A while back I wrote an essay on the Wiglaf Question: what is to become of Americans, now that America as a nation no longer exists and the empire known as the United States of America that has replaced it is neither united, nor sovereign states, nor American?
Atlantic Centurion writes that dissolution of the United States Empire and the creation of a smaller ethno-state is the best strategy for establishing a new American nation. The proposed nation as he calls for it would cover most of northern U.S., be 88 percent American, and have Minneapolis as its capital.
Enter the Amerikaner Free State, a homeland for the English-speaking European people of North America, of whom there are enough to populate three Britains (or thirty Irelands). Let California go do their thing; we don’t need bastions of multiracial managerial liberalism inside our homeland. Partition or balkanization ideally entails division of the United States into nation states and multicultural/multi-ethnic states depending on what groups are concentrated where. Diverse parts of the the United States would simply become diverse countries—little Weimerica Shopping Centers—as opposed to following the current trajectory of making the entire country resemble New York City.
This is the most peaceful method of carving up the Empire, and would require the least amount of force and deportation. It would also prevent a future civil war, the casualties of which would be completely atrocious and rival any of the great man-made disasters of the 20th century or of Chinese history.
However distasteful it may seem to the average person, I think this plan on a whole is one of the more practical solutions offered I’ve come across, albeit I’m not entirely convinced. Maybe not have Minneapolis as the capital and find a more suitable national anthem. But the concept itself is feasible and worth discussing further. I have a strong feeling that as the situation grows more and more dire such radical propositions will be given more consideration than anyone would have ever thought.
Frankly, I have lost all interest in talk about a stateless society. It will be difficult enough to push for limited government in the form of nullification and anti-commandeering; the Right is eager to use the expanded power granted to the feds in the last eight years, while the Left will head off to the cattle cars before they discuss dismantling any federal agency, including the one that hauls them off.
We need to get to a position where there is a national consensus on things such as property rights, gun ownership, and free speech. Our nation is too divided and too different from the respective regions to ever come to an agreement. The tension will increase until the gloves come off. I’d prefer to avoid that.
First things first; peacefully dismantle the empire, break it up into smaller states where there is collective, general agreement about the role of government in each region, and then go from there. That is what happened to the Roman Empire when it was carved in two. History won’t repeat itself, but the future will bear semblance to the past when it comes to our multicultural empire.
Moving forward the U.S. has three trajectories; civil war/strife, peaceful dissolution, or mass deportations and possible ethnic cleansing. Maybe it’s my preposterous anti-war views affecting my judgment, but I’d prefer the least violent and brutal path.
Pro-liberty critics of this idea can balk at the notion of an ethno-state all they want and explain how important diversity is no matter how big or small the state is, but that doesn’t change the fact that these are the most likely outcomes if our present national course remains as it is. To dismiss this because you don’t like it is to ignore the facts for the sake of ideology, which is what communists and socialists do.
I don’t write these things because I like it. Contrary to most political analysts, I’m not describing what I want to see in an effort to project my will onto reality. I only describe that which I see to the best of my ability and offer recommendations grounded in pragmatism, not some utopian wishful thinking of how things should be.
If forced to choose between these separate avenues, and we will be forced at some point, which one do we want?