Boxer has written a very good piece on nationalism and how it may play out in the United States. A lot of libertarians want to shy away from this topic, but it is clear that this could very well be the future, and it has generated enough interest to warrant conversation rather than dismissal.
I rather like his point about white nationalists and the inconsistent definitions thrown around; there is nothing wrong with desiring to live in a homogeneous nation, but I am wary of those who wear the white nationalist label on their arm sleeve. There is a difference between taking pride in your heritage, nation, and forefathers and letting an accident of birth entirely define who you are as an individual.
The problem with nationalism in contemporary North America is the immense size of countries like the USA and Canada, coupled with the amazing mobility of its people. It used to be the case that we had regional identities, but those have largely been erased, not only through immigration, but through internal migrations. Even North American natives — white or black folks whose history in North America stretches back centuries — tend to move great distances for work, marriage, school and retirement. This leaves people uncoupled from community, and tends to deracinate even those people who sacrifice to stay on the land from which they were born. If your neighbors are constantly moving away and being replaced, then you’re still a foreigner, even if you occupy the family farm.
The centralization of capital also leads to a cultural homogenization. I remember, even ten years ago, when I’d find curious local shops and restaurants. These have largely been replaced by massive international chains. These megamarts will occasionally commercialize a reified simulacrum of some local culture, that once existed authentically, in their local branches, but the depiction is transparent and only done to maximize profits.
Thus I don’t have a lot of confidence that Bannon nationalism will be successful in saving America. If I had to guess, I’d predict that Texas and Québec would probably survive 200 years from now, but the political and social climate in the rest of North America is sorta up for grabs.
As Fred Reed wrote this week, the genie is out of the bottle regarding immigration changes; short of a gruesome conflict and/or ethnic displacement, the United States will never return to its pre-1965 demographics. It is obviously not an option for a realist or libertarian, let alone anyone with a basic sense of humanity or decency.
The only feasible and morally defensible path forward is the peaceful creation of a new nation within the North American continent when or as the USA finally dissolves.
I am growing more convinced that an economic collapse of some kind is necessary to instigate this transition. As long as the US government can print money and engage in quantitative easing, it can delay the inevitable just a little bit longer and keep the Empire afloat. People will not consider the destruction of the USA and the dissolution of the Union unless there is no other option on the table. They will have to get desperate.
I imagine that this kind of nation will take consideration some of the issues Boxer mentions when they go to craft a new trade, border, and immigration policy.
What can’t go on forever, won’t, and that day could be sooner than we think. As Vox Day noted earlier this week, there is no us, anymore.
The USA will be physically divided. At this point, the only serious questions are a) where the lines will be drawn, b) the level of violence involved, and c) precisely whom is going to be permitted to remain where.