Interesting commentary on US dissolution
All things have a beginning, a middle and an end, except perhaps existence itself.
At the middle point, they’re at the height of their powers, but also are halfway through the cycle, which means they can be outlasted.
That’s when the pundits start talking about breakup. They did it with Rome; they’re doing it with the USA.
“I think it’s ongoing right now,” Corsi says. “We’re already becoming a dual country.”
The author, pundit and political scientist says that Obama is using open borders, economic integration, and the crises surrounding the financial meltdown to “advance the agenda of worldwide integration, economically on the way to political integration.”
The goal is simple: “redistribution of income.”
“I think the idea for Democrats on the left is that open borders imports an underclass which will vote Democratic for generations to come,” Corsi says of the administration’s plan to nationalize illegal aliens. But Republicans, too, are responsible for the trend: their pro-business wing favors “cheap workers that can be used in the jobs that can’t be outsourced overseas,” Corsi says.
Corsi sometimes comes across as an extreme paleoconservative version of Alex Jones, but if we’re open-minded, we can see there is some historical truth to what he’s saying. This is a nation divided. It was once conservative; now it’s mostly liberal. Those who are conservative don’t want to live by the agenda of the liberal, and liberals find living under conservative rule unbearable.
Yet liberals have popularity and demographics on their side:
The electoral victory of Barack Obama symbolizes the culmination of the long march from the streets of Chicago to full institutionalization of the radical Left of a previous era. That Obama, the individual, is more of a centrist than a leftist and was only a child in 1968 is less significant than what he represents. The 68ers have now seized the establishment and those who insisted the establishment could never be trusted have become the establishment.
On virtually every issue, the radical Left of the 1960s has either won or is in the process of winning.
Though the Left has achieved complete or nearly complete victory on just about every issue, the Left will never admit as much. Sixties radicalism has become what any other movement becomes once it is institutionalized. The purpose of the Left today is to simply perpetuate its own existence and its own vested interests. For this reason, invisible armies of racists, sexists, homophobes and theocrats must constantly be said to be hiding behind every rock or tree. Heretics who dissent from left-wing orthodoxy on any number of matters must be constantly sought out for denunciation, repression or persecution.
While some will claim this is a transition into tyranny as predicted by Plato in The Republic, others point out that it’s part of an evolving process of self-definition for the most powerful nation without a native culture:
But as Juan Enriquez notes in his amazing PopTech talk, based on his book “The Untied States of America: Polarization, Fracturing, and Our Future”, no US president has ever died under the same flag that he was born under. That is, the borders of the United States has constantly shifted even in modern times. The last state was added in 1959 (after I was born!) and more could be added still. Americans are comfortable ADDING states, but it might not take much to subtract one. The outcome of the US Civil War has biased Americans to disbelieving in subtraction, but that might change.
In past decades bold American thinkers have imagined how the US might break up, but these were more thought experiments indicating the cultural differences within this large country.
Many others understand Plato’s logic.
A civilization needs to have some core that binds it together. In America, we have always thought that was a belief in freedom, but now as we seem to have different definitions of freedom, that gets difficult. What if we’re using the same word to mean radically different things?
We worry that we cannot reconcile these claims. After all, America was born as a nation-state when the nation-state was still new; previously, nations, or ethnic groups incorporated into political entities, prevailed. The nation-state grouped people together by a political belief, like belief in the ideals of the French Revolution, and made nationality secondary.
Since then, liberal politicians have used demographics as a means of controlling their presence in nation-states, which conservatives have danced around the fact that their ideology only functions well in a nation. Some simply point to the values divide: if you have a Christian-values right, and a relativist/Marxist-values left, how on earth will the two ever get along?
If either one gets control, it’s oppression to the other.
Patrick Buchanan, in his book, Day of Reckoning, writes, “To hold together a multiethnic or multilingual state, either an authoritarian regime or a dominant ethnocultural core is essential.â€
In the past, immigrants and natural-born citizens alike worked together to get through difficult times, and though there were still distinct differences in ethnicity, culture and race, they were bound together by their common Christian-Judeo roots. But many of the immigrants that come to America today do not come here with the intent to assimilate themselves as Americans, nor do they come here with the same kind of faith that core Americans hold.
This drive toward socialism, if not a thinly veiled dictatorship, has been determined to be the answer to this not-so-silent breakup of our country.
Setting aside the “thinly veiled dictatorship” for another blog post, let’s think about the silent breakup. If two groups exist in the same community, but do not interact, and basically hate each others’ ideologies, how are they going to collaborate? If a war comes, the party that started it will be left to fight it; the others may even work against them. If a long-term plan is needed, it will be voted out of existence the instant the other party gets into office. And so on.
The American experiment is only 220 years old. It will be interesting to see how it mutates to fit this new stage, or whether it dissolves into two or more nations of contradictory beliefs.