Should the United States split up? The country is more polarized than it ever has been, at least since the Civil War, having divided not so much geographically but culturally and ideologically. The two broad factions in this split are what we might call the “Red Team” (conservatives) and the “Blue Team” (progressives)—the irony in these color designations not being lost on many. Now that things are so divided, might it just be better to go our separate ways as peacefully as possible so we can get on with life? Might it be time for a “National Divorce”? Blue Team can keep the beach house, and Red Team can have the farm, and we can all move on to live happily ever after on our own terms?
No. National Divorce is National Suicide, and we’re only considering it because we’re being driven into the despair necessary to commit it.
Straight away, we can see that National Divorce means the death of the nation in the most banal and uninteresting way. If the United States splits, it won’t be united anymore, and so the nation we have today will have committed suicide. That’s not what I mean, though. If we were to proceed with a National Divorce, it will not be peaceful, and the ultimate result will be a state I refer to as Game Over—global tyranny under exactly the evil force provoking us to this extreme in the first place.
On Terminology
I’m going to use the term “National Divorce” for a catch-all for anything that breaks up the existing United States into more than one piece. This would include some split of states, like we might imagine, the secession of even a single state, or the outbreak of a second civil war. It also includes attempts to balkanize or “regionalize” the existing United States into contiguous geographical areas that declare some kind of sovereignty apart from the federal union we call the United States. Quibbling over the difference between these circumstances is distracting from the point and would require far too much development.
I have already introduced the terminology “Red Team” (conservatives) and “Blue Team” (progressives). These terms refer to the current rough big-tent political factions in the United States that roughly but inexactly correlate with support for the Republican Party, which is coded red, and Democratic Party, which is coded blue. They are meant to describe even people who tend to lean one way or the other in this rough divide and is not meant to indicate support or alignment with the political parties in any way. Perhaps think of it as “likely to vote ‘red’ or ‘blue’ in a national election.” Since it’s a placeholder, don’t take it too seriously.
These will develop into the terminology “Red State” and “Blue State” following the “National Divorce.” I am using those terms to signify the approximate new political entities after a binary division. Further balkanization doesn’t need to be discussed because it only makes matters worse.
“Game Over,” as indicated, represents the state in which the global tyrannical program, which is roughly enough Communist in its approach and structure, is able to move inexorably to a pan-Western or even global government under its control. It means the death of liberty. To put a finer point on it, if we reach Game Over, your children will grow up to be slaves, and most of your remaining years will suck.
The Case for National Divorce
This section will admittedly be cursory because it’s not the point. A National Divorce is a terrible idea, but, if we’re going to show that, it’s worth reviewing what people believe it will accomplish in the most charitable terms possible. In my opinion, these terms are fantastical, and the primary driver of these ambitions is catharsis—the letting go of pent up frustration against the corrupt regime, which seems to admit no outlet. That is, I want people to understand that “National Divorce” is not a serious or wise option but an emotional outlet for people who feel trapped and desperate. The goal of this essay is to discuss the possibility of a National Divorce in real terms in the world we actually inhabit and to urge people to understand we are making enough progress not to need to follow unrealistic but cathartic paths of action.
There are three primary arguments for National Divorce, one of which isn’t even really an argument. These are (1) to escape tyranny and live on our terms in new states; (2) to allow the Red Team to consolidate resources and power with which to fight back against Blue Team more effectively; and (3) it’s inevitable anyway (the non-argument). As you can imagine, I don’t believe in (3) at all and don’t think it’s doing anyone any good to believe in it, and I think (1) and (2) will not be allowed to occur in reality given the nature of what’s happening in the world and why. The bulk of this essay is dedicated to painting a picture of what I think would really happen instead.
Both (1) and (2) depend on the belief that Red Team will be able to create Red State that is no longer subject to the tyrannical overreaches of the current U.S. federal government. (Last reminder: “Red State” might represent more than one actual state, but we’re staying in the binary situation for simplicity.) Freed from the tyrannical overreaches of the current U.S. federal government and even international organizations like the United Nations, Red State could then chart its own course, build its own economy and society unfettered, build its own military, and engage in all the activities of a functional nation—perhaps even a mature Constitutional republic—which is impossible under the current U.S. federal government. The strongest argument in favor of National Divorce in this vein is that the current U.S. government and global environment present a genuine threat not just to our livelihoods and liberties, but to those of our children. For reasons that aren’t hard to imagine, it would even be able to out-compete its new Blue State neighbor and thus become the thriving nation the United States should be today, or at least something like that. Furthermore, freed from tyranny, it could also consolidate the necessary economic and military power to be a significant player on the world stage, if needed, and keep its enemies at bay.
Proponents of National Divorce often argue that such a move is not only beneficial but necessary. Some, on the more extreme end, posit that the U.S. Constitution, thus the United States itself, is already functionally destroyed with no hope of recovery. National Divorce would therefore allow us to reconstitute a new state (“Red State,” here) that enables us to recover the most of what the United States stood for and preserve the American way of life. This despairing sentiment is common, though not always stated so extremely, throughout the movement. Proponents also tend to argue that we don’t know what will happen and that we may well drastically overestimate the power of the national and global Blue Team, if not also their malice.
The justification for the need for such a split is that our differences, Red Team and Blue Team, are so irreconcilable that it isn’t possible to share a single political entity with one another. Each side finds the other side’s way of life, values, and aspirations inadequate to building a society worth living in, if not repugnant or degenerate. Since the rift is so significant and perhaps permanent, it’s time to go our separate ways as peacefully as possible. They tend to insist the essence of the National Divorce—it’s Geist, so to speak—has already occurred, as evidenced by the irreconcilable differences and irreparable rift between “blue” and “red.” They liken the situation to spouses who are legally still married even though their marriage in all meaningful respects has already died. Certain challenges will arise, but through the normal operation of statecraft, diplomacy, economy, and whatever else, the new states can settle into a new political arrangement on the North American continent and ease the pressure of this extreme, maybe deadly polarization.
National Divorce Lite: The Big Sort
Before moving into National Divorce properly, we need to discuss its precondition, which is known as “The Big Sort.” The reasons we need to discuss it are two: first, it ends in National Divorce, and, second, it’s being encouraged now, especially by elements on Team Red. (Arguably, Team Blue is doing the opposite and trying to infiltrate currently “Red” areas as heavily as it can afford to.) The general idea is that people should move to areas that match their politics, so conservatives should move to “red” areas and states and progressives to “blue” ones. Further, at least in “red” areas, the increased concentration in political power should be leveraged to make those areas more “red.” Everyone generally agrees that “blue” areas will do this kind of consolidation of power by default, though it will be accelerated by increasing their proportions in areas conservatives abandon. Many who encourage National Divorce consider this to be unstoppable anyway, so conservatives might as well circle their wagons in “red” areas, though they would never characterize it as running away. This Big Sort is a terrible idea.
Naturally, there’s already a “Big Sort” in the United States, but it’s not drawn very neatly on state lines except in presidential electoral maps. The divide is much more accurately urban versus rural, and all fifty states at present contain both urban and rural areas that tip either “red” or “blue.” It has been identified for at least fifteen years as a major problem and driver of destabilizing political polarization in the United States. A national Big Sort would amplify that dynamic tremendously and at scale, with the same dialectical conflict playing out in the urban/rural divide within each state, particularly the “red” ones. What this suggests is that a deliberate state-level Big Sort, or even increasing the urban/rural Big Sort (“get out of cities!”) will push us into more polarization, not less, and increase the chances of a National Divorce, which I argue ends in Game Over.
“The Big Sort” is therefore best thought of as “National Divorce Lite.” The term “The Big Sort” actually comes from a book from 2009 by Bill Bishop titled The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded American is Tearing Us Apart. The primary point of the book is to argue that people were already moving to more like-minded areas, though he focused primarily on the urban/rural and urban/suburban divides, and that this dynamic was creating conditions that accelerate political polarization. Bishop was offering a diagnosis for American political polarization, to be clear, not prescribing some globalist plan, and his diagnosis wasn’t good. The urban/rural “Big Sort” he identified was characterized as “tearing us apart,” he argued, threatening national unity going forward.
The idea of a “Big Sort” wasn’t limited to a book that only a relative few are aware of. At least as recently as 2022, for example, state propaganda outlet NPR was publishing articles about The Big Sort, by that name, which it insisted was being accelerated at the state-to-state level by Covid-19 policies. “America is growing more geographically polarized—red ZIP codes are getting redder and blue ZIP codes are becoming bluer. People appear to be sorting.” Their conclusion generally agrees with Bishop’s: “‘The Big Sort’ may be making Americans more politically extreme.”
That’s not how the article ends, however. It ends somewhere more encouraging of The Big Sort: “Moving to areas with people you agree with has advantages.” It’s worth reading the final portion of the article in its entirety for how instructive it is about the dynamic:
What a difference a new city makes. Twelve-year-old Mya Wooten is taking a social justice class at her private school in downtown Austin, an opportunity they would not have found in Greenfield.
Mya says a recent assignment was to pick an issue to protest. “It was ocean pollution, women’s rights, or LGBTQ rights,” she says. “So my topic was women’s rights, and I made a poster of an open woman’s mouth and it said, ‘I have the right to be heard.’”
By moving to Austin, the Wootens joined The Big Sort. They made Greenfield a tad less purple, and Austin a smidgeon bluer. Tiffany sometimes wonders if they’ve done the right thing.
“I’m not sure that it’s super healthy for us to be completely putting ourselves in a box and saying, ‘I’m gonna be with the blue people because they think exactly like me.’ We need to be able to communicate with each other even if we do not fully agree with each other.”
The Wootens miss having their ideas challenged and engaging with the other side. On the other hand, she says, “We feel among our people in Austin.”
NPR, in other words, seemed to be encouraging The Big Sort in 2022, even while acknowledging that it increases the political polarization of local, state, and national politics. From this fact, we might conclude that The Big Sort is advantageous to the political objectives pushed by NPR.
Why would that be the case? You might be thrilled to find out there’s a proposed solution to The Big Sort, and it even has a name you’ll likely recognize now. The proposed solution to The Big Sort is called “The Great Reset.”
As it turns out, The (Ze) Great Reset is not just some big evil plan by the executive chairmain of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, means to be initiated and accelerated by Covid-19 after being officially inaugurated by now-King Charles (then Prince). It started out as an innovative new idea in urban planning that could solve The Big Sort, as detailed in a 2009 book by Richard Florida titled The Great Reset: How New Ways of Living and Working Drive Post-Crash Prosperity. The premise of the book is that “history teaches us that periods of ‘creative destruction,’ like the Great Depression of the 1930s, also present opportunities to remake our economy and society and to generate whole new eras of economic growth and prosperity.” The Big Sort is characterized as part of such an “opportunity,” although the book’s primary focus is the Great Recession of 2008.
“We’ve reached the limits of what George W. Bush used to call the ‘ownership society,’” Florida warns in the earliest pages, after discussing how Karl Marx analyzed the upheavals and “resets” characterizing the birth of that period. Economic polarization between urban centers and suburbs, as well as between cities and rural areas, overlaps with ethnic and sociopolitical polarization under the economic Big Sort. His solution is a “Great Resettle” into the urban centers of what he calls economic “megaregions,” which appear to operate effectively like an early draft of what we would today call SMART 15-Minute Cities.
Of some note, on the cover of the newest edition of The Great Reset, Florida’s 2019 book The Rise of the Creative Class is mentioned and promoted. Of course, “the creative class” is exactly what the World Economic Forum today says will be the upper, or ruling, class of the new world, as opposed to the “useless” class of dispossessed laborers who have all their labor performed by machines and artificial intelligence. Taken as a whole, these points raise some serious red flags about the willful political separation of the United States, however frustrating it is to live nearby complete idiots who hate your way of life.
The Israeli Disengagement Experiment
Big withdrawals of a more extreme kind may also provide some clues as to the wisdom of encouraging The Big Sort. For example, in 2005, Israel formally disengaged from Gaza under a plan proposed by then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The Israelis dismantled twenty-one settlements in the Gaza Strip as part of the “Disengagement Plan Implementation Law,” compensating Israelis living in Gaza to relocate into Israel as residential areas were fully demolished. The rationale was straightforward. Lacking any possibility for a possible peace with the Arabs calling themselves “Palestinians,” who were largely represented by the radical Palestinian Liberation Organization and the terrorist group Hamas, Sharon decided to disengage to strengthen its control in the State of Israel. In other words, this is the same logic as is driving conservatives in the United States toward a National Divorce plan.
The results are, in fact, that Israel was able to consolidate its power, which was already considerable due to U.S. and U.K. support, within the State of Israel, and it was pressured into a permanent defensive posture by allowing a permanent antagonistic terrorist quasi-state to develop on its borders with the chartered intention of destroying Israel completely. As it turns out, the bad guys were able to consolidate power in the unchecked environment too.
There are many parallels to draw from this experiment for an American Big Sort or National Divorce. By fleeing your “blue” state as a conservative—perhaps because Conservative Influencers, some of whom have a financial stake in it—told you to, that “blue” state loses some of the remaining capacity to check the power growing within it. That power is broadly Communist, so it can be expected to operate in a permanently antagonistic and even terroristic way because it hates everything that isn’t Communist, including you. It will be able to do so not just in “blue” states but also from within “blue” cells located inside your “red” state, located heavily in every “blue” city.
Far from weakening the Blue Team, in exchange for some temporary reprieve in your conditions (and, of serious note, safety for your children), this action enables a great consolidation of Communist power in regions under their control and thus weakens and eventually ends any capacity to drive those agendas and develop outward-facing political force. Since free people do not willingly move to Communist regions very often, this migration is effectively one-way, replicating some of the conditions of the Israeli Disengagement Experiment.
In return, you’ll be able to consolidate “Red Team” power in your “red” states, though, right? No. You will not successfully consolidate “Red Team” power anywhere, really. People who aren’t Communists—unless they are Fascists—don’t act like Communists, so they don’t readily consolidate power. Furthermore, the “red” states will remain fully infiltrated since their cities are already “purple” or “blue,” complicating the situation. This leaves “red” states with a constant internal and external pressure dynamic to turn “blue” or to go all bad by embracing Fascism. Supposing those regions want to stay “red,” they eventually therefore have to abandon the Constitution and turn increasingly Fascistic, which, among other things, leads to undermining and throwing out the Constitution and its protections on individual liberty, which just so happens to coincide with the Communist goal on the ever-concentrating Blue Team.
Eventually, in other words, this path results in rupture, which can look like secession of one state or several together or in serial, (civil) war, or National Divorce, which I’m using as a catch-all term for these phenomena. The point is, The Big Sort is a precondition for the Leftist agenda because it ends here, as both the polarizing logic of The Big Sort and the evidence of the Israeli Disengagement Experiment indicate.
National Divorce
What would happen, realistically, if the United States fractured because of Blue Team (Communist) provocation from the federal government, intolerable conditions in “blue” states, foreign interference, and an escape campaign from the Red Team that definition isn’t nice to call “running away from their responsibilities to their own backyards”? Nothing good. First of all, the United States wouldn’t exist anymore, and both remnants—Red State and Blue State—would be weaker. This end of the United States is the banal end of the United States mentioned near the start of this discussion, which is not the same as Game Over. The Constitution, however, would be dead, and both Red State and Blue State would have to decide on how to re-constitute themselves.
It isn’t hard to imagine what would happen in the Blue State in that regard. It would immediately modify the Constitution to look rather like Canada or California, in order to “fix” it. Whatever its political construction, which would likely include a drastic increase in executive power, it would almost certainly limit free expression (First Amendment), eliminate the right to bear firearms (Second Amendment), and encode “equity” into the fundamental “rights” of its citizens (Fourteenth Amendment). In other words, it would trend softly Communist immediately. It would also ally itself with the rest of the “civilized” world, including the European Union, the U.K., Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and very likely China.
For its part, the Red State would likely attempt to maintain something very much like the present Constitution, at least at first, though there would immediately be huge internal strife over whether any liberties should be curtailed in order to prevent turning “blue” or to handle “blue” infiltration, which is already significantly present, entrenched, and incorporated institutionally within its borders. These debates would be furious and polarizing. The Red State would likely be declared a rogue state, and it will find allyship with other nations to be difficult, if not impossible, in the present global environment, which will likely be primed to turn against it, despite economic possibilities. This will suit the isolationists but will not be strongly to the advantage of the Red State in a global political context.
Meanwhile, we can also bet that the rest of the world will not be idle during this turmoil. Lacking the stabilizing presence of the united United States military on the global stage, we can presume nations like China, Iran, and Russia, at the least, will make some significant territorial and other moves to maximize their own advantage during RIP-America’s turn into political chaos and reorganization. Israel may or may not survive. Taiwan almost certainly wouldn’t. South Korea is an open question.
Neglecting the world stage (for the most part), two paths run from here, and both are terrible. Nobody wins this. This “divorce” includes a Communist (narcissistic abuser) side who will not live and let live, so bad stuff is coming. I don’t know which of the following two paths is more likely, however, for one specific reason: nuclear weapons exist.
National Divorce Scenario 1, The Fast Option
After divorce, the Red State will find itself in the aforementioned turmoil, with issues internal and external. Getting organized will not necessarily be a smooth process, and elements on at least two factions of the Red Team and at least two locations (internal and external) of the Blue Team will be working against its unity. This circumstance will, at least temporarily, severely cripple Red State, which is not to its advantage.
Another consequential fact also bears here: former U.S. military and nuclear arsenal installations are still on Red State lands. Blue State won’t just give them up. In fact, they’ll go to great lengths over them. Conflict rapidly escalates in this scenario, and Blue State will immediately call upon its global allies and the United Nations, at the very least to secure the nukes. Simultaneously, those military bases become a real problem. For context, Fort Sumner in Charleston Harbor played inside this story in 1861, and that specific conflict started the Civil War. Should that happen over a military installation in a National Divorce situation today, we rapidly progress to Game Over for the reasons that will be made clear below, just put on a more urgent timeline.
Because of the nuclear arsenal and the likely standoff over Blue State (“U.S.”) military installations inside Red State, the instability of a National Divorce would immediately trigger a global emergency, demanding every possible sanction and pressure on Red State to prevent it from being a nuclear-armed rogue state. The more aggressively Red State works to take over a military base or, worse, secure a nuclear installation, the more urgent and powerful the global response will be against it. At best, the resulting war will be terrible. In reality, Red State has few realistic prospects in such a conflict, even without the massive internal turmoil weakening its chances.
Imagine what such a scenario would look like. The Vertically Integrated Messaging Apparatus all around the rest of the globe will immediately insist that this is the New Confederacy but with nukes, and it will be the focus of the entire world’s resources to break it immediately, even in its new-nation disarray. The military in those bases will be divided, and with the Constitution undermined, their loyalties will be confused. The former United States, which is now Blue State, will insist these are theirs. They also control the necessary operational codes for the nuclear installations. Attempts to seize a nuclear installation will be met with ungodly force with all the urgency that nuclear deterrence demands.
You might be cowboy enough to think Red State could fight its way through that, but that’s not likely and would leave a wrecked world. You might die on your feet, but you and your kids still die, and it’s not remotely desperate enough a situation in the currently existing United States to justify that risk yet. In fact, however, Red State will almost certainly not be organized or cowboy enough to secure operable nuclear weapons for itself in this scenario. Even tampering with them would demand a global response, including a nuclear response. Red State isn’t the US; it’s a rogue state, so it would be globally justified. Almost all of the world would declare itself Red State’s enemy with nuclear urgency.
You can imagine it easily. Blue State is allied with the UN, China, and the other Five Eyes nations. The entire West Coast, New England and several Atlantic states, and all of Canada immediately open themselves as water and land routes for a full-scale invasion to secure America’s teetering nuclear arsenal and control Red State as a rogue actor. Supply lines will largely be cut to Red State from the rest of the globe, crippling its nascent economy, supposing it even has a military to equip. The operation would be quick, brutal, and total. Red State would cease to exist with many of its intrepid citizens dead.
This is the “Fast Option” because Red State would likely last only a few months before collapsing under global pressure or all-out war. Then it’s over. This is Game Over. Anything in the process that triggers civil war, with a National Divorce formal or not, triggers this outcome, and it will be quick. Nothing is left to stop the Left Globalists, who therefore win. Everyone who survives is a global slave (“global citizen”) and the resistance is destroyed. We all arrive at Game Over.
National Divorce, scenario 2: The Slow Option
There is a more insidious path that is also more typical of the evil we’re dealing with in the world today. A National Divorce leading us onto this path would, as just outlined above, depend upon a more-or-less peaceful full nuclear disarmament of Red State plus the sacrifice of most of its potential military capacity, which it might not make. Supposing it makes the necessary concessions to Blue State and the world to avoid the Fast Option to Game Over, however, it enters onto the Slow Option to Game Over.
In the Slow Option, the states separate somehow or another more or less peacefully into Red and Blue, the Red is forced to let Blue take back most of the former U.S. military and all of the U.S. nuclear arsenal as a minimal price of entry to a peaceful divorce. There’s little doubt about that. Otherwise, it will be the fast option to Game Over.
The next two years or so of the Slow Option are going to be awesome for most former U.S. citizens in the two usual ways. Blue State, after rapidly completing its soft Communist revolution will leave the revolutionary phase and enter the phase of “building socialism.” That means it will rapidly clean itself up like San Francisco did and dedicate itself to rapidly building an economy in the model of China. It will likely receive major global help. Things will be much cleaner and efficient. Their alliance with China, the UN, and the rest will be tight. Life will become very good in Blue State. Business will thrive, people will make money, stuff will work again. Blue State residents just have to deal with the Woke “Sustainable and Inclusive” program, but not to the extent that it disrupts business or energy production. Those will be deemed necessary to Build Back Better, given the circumstances.
People from Red State will also have it relatively good, at least psychologically. They will be free from Woke “Sustainability and Inclusion” and able to start growing as a new, freer nation (unless they go Fascist). There will be some internal turmoil, and life will be relatively hard but exciting and largely free again. Of course, Red State residents will be propagandized to the fullest extent Blue State powers can reach to encourage them to move to the seemingly utopian Blue State, which abandoned the worst of its destructive ways. They will be allowed to move to Blue State whenever, but only through thoroughly renouncing their “red” values, and this demand will be reinforced by law, social credit, and a new Constitution that “fixes” the old one. This will be the minimum precondition to enter into the Built Back Better Blue State world. More than a few will leave, but few will come the other way, to Red State.
That’s because for all its potential, Red State will find it difficult to make friends on the world stage and, by demand of the “global community,” will in many ways be sanctioned by the rest of the world. Having lost much of its coastline, it will be limited in trade and national defense. Still, there will be all kinds of building up, Red State style! Homesteading, “making it happen,” developing a new economy, growing up a homegrown militia as the new Red State military—these will all occur more or less unhindered except by the limitations of the global environment. Access to supply lines will be limited, prices will be high, but there won’t be heavy restrictions.
Of course, former Blue Team residents of Red State will be a constant problem, at least those who stay—and many will, as spies, subverters, and infiltrators. Blue State and foreign entities will almost certainly encourage this, and Red State will find it difficult to maintain freedom against this constant internal problem. It may find itself having to jettison many of the Constitutional freedoms it separated specifically to try to preserve, and this will be encouraged by its radical contingent within. It’s likely Red State will become a version of exactly what it sought to escape, just with different priorities, in the need to deal with these issues and under the pressure of its own “redder” radicals.
Nevertheless, Red State will have access to just enough to be able to struggle forward, but life will actually improve. It must be allowed to gain strength, but Blue State will be a far nicer place. This will cause brain drain, population issues, talent issues, etc., for Red State. Again, at the same time, Red State is likely to drift or even lurch at times further “red,” which is to say toward Fascism. The Constitutional protections of the United States that Red State presumably sought to preserve somewhere will mostly be lost by necessity. All of this will be amplified by the global community’s Vertically Integrated Messaging Apparatus into relentless propaganda against Red State, which it will destroy your social credit to question or challenge.
Red State must be allowed to consolidate and grow in strength, maybe even with a Fascist-style government that has no use for “lib’rals” and throws them out, strengthening Blue State, which would already be beyond tolerating useless radicals—but that would fund them to be exactly that while they remain in Red State. Constitutional protections will be jettisoned to prevent re-subversion, and this will keep conflict high inside, and the “global community” will be forced to become more and more wary of Red State and its trajectory. Sanctions and other international issues would likely mount for Red State, adding to its challenges.
A few years down the road, notably after Red State develops a functional semblance of its own military, the world together with Blue State will simply provoke a war with Red State. The pretext might be the increasingly Fascistic turn Red State was forced to take. It might be that Red State feels a bit of its new strength and decides it’s time to take action to remedy the unfairness of its global standing. In any case, it will come about in the typical Blue Team way: through a provocation that sets Red State up to be the first militant actor. Now the world has to act and it must act decisively to “preserve democracy” on “the global stage,” or some such rhetoric.
This event, which immediately becomes an urgent global emergency against the rogue Red State launches the world back onto the Fast Option pathway to Game Over. Maybe Red State can put up more of a fight in the short term, but it will be the entire world against Red State, which hasn’t had a chance to organize sufficiently to deal with such an onslaught. The world will be led to believe through the by-then-very-sophisticated Vertically Integrated Messaging Apparatus that Red State is the aggressor it was always painted out to be. The Slow Option therefore also ends at Game Over and gets there at full velocity.
National Divorce Is National Suicide
National Divorce, which starts with The Big Sort and through pushing desperation into foolish action even before such a sort could be accomplished, results in Regime Change (Game Over) ultimately, and the Red Team has no realistic pathways to coming out on top. We might feel great for a little while, but it’s a short road to Game Over.
To divide the United States and break the reach of its Constitution and Bill of Rights will create a scenario in which all the power tips to the Global Enemy. You, no matter where you find yourself in that world, will not have a future unless you brainwash yourself and join the Global Collective. Your children will not have a future unless they are part of the Global Collective. This is not a peaceful path to restoring anyone’s way of life. This isn’t 1776. These aren’t the British. We are dealing with Global Communists who have already entrenched themselves in massive arrays of power and are making a legitimate bid for global control.
You might believe, like mentioned near the beginning of this discussion, that what is described above is inevitable, so we might as well “rip the Band-Aid off.” That’s not true. A National Divorce is not inevitable. In fact, it’s completely avoidable, allowing us to assert the power of the Constitution of the United States to secure the rights of our people and then to be a beacon of freedom and life to the world again, the world’s “last best hope.” We’re already making incredible strides in that direction, and rather than directing our enmity at our complicit countrymen as new challenges arise, we can continue to channel that into justification to expose and ultimately dismantle the revolution banging against our doors. Every evil move they make can be turned into discrediting them with a far broader audience. The rats orchestrating the revolution will jump ship if the deal looks like it’s going bad, and then they can be incentivized to talk. When they talk, the Enemy—not the country—goes into a downward spiral. The Constitution can prevail, and American can be made great again, with the rest of the free world behind it.
We are already making progress, even in hard states like California. The Courts are siding with us more and more. People are awakening. DEI and ESG are damaged badly. We know how they play their games and do their tricks. We realize how much bait they put in front of us. Their scams and schemes are backfiring. Inconvenient truths for their continued power surface week by week. The tide is turning.
The way out begins with faith in our nation, its Constitution, and most of all its good people. Faith in God, including the sacrifices you need to make and courage you need to show to prove that faith, is also warranted. Winning, though, also means taking the difficult road of sticking up for the place you live.
If you live in a “blue” place, and being as much sand in the gears against the Communists as you can. By organizing—which is impossible if you leave—you can consolidate local-level and eventually greater power that can keep the Communists from taking another inch. Look at Take Back Alberta in Canada, which is a country worse off than the U.S. Look at Garry Tan and his stand for San Francisco. Look to the millions of Americans waking up to the fact that they have to win back control over their back yards by standing and fighting, not retreating to some desperate last stand for them and their kids. Groups like Moms for Liberty are activating parents in almost every state and making progress, taking the fights to the local and state levels first so that we can keep all fifty stars on our Star-Spangled Banner. These examples are the real stuff. Be careful with what ideas you get from influencers. Edge sells but loses. Not all of them are even honest. Communists infiltrate and then rise up from within, leading patriots into traps.
Keep faith and fight for the integrity of the US and its Constitution! A National Divorce is National Suicide. Suicides are deaths of despair. The Communists are provoking us to despair so we’ll, as a nation, take our own life. They want us thinking this is Cowboys versus Communists so they can get us to make the very mistakes outlined in this discussion. It’s not. It’s those who have faith in the integrity and strength in this nation and its founding ideals against those who do not, and we’re showing up far too successfully to throw it all away with delusional fantasies of a “National Divorce.”
51 comments
I haven’t read this in its entirety, yet, but my first impression is that national suicide is indeed the point. The “nation” of the United States was never intended. I want the dismantling of this perversion of what the Framers gave us.
I want the U.S., as it currently exists, to cease. I want the union of sovereign, independent States to be regained, and if that means that the U.S., in its current form, ceases to exist, then so be it.
I’ll likely have more thoughts when I finish this. Many people throughout our history have cautioned that secession, while possible and desirable in some cases, should be approached with caution. I agree; our current union is a mess of entanglements and varied interests. The end of that would bring many questions with it.
If this piece is more about the practical effects of “national divorce” as against the theoretical plusses and minuses, I still fall on the side of secession. We simply can’t live together any longer.
The point of the essay is that national divorce will result in the ultimate victory of blue state. They will subjugate the red state and its residents. There may be some satisfaction for the red staters for a short time but they will be conquered and enslaved. I find Mr. Lindsay’s argument a strong one, if there is a national divorce, the blue state wins.
I’m a vegan libertarian. I’m neither in the red tribe or the blue tribe. The blue tribe of course is worse than the red tribe, but that’s damning the latter with faint praise. I don’t believe in God, but I’m not an atheist. The universe is very mysterious. I ponder as I will, and live my conscience. I grew up rural, lower working class in the 60’s. The red culture isn’t as pretty as it’s fans paint it. I’m not a patriot I don’t worship the state. I place the individual above it, to the extent I acknowledge it at all. The Constitution is just a document, and those who wrote it were just men. It’s not holy or infallible. Democracy is a sham. It’s majoritarian tyranny. I believe in life, liberty and property. I try to peacefully find as much freedom as I can in this unfree world, to “secede” in my own way, and neither the reds or the blues offer the freedom I seek. I know neither the reds nor the blues take us libertarians seriously, and you both prefer to pretend we don’t exist. That’s fine. Just thought I’d put in my 2 cents.
I try to peacefully find as much freedom as I can in this unfree world, to “secede” in my own way, and neither the reds or the blues offer the freedom I seek. I know neither the reds nor the blues take us libertarians seriously, and you both prefer to pretend we don’t exist. That’s fine. Just thought I’d put in my 2 cents.
80% do. There is a variance in that 80% vast majority who are not listening to politics. Once abstracted into ways of understanding like this the opposite affect to ‘education’ happens since few understand even the most basic reference points in abstract terms given they are linguistic mathematics. Alternatively ? – the totalitarians offer up samples nobody need to ‘understand’. People them make emotive judgements with respect to tricky algorithmic based statement for EXACTLY the same reasons – they do not understand abstract logic. There trouble is that 99% of the elite system DO & here we are,
Thus the entanglement all decent people know is a problem is not east to address.
But do YOU feel you represent a Minority ? – NO – you are part of 80%.
What you mean is you’ve a sub – culture within the sociological state discussed above.
Thats good to hear. I feel that i identify with it & feel that all the good people are there.
But i do not think people know how it all charts with respect to how elite misanthropist minorities choose to chart humanity.
In many ways though we might speak up, we.ve yet to find out od a WW3 like WW2 will just makes its excuses and commit Genocide.
The general lying pro human patter was about the same as it is now in the 1930’s as it is now. So much so in fact that it all looks configured to kill 20 = 50 million persons if compared to rhetoric / combined with / industrial activity / used in past.
“The idea that you [right wing ”Red Team”] and I [left wing ”Blue Team”] are people that operate on different sides of a political spectrum becomes exposed as ridiculous when the anti-authoritarian aspect of what we both clearly believe in has to become the clear and pivotal point around which all political views have to now start to coalesce. [We] are either going to oppose what’s happening when it comes to globalization and centralized authoritarianism or [we] are going to be crushed individually and collectively.
Whether you’re on the left or right, everyone believes catastrophe is coming. If what we are being offered is a slow grind into more and more authoritarianism and control of our personal lives, our ability to affiliate, our ability to think freely (the colonization of the self), then what have we got to lose? Perhaps what’s required is the ignition of something so unbearable that people will awaken rather than endure it any further. It seems like we’re on the precipice of catastrophe geopolitically but also it seems like a potential offering to awaken.”
The Tucker Carlson Podcast Ep.70 with Russell Brand 2024-01-30
podgist.com “unofficial transcript” [edited for brevity]
“Socialism: The 7 Pillars of the Ruler’s Law
Socialism stands atop seven pillars of control rooted in the power and authority of Ruler’s Law:
1. All powerful RULERS
2. Society divided into CASTES or CLASSES
3. All things in COMMON
4. All things REGULATED
5. Compliance is FORCED
6. Control of INFORMATION
7. No unalienable RIGHTS
Socialism: Government force to control and change society.”
from “The Naked Socialist” 2012 (contains “The 46 Goals of Socialism”) by Paul B. Skousen, son of W. Cleon Skousen who wrote “The Naked Communist” 1958 (contains “The 45 Goals of Communism” that were officially read and recorded in the 1963 U.S. Congressional Hearing)
“The 45 Goals of Communism”
written by W Cleon Skousen in 1958:
A prophetic warning from 66 years ago! Here are 12 selected goals of communism (edited for brevity) written in 1958 that define 2024:
“11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind… demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
20. Infiltrate the press.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. ‘Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art’. [100% success on this goal
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture – education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use united force to solve economic, political, or social problems.”
Very interesting! I am going to have to find more on this.
Here, I found a link for the whole list. It’s fascinating, as if it were written 20 years ago and not 60 years ago. I guess we can congratulate them on their success. https://www.marxists.org/subject/art/literature/children/ref/gov/gov1.html
I watched this :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogUvNvwiMR0
Then posted this on that YT :
@cameroncameron2826
2 hours ago (edited)
Ever since the incident with peter hitchins i could not put my finger on something that just seemed ‘off’ with you Alex. But after several further wishy washy dribbling with pointlessness examples its david brent. New Atheism has run a 20 year long uncontrolled logical explosion it prefers to regard as ‘reason’ was just a brutally uninformed totalitarian steam roller thats crushed people simply over what they choose to THINK.
Bring scientific evidence that new atheism has the right to do that.
Where is the justification for dawkins hobby to become LAW and people being arrested for ‘thinking about god’
Sht conversation mainly and thank goodness some humility was found. C’s like you two with new atheism only care about the perpetuation of funded models in thought crime disguised as anti religion, but are anti human. Some of you are capable of total war & will get people eliminated & snuffed out imo . Just as long as funding continues since it will have totalitarian sources & that is one very big name doing it already who you all bottom feed off.
My advice to PB is pressurise Dawkins instead of sticking ur head up his rear end. ”Oh i’m going to see Richard”
Is that ur off to see the thought crime wizard whose got his hands on the funding source that dictates why you’ll not tell the truth about what he is ?
You dozy Tart Peter = barely more than a Prostitute.
Alex :
”I’m not sure what 60% or 80% or 10% or 25 % or 85 %”
Alex – it was obvious that your sense of ‘field’ in terms of abstraction in a phenomenological sense was almost completely non existent already.
Isn’t it obvious by now that new atheism has been the european lab supplier the thought crime models to the globalist totalitarians ?
What do you intend to do nect time you have a meet with RD’s James Falacio ?
I mean FFS are you serious ?
“Whether we [America] have anything left to salvage is critical, and I think the Right has the advantage of providing an answer, but so far most attempts fail before they begin. We remain too sharply divided to agree on what we ought to preserve, much less whether to build something new. As you indicate, mass culture, for all its power to shape perceptions and behaviors, cannot sustain a person, community, or movement.
Three years after the Trump presidency the populist Right still fails to articulate what America is and what it ought to be. A tired and bitter sentimentalism has dislodged the spirited ethos of 2016, and would-be leaders refuse to acknowledge a dire reality for fear of upsetting their constituents. Furthermore, while weak institutions and rapid technological change embolden the forces of reaction, they also reanimate arcane ideas and lost causes that distort expectations and paralyze efforts to recover our inheritance.
Even if we do overcome these obstacles and manage to salvage something, we are left asking, for whom?”
Lafayette Lee
“The American Nation: Ethnogenesis”
im1776.com Jan 2024
“If we are not ANCHORED TO A PLACE WITH A PEOPLE, where we help set THE CONDITIONS OF A POLITY IN THE MICRO, how can we ever hope to identify what ought to be salvaged or built on a grander scale?”
Lafayette Lee
[emphasis added]
Hi folks, I’m the enemy. I live in a very blue city, and though I vote against the people who win elections here (and for independents and Republicans in the generals,) none of that changes the fact that I have lived in a blue city for a long time. In general, that is because I just like living in a city. Anyway, my red team relatives feel that they need to own me and blame me for the policies of politicians that I didn’t vote for. Personally, I find that to be annoying, but I can’t make is stop… so life goes on. But here’s the point, owning me isn’t going to bring me over to the red team, it just make me fearful of what the red team has in mind. I see the blue team as ultimately a little less dangerous to me personally, so I reluctantly need to stay on it. The red team could probably come up with a better approach to me than the owning exercise. Just sayin.
National Divorce, aka National Suicide, is never the answer. First of all, in 1869, the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v White that all acts of secession are null. Basically, stating that secession is unconstitutional. I’m a Texan and I’m against secession because it’s moronically stupid. Secondly, Texas is one of many states benefiting billions in Federal Aid/$68.2 billion plus. Let’s just say hypothetically Texas did secede from the United States. It wouldn’t take long before Texas became another third world country. Texas would become vulnerable for invasion with Mexico easily reclaiming Texas again. Our Texas National Guard is not the US military and no longer would be supported by the US military becoming militarily weak. No longer would it be protected by NATO. Instead of a having only a governor, it would need a president and vice-president, etc., and eventually would form its own new federal government which it was trying to avoid in the first place, but now stuck with a federal government on a smaller scale. Scaling down on all levels. Let’s not forget Texas has a state debt in the billions. If Texas were to secede from the United States, its triple AAA rating would decline no longer being backed up by the United States/superpower. A devaluation of its credibility would immediately occur, like driving a new car out of the parking lot. Look at Brexit, they are having buyers’ remorse. While some are lost in the reverie of secession, they ought to think twice about such ludicrous thoughts. The Maga cult, drunken on the thought of sucession/Texit, need to think beyond the trailer park.
As part of the United States, Texas is large part of its success. Separated from the Superpower, Texas we will become just another small indistinct country like France. It would be an easy target for Mexico to reclaim Texas as their land again. Be careful what you wish for…
The answer is to find common ground and work together to find a solution to problems affecting all American citizens. The United States government services all its citizens in both red and blue states. In 1860-1861, 11 states seceded from the Union. SC, GA, MS, FL, AL, LA, TX, VA, AR, TN, NC essentially beginning the Civil War. In 2024, there are four states missing from the list of red states that seceded in 1861 whose attempt to divorce themselves from the Union ended badly. Today there are 22 states considered red states, 10 swing states and 18 blue states. Are we ripe to say that National Divorce, aka National Suicide, is inevitable? Again, secession is never the answer and it’s unconstitutional. I’m a Christian Conservative and don’t agree with the democrat’s agenda or the woke madness. However, on politics, I can respectfully agree to disagree, and on issues affecting the political arena, I believe politicians, as public servants, should do their job. We all have free will and we are not here to play God. As a Christian, we are to pray for the lost and confused souls and never hate or condemn. “United We Stand Divided We Fall” – Aesop
Thank you, James. Much love and respect. ✝️❤️
”Look at Brexit, they are having buyers’ remorse”
As a rule of thumb others around the world can be more than forgiven for believing matters in such frame of reference. A huge amount of old ‘Goebbels’ has been broadcast to make things seem like the people of Britain voted IN – then voted OUT later, hence silly suicidal divorcees ..
NO not at all nothing is further from the truth. UK people were always heavily resistant to european integration never saying ‘Yes’ in the first place. Thus ‘NO’ on 2016 was another ‘NO’ like all the others. The confusion is caused by the way traitor uk politicians allowed an illegal de facto arrangement regardless of this ongoing NO NO NO voice of the people.
Thus ‘Britain Left’ / Brexit’ etc ? – its lies – there was only a peoples mandate for a minor trade agreement ( common market 1973 ) . Further treaties were signed by means of reason & sedition without any voice of the people other than even more NO.
A variant of this probably what you are dealing with in USA in the future if the states have been sucked into european designed algorithms.
James Lindsay, I just clicked a link to your Conceptual James twitter (X) thread on the Liberal Party of Canada’s latest sickening manipulation of “LTQblahblah” bullshit to smear the Conservative party as trans-genocidal Trump-MAGA-Hitlers. Excellent points — you nailed this sorry ass excuse for a “country”. And like Biden, Baby Doc Duvalier-Trudodopuss, supreme ruler for life, is importing new Liberal voters by the millions so he can playact Che-Evita forever and ever. Canada, of course, is a failed state. A communist-corruptocrat sewer. And an all around shithole.
ps I was banned from a major Canadian gay web site in 2005 (almost 20 years ago!!) not merely because of all my queertrans-critical online comments but mostly because I would not stop ending each comment with the phrase:
“LGBTQetc. IS A MANUFACTURED LIE!”
It was a lie then and it’s a lie now. Thanks, JL, for voicing this fact so eloquently and publicly!
“The Queering of the American Child: How A New School Religious Cult Poisons the Minds and Bodies of Normal Kids” by Logan Lancing and James Lindsay
(paper book coming Feb 29 2024)
Looking forward to this new book co-authored by James Lindsay. I’m sure that in response to it, the Quoke (QueerWoke) screaming-at-the-sky will be double-plus strong (cue the trans death threats, reputation attacks and celebrity breakdowns). But parents, the normal, and all anti-Woke counter-revolutionaries will welcome this book indeed.
also: This amazing article by James Lindsay (on his X thread reader) provides an important breakthrough moment because it puts anti-Woke theory into real life practice to use with your brainwashed kids, irritating relatives, smug-ass coworkers or anyone Woke-adjacent. Of course, people need the theory to understand what’s really happening, but they want practical methods and words to use in response to Woke cultists they encounter in their day to day lives.
This article (and the amazing short video it parses of a teacher using an anti-Maoist technique on a PC student) presents a deprogramming method, a way to talk to Wokes who are mouthing the cult words but have not yet gone full Mao-Mao. I sent this article and video to my 30-year-old (“straight white male Christian”) anti-Woke nephew who says he needs some way to defang his three Woke-maniac sisters (and a hyper-Woke brother-in-law who makes Trudeau look normal) and other obnoxious Wokafarians in his life. I told him this technique should help him clean their clocks. James Lindsay also mentions he’s writing a new book of Maoism in Woke America — wow — it’s Gang of Four to the woodshed time!
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1754175427256443192.html
Please read/use this one instead:
Hi folks, I’m the enemy. I live in a very blue city, and though I vote against the people who win elections here (and for independents and Republicans in the generals,) none of that changes the fact that I have lived in a blue city for a long time. In general, that is because I just like living in a city. Anyway, my red team relatives feel that they need to own me and blame me for the policies of politicians that I didn’t vote for. Personally, I find that to be annoying, but I can’t make is stop… so life goes on. But here’s the point, owning me isn’t going to bring me over to the red team, it just make me fearful of what the red team has in mind. I see the blue team as ultimately a little less dangerous to me personally, so I reluctantly need to stay on it. The red team could probably come up with a better approach to me than the owning exercise. Just sayin.
I’m amazed at how much energy and thought you put into the national divorce discussion.
Instead of stating that a national divorce is a bad idea, state what the answer is to unite the country. That’s productive versus just mental masturbation Fighting for the integrity of a 200+ year old document that was written by a bunch of white straight christian male bigoted misogynistic aristocrats from my perspective is not the answer. That very document is what has led to this point.
The answer is though in the thoughts of those “founding fathers”. They would never endorse what the federal government has become today. They viewed the federal government as a necessary evil for the state to work together on economic and military issues. The states would still hold the power. That is the opposite of where the divide states is today.
The answer which is inevitable is that the states will ignore the federal government on issues the federal government has no reason to be involved in. All the culture war issues have no reason to be discussed at the federal government level.
Is a national sort bad. Its a natural part of being human. Humans work in groups of like minded thinking. They exchange (i.e. trade) with other groups. That helps both groups. They align with other groups to protect each others groups. Do they need to have the same views on religion and cultural issues? Absolutely not.
The federal government is already losing its power to the states. The Marijuana legislation was and still is a great example. Marijuana is illegal at the federal government level but not in many states. States don’t care about the federal laws.
Instead of discussing a divorce (what I presume you get from your str8 white male thoughts) think of maintain the relationship and creating an open marriage. The relationship can exist for economic and protection without agreeing on all the cultural issues. In fact, the relationship becomes more rich and interesting when it does open up.
The constition has lock the states into a relationship they no longer want. Time to open up the relationship with a new constitution. This one written by states that are not just white straight christian male bigoted misogynistic aristocrats.
commenter wrote:
“…white straight christian male bigoted misogynistic…
str8 white male thoughts…
white straight christian male bigoted misogynistic”
These words of Woke bullshit turn this comment into garbage and erase anything else that was written. This example of the diarrhea of Totalitarianism is a negation of humanity. Pathetic and disgusting.
What on earth are “straight male” thoughts? Are they like “dirty Jew” thoughts? Or “deplorable bitter clinger” thoughts? Vile.
btw I happen to be a homosexual (and former gay activist from the 1980s and 90s) and presume “rogueforgay” is queered Woke slang for total f-cking asshole.
”What on earth” …
Iol its a funny old world Jorge – love your humour from earlier let alone now. The glimpses in the other guys looked promising. ”Gay this & gay that ” haha what a riot loved it ‘Straight’ blah blah blah pmsl.
The use of politically correct words (Woke Talk), such as “white straight christian male bigoted misogynistic”, is indeed surficially comical and infantile. However they are far from meaningless (other than their literal meaning being bratty gibberish or flaccid attempts at insults). The use of Woke Talk is one of the most meaningful tools of Social Control employed by the new authoritarian elites and their lackeys.
Woke Talk is much more than mere virtue signalling where bottom-feeding beta-Eloi fartcatchers fawningly proffer their rears in obeisance to higher status Wokes. Woke Talk acts as the self-aggrandizing power incantation of the Snitch. The betrayer. The informant. The rat. The squealer. The stoolie. The tattler. The turncoat. The weasel. Woke Talk is the truncheon of the Pecksniffian lickspittle. The cudgel of the traitor.
No Totalitarian regime can sustain control over mass populations using violence alone. Instead, all communist, fundamentalist and techno-oligarchical authoritarian elites utilize their understanding of the baseness of human nature to maintain their rule. Totalitarians know that most people will turn on their co-workers, neighbours, friends and family to save their own skins. The STASI and the Inquisition were masters of this control technique. Their WEFian descendants are even more masterful.
Woke Talk acts as witch bait. If the receiver of the Woke Talk openly agrees with it (“takes the knee”), they are safe for that moment. If they reject it, they are branded a witch and the Woke Talker gains Social Credit crumbs for unmasking an apostate, a counter-revolutionary, a witch. But worst of all, the person who hears/reads Woke Talk and does nothing at all but laugh at it or downplay its significance or dismiss it as “meaningless”, then this person tacitly becomes an “ally” by proxy to the Woke Talker: another potential Enforcer/Snitch-in-waiting Quisling of the Panopticon.
The People need to Identify the mechanisms of their own enslavement, no matter how silly they seem. Woke Talk is so preposterous that most people refuse to take it seriously – until they lose their jobs or bank accounts or all their “friends”. Woke Talk is clothed in its Clownland costume to tactically camouflage its interpersonal lethality. Woke Talk makes the Panopticon possible and should be taken very seriously.
Woke Talk must be identified, mocked and refused whenever it appears. The Woke Talker is not benign. For survival sake, whenever one appears, such scum must be explicitly told to FOAD.
Thats a interesting oxymoron.
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
”I’m amazed at how much energy and thought you put into the national divorce discussion”
So was i / i too was rude to poor James about it. I need to have a word with myself too & i think it was him that said so under a pseudonym.
This article actually a deceptively nuanced and well considered article in many ways. It is probably an evolutionary piece, as my personal opinion is that JL is going through a personal ‘paradigm shift’ & is developing in new ways.
What i see happening in USA is a phenomenological & psycho-sociological model being constructed. If so it might arrange things so that the bitterly rival social ideologies that are being deliberately created are adjacent to each other. A kind of A.I. of negative entropy as it were, a mathematically optimised sht stirring effect. Not new no – look at the way the partition was arranged anywhere west of the jordan river. I know i know – just looking at the way they partitioned Israel & Palestine it clear it was designed that way to cause trouble ? NO – its never been mentioned in parlances & went over everyones head except those involved. But really ? – with the kind of totalitarian models in existence now ? One at least considers if this is a partitioning model for in the USA just because the I/P style conflict (Model ) is to become almost the entire problem. All things considered what is one to think now the elite universities are both instilling, and distilling this problem in the USA ?
It looks like the model in question is so well well known now to its makers & so well understood as an A.I. algorithm, thats its almost a default installation now the western govs are showing out as fully rogue. My personal opinion is that “the People’ need two basic skill sets.
1 – Identify
2 – Communicate to the elites how they can achieve it without resorting to police states.
The above is what JL will say he IS doing rightly or wrongly. I think is ‘Gnostic’ idea is about the only lobotomy level mistake. But anyway i’d take it the references to sex zero gang spit roast significance concerning James ( or anything else as meaningless ).
Thus since clearly your post was sensible interesting and meaningful – where does it go from there ?
Hi folks, I’m the enemy. I live in a very blue city, and though vote against the people who win elections here (and for independents and Republicans in the generals.) None of that changes the fact that I have lived in a blue city for a long time. In general, that is because I just like living in a city.
Anyway, my red team relatives feel that they need to own me and blame me for the policies of politicians that I didn’t vote for. Personally, I find that to be annoying, but I can’t make is stop… so life goes on. But here’s the point, owning me isn’t going to bring me over to the red team, it just make me fearful of what the red team has in mind. I see the blue team as ultimately a little less dangerous to me personally, so I reluctantly need to stay on it. The red team could probably come up with a better approach to me than the owning exercise. Just sayin.
I used the wrong link in my other post & that could negate the point i was making. Heres the direct link intended :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians#/media/File:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.svg
Does this convoluted partition design increase shared borders to the mathematical optimum possible for the space available ? < If that could be true. thus this might be the design sought for the USA ?
The process of change thats going on in the USA could be compatible with such an hypothesis.
The best argument for National Divorce I have is this: The population of the U.S. is ~ 332 million divided by 435 members of the House of Representatives means each Representative “represents” ~ 763,000 people. This is IMPOSSIBLE even without deep political division.
The Founders knew that more than 40,000:1 would be a farce. We’re more than an order of magnitude beyond that.
The U.S. is ungovernable if we are to have ANY semblance of representation.
And I see very little representing of the “we the people” who vote them in…
I discussed it earlier today with a friend; can any genuine person win the vote to represent their constituents and actually do that?? Or is it inevitable the move the DC makes a new comer find it’s not the people they are answering to but the vile provacatures and lobbyists who pad their pockets along with those already in office providing peer pressure and and it’s a club we ain’t invited to join ergo the clandestine salon treatments & sex parties during lockdown
There’s too many millionaire elected officials. There’s too much temptation to make money off the ignorant population. Dc is overtaken by greed and the USE AND ABUSE OF PoWER.,
But really first order of business ADDRESS THE MEDIA LIES AND WHO FUnds AND SCRPTS THE PROPAGANDA. identify the source of the leak before cleanup can happen for the water damage.
This is the source of our division the lies told night after night by MSM
Forget about divorcing countries.
How about splitting up with the human race:
“Allah did not create man so that he could have fun… There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam.”
The Ayatollah (of anti-rock’n’rolla) Khomeini (“Death to America!”)
Let’s identify all of the culprits, shall we:
“[Christian] Religious groups have been key to… [Muslim] refugee sponsorship.”
Institute for Research on Public Policy 2021
But we love their tasty hummus and pretty scarves. And they’re all trans-adjacent, you know. Really.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And weak men create hard times.”
G. Michael Hopf “Those Who Remain” 2016
“And it’s a hard, it’s a hard,
it’s a hard, it’s a hard
It’s a hard rain’s a-gonna fall”
R. Zimmerman
The End.
Boy, I sure am chatty this morning.
Mr. Lindsay, you should offer more essays for comments. It would be interesting to see what other regular readers of New Discourses have to say about stuff.
I don’t think anyone would necessarily call you “stupid” for this incoherent comment. Maybe “drunk.”
Who is “Samuel”?
Anyway, because I’m waiting for comment approval, I’ll add a P.S. to my general comment above:
I appreciate Lindsay’s cheerleading for fortitude. Wanting secession is motivated by despair, demoralization. Let’s buck up and take it to the commies before admitting defeat by rooting for an unlikely condition that would be fraught with uncertainty.
Who is “Samuel”?
Maybe he needs to ask himself out of the altered ego’s. Maybe a few other names on this thread do also. I’d only ask myself do they go able their daily chores as more than one person ?
”Let’s buck up and take it to the commies before admitting defeat by rooting for an unlikely condition ”
Yeah sounds good.
I’m sceptical there actually are oppositional politics anymore. If that were the case why would a cabal of neo feudalist technocrats who are no longer oppositional / one total system give us a chance to pinpoint any commie reality or certainty?
So that we would punch the air ?
I don’t think anyone would necessarily call you “stupid” for this incoherent comment. Maybe “drunk.”
haha – yeah sometimes i just don’t care what my posts look like at all. Rarely due to any drink or stim just not caring.
”I appreciate Lindsay’s cheerleading for fortitude”
Yes and he put together a piece much more to his strengths with this one
”Wanting secession is motivated by despair, demoralization”.
As in designed to by its own social engineers ?, or in terms of reaction by people ?
unlikely condition that would be fraught with uncertainty.
Yes indeed perhaps for sake of a post truth police state mainly. In other words the ability to make the rules up as they go equates directly to reducing law and order processes and and increased modelled by algorithms society to match the general downgrade to everyones services.
Sociologist — don’t rise to their bait. Cranks, beta-bitches, Jew haters and Bernie bros seem to be slinging a lot of feces lately on ND comments. Chimpanzees on a tire swing.
I enjoy all of your comments especially the one explaining how Brexit was attacked by elites for being part of the People of the UK’s long resistance to EuroWEF-Totalitarianism (the colonization of Britain). As you said, Britain died after WW2 and IMO Fabian Socialism killed it. As William Burroughs observed in the 1960s: England is a country ruled by “Fabian Socialist vegetable people”. Their motto is a picture of a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Fiends in velvet slippers.
btw I am one of the people who posts on ND under 2 avatar names but openly so — I post as D Thirteen and Jorgensen Shmorgensen and do so because the Jorgensen avatar name is monitored by transqueer/antifa type leftist “hate” sites and my written words are recorded as “far right fascist transphobic hate speech” (these “people” are so histrionic. comedy gold!) so I only JS on ND for transcritical posts (usually) and use D13 for all other topics (and have to write 13 as a word because ND comments rejected my use of the number 13 as a javascript error whatever that means).
keep the aspidistra flying, old bean
”Cranks, beta-bitches, Jew haters and Bernie bros”
Thank you for the kind words. Its obvious enough when i’m deliberately being an idiot on here for phishing purposes & that in itself is a version of alter ego lol so lets call it quits. Yes the fabians and every other stinking treacherous infiltration. Arguably funded from WW2 loot, they were able to organise the collectivism and syndicalism which asset stripped Britain ( to same funding source) & its very depressing. The americans even the savvy ones never did understand the coding underneath this british madness. JL is only just beginning to realise that the ideology hes trying to combat was largely made in Europe, and particularly the methods now prevalent this latter day chapter of new order. Its like the american ivy league realised that it was no longer practical to assume an american global strategy was a viable confluence. No doubt the usa rationale was so far removed from the longer standing european design, the american referred their own to draw. There are two WEF HQ in the US now after all. Other major challenges were imminent between europe and USA. For instance the EU want to be the next silicon valley & probably hope to get the rare earth minerals needed from Ukraine.
I’m not sure if people like JL have quite understood the day when ‘i’ll do it my way’ long shot kicked the bucket . Neither am i sure that this new found frictionless relationship between these cabals will help us proles. That one of them will think up a way to farm free energy from the male erection ( penological erection farms ) is more likely.
This is the message i got due to the one off nik i tried to use :
forbidden – number in author name not allowed = A ghostly sociological aura around a 7 foot mans throbbing member post op.
So i just put ‘Sociologist’ again lol
In these autogynephiliac “she”-meat times, “penological erection farms” are better known as the Women’s Locker Room.
What do you mean by “Fascistic”? You are good at defining terms. What about this one? Context suggests you mean something like “a totalitarian regime maintaining its control by military force or coercion.”
Anyway, a few thousand words attempting to predict the future consequences of state secession is interesting, but not very convincing one way or another.
More simply, This swami predicts there will be insufficient political will on both ends of the political spectrum to do anything like persuade a state legislature to secede.
Superb article! National divorce is indeed national suicide, but knowing wnat kind of values and culture you believe in and subscribe to is a far easier choice-there are choices beyond far left public schools, You can regulate what you read, watch, listen to and subscribe to in the media as well , how you spend your spare time, and what you deem appropriate for your family as well in these areas even if you live in a very blue state.
Gotta love James! Even more now! I haven’t turned in my Noam Chomsky card yet, nor my old Massachusetts born blue leanings. I love the best of red and blue. “If Liberals are the dancers in our society, then Conservatives are the dance floor.” – some guy on YouTube!
Sure, let’s play with the metaphor a little more. Fine, no National Divorce, so the National Abusive Marriage drags on, with the abusive spouse continuing to belittle, gaslight, and batter its other half to a bloody pulp until finally it can’t take it anymore and dies. The abusive spouse survives, gets the kids and the house, and emboldened by the success of narcissistic omnipotence goes on to remarry and the whole thing starts all over again.
Expecting the abuser in an abusive marriage to get better is wishful thinking. Divorce or not, the marriage is over.
I appreciate James for noticing that there seems to be some disruptive force lurking in the background trying to get us to make bad decisions. This shows real insight if not a full blown recognition of the situation.
The rest of the details don’t interest me. It’s just another dystopian narrative piled on top of many others. Something like this could really happen. Perhaps it already is. The more dominant narrative is that some sort of split by class will occur, and we will wind up with the rich ruling class lording over a poor working class and no one in between. This seems to be what we are veering towards.
Thank you, Mr. Lindsey, for thoughtfully thinking and writing about this subject. Once upon a time, when Mr. Tom Woods was making sense during COVID, he started talking about a “National Divorce” on his podcast and eventually wrote a book about it. I wrote him, dismayed that he thought this was a good idea for our country. “We will be fodder for our enemies. How will a divided nation be able to defend itself? Two smaller countries are easier to take down, not to mention the chaos that will ensue for years. For example, what about resources and waterways?” He told me my line of thinking would have prevented the colonies from breaking away from Britain. Again, I wrote back. “That’s not the same situation at all. For one, the people who risked life and limb to come to the New World had already broken away from Britain by physically removing themselves. Britain was exercising imperialism, not trying to keep its country together. Colonies were under the control of Britain, but they were not Britain proper. Britain was not breaking up into smaller territories.” I am curious how you would respond to his argument.
I pray to G-d this idea dies a quick death!
It’s not a question of polarization in America, but mostly engineered polarization by way of socialization, indoctrination, and brainwashing since everyone’s birth, by a global-national-cabal that controls the U.S. in every facet of human endeavor(Inverted-Totalitarianism). Totalitarian-Tyranny can only be successfully addressed one way–by it’s total eradication, primarily by organized guerilla warfare and tactics, if at least 3-5% of the population, if determined enough act accordingly.
I have not yet read beyond the first few paragraphs, but I’ll comment anyway. I don’t want a civil war. I don’t want secession. But there was a time when the states were more important than the Feds. People identified as New Yorkers or Virginians, etc. There was a loyalty to ones state. I wouldn’t mind going back to that. Diminish federal power to that which the Constitution intended, and let the states handle the rest.
That would require a return to non-electronic communication. The Internet has more or less forced everyone to become aware of what might be happening on the other side of the world as easily as what happens in one’s backyard (maybe more easily). Only the huge number of Internet nodes occupied by individuals with an interest in truth puts a check on lies. What’s the adage? “A lie gets halfway around the world while the truth is putting its pants on.”
I, too, have fantasies of a return to our agrarian, localized past, when you had to hump fifty miles on foot or horseback to get to the nearest settlement of more than 1000 people. You could do as you please (within limits), there were few around you to complain, and the law might not be able to get to you for days or weeks, if at all.
“They also control the necessary operational codes for the nuclear installations” If only that were the case, but it is not. See Bruce Blair’s article here – http://web.archive.org/web/20040404013440/http://www.cdi.org/blair/permissive-action-links.cfm – and while there are official pronouncements, there’s no guarantee that the central controls have been put in place.
The US is not a “federal union” and hasn’t acted as so since at least 1947, the year the National Security Act was enacted – it is not a confederation of states, it is essentially a unitary state under control of a centralized government. The Russian Federation is far closer to being an actual federal union, where the constituent republics can (and have in the case of Georgia) broken away and stand on their own, they are self-sufficient, and can fend for themselves. Some of the states in the US can do that – California and Texas are examples that come directly to mind.
The cure for our troubles is the dissolution of the centralized Administrative State, which operates almost entirely in violation of the Tenth Amendment. In addition, there’s also the concept of constitutional federalism, which could be the basis for a more stable and free country. States rights turn out to be very important, as Antifederlist Paper #9 stated, back in 1787, that a consolidated government is a tyranny. True then, true now. See https://thefederalistpapers.org/antifederalist-paper-9/
You lost me with your pro-Zionist claptrap. Makes everything else you posited suspect.
”You lost me with your pro-Zionist claptrap”
If you all do that in the USA you’ll have a usa partitioned to resemble israel and Palestine with migrants positioned all along the borders against patriots. I invite you to look at this absurdly convoluted maximum friction ‘partitioning plan’ again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#/media/File:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.svg
Just the way its arranged to cause maximum inconvenience to peace right ? – no zionist opinions.
You might consider what could be the intent concerning inconvenience to all people migrant / patriot in the USA without conflating actual zionism in this.
Ok ?
The thing is Samuel that this :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians
( assuming you knew just look @ the partitioning diagram ) – isn’t possible in modern USA BUT ? If you are weak minded ( in selected creases and you are ) – you could write the article you just have. The truth is that the only geopolitically arcane ‘dead zone ATM’ is the UK ( which is truly fked ). BUT. They will try to pretend the USA is buggered equality. Well look the USA is buggered in many ways & thats what the brilliant JL is picking up. But not at all equally you see – not at all in ways that are so ‘obvious’ & nor are they ‘predictable’. And as for following the logic thru by what was learned during the ‘Truth Era’. Why don’t you just drop that logic James ? More the case is that european nutters are influencing USA nutters more than ever before and?
The USA is too big & too complex to perform what is happening to the UK which ?
Has had it – it was over in 1948 for the UK actually.
So Samuel why don’t you go back to school ? Because if you don’t you are in a useless C a paradox. The best in the business and the worst. I mean surely you are beginning to understand the true nature of phenomenological pressure ? On the level yu are profesing to operate?
There are mind out here that are extraordinary. Why ? – because its essential to keep up with the bad peoples progress ?
YES ?
Call me stupid any time you like