Rockwell On The Peaceful Dissolution Of The Former USA

bonnieblue

Read the whole thing.

Do you really think a Yugoslavia-type war is superior to admitting that we can’t live together any more?

19 responses to “Rockwell On The Peaceful Dissolution Of The Former USA

  1. Not mentioned is the very real likelihood that the left simply do not comprehend what they’re ‘asking’ for and treat their slogans as nothing more than ‘hope and change’. IF they believe the bullshit they’re spouting and have it internalized to their core values, civil war is utterly inevitable.

    However, if they’re just mind numbed leftist robots spouting bullshit rhetoric, they should be reduced to nothing more than road killed skunk meat and manifestly ignored.

    Which is it?

    • Those behind the Left want civil war because (((they))) thrive on chaos. (((They))) benefited greatly from our 1st Civil War, the Russian Empire collapsing, the USSR collapsing, and again when the Ukraine collapsed. Whoever wins politically, they win economically, which can then be used to dominate politically. To paraphrase Rothschild, “I don’t care who runs the country, as long as I control the currency.)

  2. How do you divide up the pie? Votes, land ownership, capital ownership? Who gets to be the arbiter and guardian of the moral high ground? This nation can’t even agree on what constitutes a marriage anymore (and this was an issue before the gays showed up).

    I’ve been asking for a Czecho Slovak divorce here for quite some time. It doesn’t have to be Yugo war, but there are already too many differences from neighborhood to neighborhood and town to city in the same state.

    Given so many people are pre-programmed that an orgasmic catharsis is supposedly necessary for their sense of self-actualization and liberty to feel complete, the only way I see this happening is through violence and war –and all the false gods that come with it.

    • “This nation can’t even agree on what constitutes a marriage anymore (and this was an issue before the gays showed up).”

      And with that you have hit upon the core of the problem.

      The State has assumed authority in the realm not created by it, but by GOD.

      Removing the State from that realm – deciding who can be married to whom –
      ELIMINATES the problem, a problem CREATED by State interference which of course the State proposes to “fix” by further encroachment.

      Clearly, a long history of abuses and usurpations need to be corrected.

      See Spooner, et al for further comment.

  3. No, but I think people are thinking of the wrong conflict(s). Not “civil war” 2 or Yugoslavia, but 2nd American Revolution.
    Sons of Liberty

    And yes cuz ‘Merica.

    God bless America!!!

  4. There ain’t no way that the control freak left just walks away. Stranger things have happened but it’s not conceivable. The left (republicans included) lives for force.

  5. Their words, their actions, their deeds, make their choice obvious. Their’s is truly hatred, blind hatred, which is what makes them so dangerous.

    One is foolish to underestimate any enemy,

    Dirk

  6. Balkanization – The 4th Turning – Syncretism was always the goal for more control.

  7. ““No people and no part of a people,” said Ludwig von Mises nearly one hundred years ago, “shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want.” So much wisdom in that simple sentiment. And so much conflict and anguish could be avoided if only we’d heed it.”

    I always thought this was why we were a nation of 50 individual states. Americans were free to move between those which suited them best and could choose to associate with any other or not. Was that not the original plan, though with the starting number 13?

    Need there even be a session movement (which, at this point, I do tend to favor for California, my own Texas and any other state that seeks self governance, as fed.gov is so completely criminally offensive) if that original intent was applied and followed?

    Where is the man running on a return to such a limited federal platform? (This past election it was Darrell Castle, but none paid any attention.) Instead, every 4 years we are thrust into the same “lesser” of two evils argument with both sides standing FOR bigger, more powerful central government. Both Trump and Clinton are/were going to use federal power and authority to “solve” problems which can only be solved by leaving people the hell alone to govern themselves as they see fit.

    If Coloradans want to smoke pot, what business is it of mine? If Californians want a sanctuary state, let them have it and let them deal with the consequences. If I want to live in a state where Bible believers are the desired majority, who is to tell me I cannot? If blacks or whites want to congregate together, what’s the issue? People want to be with other people who are like themselves and there is everything right with that. If I want to get high for a weekend I can take a trip to Colorado. If I want African food I can visit the blacks. If they want the best BBQ on earth and learn some scripture they can come visit me in Texas. Then we’ll all shake hands say thank you and go back to where we want to live all the time.

    I have no idea what it will take for liberty minded people of all political persuasions to realize that not only is such individual state government possible, but that such was the plan from the get go.

    This could be easy but Rockwell spotlights the stumbling block right off the bat.

    “Some of our assumptions are so deeply embedded that we cannot perceive them ourselves.”

    If everyone voted for the guy that “couldn’t possibly” win (because the Trumpets can’t allow a Clinton win and vise versa Hegelian mentality we are brainwashed by)… he’d win. People would be free to flourish or not in the places they desired, learning from their successes and mistakes.

  8. Breakup itself is Bigfoot-walking-into-Burbank-and-getting-a-late-night-talk-show unlikely, and peaceful breakup is intercontinental-unicorn-travel unlikely.

    Any attempted breakup goes Beirut/Sarajevo in about a hot minute.
    Then it gets even uglier. (And we’re seeing that live on TV day after day, abroad and here at home. Thoughtful people call that an “indicator”.)

    Oh, and there’s the basic problem everyone wants to gloss over:
    http://raconteurreport.blogspot.com/2017/02/sunday-punditry.html

    And remember, the enemy gets a vote (Germany, Korea, and Vietnam come immediately to mind), unless and until you solve that problem, in which case a breakup is wholly unnecessary.

    But it’s nice to dream and fantasize about peaceful coexistence, which has existed nowhere in human history from the Big Bang/Garden of Eden to the present, but don’t let that stop anyone from ardently wishing something else were so.

    One can start hacking down the thorn hedges, or simply napalm the entire lot.
    Either path will be long, arduous, and bloody, but only one leaves you with a livable house afterwards.

  9. Boss, of course I don’t think a Yugo type war is preferable to an amicable break up. I’d be nuts if I did. But the historical fact remains, that if you got two or more sides gearing up for war, a ton of domestic, fiscal, spiritual, and moral problems between them, and everything to gain or lose, you’re going to get war. We should just get as trained and prepped as we can, along with our families and neighbors, because the shit is going to hit the fan. There is no avoiding it. I ain’t saying we can’t, or shouldn’t discuss alternatives. I’m saying they’re a waste of precious time. It will become blindingly clear once the Big Change arrives, and the utility of discussion will be nothing. Think of all the Allies’ discussions in 1938, and then those Panzer divisions, rolling through the Ardennes, 1940. One of them was En Garde, and the other was still talking about things.

  10. Who gets the nukes, and who runs the Ohio-class subs? Everything else is just a real estate and trade deal.

    Will Cascadia or the Inland Empire (Spokane capital) be major nuclear-weapon powers with huge food, technology, and natural resource output? The PNW doesn’t “need” the United States, but would certainly be a signatory to fair deals to facilitate cross-border trade. The current subjugation “deal” designating urban places, rivers and regions as “national sacrifice zones” to industrial/radioactive contamination is unacceptable to locals.

  11. Let CalExit happen!! Within a decade we will own the place again when it craters in financial ruin. At that point we can treat it just like PR, association but no rights.

  12. Alfred E. Neuman

    Reblogged this on FOR GOD AND COUNTRY.

  13. I’m not discounting anybody’s assertions, I’m just curious…..why does everyone believe war will follow any successful secession? I think it may be probable but not inevitable.

    If cards are played right, it may be quite amicable. Who here would actually support spilling blood and treasure to invade California and force it back into the US? I’m of the mind that it would be ludicrous and incredibly stupid. Let them go.

    Even when we look to CW1, we see a Confederacy that had peacefully seceeded, until they fired upon Sumpter. Had they not done that, had they worked out a deal for the Fort, or perhaps forced the Union to fire first, then Lincoln’s illegal war would have been a much harder sell.

    Cool heads, COULD prevail. In the meantime, yes keep prepping for the worst.