conceivably happen. Under a president Jabe or Rubio it could have already happened. If the US fractures, it definitely won't.

    What plan? You mean the Project for the New American Century or Clean Break? The plan, such as it was, was to transform the middle east by creating a thriving capitalist-democracy in Iraq that would act as a catalyst for change across the Middle East.

    Apparently it was a shit plan.

  35. Gabriel (1/2) –

    We've discussed the increasing number of 1/16th Jews who identify as Jewish purely for political reasons.

    Well, you have. Can't say I've really seen that; a 1/16 Jewish white American probably wouldn't identify as a Jew unless he were raised Jewish or at least had a parent or grandparent who was, or he were very close to the Jewish-identifying side of his extended family, or he had an unambiguously Jewish surname, or he'd just been accused of being an antisemite.

    I suspect it works the other way round too. A Jew whose only connection with Judaism is a Seder once a year and not eating on Yom Kippur, but who has conservative opinions probably just says he's white.

    IME the strength of Jewish ethnic self-identification* relative to white/"American" self-identification correlates with (obviously) blood quantum, regular synagogue attendance (including and especially the liberal denominations), political liberalism and, negatively, intelligence, in that order. So an Untalented Tenth, shitlib weekly Temple Tikkun Olam attendee and 100% ethnic Jew would be the most likely to begin every third sentence with "as a Jew…"

    Assuming he's an 100% ethnic Jew, your example most likely still sees himself as an ethnic Jew first and white second, in more or less the same way as a Greek-American probably identifies more strongly as a Greek, but only says "as a Jew" 4 or 5x more frequently (sorry, it's you guys' verbal tic) than the Greek says "as a Greek" or "as a Christian."

    *Needless to say to you, but for the benefit of others, not the same as nor even particularly correlated with ethnocentrism, religiousity or identification with Israel.

    It doesn't quite map

    Well, obviously. Wasn't meaning to imply that was their actual stated position, rather providing a rough visualization of what the leftmost 15.8% of the Jewish electorate looks like since just "15.8%" is hard to reason about.

    But perhaps it coincidentally does map anyway? It seems to me that Labor, more than any other foreign party except maybe the Trudeau Liberals, is effectively the local affiliate of the US Democrats. And they borderline openly admit that their hawkish positions are only feigned, no? In any case if that number is accurate it must be that a large fraction of their voters if not their politicians are pro-deal.

    ASIK

    Not familiar with this acronym. Typo for AFAIK?

    since Hamas was somehow able to maintain its funding from Iran whilst actually contributing troops to fighting Assad

    Good to see Hamas and AIPAC can find some common ground!

    Anyway, that's not too unusual in the context of the Iran-friendly but anti-Assad Qatar-Turkey-Muslim Brotherhood-Obama axis. Minor conspiracy theory I've been tossing around: Qatar et al aren't actually a third force vs Saudi and Iran, any more than the (obviously Soviet-aligned) "Non-Aligned Movement" was, but are in fact fully in Iran's corner.

    Before the civil war, Syria was one of the few significant Arab states friendly to Iran, but not really Iran's puppet nor even its ally. But as Assad has been forced to call more and more on Iran and its puppet Hezbollah for assistance, he's now been reduced to a figurehead while Iran runs the show in the territories under his nominal control.

    Limited US airstrikes against Assad's forces also work to Iran's advantage, by destroying military assets under his direct control and so increasing his dependence on Iran/Hezbollah, and by putting pressure on Russia to withdraw (thus removing the last card Assad can play against Iran) for fear of being caught in the crossfire.

    This also explains why Qatar and Turkey don't seem to be particularly interested in keeping the rebels from losing.

  36. (2/2) –

    By the way, whether Qatar is the leader of its own camp or an Iranian proxy, why doesn't Saudi just invade? Instead of digging a giant moat around it or whatever the current plan is. Sure, the Gulf Arabs are, in non-jihad contexts, perhaps the world's most cowardly and militarily incompetent people, but the same applies to Qatar. As you allude to, Qatar does have a ton of US friends in high places, so I guess they could be afraid of getting the Saddam 1991 treatment.

    Speaking of head-scratching military inaction, if Iran's nuclear program is truly an existential threat—and I'd agree it is—why not bomb it yourselves? It very much feels like Israel and its US advocates expect us to do it for you, which I find pretty unseemly. OK, sure, you'd have to overfly some third countries, causing diplomatic incidents and risking that you'd give Iran early warning, but that's nothing you haven't done before and those are acceptable risks when it comes to existential threats.

    If that's really the sticking point, you're the country that's famous for its ingenious covert military operations, so think of something. Here, I'll give you a freebie: Stage the bombing run from the Indian Ocean by converting cargo ships to takeoff-only aircraft carriers. Land at US bases in Kuwait or Afghanistan. Or more simply you could just pay whatever bribe to get overflight permission from Egypt/Jordan and Saudi.

    The assimilated Arab population generally vote Labor (since like immigrants to America they assimilate to the wrong part of the country)

    I mean, I think we can forgive them that, or at least understand why that is. Just as Nathan Cofnas fairly points out that much of the reason that Jews have generally been hostile to European right-wing nationalism is because European right-wing nationalism has generally been hostile to Jews, so the same goes for Arabs[1] and the Israeli right. For them to vote for a party that, however cynically, runs under the title of "Zionist" anything would be like you joining Jews for Jesus[2].

    [1] Other than Druze, Bedouin and, obviously, Mizrahim.
    [2] A fairly apt analogy I think; their relationship to (Pauline) Christianity, adhering to the Judaizing heresy (always wanted to use that phrase correctly) that Jews are not saved by Christ's sacrifice alone and remain bound by the Mosaic covenant and to obey all 613 mitzvot, is much like that between the Zionist Union and Zionism.

  37. This comment has been removed by the author.

  38. Addendum –

    Yes I appreciate the intro to Urbit. What I can't get my head around is that the whole project seems to totally antithetical both to his political programme and to his own opinions on coding. I just don't get it.

    You're welcome, and that makes two of us. It's not really even a bad idea, but it doesn't make much sense to me why he didn't stop working on it once it became clear it wasn't going to end up as a viable product (which should have been fairly early, or at least far earlier than the point he's at now). And why he hasn't dropped the parts that are obviously dead weight and kept the promising stuff (mostly the networking, and maybe the Hoon programming language if it's really such a paradigm-shifting productivity-booster as he claims, although I'm skeptical).

    a catalyst for change across the Middle East.

    Wasn't it?

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS