“America is in an abusive relationship with itself”
- B. Duncan Moench; “The Great American Breakup“; Tablet Magazine June 1, 2020
We just celebrated Independence Day here in America- although it certainly didn’t feel like it.
#FvckTheFourth was trending on Twitter, as armed Black militia members marched through Georgia demanding “reparations” from White people, while Black Lives Matter and “Anti-Independence Day” rallies of protests happened all over the country as various groups of disgruntled minorities and their White and Jewish “allies” gathered by the thousands (with the blessings of state and local officials) to decry the country’s alleged “racist” and “White supremacist” past and present.
Meanwhile, traditional 4th of July gatherings and celebrations of all kinds were either severely restricted or canceled altogether by these same local and state officials due to the ongoing “pandemic”- except of course President Trump’s Independence Day rally and Independence Day celebration at Mt. Rushmore, that has already been smeared by the media as “outrageous” and “divisive”.. And now the media is already saying that that the Independence Day gatherings that did happen, have caused yet another “surge” of Coronavirus, while simultaneously reporting that Black Lives Matter protests seem to magically cause the virus to disappear…
Indeed, as the United States celebrated its 244th birthday, it would seem that the country is more divided than it has been at any point since the Civil War.
America certainly doesn’t feel “like a team”..
In a recent and rather condescending editorial out of the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post, the writer lamented that fan-attended sporting events might not return to America, because Americans “can’t act like a team”.
The article went on to laud praise onto countries in east Asia and the E.U. for operating “like a team — one that believes in science and has the discipline to fight together against a pandemic.”
“WaPo” then went on to say of this of America:
“Right now, the United States wakes up every day ready to brawl — with itself.
Good teams grasp the basic level of putting the team first: “We can’t win unless we all do this.” You either buy in or you go out.
Right now, our country can’t even buy into using masks in situations in which scientists say it will cut the rate of virus transmission by up to 80 percent.
We’re so divided we can’t agree to take one step — just three more feet — between each other when we are in groups. Social distancing — six feet, not three — evidently is just too big a sacrifice.”
The article then went on to talk about the dreadfully stupid Bubba Wallace incident, and make horrible cliches and slogans about America needing to come together like NASCAR did when Bubba apparently thought a garage pull-rope was a lynch noose…
But in spite of the typical inane reporting one has come to expect from the Post, it does speak truth when it says America isn’t a team. However, America hasn’t really been a “team” for quite some time.
It seems with every election season now, the so-called “United” States becomes more and more polarized and ideologically divided. With economic and societal pressures unseen for generations- and with a modern technological context that has the potential to have the gravest of implications in one form or another.
Many have even speculated that America is headed for a second Civil War…
Whatever way one chooses to look at our current situation, it is probably safe to say at this point that most people would agree that America and the people within it are headed for serious trouble if a significant “course correct” isn’t done soon.
In another recent (and somewhat more intelligently written) article, this time out of the Jewish cultural magazine, Tablet, author and Arizona State lecturer, B. Duncan Moench proposed what may seem to some a rather extreme, and even unthinkable solution, in an article entitled, “The Great American Breakup”:
“We need to end the “United States” and start an American Union—a coalition of independent nation-states with close trade ties, freedom of movement and employment across borders, and provisions for common defense, but independence outside that.”
While I don’t agree with every point this author makes throughout the course of this article, I definitely agree with his conclusion, as it is something I have been saying in writing and in private conversation for a while now.
America needs to break up- or at the very least give itself a major overhaul.
Like Moench, I feel that these not-so-United States should decentralize, with each state being it’s own independent nation-state, and maintaining close trade ties and having a sort of mutual defense pact. And even though this concept may sound radical to many, the idea is not without historical precedence in this country. In fact, it’s what the “United States” originally was.
Before America had the Constitution, we had the Articles of Confederation– a document that provided the framework and guidelines for how this new “league of friendship” would function. It was lengthier and more detailed than the later Constitution, and it actually contained the word “freedom” in the body of the document- in the Constitution it was only added to appease the Jeffersonian and Anti-federalist crowd.
The United States was originally a confederation of independent states joined together in mutual trade and defense. However a state could freely choose to leave the confederation at any time. This was an idea that, while given some lip service in the Tenth Amendment, was largely abandoned with the new Constitutional government- the most notable proof being the Civil War. The Civil War itself being in a sense, the climax of a conflict between the urban merchant/industrialist class and the rural agrarian class.
As history has illustrated since ancient times, there is constant tension between rural and urban areas, as they often have very different interests and lifestyles- and a culture and ideology that reflects those things. Moreover, the cities have historically tended to act as parasites on the productivity of the countryside. The cosmopolitan urbanites see the rural folk as ignorant and backwards, and the homogenous rural folk see the urbanites as disconnected tyrants.
This had led to conflict and resentment since this country’s founding.
The first battles of this conflict were during the Constitutional Convention, as well as during incidents like the Shays’ Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, where the Antifederalist-led rural farming class attempted to stand up to oppressive impositions placed upon them from the state and the urban oligarchs, only to be brutally put down.
The Anti-federalists were largely agrarian country folk who were very independent and self-reliant. They were particularly suspicious of the Constitution, thinking it was too vague and that the potential for abuse of state power too great. They warned of a tyranny of the courts where corruptible judges would arbitrarily interpret the law and the risk of the state coming under the control of wealthy urbanite oligarchs.
If it wasn’t for the Anti-federalists, there would be no Bill of Rights in the Constitution.
Unfortunately, pretty much all of the predictions of the Anti-federalists have come true, and now America is a crumbling empire with a population more intrinsically divided than at any point in history. The Masonic-inspired American experiment as we have known it, has by and large failed. This is why we need to re-think our approach and come up with a solution that will have the best chance at delivering freedom, peace and prosperity for every American.
So, as was stated before, it is both mine and Mr. Moench’s opinion that the United States would do best if it broke up into independent nation states. But how should these states be organized? Would the sort of cultural and ideological division and conflict we see here in my state (which is in one way or other reflected in states across the country) really be solved by Oregon as it is now, simply becoming it’s own sovereign nation-state? Definitely not. One thing the Coronavirus “pandemic” has helped make starkly clear is the ideological divide between the urban and rural populations of the state.
Likewise, the George Floyd/Black Lives Matter protests/riots across the country, and the racially motivated violence and hysteria that has ensued, has once again made clear (as if it hasn’t already been made clear enough) the stark racial and cultural divide here in America.
Be it the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow (a social wound kept open by the media and academia), the Amerindian wars and genocides, or the economic migrants and refugees created by American imperialism; the United States now has within it, a large array of vastly different racial and ethnic groups from around the world- many of which have a great deal of resentment towards the United States as we know it, and in particular its white European-descended population.
This resentment has ultimately led with what some people are calling a “cultural revolution”, drawing off the spirit of Chairman Mao’s great Communist “Cultural Revolution” in China that killed millions and caused the suffering of even more, as they sought to erase the “Four Olds” from Chinese life- that is, to erase from the Chinese people everything that was traditional, distinct and unique about Chinese culture.
One of these people is ESPN’s sports, race and culture website (yeah that’s a thing now) Soraya Nadia McDonald:
“America is in the midst of a massive project of recontextualizing itself — you might even call it a cultural revolution.
Part of this revolution includes tearing down, removing or altering monuments to white supremacist violence, from statues of Confederate president Jefferson Davis, Confederate general Robert E. Lee and President Andrew Jackson to “The Star-Spangled Banner” scribe Francis Scott Key.”
Another “fellow traveler” of this stream of ideology is a Lakota Sioux Marxist writer/activist who goes by the name Andrea_Lakota. Now, Andrea_Lakota is yet another one of these Neo-Marxist activists who consistently call on white people to be “race traitors” and to give up the “land, power and privilege” they have to red, black and brown people because of what their direct or indirect ancestors may or may not have done, while perpetuating the myth that non-whites have never taken land, enslaved, or oppressed.
However, in an interview she did on Revolutionary Left Radio, she said something that made my jaw drop:
“The vast majority of Indigenous people do not want… some sort of society where for some reason the U.S. still holds all of the stolen territory that it’s taken. Instead we want to see the establishment of African and Indigenous states within what is now the U.S.“
On a hard-left internationalist Marxist podcast, a “comrade” advocated for the division of the U.S. into ethno-states… Of course, I was not the only one to recognize this, and there were multiple people up in arms on the podcast host’s Twitter page, proclaiming: “This is exactly what the far right wants!”
And the response of the podcast host attempting to do damage control was equally hilarious, first stating that he ‘couldn’t speak for them’ (his guest), but then proceeded to speak for his guest, stating that the states would not be ethnically based, and that they would be non-homogeneous and ultimately “egalitarian“. Of course anyone who listened to the interview that has basic comprehension of the English language, knows what an ethno-state is and knows what egalitarianism is and isn’t; would realize that this statement is utter nonsense and that this host is performing a rather hilarious feat of mental gymnastics.
But in spite all of this, I agree with this woman.
The United States as it exists right now, needs to be dissolved.
As far as how it should be reassembled, I think Andrea_Lakota is onto something. I think ethno-states need to be incorporated into this new re-imagining of America. Both Malcolm X and Harry Haywood were Black nationalists that advocated for sovereign black communities and even a Black ethno-state within the borders of the U.S., which blacks would govern themselves as they saw fit.
Likewise, everyone is familiar with figures like Richard Spencer, and the American white nationalist movement, who have also been advocating for their own homogeneous ethno-state within the United States as well.
So why not give it to them? Why not give it to all of them?
America has been a racial powder-keg from its inception, and this issue has only gone into hyper-drive with the mass migration of not just Europeans and Africans, but races, ethnicities and cultures from every inhabited continent- some of which are very different from one another. And despite the mythology given to us by those who promote multiculturalism for political and financial gain, both history and science have proven that multicultural societies don’t work- at least not for the benefit of most.
In Dr. E. Michael Jones’ book, “The Slaughter of Cities”, the academic and author speaks of how during the 1950s and 60s, blacks from the south were intentionally moved into the various ethnic Catholic (Irish, Polish, Italian, etc.) neighborhoods to break up the political power Catholics had at that time- a traditionally-minded political power that was a hindrance towards the aspirations of the WASP and Jewish elite at the time. When the blacks were moved in, racial, ethnic and cultural tensions ensued as two very different cultural groups were forced to live together. This ultimately resulted in the phenomenon of “white flight”, as Catholic families moved to the suburbs, causing them to in a sense, melt into the rest of “White America”.
Now, while in today’s society, these Catholics would be considered “racist” and immoral for moving instead of rather than trying to live in Utopian communal harmony with people that were, again, very different- especially at that time. And while “diversity is our strength” is a popular feel-good political and corporate mantra, the reality is diversity does not strengthen a society, it weakens it- and there is actually science to back it up.
A 2007 article out of The Boston Globe reports on a study done by liberal Harvard political science professor Robert Putnam, in which he found that, “the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings.”
This study, was the largest ever of that kind done in America, (and done by a self-professed liberal) and it found that “virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.”
In the study, Putnam states that those living in more diverse communities will “distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television…
People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’ — that is, to pull in like a turtle”
In diverse communities, the general feature was more than anything, a “general civic malaise” between not only members of different groups, but even those within the same group, as the society became more atomized and people became disconnected from each other- a malady that is only being put into hyper-drive with this COVID “pandemic” and the “prescription” of no human interaction without either a mask or a digital screen between us.
This “civic malaise”, and could also be very well playing a role in the general submissiveness and passivity that many urban and suburban populations are showing in their compliance for the ever-more irrational COVID restrictions. People who feel isolated feel helpless, and are therefore more apathetic and compliant to follow any decree, so long as they can have their devices and pleasure distractions that give them the illusion of some kind of “freedom”.
Conversely, in such an atomized society, people will feel no real connection to their neighbors or the people in the town or city they live, hence they will not be “team players”..
Now add on top of this more passive form of cultural disunity and atomization, the more violent conflicts between different ethnic groups, not only in the hyper-politicized form that is center-stage in the media and politics right now, but also in terms of things like ethnic gang turf wars and everyday interracial violent crimes perpetrated against individual citizens like robberies, rapes, and murder- crimes that are often glossed over when the victim is not of a “politically convenient” race or ethnicity; i.e. they’re White.
Meanwhile, the White American, particularly the rural and/or Right-leaning White American, is the “villain” of every modern American mainstream narrative- be it a political, an academic or an entertainment narrative, bottom line, America is being conditioned to hate these people. And I think one thing that most people can agree on, is that America needs less hate right now.
So why don’t we stop trying to hammer the square peg in the round hole? It’s never going to work.
Multicultural societies are the modern equivalent to the empire, and are held together by manipulation and coercion. The state becomes more and more oppressive as it makes more and more laws to in attempts to control an increasingly-more volatile population dynamic, as ever-more groups are competing for their “piece of the pie”. Things like hate speech laws wouldn’t exist if diversity was a “strength” and multiculturalism actually worked.
It is also in these types of societies and empires where the state will exploit the differences and national identity struggles of various groups, and use them to pit the groups against each other, using the “divide-and-rule” strategy of population control that has been around since at least the Persian Empire, and is being employed by our own governments and institutions today.
And bottom line, when you have different groups attempting to live together that don’t even agree on things like a national history, the age of consent or socially tolerable religious customs you’re going to have problems..
It’s time we stopped living in this fantasy that America can somehow overcome the internal cultural, ideological, religious, ethnic and racial divisions that have haunted this country since its inception, and have only gotten worse as the population has become more culturally and ideologically diverse. As Moench states, we “need to give up on turning America into something it just isn’t” and instead “accept what (our) country is and do the (very hard) work of figuring out where we go from here.”
Personally, I would propose the following:
Each racial, ethnic, religious, and/or cultural/political group that sees itself to be distinct in identity and culture, and wants to govern itself according to its own values, should be given its own state.
They would need to apply and prove that they have the numbers to warrant statehood. Each group would naturally canvass for supporters, and likewise, individuals could apply to the group for “membership” into their state. More than likely, there would be specific non-profit groups within each identity community to handle the application and membership process. The infrastructure for this is probably already largely in place, with the different advocacy groups representing minority communities across the country- as well as the various White interest groups that have largely been demonized in our current cosmopolitan-oriented America.
Once the application was reviewed and approved, each identity group applying for statehood would ideally be given a stimulus check from the Treasury (one of the few Federal institutions that wouldn’t be dismantled) to build the infrastructure of governance and societal function. Each prospective state should be given a stimulus amount that coincides with its initial population size.
It would of course need be determined in which region of the country each prospective state would be located. I would suspect in many instances, however, populations would not need to move, but instead a cleaving between existing the rural and urban areas of a current state could be done, with the rural areas becoming their own state and the urban areas creating another. And with modern agricultural technologies and innovations, both industrially and in terms of the urban personal and community garden revolution, the need for the city to parasite off the rural areas should be unnecessary, so they could both be autonomous, save of course for free and fair trade.
Here in Oregon, we would likely see Portland and the surrounding suburbs be one state, with the southern and eastern parts of the state comprising of one or more separate states.
Suffice to say it is likely that this American reorganization project would most likely create more states, not less.
But unlike Moench, I don’t agree that “freedom of movement and employment across borders”, particularly the latter, is necessary or even necessarily “good”. If the individual states want to keep their jobs for their own and have minimal interaction with outsiders, then that should be their right to decide. As we have already established, diversity brings down societies, and it would behoove these new states to keep from repeating the mistakes of the past by bringing in “foreign” labor. Or if they do choose to do so, they would do best to do it in a very limited capacity. Suffice to say, under this system, each state would set its own immigration policies, that it and it alone was beholden to.
The way I envision it, we would make sense to have a sovereign Black state in the south (Georgia comes to mind for some reason). As Blacks are only about 13% of the American population, they wouldn’t need much more than that, and the southern climate is definitely better suited for them physically. As abominable as that institution was, this was definitely why they made for better slaves in the southern plantations than the Whites (who actually made up the majority of the slave population until the mid-1700s) on the Southern and Caribbean plantations. And although many point to places like Haiti and various countries in Africa or America’s inner cities as examples of what Black “self-governance” looks like, we can also conversely look at the wonderful prosperity Black Americans had in the Greenwood Freedom Colony in Tulsa before the tragic massacre, as a shining example of what a Black sovereign state could be. Personally, I choose the later.
Mestizos and other Latin Americans would likely have territory in the southwest, and White Americans who want a “White-only” ethno-state, would most likely have land in the northern part of the country. The larger racial and ethnic groups would likely occupy multiple states, but the object would be that each ethnic/racial group that wanted their own state that would best reflect their unique culture and way of life that was best-suited for them, would get it.
The myriad of self-identifying Eurasian peoples that live within America would have their own lands as well. And naturally, the various Amerindian nations would have their sovereign reserved lands along with an economic stimulus, and perhaps the option of more land added to their territories.
But I would also envision that there could be inevitably be multicultural states as well, for people who prefer to live in that kind of society. Many, although certainly not all, would probably inevitably be left-leaning, some perhaps even full-out Marxist. In the states-as-sovereign-nations model of the United States, Marxism could in theory be tolerated- so long as it did not become hostile or subversive towards any of the other states. This same expectation would be held to any other state. Any hostile actors attempting to impinge on the sovereignty of any other states will not be tolerated.
Each state would have its own sovereign internal economic structure. This would allow some states to practice free-market capitalism, while others could practice one of the various forms of socialism; or a hybrid model; or something else altogether.
The various different religious groups within America would most likely have their own states. Religion has as a basis of statehood, is etched into America’s founding with the Puritans founding Massachusetts, Catholics founding Maryland, the Mormons founding Utah, and Roger Williams founding Rhode Island as a haven for religious freedom.
Traditional Catholics in particular have long felt out of place within the moral, cultural and even governmental framework of America, as its Protestant and Judaeo-Masonic roots are so strong. This feeling was later felt by the Russian Orthodox, and even later, Muslim populations. These religions would have their own states as well, as likely would the myriad of Protestant sects.
There could be Buddhist states, Taoist states, Hindu states, New Age states, Pagan/Heathen states.. There could even be an American Israel- but again, like racially, ethnically and politically-based states, these religious states would be allowed to trade freely and enjoy the mutual defense of its neighbors, so long as they did not become hostile or subversive to any of the other states.
There would also be states for cultural identity groups such as the LGBTQ community. There could even be states devoted to people who want to “sober” lifestyles (i.e. a 12-step state). Conversely, there could also be states that are completely devoted to hedonism or some sort of permanent “Burning Man” society. Obviously, some states may fail..
Free association should be the order of the day when it comes to deciding who wants to live where, as well as whom the states decide to accept into their citizenship.
Ideally, there would be very little actually necessity of forcibly moving people and populations, as many may just want to incorporate as states where they are among the people they live with. And to be honest, I don’t think it would be a “hard sell” among most ordinary people. Ultimately, most people want to live with people that are “like them” in one or more ways. If not racially, then ethnically, culturally, or religiously.
“Birds of a feather flock together” is a demonstrably true statement.
For better or worse, the ultra-cosmopolitan dream of Leftist ideologues and the Davos ultra-wealthy alike, has proven itself to be a failure and a cause of major suffering– both for Americans and for people around the world.
The belief that humans can be conditioned to be unlike what Nature intended us to be is erroneous, and is being proven before our eyes. No amount of Pavlovian “human dog training” will ever completely get rid of the tribalism that is inherent in human beings.
Dominant group privilege (i.e. “White privilege) will not disappear, nor will the problem of minorities clashing with police they feel are an occupying force in their communities. In 2020, the quest for “equality” has become little more than a power struggle, and it is high time we come to terms with the fact that no matter how much legislation is passed or how much capitulation is done, minorities in this country will always feel like second-class citizens in a system of “White supremacy“, so long as they are a minority.
And there is no country or civilization in history that has ever had multiple identity groups sharing “equal power” within the same governing structure, so let’s stop thinking we can re-invent the wheel here- as nice as that idea may sound.
In 1869, escaped Black American slave, abolitionist, author and statesman, Frederick Douglass envisioned this for America:
“A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming no higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, than nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family, is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.”
These are obviously very idealistic notions; notions taken out of an application of the Enlightenment philosophy of democratic republicanism; a philosophy which presupposes man to be a rational seeker of truth in order for this system of ideal governance to work. But as psychology and the economy show, Americans (and modern humans in general) are anything but rational.
“… sometimes she wondered whether America really was the great death-continent, the great No! to the European and Asiatic, and even African Yes! Was it really the great melting-pot, where men from the creative continents were smelted back again, not to a new creation, but down into the homogeneity of death? Was it the great continent of the undoing, and all its peoples the agents of the mystic destruction! Plucking, plucking at the created soul in a man, till at last it plucked out the growing germ, and left him a creature of mechanism and automatic reaction, with only one inspiration, the desire to pluck the quick out of every living spontaneous creature...
And all the people who went there, Europeans, Negroes, Japanese, Chinese, all the colours and the races were they the spent people, in whom the God impulse had collapsed, so they crossed to the great continent of the negation, where the human will declares itself “free”, to pull down the soul of the world? Was it so? And did this account for the great drift to the New World, the drift of spent souls passing over to the side of Godless democracy, energetic negation? The negation which is the life breath of materialism. And would be the great negative pull of the Americans at last break the heart of the world?”
America has become a monster that is destroying the world, while transforming its people into materialistic, consumption-driven creatures that believe they are “free”. Meanwhile, America seeks to spread this brand of “freedom” at the barrel of a gun, for the benefit of the oligarchs that control the monster.
Moreover, it is proving in its attempted exportation of liberal capitalism and Western European-style parliamentary democracy to the entire world, that not all peoples are meant to live and govern themselves the way Western Europeans do; as was rightfully pointed out by co-discoverer of DNA, James Watson before he was dishonorably stripped of his titles, awards and accolades by a politicized scientific community.
But in reality, it is extreme chauvinistic arrogance to think that our system of governance and our way of living and organizing society is the way the entire world should want to live- or even other states.
If people want kings and autocrats, let them have kings and autocrats. If people only want to live among people that look, speak and worship as they do, let them do so.
Again, tribalism is a natural state of man, just as running in a pack is a natural state of wolves. Man only begins to transcend these things doing deep spiritual work, and capitalist modernity does not support that- particularly when that sort of work entails restraint of the sorts of passions and desires that this predatory system thrives upon.
The only thing that can bring humanity to the rainbow utopia envisioned by many a well-meaning liberal or leftist is a great shift in consciousness– and that cannot be artificially manufactured through psychological manipulation and trickery- it comes through conscious discipline, trials, and the striving for Self-Becoming.
And we need to be realistic and admit we are a long way from that. And attempting to force it is only making things worse for everyone…
Going back to what I would envision for this “American Reorganization Project”, as someone who believes in preserving history, rather than erasing it, I would keep Washington D.C. as a historical site and a place of limited political activity between state representatives, and perhaps mutual defense training and coordination. But the Articles of Confederation (or an updated version of it), rather than the Constitution would be “law of the land”.
And this would certainly not be like the E.U., which has a largely-unaccountable governing body in Brussels setting policy for the rest of the member countries.
Suffice to say, the VAST majority of what we know as the Federal government (as well as the Federal Reserve) would be dismantled and liquidated, with the assets being distributed proportionately amongst the states. There would be no centralized economic or state power within this new Confederation of America. Each state would have its own bureaus and agencies, and would only meet in temporary committees, which would be dissolved after the meeting or summit. The entrenched D.C. politician or bureaucrat that is there for decades would be a thing of the past.
Of course, that last part would probably be the most difficult part (which is saying something), as the criminal cabal that has taken root in D.C. would need to be purged- and that probably wouldn’t happen without a fight.
But it is a fight that needs to happen for the sake of America and everyone in it.
America as we know it cannot be a nation; it covers and entire continent for god’s sake.. However, it can learn how to cooperate if we stop trying to force people of radically different cultures and ideologies to agree on a common good and a common way of operating and governing a society, and instead give ourselves “safe spaces” to live as we see fit, and seek trade, diplomacy, and cooperation with our neighbors who are doing the same.
America as we know it is essentially a corpse- and to be honest, it has been for a long time.
We can either remain in denial about this, and hold onto this almost religious worship of the Constitution and the system of governance it created, hoping we can somehow protect this corpse from mobs of leftists who want to completely tear it to shreds.
Or we can recognize that things like the Constitution and the form of governance it created was but another chapter in the history of this land. We can recognize that a true “Constitution” is based off the morals and values of a particular group of people unified by culture and language.
Now of course, there very well may be many states that choose to maintain their government modeled after the Constitution. However, the nation of America is not a set of laws or a form of government, but rather the people within it. And America is thus, a land of many nations- and its time we respect that and stop trying to make everyone the same.
We can recognize that not all groups of people are going to cohabitate together well- and that’s okay. We don’t all have to live in the same “house” in order to cooperate and be friendly towards one another.
Again, America is huge. I think there’s plenty of room for everyone to live in the way that best suits them.
Perhaps my vision for America is a bit idealistic; maybe even slightly “Utopian”. But is it any more Utopian, idealistic, or down-right impractical than the current irrational tyrannical multicultural mess we currently live under?
I don’t think so..
Besides, what are our alternatives?
Civil war? A technocratic lockdown totalitarian state? A “Mad Max” dystopia where different ethnic and racial gangs fight for supremacy and lord over a petrified populace? Because like it or not, those are all very possible scenarios at this point.
Whatever way you slice it, America as we know it is probably not going to be around for much longer. And while the Establishment is trying to sell us on this “New Normal” and “Great Reset”, it is undoubtedly a “failing forward”, that will really only benefit a small handful of ultra-rich elites, while the rest of us are slowly broken down into barely-human creatures.
I say we go with organic community. I say we go with tribe. I say we go with Nature.
Because the alternative is a technocratic hell on Earth and the COMPLETE destruction of America and the people within it.
And I don’t think most of us want any of that…
WR-ALDA’S Blessings unto you and yours.