Stop The Arguments And Start The Divorce From Progressive America

Daily we lament the “progressivization” of America: the increasing bias towards short-sighted compassion in policymaking; the weakening of the rule of law in favor of PC witch-hunts and racial-grievance shakedowns; the erosion of the family and personal responsibility; and the rise of a vast, intrusive, mothering state, with dependents proliferating at its teats.

Naturally we wonder what we can do about all this. Should we just do what the opposition does? Should we spread the word, from soap boxes and digital media, about the errors of progressivism? Should we march and demonstrate? Should we energetically “get out the vote” every election? Should we boycott organizations that side with the progressive cause? Should we focus our efforts through political action groups? Maybe we should all write letters to our congressmen and to our local newspapers, to let them know where we stand.

I think we need to admit that none of that will work, in the long run.

Progressives have big advantages in this cultural battle. They have controlled mainstream academia at least since the 1970s, steeping tens of millions of impressionable young minds in their dogmas. Key demographic trends, including high birthrates among immigrants that tend to vote left, and a declining marriage rate among women, favor them heavily.

Moreover, as we know all too well, progressives’ quasi-religious dogmas are ingeniously crafted to suppress opposition. To speak against progressivism is to run the risk of being labeled racist, sexist, or otherwise on the wrong side of history, and then being ostracized and losing one’s job.

The sense that history is on their side also has given progressives a fearless, Bolshevik spirit that enables them to punch above their weight culturally. And, like the Bolsheviks, they have set in motion policies and attitudes that tend to damage society but strengthen their hand, such as feminist policies that alienate men and worsen gender relations, and open immigration policies that create new state-dependent (i.e. progressive) voters.

Worst of all, progressives seem entirely resistant to evidence of the harm they are doing. The disintegration of the black family after a half-century of generous welfare handouts? Blame racism. Huge disparities in incarceration rates between blacks and whites? Again, blame racism. Lower socioeconomic outcomes among kids from same-sex-parented families? Can’t be right—harass the researcher with misconduct allegations. Less chance of a happy marriage when the bride has been promiscuous? Nothing to see here—move along.

For these reasons alone, I think that we should not try to confront progressivism head-on. That head-on strategy presumes that we are struggling for supremacy over the US, or over Western civilization generally, and somehow could win if we could just get our message across more effectively. We could never win in that way.

I also don’t think we should want to win in that way. Progressivism may be internally inconsistent and unsustainable—if nothing else, it will be brought down by the mass state-dependency it induces. Yet a lot of other cultures have features we find objectionable. Ideally we just choose not to participate in them. We don’t condemn them, and we don’t interfere with other people’s desires to belong to them. We treat (again, ideally) people’s cultural choices as something like a basic human right. And there’s no question that many Americans prefer progressivism to the more conservative way of thinking that I happen to prefer.

All I want is to have the same consideration extended to me and to others who think like me. I don’t want to keep arguing with people who will never be swayed. I want a place—a physical homeland—where I and my family and those like us can live and govern ourselves independently.

Looking at a map, I see that there is a large and contiguous set of American states—more than enough to form a viable country—that has voting majorities who think much as I do. As I write these words, one of the last remaining Democratic senators has just been booted from that red-state region.

Turning part or all of that region into a new country would be more achievable and meaningful than the win-it-all strategy that American conservatives now implicitly pursue. That’s not to say it would be easy. America fought a war, largely over that question, and the winning side told the losers: no, you can’t have your own culture, your own laws, your own government.

Nowadays we tend to think of the Civil War as having been fought over slavery, and having been justified in that sense. To a great extent it was fought over slavery—certainly the permitting of slavery was foremost among the “states’ rights” the south wanted to assert, and foremost among the southern practices the north found abhorrent.

But would the south have been permitted amicably to secede in 1861, based on other irreconcilable cultural differences, had they outlawed slavery first so that it was no longer an issue? Fat chance—and I say that not as a Dixie-whistling good old boy, but as a Yankee born and bred. But don’t take it from me: take it from Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who has written that “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.”

That said, I doubt that a determined move to secede would end in another violent struggle. In the absence of an issue as serious and galvanizing as slavery, even the most tribal-thinking progressive would soon enough see the absurdity of declaring a genuine independence movement “illegal” and making war against it.

Scotland, Quebec, Catalonia—if they can be permitted peacefully to vote to secede (or not) from their political unions, why can’t our states? Lest we forget, America was born in rebellion, and has always had at its core the principle of “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Progressives opposing that principle would find themselves in the one place where they truly don’t want to be: the wrong side of history.

Read More: Thanks to Progressivism, America is No Country for Men

248 thoughts on “Stop The Arguments And Start The Divorce From Progressive America”

  1. The problem is, progressives move. Look at a lot of the states on that map. Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire and Florida used to be solid conservative bastions until progressives moved in and fucked everything up. And what happens? When things get fucked up enough, they move to a less fucked up area and fuck that area up.
    Give it 100 years or so and they’ll ruin any future country that separates from the USA.

    1. Texas and Arizona too. Progs dump where they eat and then spread like parasites to places that produce.

      1. Texas is a crazy case. A lot of liberal insanity stories I hear come from public k12 schools in Texas. That’s how the left operates… they take over the school system and indoctrinate class after class after class of young skulls full of mush to be full-on Marxists.
        I think a lot of people Texas are oblivious to the takeover that is being directed at their children in the public school system. I believe that no one who identifies as politically conservative, and especially if they are of the Christian faith, should have any of their kids in that system at all.

        1. Good point. The SJWs/liberals/Marxists own every school from the most hippie part of Oregon right down to the most traditional community in Wyoming. If you have kids, you must homeschool, or send them to a carefully vetted private or religious school as last resort.

        2. This is very true. Baffles me so many parents claiming to “love God” then send their very own children off to an indoctrination camp in which they learn to hate the christian God and hate their parents.
          When the kids aren’t in school these lazy fucking idiots plop their kids right in front of a tv that has their daily “programming” which further poisons their minds into materialism and base lusts among constant pagan symbolism.
          They take their kids to disney shows which sexualize young children and have subtle and sometimes overt sexual innuendo. They take their children to concerts like Miley Cyrus and then wonder why their daughters just got gangbanged by the football team.
          Better hurry up and pay for that abortion mommy…before anyone knows! Then take your slut back to your faggot church and pretend everything is kosher and your little porn star in the making is pure as the driven snow.

        3. Think I read somewhere that in Oregon public schools they pass out pamphlets on how to masturbate to young children.

        4. Great point @Mjolnir2010:disqus. Even here in Oklahoma—–arguably the reddest of the red states—–we have major problems with liberalism in our colleges.
          Don’t get me started on the private ones. “Cough” Oklahoma City University “Cough”.

    2. It doesn’t help that every illegal immigrant that can make it across the border does so and then Demicunts give them anything they want.

      1. The problem is that many GOP also support amnesty. Only the bloc of “Conservative” GOP voters are against it. It is why neither party wants to enforce the border or immigration laws.

        1. Yeah, all the big corporations like the idea of cheap labor as well. They can worry about the consequences down the road as long as profits stay at record highs. Since big corporations own both parties, they’ll get their way regardless of who wins. So like you said, only a percentage of conservatives actually care about illegal immigration.

        2. You left out the part about Americans liking cheap produce and the unwillingness of Americans to do those seasonal farm labor jobs. It’s not some evil corporate conspiracy.

        3. That can be, and is in many other countries, done without allowing them to enter the country illegally and providing social welfare programs.

        4. Replace the stars on the flag with little corporate logos. Blue state Dems, liberal asswipes, as annoying as they are, are besides the point. Business wants cheap labor.
          Right-wing people often act disappointed and confused when the Republican Party time and again supports immigration as if the Republican Party represents white working class people. Wake up.

        5. Been pointing this out for years. I guess the propaganda does its job because there seems almost no limit to how far both parties can go in direct fucking contradiction to what they tell their willfully dumbass bases. The people are fat, distracted enough with gadgets, the Internet and a few crumbs are what they’ve been conditioned to accept.

        6. illegals pick 2% of our produce, where they really pick up is fraudulent taxpayer paid benefits.

    3. Sad but true. Look at what the social liberals from CA brought to places like Denver, CO / Austin, TX / Chapel Hill, NC and recently places like Bozeman, MT.
      It’s amazing. They’re like pigs who flee the filth of the sty they’ve made but sure enough, the day they arrive at their new digs….they start pissing and shitting in their new soon-to-be mud hole.

    4. Even worse they dump 3rd world refugees imported at taxpayer expense on “privileged” areas. See refugee resettlement watch for details.

  2. I have issues with both parties. I wish Repubs would distance themselves from religion & focus mostly on economic policies. I simply can’t understand how someone could be a christian and a capitalist. As for the Dems, I’m not exactly sure what’s positive about them. Do they actually help the poor? (rhetorical) I typically vote independent if I have a choice.

    1. Focusing on economics only makes sense if people are on the same page intellectually, culturally, and spiritually, which the US clearly is not. Cure the country, spiritually and culturally, and economic healing will follow.

    2. In my opinion, it seems difficult to understand how one could be a Christian and yet not be a capitalist.

      1. “In my opinion, it seems difficult to understand how one could be a Christian and yet not be a capitalist.”
        2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “IF A MAN WILL NOT WORK, HE SHALL NOT EAT.”
        The Lord Jesus: “But the man who owned the field said to one of them, ‘Friend, I am being fair with you. You agreed to work for one silver coin. Right? So take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same pay I gave you. I CAN DO WHAT I WANT WITH MY OWN MONEY.”

    3. Where do you think the concept of private property comes from? Religion. Nature only indicates that we can kill or be killed, rob or be robbed, eat or be eaten. Nature indicates that the alpha male gets all the possessions, and criminal justice of any kind is a delusional pursuit. Private property, human rights, and justice do not spring from irreligion.

    4. The GOP isn’t conservative at all so now conservatives don’t have any real options. Neither party endorses constitutionality of their policies nor states’ rights. Simply big government of one industry over another and both are contributors to our crony capitalism economics we have now.

      1. too bad the GOP didn’t realize that making concessions, or compromises with the left allowed their moral authority to be eroded.
        Without Moral Authority, you have no political strength.

        1. “too bad the GOP didn’t realize that making concessions, or compromises with the left allowed their moral authority to be eroded.”
          The two parties as one party was never more clear when we saw the Bush administration ask a Democratic Congress for bailout money (in 2008) for big banks…….and the Obama administration continued that same cause (with a ridiculous debt).
          It’s one of the very reasons why the GOP splintered…they stopped being for some (or at least appearing) to be “fiscally conservative”.
          That (to me) was the biggest disappointment. That is the moment when many saw our “free market” fail in this country.

    5. “distance themselves from religion & focus mostly on economic policies. I simply can’t understand how someone could be a christian and a capitalist”
      You really should know about something before you comment on it.
      I’m not just talking about your lack of understanding of Christianity and how it’s necessary for you to have any rights at all, because you have to understand capitalism , what it is , and what it isn’t.
      Without Christianity , there is no basis for capitalism. And that’s is why socialists always end up becoming atheists..
      The fight is not if their is a god or not Christianity is where your equal right to your own life is from, as well as your equal right to freely exercise your consciousness.

      1. But effectively the bible says that according to God Almighty mankind has NO rights and every last person is deserving of death.
        This is why Paul said of converted slaves not to break their chains and find their freedom….but to be a good slave and exemplary servant as the christian is supposed to be towards his God.
        Funny how “christians” have re-written the doctrine to suit this economic platform. The rights of “We the People” is nothing more than rebellion to God and nowhere will you find any wording like that among Jesus or his followers.
        You do however find people under the judgement of God’s wrath saying those things. The rabbit hole does indeed go deep.

        1. Yup lotsa rabbitz in that hole!
          Civil rights — and especially Civil Rights — don’t come from God. They come from political entities that can remove these ‘rights’ for sundry and flexible reasons.
          Everything is sourced in Father, He is sovereign, He owns everything, and His kingdom is hierarchical and personal, not collectivist and political. Scripture is very specific about the powers behind political entities, across time.
          We The People is a deception. The consciousness of groups, especially of females, is pretty easy to manipulate.
          When The People originally demanded Saul — because the heathen had a fine and fancy king! — and God was against it, but gave The People what they desired, someone ‘like themselves’. Saul was a big Terminator-looking dood who ultimately couldn’t hack it. The Almighty People wouldn’t wait for, nor accept, their real king.

    6. “I simply can’t understand how someone could be a christian and a capitalist.”
      Yup. The two are almost diametrically opposed. Fuckin retards I tell ya.
      Usury was outlawed in the christian europe of times past.

    7. I agree that the Religious Right is a big source of embarrassment for the Conservatives. They don’t need to drop the religious right, just tone down the Biblespeak a bit. It alienates a lot of people.

      1. Excellent point Sir. I would go a little further than you would though. The republicans need to dump the religious right. These bible thumping cretins scare the moderate conservatives, like me, into the arms of the libertarians. A vote for a libertarian is as good as one for a democrat. The religious right splits the conservative vote, thus letting the communists win.
        I have not voted republican in over a decade, until the last election, only because obama is so bad that I felt I should stand with the less enlightened conservatives and for a united front against him.
        I wasted my time and my vote, the brainless christian right did not like Romney because he was a Mormon, the brain dead religious freaks gave us the worst president in history, and now spend all of their time bitching about him.
        The republicans did not learn from this debacle, and continue to bow down and bend over for the American taliban.
        I will not support the republican party again until they grow up and separate church and state like the constitution says.
        Please let us not argue about this particular point, I do not feel like looking it up and typing it all AGAIN.
        Both major parties have completely lost touch with reality. the republicans want to destroy the first amendment, and the democrats want to destroy the second, neither are worth voting for.
        You are quite correct, Sir, biblespeak is what is wrong with the republicans, and the religious right is the democrats best friend.

      2. You got that right. It alienated the hell out of me when I was younger as it does a lot of young people. Also talk radio and listening to redneck assholes.. it made me more sympathetic to progressives.. that wasn’t necessarily good. Lol.

    1. I agree. I liked the initial tone of this article: we are not going to get anywhere merely by spreading the word, marching, protesting, boycotting, etc. But Secession, I’m sorry to say, is not going to happen.

      1. I agree. Nothing is getting better short of 2 things, either:
        1. Complete catastrophe that removes the wealth and decadence that permits a welfare state.
        2. A total miracle, where everyone suddenly, including Hollywood, miraculously jumps on the new trending fashion of social traditionalism. (LOL I know, but stranger things have happened.)

        1. The 1st possibility is actually more or less guaranteed at this point. Socialist policies, by their very nature, aren’t built to last long term.
          Consider this great quote;
          Margaret Thatcher — ‘The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.’

      1. They change the name when more people catch on. Not that long back they called themselves liberals until Reagan made that a dirty word.

  3. The Civil War had very little to do with Slavery. Here is what we know:
    1) The South had their own government AND currency system in place. They could have very easily gone their own way with this setup. This was a No-No for “Honest Abe”.
    2) States Rights was the issue here. Lincoln lovers always are blinded to the fact that he attacked his own people. He fired upon his own countrymen.
    3) The fact that should be boldfaced, highlighted, and beamed across every progressive, SJW, and Racist tourettes liberal out there: Liberia was setup for the sole purpose of exporting the slaves to another country as it was not working out in this country. Even “Honest Abe”, towards the end of his run in office, saw the Forest from the Trees. A failed experiment.

      1. Slavery was a useful tool to the North and the South. The Northern Aggressors needed a rally call, a recruiting slogan, a moral justification, and “slavery” was it. The Northern leadership did not care much more about slaves than Southerners did, which is why the North knowingly “liberated” the slaves while it is estimated that a quarter of the entire “liberated” slaves met their “final liberation” within 10 years- of death from starvation and disease, something the South saw coming from miles away, and the North cared little about.
        Should anyone secede now, the same will happen. The North would see that the South has failed to provide for the human rights of minorities, women and gays, and will go to war to liberate them, and the South’s nukes too.

        1. Correct. Their may have been war if the slavery had been off the table when the South seceded, but no way would the North have won it. Without abolitionist support, the North would have run out of soldiers and support in Congress very quickly.

        2. I’ve written this before, but Lincoln said he wanted to deport the slaves, and supported the Corwin Amendment early in the Civil War, which would’ve made owning slaves an irrevocable right. (It was ratified by several northern states, but the Civil War interrupted it. The amendment is still pending today, waiting to be ratified.) Few people talk about the Corwin Amendment, which stains and embarrasses Lincoln’s legacy. The South had a laundry list of complaints with the North, so even the promise of permanent slavery wasn’t enough to entice them to rejoin the Union. Thus Lincoln used military force.
          Lincoln wrote, “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it.” Originally, the war was simply about preserving the Union, not slavery. Later, he signed the Emancipation Proclamation because he feared the British would ally with the South. He knew the British had banned slavery in 1830, so making the war about slavery was a military strategy. It was effective and helped keep the British out of the war.
          After the war was over, the North wanted to punish the South for the war. At that time, freeing the slaves (instead of gradually phasing out slavery and deporting them to Africa) was considered extreme. There was a large element of spite there meant to punish and humiliate the South. Obviously, the South never got over this and continues to resist the federal government to this day.

        3. The funny thing is that had Lincoln not been shot, those who had political power and who wanted to punish and humiliate the South would have been curtailed in their efforts.
          Even Lincoln wanted to patch things up quickly after the war with an emphasis on quickly reintegrating the South back into the United States.
          Most likely had Lincoln lived, we’d have seen a huge number of freed slaves deported, as Lincoln tried to do on a small scale during his term, and we’d see less hostility towards him from Constitutional purists today.

        4. You’re an idiot. The North had industry and the South could only fund the war by either exports or inflation. Economics is often times the key deciding factor in a war. The side with better finance and a more diversified economy wins 95% of the time.
          Basically, you don’t bet against the guys with the money just because you think they’re pussies (or some equivalent of making one side out to be “masculine” or macho). What you do is short the guys who bet against the guys with money, industry, and technology.

    1. Most people, completely ignorant of history, would call you are racist even mentioning this fact because they have been brainwashed by blatant propaganda. In their minds, the Civil War was about “Freeing the slaves.”
      But you knew that.

      1. The terms racist and sexist have devolved into simple epithets utilized for political purposes. Unfortunately, this is a serious side effect of a civilization that has become exceedingly politicized.

        1. Actually, there’s a great story by Niall Ferguson in his wonderful book The Ascent of Money about why the South had difficulty receiving funding from rich guys in Europe. One of the reasons was the social views of the South that pissed off the elites (who were Jewish and many of whom were persecuted at some point or another by other empires, like the Russian empire).
          You may wanna think about getting your head out of your ass. The last people you wanna piss off in wartime are rich guys with lots of capital. The people you wanna short are the people who piss off the rich guys with capital thinking they’re “tough” or something of the sort.

        2. “You may wanna think about getting your head out of your ass.”
          The above statement is rather amusing given that the content of your post is unrelated to the purposes for which my post was created.
          In today’s political climate (of which I was speaking) the endless application of the terms racist and sexist are simple political tools to silence political opposition. In this case, those with a leftist bent utilize this political tool as their go-to hammer since they are devoid of real arguments.

        3. Almost all shit like that IS ALWAYS a tool to silence political opposition. That’s the way the world works. If you wanna be different and change things, you need to take risks.

    2. I would encourage anyone interested in what the men of the day had to say on the issue to read Robert Toombs speech to the Gerogia Legislature, sometimes entitled “Immediate Secession”. You can find it here:
      “The Executive Department of the Federal Government, for forty-eight out of the first sixty years under the present Constitution, was in the hands of Southern Presidents, and so just, fair, and equitable, constitutional and advantageous to the country was the policy which they pursued, that their policy and administrations were generally maintained by the people.”
      There was a lot of change going on in the US during the 19th century, and little was going favorably for traditional Southern life.
      “Before the end of this century, at precisely the same rate of increase, the Africans among us in a subordinate condition will amount to eleven millions of persons. What shall be done with them? We must expand or perish. We are constrained by an inexorable necessity to accept expansion or extermination. Those who tell you that the territorial question is an abstraction, that you can never colonize another territory without the African slavetrade, are both deaf and blind to the history of the last sixty years.”
      The South should have been far more careful with so many Negroes within its borders. There would forever be the chance of emancipation, and, in turn, miscegenation.

    3. From Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address regarding the southern states should they attempt secession given their outrage at the Morrill Tariff which was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives during the 1859–60 session of Congress, approved by the Senate, and signed into law by then President James Buchanan (he was a Pennsylvanian who owed much of his political success to Pennsylvania protectionists) on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration:
      “The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and
      possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and
      to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for
      these objects, there will be no invasion–no using force against, or
      among the people anywhere.”
      —-Abraham Lincoln (speaking of the 1857 Morrill Tariff, which effectively doubled the tariff rate from 15% to 32.6%)

      1. No shit sherlock. It’s all about the money. One relied on self-sustaining industry and cities built on volatile trade with one another (the North). The other relied on agriculture and commodity exports. Naturally, when something goes wrong, one side is much better prepared to take advantage and adjusts rapidly (the North) because it’s built on self-sustaining volatile trade. For the other, when people stop buying your shit, you get fucked in the ass (the South). Hamilton was right!
        You’ve gotta remember that shit will hit the fan. It’s your response to when shit hits the fan that matters. Are you able to adjust and get up or do you get knocked out. The North was much more robust in that sense. Real wealth can only be accumulated in cities and relying on exporting commodities to wealthier nations isn’t a sustainable way to accumulate wealth. Hamilton recognized this; Jefferson did not.
        Having cities built on volatile trade with one another is much more sustainable than relying on someone else to buy your shit. The North recognized this and set up a blockade of the South. The South had to rely on hyperinflation to fund their war. Once you hit that point, it’s game over.

    4. The South was built on a bankrupt economic system. The North was built on industry and the South was built on agriculture/commodity exports. When you don’t have anywhere to export to, your economy goes down the shitter. It’s basically the same problem that Russia is having right now. What happened in the Civil War was bound to happen.
      Really, it was a war between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. In the end, Hamilton won in a blowout. If you don’t believe me on this, take a look at Hamilton’s reports to Congress.

      1. ahh, but you forget that the North was utterly dependent upon the south’s agriculture.
        There was no way the north could let the south secede and set the prices on food independently. Northern heavy industry would starve to death.
        Like all wars, it was about economic control.

        1. Agricultural yields increase when there’s industry. Hamilton pointed this out in his reports to Congress. BTW, places like Illinois and Indiana contain the world’s most fertile land (not a joke).
          The thing about agriculture is that the less people that work in it, the more productive (and less environmentally damaging) it tends to be.

    5. The focus on the President all the time… like Obama now. He’s a joke as far as being any kind of leader. No balls, Maybe on his wife. An empty suit, meatpuppet of the big money that put him in office. Lincoln was representing northern business interests of course.

  4. By the time crazy train America stops, we may have six countries. I don’t see it happening until something really traumatizes America though. Many people are still terribly sentimental about the Constitution and the concept of the USA.

    1. Wrong. Did you watch the Winter Olympics in Sochi? Did you notice that America was nearly willing to go to war with Russia because they don’t let homosexuals publish their propaganda in public where kids can see it? Imagine the South seceding from the North in 2015, and having the same problems it had the first time around: Not having enough money to even run the government effectively. (Sounds like a good problem to me!)
      In today’s terms that would mean the South would not have EEOC and HR protecting gays and women and minorities. This means that those people would be left vulnerable to discwiminayshun and huoomin wights viowayshuns! The North may be a bunch of neckbearded pansies, but there are a few blue pill warriors willing to cowardly launch the tomahawks, and plenty of albino disabled transgender drone operators to send the Predator UAVs circling overhead.

      1. Tomahawks and Predators are still only tools to support boots on the ground and there aren’t many libs willing to put themselves in that position Sgt. P. “Albino disabled transgender drone operators”…, sad and true but I love it.

  5. “Progressives have big advantages in this cultural battle. They have
    controlled mainstream academia at least since the 1970s, steeping tens
    of millions of impressionable young minds in their dogmas.”
    I totally agree with you on this point. I live in Canada and the situation is the same, as it is in all the Western countries. If our respective education systems were really doing their work well, to form the youth in an objective environment, and giving it the capacity to adequately analyze and criticize, the Left would definitely not be that strong.

  6. Please correct the error: Catalonia was NOT allowed to make a vote to secede. The people and the Catalan government still pushed a straw poll and the Spanish supreme court then sued the Catalan president and several ministers.

  7. I don’t know about the argument in this post. In fact, I have the sense the progressives are peaking . . . and the madness of their policies are leading to economic and cultural decline. I understand the sense of frustration with them, but I sense a hardening of attitudes against them. The old emotional levers — compassion for the disadvantaged, rape, etc — don’t seem to work as well anymore. Think of Zerlina Maxwell’s recent rape culture apologetics that we should always believe rape ‘victims’. What she was saying is that people ‘have to’ react emotionally or they were immoral and should be sanctioned by the community. Well, people just scoffed at her.
    Maybe this has something to do with the internet, which brings you ‘face-to-face’ with these zealots. Traditional media always concealed the worst of their hatred and overall intellectual mediocrity, but on forums and blogs they are exposed for what they are.

  8. Something along these lines is a new convention of states under Article V of the Constitution. I encourage anyone who agrees with the above article to research Michael Farris and the growing convention of states movement.

  9. “..even the most tribal-thinking progressive would soon enough see the absurdity of declaring a genuine independence movement “illegal” and making war against it.”
    I disagree. It is precisely because of their absurdity that they are regressives. One thing that a genuine independence movement would be is implicitly white. Regressives have already shown that they will forbid any type of white cohesion anywhere, even implicitly. That’s why they continue to pound the theme over and over that the GOP is a white racist party. And the GOP base, most of whom are not racist, are left scratching their heads wondering why. You can only imagine how the regressives would react to a genuine independence movement.

    1. I remember Sochi, the Winter Olympics, when liberal Americans were ready to go to war with Russia, due to Russia’s human rights violations in forbidding public propaganda pro-homosexual.

  10. Tiny, landlocked countries in Europe the size of Arizona have at least a dozen parties to vote for.
    A country that spans TWO OCEANS and has about 300,000,000 more people than it will ever need… has two parties.
    You’ll excuse me if I abstain from ever voting simply because neither Option A nor Option B appeal to my senses whatsoever.

    1. Take a look at Italian politics . Do you really want THAT?
      It’s not how many parties there are that matters, it’s what the agenda of the parties that matters.

      1. What about British or Canadian politics? We’d get rid of the “Warfare” party and the “Welfare” Party and wind up with a third party that was socially liberal but fiscally conservative and would probably carry 60% of the vote….

        1. Being fiscally conservative is impossible without being socially conservative
          It’s really not to separate things.
          For instance, in order for every child to be supported by their own parents instead of the tax payers, their has to be a cultural and legal process to push the willing towards men and women being non promiscuous , and even marry before having sex. to insure each child knows who their responsible father is so he can be expected by the rest of us , and the State , to support the children he creates.
          Marriage has not existed for the benefit of the married, it’s about the child’s support and the rest of us not having to support other people’s children.

        2. the biggest joke is the amount of protests that take place when governments try to curb spending….. don’t the sheeple realize the government is spending their money for them ?

        3. don’t the sheeple realize the government is spending their money for them ?

          The gov spent their money decades ago. They’re now spending their unborn great-grandchildren’s money.

        4. I tend to think it’s the other way around. There’s a (strong) case to be made that political rights flow from property rights, thus it would seem to me that being socially conservative is predicated on being fiscally conservative.

        5. All you need to do, is to consider it for a moment to realize the truth of it. In a nation where people become morally degenerate, they have neither the discipline nor the perspicacity to stick to the right course of action. They become self-panderers, and inevitably expect the government to enforce, facilitate, subsidize, etc., the whims consequent to their personal dissipation. All the founding fathers realized this, and repeatedly stated in their letters that a nation that became immoral would no longer be able to govern itself along the principles they had instituted. Time has proven them right.
          Intellectual-ish Libertarians need to realize that the vast majority of the populace is prone to venality at the best of times, and is not capable of remaining philosophically principled while dabbling in a bit of vice here and there, as many Libertarians are. The vast populace, already prone to corruption, is even more likely to be unprincipled and corrupt when there is nothing preventing them from becoming morally bad people. They will not vote Libertarian at the best of times, if somebody else is there to whip up their fears or hopes in another direction; how will they vote Libertarian, then, when they are used to doing nothing more than chasing pleasures?

        6. What on earth are you talking about? I’m fiscally conservative and anything but when it comes to social issues.

        7. I’m a libertarian, and I’d like to clarify why because I think it’s a position many non-libertarians don’t quite understand. First, I’m not anti-religion, I just think the government shouldn’t show favoritism to any religion because it’s constitutional law. Second, I’m not under the naive assumption that a libertarian society is probably going to ever exist. Rather, I’m a libertarian because I think libertarianism is the direction the political pendulum in the USA needs to swing. But to clarify, I’m under no delusions that a libertarian society will likely ever form. Nor am I sure I actually want one to form. For me libertarianism is a direction, not the final destination.

        8. I understand. I would only say this, by way of response: just as to take “no position,” is actually to take a position, so is it easy to use the pretense of “not favouring” a religion, to in fact enshrine a very religious and dogmatic position of official irreligion. When Libtertarians admit, as our Founding Fathers did, that the State should favour natural morality and allow the Free Exercise and Expression of all religions (in accord with natural morality, they would have said if pressed, but this seemed to go without saying in their day), rather than using the prohibition on establishing any particular religion as a pretext to drive natural morality and natural religion from the public sphere, I have no problem with irreligious Libertarians. But often Libertarians make the age-old mistake, and fail to see that taking “no position” is itself to take a position, and the unintended consequences of that are often a bitch to deal with.

        9. There is, occasionally, the mentally strong or principled person who can be bold in sin but still retain a certain pride in fiscal discipline.
          But, just think for a second on the societal scale: it is simply not possible that an whole populace of vitiated, venal, depraved people, will retain the discipline to be thoughtful or principled when it comes to denying their whims and keeping their hands off of other people’s money. An immoral populace, is a populace that will not maintain a fiscally conservative state for long. Case in point: America started to go morally bankrupt in the 20s, and voila: The New Deal. Things got worse in the 50s and 60s, and voila: The Great Society. Things kept getting worse, morally and fiscally, through the Carter administration. A brief revival of morals, superficial though it was in the 80s, was accompanied by a brief and similarly superficial return to fiscal sanity. By the 90s, public approval of immorality was creeping back, and the Clintons and the Bushes came in. By the time SJW society got fully revved up in the mid-2000s, we got Obamacare, complete with women explaining to Congress why their sex lives need to be subsidized. If women like Sandra Fluke were excoriated and corrected for being degenerate whores, as a sane society would do, nobody would be talking about paying for their contraception. Immoral societies cannot be fiscally conservative societies: the whores will run free and demand subsidization, literally and figuratively.

        10. Well, that is a cogent and poignant counter-argument. I can only hope that after I abandon everything I believe in, I will have your perspicacity in proportion to the emptiness of my testes.

        1. That statement would be more relevant if both parties were not liberal extremists. basically at the same end of the spectrum.

      2. yes, you’re right. and how large is the chance that just 2 parties will be ever able to closely represent your interests? it’s just an endless black and white us vs. them thinking

      3. No. A two party system, “first past the post”, makes entry of new political parties very difficult. Also if you figure in the cash needed for campaign finance.
        Grassroots parties are springing up all over Europe, and they get into parliament exactly because of a much lower barrier to entrance.
        Italy is a poor example. Many other European countries function much better. Although the political system is corrupt all across the western World, the US is one of the worst cases.

    2. in the US you can Vote National Socialist or National Socialist… what people forget is that Hitler was also a National Socialist aka. Nazi.

  11. I had started thinking this recently
    I found myself within the last few weeks thinking that maybe ‘the solution’ could be succession. I think the best method would be an ‘under throw’. That would be where the area stops following federal rules/regulations/directives/no federal filings so that de facto it would have separated from the rest of the country after a period of time. It would also be the easiest way to start a succession, since the people/area involved would just have nothing to do with the federal level. If someone shows up from the feds, just tell them you don’t feel like filing the paperwork (or file completely useless paperwork) If enough people did this, then the area would de facto no longer be part of the ‘federal area’. The federal level could try to force compliance but it would require all kinds of time and money on their part. Just as the Soviets found they could not force people to work ( ) or the people only worked just enough to not get shot but where turning out unusable work, our feds may find that they can’t force people to comply with filings and paperwork. At that point there would be union, at the federal level, in name only.

    1. Hmmm, verrryyy interesting….
      How bout this one?
      The IRS employs roughly 25,000 revenue agents & officers to enforce the cumbersome, monstrous, complex, illogical and arguably unconstitutional federal tax code.
      Who pays something under this federal tax code? Approximately 122,000,000 Americans.
      That means…approx 1 IRS employee making sure 4,880 taxpayers are “paying their fair share.”
      What if 50% of those 4,880 taxpayers thought their “fair share” was confiscatory and they just weren’t going to pay that shit anymore?
      Do we think that 1 IRS employee (a federal worker btw) is going to run out the leads and track down those 2,440 scofflaws?
      No chance. And even if they caught a few hundred, the tax revenues would plummet and there ain’t no way a bunch of federal employees will be out there fighting the good fight for free.
      KABOOM! Game over, federal govt revenues hit the down slope and the jig is finally up.
      Most Americans are too afraid though and think they will be the ones scooped up by the IRS dragnet and it keeps them in line.
      So we shovel over $11.2 trillion each year and keep our fingers crossed the $$ will be well spent.

      1. IRS breaking down?
        I think that even with everyone trying to comply it is now so complex that all kinds of mistakes are made. I am not a lawyer, but I have a law degree and a MBA with a background in accounting software and programming. Even with my background and experience, I have all kinds of problems assisting with tax filings, even with the assistance of tax programs like TurboTax where I have to ‘fight’ with the program to properly fill out the forms or get it to validate in order to do an electronic filing. Part of the problem is that there are so many rules and regulations, even for regular people that just have a W2 job and mortgage, that filling out the taxes each year and getting everything properly filed is a problem and a lot of work. The worst years were times when a person’s stock trades would not download into the program, the cost basis was with another firm, or there was a special situation that TurboTax could not/would not handle. I have no idea what the average person does that does not have a computer background any any kind of background in taxation or researching the rules and regulations. I imagine they have all kinds of problems that probably go unnoticed because the system is such a mess that it all ‘just fades into the past’ and is forgotten.
        I fear that someday they (Feds and IRS) are going to institute a national VAT, and require 1099 forms to be issued to all of the vendors for a business. Every company would have to hire at least one other person just to track all of this with no additional benefit for the work at the company. I already told some people that if this ever happens, I may stop doing any accounting work.
        As an example of how bad the problem would be with a VAT, say you run a company that has employees driving vans or trucks.. The vehicles all need fuel. With a national VAT, you would need to issue a 1099 form to the truck stop/gas station that you buy fuel from. Now if all of your vehicles buy fuel from one and only one gas station, that is easy. You keep track of how much you spent and sent out one form. The problem is what if you have multiple vehicles that buy from multiple stations plus what is some of the stations are part of the same company? Now you have to track and manage the 1099 amounts for each separate entity in order to be able to correctly issue 1099 forms. I estimate that on the low end that a national VAT system would require billions of additional 1099 forms for everyone to comply. On the high end, I estimated that a few hundred billion 1099 forms would need to be issued to comply with such a system. the database for such a system would be a nightmare and probably unmanageable for little extra tax revenue.

  12. Let the socialists secede from us. We keep the Army, Navy, Airforce, Marines, and the nuclear arsenal.
    Then declare war on them for their egregious violations of basic human rights. Crush them.

    1. They hate the military anyway, they won’t mind until the streets run with rivers of blood.

      1. Politicians (and corporations) love the military.
        I’d say anyone who looks to make a profit (including shares, etc…) loves the military.
        Party affiliation does not matter.
        I have a friend who is a sub contractor (for the military) and he does just fine. I always ask him (joking of course) – “What’s it like working for the military?” His response is always “I don’t work for the military”. I laugh.
        There is nothing wrong with making money (I’m all for it). But embrace it……don’t bullshit me.
        You can’t have it both ways.

    2. We’ll keep the oil, farms, ranches, and minerals too. They can keep Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and Chelsea.

      1. Oil, farms, ranches, and minerals; you’re talking about The South Mjolnir, and you’re leaving out industry. I live in Connecticut and have, for the past 30 years watched factory after factory close to move south and farm after farm sold off to build housing complexes. We have the insurance industry and the bedroom communities for the New York corporate people. Manufacturing and farming are all but dead here and the people keep electing Democrats that make this state hostile to new business. If Texas (the world’s fifteenth largest economy) seceded I’d apply for citizenship.

    3. Is there socialist talk of secession? Hard for me to imagine that the progressives in this country have the stones to do something like that. They always struck me as the kinds of people that couldn’t wait for a new charismatic leader (dictator) to lead them to paradise(hell).
      So naturally their affinity for totalitarianism leads me to believe they won’t secede.

      1. No sir. Socialism cannot afford secession. They always need somebody else’s money, goods or services to keep the big happy socialist machine running smoothly.
        But as PM Thatcher succinctly put it, “The trouble with socialism is, eventually you will run out of other people’s money!”

      2. Some of the progressive twits are talking about seceding from “jesusland”. They have no clue what they would be in for. They really think they can create a paradise without “capitalist exploitation”.

  13. I wholeheartedly agree with the premise and conclusion/s of the post. I’ve often thought of this on several levels; how can we save a union that is now falling apart at record speed? How do we save a people who are too stupid, too apathetic or too conditioned to think any other way than, “Yeah, I guess this is how the way things should be”?
    Some great reading that often gets lost in the ether of American history are the collective works of the Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalist Papers in particular. While not nearly as cohesive or popular as the Federalist Papers….I nevertheless find myself in agreement with the former far more than the latter.
    One idea floated by none other than the brilliant and indispensable George Mason, was the proposition of a 3 part executive. He cautioned passionately against a unitary executive presiding over the whole country. Mason argued that such an office of immense power vested in one set of hands spelled despotism. (just look at our current White House…).
    Perhaps an executive of 3 elected officials representing the union, 1 man for the East, 1 from the West and 1 from the South? A 2/3 vote on all matters of executive action be it war, policy or Congressional veto being necessary for implementation. No executive orders, no memoranda, no legislative usurpation…unless 2 out of 3 agree. A further check & balance within the checks & balances.
    Secondly, a confederacy. Not necessarily in the Civil War sense but a collection of independent states responsible for their own sovereignty and laws. Each state must supply defenses to the union in regards to war and national emergency. Each state operates on the same currency but apart from that, citizens are free to choose which state in the confederacy they wish to align themselves with and be governed by.
    Economic – Welfare? Entitlements? Sure. So long as your state can produce the funds. No hand outs from Uncle Sam (i.e. no dipping into the taxes of responsible/profitable states to subsidize the welfare states).
    Social – Immigration? Entirely up to the confederacy to vote on. No state required to admit new immigrants. Social issues? Abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, gun rights, etc. – all up to the individual states by popular vote. No Supreme Court to nullify the will of the people.
    The Constitution – Let’s face facts. If this sacred document were still held in its rightful place, this country wouldn’t be in such dire straits. The states that choose to restore the Constitution as our supreme law will inevitably attract the majority of true citizens. The bastions of big government (CA, NY, NJ, MA, IL) that go the way of the big brother welfare state will attract the dregs of society and inevitably face bankruptcy both economically and socially.
    Once rock bottom is hit, they will have no choice but join the rest of America in the light.
    But for now, the centralized power of big federal government that the Anti-Federalists warned against, will continue to bleed that segment of responsible/productive Americans to the detriment of all. We may be going that way no matter what. There will eventually be revolt, whether it is violent or peaceful. The American sheep have been shorn to the point of abuse. The Federal government wants their skin too. Push any people far enough and you will get noncompliance. If the push is hard enough, a violent push will be sent back.
    Maybe a slow divorce from Progressive America will avoid the violent pushback.

    1. The White Russians were probably saying all the same things in 1916. How’d that work out for them?

      1. Well let’s consider it: they fought a long & bloody civil war and lost to the red war machine. The hammer & sickle brought the iron curtain. But places like Estonia, Latvia, Finland and Poland to name a few have them to thank for their nations’ ensuing independence.
        Today…the flag of the White Russians flies over their Motherland as the tricolor flag of the Russian Federation.
        So who won in the end?

  14. I disagree, I don’t think its as simple to say that most americans prefer progressivism rather most americans are dependent on progressivism via welfare. Remember practically half of all the people in the u.s., at present, get some kind of direct handout, moreover, consider that the aggrieved classes, namely women who are 1/2 the population, are also equally dependent because its the state giving them privilege. That’s a lot different than saying they prefer this due to the overall appeal of this system over another.
    Today, the police/nanny state notwithstanding, there are numerous ways to secede in place and to form communities. I live in Massachusetts, which is apparently very blue and blue pill. Indeed, it many times seems that way, yet, ethnically we have a strong Irish Catholic tradition here (to include the Kennedy’s), heck we have a huge infrastructure of Catholic schools from K to high to college…local parishes, Boston College High, Catholic Memorial, Boston College etc. In many ways Massachusetts is illustrative of our broader cultural political problem. Outside of cambridge (home to harvard), this state is actually very red. Interesting, I digress.
    My main point: this article rightly identifies were the progs have found their success – due to their control over the media and academia. Here is the thing – both of those institutions are FAILING! And, moreover, they are going to face a significant game-changing disruption driven by existing technologies and technologies to come. The author talked about wanting to live and have a family per his own culture etc…at present, culture is pushed at us via a controlled media and controlled academia. Not for much longer. We’re an app away from us, you and me, fully controlling our own media and thus cultural content and experience. It is happening. Hollywood is failing, and in replace of it will be a vastly dispersed variety of entertainment developed at the local level. Your culture will be a genius application just sending you content that you will like. Don’t want to see half the characters as homosexuals or “strong female leads”…you won’t…ever and neither will your family.
    Academia…for another post. Student loans, negative ROI, it takes to long…but the economy has changed radically, you can’t waste two years our of production to get an MBA (aka re-train) and is that really “retraining”. With automation we’ll all have to be switching careers, that will be the norm…So, no you don’t need traditional academia, you need rapid customized training that gets you qualified and out of the “school house” as soon as possible of the highest quality. Tenure, “humanities”, aggrieved studies of all sorts…going away due to obsolesce. Yeah, they’ll try to hold on, but, where should we fight? Right here on the horizon on technology…technology is now the best weapon for the red pill and conservatives.

    1. Good post T77 but as far as controlling our own media, most of the problem IS content. Who is producing good content? Films and Network TV are your run-of-the-mill trash with liberal left leaning messages and cable networks are reality TV garbage where you’ll often find the same programs run in a four-hour block in the morning then repeated in the afternoon. On weekends you’ll likely see the same series running in 24/7 marathons. Someone has to produce good material for it to be available. I rarely watch television because I’m just amazed at how quality programming has just ceased to exist……and yet there are still sponsors paying for this crap. Who is watching it? Have we become a nation of imbeciles?

      1. Hey I agree, but, that’s my whole point…content sucks. The reason why sponsors still pay and presumably someone still watches is in part due to the dumb down effect, but, I think its because there are no other options. But, there sort of is. Recent surveys found drops in viewership were attributed to the internet (people being entertained over the web). So, right there you see the trend that I see emerging. Content is coming…there is demand and since there is demand there will be good content again. If you build it they will come. Right now the disruptive curve is moving and we’re somewhere in between as this thing develops. Its peculiar because normally you’d expect content would be first and then infrastructure second, but, in this bizarre post singularity world the infrastructure (the web, bandwidth, processing speeds et al) was created first. Now, people simply have to realize that its time to create content. Here’s a way to look at it, in the old media there were high barriers to entry because the upfront capital costs (equip, editing, personnel, studios, props etc) was enormous. That’s no more, to a large degree, much of those capabilities are now accessible by the average person. Content under the new paradigm will be created by local playhouses, Churches, friends, artists…ergo the decentralization I talked about. Why? Simple, because they can.

        1. Interesting thought. The scenario you speak of is actually an old one that dates back to the days when local television stations could produce their own programming without being affiliated with a major network. Hope springs eternal I guess. In the meantime I’d rather be waterboarded than endure the torture of sitting through some of the mindless drivel that pours from the screens, big or small, these days.

        2. actually the real problem is neither content nor infrastructure/distribution.
          It is filtering. There is SO much crap out there in terms of content, and it is so incredibly easy to obtain, how does one filter what one watches and does not watch?
          If it were not for this neccessary filtering, Google wouldn’t be nearly the Giant it is today. And any lack of content you may see is generally due to filtering, not lack of availability.

      2. “Films and Network TV are your run-of-the-mill trash with liberal left
        leaning messages and cable networks are reality TV garbage where you’ll
        often find the same programs run in a four-hour block in the morning
        then repeated in the afternoon.”
        I agree with you on the nonsense on TV (liberal left go hand in hand with women). But you should always keep this in mind (to include MSNBC,CNN, the big 3 networks and FOX News).
        It’s always about getting and keeping more customers….that’s it.
        If more women are the “new” customers, then they go after women. If it’s gays, then gays are the new customers. An example…look at the NFL and all of that pink bullshit the players are wearing (to attract women for their cause to the sport).
        It’s always about the money and more customers…..always.

        1. Haven’t forgotten them. News is presented as entertainment for simple minds these days…..sickening. You’re absolutely right about it being all about the money and I think it is there that change could be forced. If people (men) organized and stopped buying products that sponsors the audio/visual slop being thrown at us, and quickly made the sponsors aware of it, you might see better content. I don’t know what the hell the NFL is thinking. I cringe every time I see the stuff you describe or have to listen to women commentators and their inane remarks. What the hell are they doing on the air?

        2. The problem, today, is that many men are (or were) involved with the rise of feminism due to making a profit.
          Women were only able to even reach this “point of power” due to men (looking to make a profit). Nothing wrong with making a profit or money but in this case it’s totally fucked society (everything is ass backwards, now). Some women are finally realizing that getting everything that they wanted or “having it all” isn’t what it’s cracked up to be in the end (just look at how many of them are on some type of prescription meds for depression).
          Here is hoping that ROK and the manosphere can “right the ship”. And the NFL…I can’t stand these fucking female announcers, reporters or “analysts” on TV…I stopped watching.

  15. Brilliant description not only of the US but also of many countries. The good news is that people is realizing that progressivism did not work at all, and the resistence is backfiring.

    1. It might not be working but it appears to me as if people are doubling down on it rather than backing away from it.

      1. John: If simple people like Us could realize that marxism is a complete failure, that means We´re millions. And better yet, seeing the recent results of elections in many countries (US, Spain, Argentina, Russia, Colombia…) I´d say to you that there is hope.

        1. Maybe so but I don’t feel like we should be dragged down into their failed decisions which is what is going to happen.

        2. I think there is plenty of hope. The recent GOP sweep can be misleading in a negative sense because we still have to operate within a two party paradigm and the repubs have been impotent and socialist lite. That said, its nonetheless a powerful signal. I think there are millions of people who not only want political change but cultural too.

      2. “…people are doubling down on it rather than backing away from it.”
        When political ideology becomes a secular religion such emotional reactionism becomes the norm among many.

      3. I agree. The pendulum is still swinging leftward. There’s a false sense of accomplishment floating around lately. At best, there have been a few marginal instances where left-leaning policy has been resisted, but only a few, only against egregiously unreasonable cases and only in reaction. Aside from slight alterations in abortion laws here and there, there have been no laws passed that would push the pendulum in the opposite direction socially, only resistance to the craziest of their proposals.
        We’ll know we’re getting somewhere when our politics starts to look more like what the right in Europe is doing now.

        1. That’s the beauty of leftist ideas – if they don’t work, it’s because you didn’t do it hard enough. A little money and more control and it will work next time.

        2. Agree. All the major institutions are co-opted, and core academic feminism/PC has been broadened effectively to include a perennial demographic swath. This is only possible under empire, largely by financial inducements combined with propaganda.
          There’s an inceptive resistance, an iceberg of unknown size. But no significant legal or cultural changes. Instead, re-trenchment and defiance, a la Obama II.
          There is, however, small and gradual spiritual change among some, including a stronger willingness to confront unpopular truths.

  16. Some commenters have alluded to a catastrophe as a necessary condition to secession, and I agree. The US would need at least another recession to make secession a viable option for the majority of people.
    I suppose Alaska and Hawaii would be the first to go, followed by Texas. The Texans I knew in the military seemed to have more loyalty to their state than their country. Also, a good portion of the military combat arms is made up of Texans and other country boys, and I dont see them fighting a war against their homes for Washington. So who will pick up the slack as front line cannon fodder? Limp wristed white liberal men? Brown immigrants from the third world? Women?
    The time is coming gentlemen, best thing to do is position yourself for success when it does. Hustle, lift, network.

    1. It’s going to take something big to spark change. Americans put up with this BS state of social affairs because we’re materially comfortable. Nothing will change unless people are really suffering and desperate. “Unforeseen economic collapse” sounds like the most likely event to animate the disaffected, since that doesn’t require people to lift a finger.
      Known Unknowns: Unconventional Strategic Shocks in Defense Strategy Development
      “Deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction or other catastrophic capabilities, unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters are all paths to disruptive domestic shock.”

    2. I wonder how west virginians will spring. Traditionally some of the most conservative people in america, while at the same time also traditional democrats.

  17. Firstly, let’s just start off with the obvious; Fuck you, traitor.
    I may be unhappy with some of the policies of my government, but I accept the rules and play by them. It’s part of being an American patriot; Something that scum like you no nothing about.
    If there ever was to come to pass a time when your kind brought about a civil war, I hope that I personally get to tie the noose around your neck.

      1. That argument is extremely popular with the American communists as well. It assumes moral equivalence among all revolutionaries, where there is none.

        1. Ah, gotta love history. The losers become “traitors,” and the winners become “patriots.”

        2. It assumes moral equivalence among all revolutionaries, where there is none.

          So secession because the colonists didn’t want to pay taxes or lose slavery was moral? Guys like Vladimir Lenin argued for revolution purely on moral reasoning.

        1. “I would be on the side of the United States of America, yes.”
          United States of America ceased to exist as an actual nation after 1965.

    1. Angry mangina alert!
      Your comments would be more calm if you change your tampon before your hit send.

    2. If you’re a white man then you’re a useful idiot.
      If you’re anything else, then you are my enemy and I look forward to our meeting.
      P.S. just realized this may be a poor attempt at trolling. had me there for a second lol

    3. You can only be a traitor if you’re a part of something. America has no place for me, I’m just stuck in this hell-hole at the moment.
      The word “patriot” is a fucking joke, what is there to be patriotic about?

    4. Willing to kill to enforce your will on the unwilling… this is the true mark of someone with no confidence. You need to fill the “hole” in your life by turning a bureaucracy that couldn’t care less about you into a cult worth dying for. Even a cursory view of history shows that re-drawing the lines on the map is a normal and expected process; however, it’s only Americans that somehow believe their union is sacrosanct. When Milosevich tried to do what Lincoln did (enforce an arbitrary political union), he was tried as a war criminal. But people like you know that Lincoln was different, because your second grade teacher told you “he was the best President!”

    5. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      — Thomas Jefferson

      1. I like it Bart. Let me provide the precursor to your quote, which is certainly the most stirring part, but I think deserves elaboration:
        “God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. …And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
        to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
        in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.It is its natural manure.”
        ^Somebody read that full quote by Thomas Jefferson and tell me if he….the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, our preeminent Founding Father and 3rd President, would not be put on a watch list and declared a homegrown domestic terrorist for uttering such notions in 2014.
        Our Founders were radicals, they were free thinkers and patriots to that divine calling from God to Man that mankind should live free.
        Those who follow “the rules” because…well them’s the rules, will be forgotten by history for their blind obedience which knows neither justice nor wrong.

    6. “I accept the rules and play by them.”
      If your government does not, in what way is it your government?

    7. I may be unhappy with some of the policies of my government, but I accept the rules and play by them.

      “I was only following orders.”

    8. Who actually plays by the rules?
      And you won’t be hanging anyone, not after the seceding state governments seize the nukes.

    9. Fuck you, traitor.

      Was George Washington not a “traitor” to the British? You’re only a traitor if you lose. If you win, you’re a “patriot.”

  18. There’s Little Havana, Chinatown, the Gay Village, Amish country, and now Red Pill Town. That’s it for our tour of Gotham City’s exotic enclaves, folks.

    1. I know so many young liberals who move to low-tax red states, it’s unbelievable how hypocritical they are without even realizing it. Fuck them all. Problem is the liberal degenerates leave the high-tax blue areas and go infect red states

      1. After they finish running big cities into the ground they move to the suburbs and do it again. They are like parasites.

    2. The socialists will never secede. Their system falls apart when tons of white men are not pumping enormous amounts of money into the govt coffers.

      1. And that map is for a jury-rigged Presidential election the Democrats won. The election last month would actually show far less blue. Maine, Massachusetts, and Illinois just elected Republican Governors!

  19. Oscar, the link to the article about kids from gay families and your assertion: “Lower socioeconomic outcomes among kids from same-sex-parented families?” is misleading. I’m surprised I didn’t hear of the study myself and when I researched it (and by that I mean a quick Google search) I found that the study actually looked mostly at kids who were raised in traditional families where one parent came out at some point during the marriage after having kids. So yes, of course, in an unstable environment where the parent makes bad life choices, and it ruins the marriage and family, the kid is more likely to be messed up. And yes, being gay can ruin your life, you’re more likely to get HIV, more likely to be suicidal and suffer from depression. But the fact of the matter is, for you to say ‘lower socioeconomic outcomes among kids from same-sex parented families’ is misleading because the study did not look at kids who were raised by two fathers or two mothers from the get-go. Yes that idea is by its nature progressive (two same gendered parents), but in reality same-gendered parents aren’t trying to steal babies from some nice, traditional family. Perhaps these same gendered parents are trying to rescue some poor kid from the ills of multiculturalism that produced them. So, what is that then? A progressive family unit rescuing a kid from progressivism by giving them a more progressive experience. And then they turn out conservative? What would that mean? Anyways, I’m getting off topic. This is definitely a struggle for me as I’m married to another man, but I do agree with many of your points about progressivism killing America. I’m against multiculturalism and believe that America should stay America, because I know that what happens when new cultures move in is that they eat the host culture and try to implant their own. It’s not about coexisting, it’s about dominance and taking what isn’t theirs. People are tribal. Yes, America was ‘taken’ from the natives by Europeans. But that’s war, that’s what happens. I agree when you say: “All I want is to have the same consideration extended to me and to others who think like me. I don’t want to keep arguing with people who will never be swayed. I want a place—a physical homeland—where I and my family and those like us can live and govern ourselves independently.” But my thought is, if the US government is meant to be of, by and for the people — and it doesn’t empower a large swath of those people, perhaps even a majority, to live their life they see fit — then it shouldn’t, by nature of what it was originally intended to do, exist at all. It’s a failed experiment in Democracy and should dissolve itself. Then we can all form tribal gangs and go our own way.

  20. Geographic concentration is the answer. You can only spin your wheels so long trying to undo 20+ years of state indoctrination through schools and academia before you burn out and accomplish nothing. Imagine you don’t have to expend this energy because people already “get it.” Luckily, someone already though of this ten years ago, and the movement is real and picking up steam. FREE STATE PROJECT DOT ORG

  21. Political secession means nothing if Disney and Bravo are still being piped in to the cable TV box.

    1. That’s another thing… I never got why Conservatives patronize Hollywood in any major way. Having cable TV, paying full price for movies in the theater, is the same as giving money to your enemy if you are a conservative.

      1. Thats because conservatives aren’t fighting this war the way its suppose to be. Instead of trying to play by the rules or old rules if they used their resources and energy to educate and rally their PAC’s to avoid hollywood and msm, things would be different.

        1. They can be had through DVD rentals and in the process, Hollywood gets a much smaller cut 🙂

        2. you are kidding right?
          DVD sales and rentals today make nearly ten times as much as a run at the box office, albeit over the following year.
          Also, big-budget fx flix are MUCH better watched on the big screen… it is leading to a natural separation, where the romcoms, dramas, and suspense movies are streamlined to the little screen, while the FX and action flicks are going to the theaters.
          Frankly, I LIKE this movement. low FX movies don’t BELONG on the silver screen. And until the day when a single user in his home can produce a feature-length 3d movie easily using blender (Not far off, in fact it’s already happening but generally takes too long currently) of his favorite books, the silevr screen exists for the sole purpose of movies like Marvel.

        3. I’d argue that DVD and Blu-Ray sales are still going relatively strong because they’re a cheaper alternative to buying tickets and going to a theater.
          But also consider this. Say you rent a movie from Redbox. That’s one DVD sold that could have been viewed by hundreds of people, and possibly 10 of them might have bought the movie as well, but chose not to because they could rent it from Redbox.
          Hollywood also doesn’t like Redbox very much, and essentially forced them to pay full price for the DVDs that they rent out because they are too good at what they do.
          So yes, renting a movie allows you to enjoy the movie, but not sell as much of your soul to Hollywood in the process of doing so.

    2. Great point…but you’re describing how progressivism came to be. disney and bravo are the old media, and the old media is technical dead already. Signs of decay are all over, never mind the cultural, but viewership, ratings, box office even their little (and insufferable) awards shows. There are disruptive technologies afoot that WILL provide a superior substitution to current mass and mainstream media. “They” can’t even make original work anymore, what’s this another remake …”Mad Max”? What are we up too, Aliens or Terminator 10? And note, they’re all thoroughly, being washed over by the PC template. And yet, box office continues to decline.
      Its over.
      What is going to emerge is, best way I can describe it, a fusion of your iTunes, TV and public domain presented as a app on your flatscreen. Accessible via a game console such as the Wii or whatever. Think about the construct of disney and bravo… those channels push content that, over time, became what the producers wanted (lots of homosexuals and strong women) and not what the consumer (who IS always right) wants. They got away with it because there were no other options. That will change and you’re own personalized cultural experience will be its replacement. True genuine demand reflecting the true desires of this still right leaning society will be met. What about the old media versus new media’s business model (ad sales)? The very essence of this technology will empower the individual or family to customize their content manually and/or via a genius app. This will create very accurate consumer profile rich in information that was hitherto impossible to access. Whereas, advertisers take their best guesses with the old system you can surgically find, on a per person basis, your exact consuming demographic and speak to them directly via the information generated off this system. No other present day solution, such as disney or bravo, can come close to that kind of a value proposition. The old media is doomed, all they may have is content and that is going to be disrupted too.
      Everything will change. “They” controlled perception of reality through media and they only could do this because the media was too centralized. The future is a vastly decentralized media and nothing will stop it from happening. Find the company(s) doing this and buy the stock.

      1. actually, you can see signs of this with netflix. after a few months of searching for what I wanted, I never even have to see homosexual romcoms or liberal political pundits on my lists anymore. gayspace and Fatass Moore are gone for good.
        At least until Netflix starts to take advertizing bucks to put that agitprop back in your selections.

  22. I sense a lot of people want a cultural change in addition to political. Hell, Alex Jones has a higher viewership then cnn.

      1. Indeed a government consistent with the Constitution would be small, checked and balanced, and, therefore weak. I think the original intent from our framers was to never have government come close to influencing culture. Moreover, I believe that the real “liberal” understanding of freedom was freedom of the individual from the state. Probably explains why so many progressives hate the constitution…it prevents them from their agenda.

  23. Here’s the strategy the Leftists would take if secession took place. They’d paint those seceding as wanting to set up a fascist state, and thus claim it is their “moral duty” to invade and conquer those states.

      1. Exactly….the leftists are all afraid of the word “gun”, they hate the military and hate taking orders without arguing or discussing them. That’d be a hell of an invasion force to contend with.

      2. Obviously not. Liberals don’t do anything themselves, other than scream and be a pain in the ass. Just like everything else they’d get the gov to do it for them.

  24. Small government which enforces private property rights is ideal.
    All these liberals who want government regulation/intervention in their normal lives are weak minded idiots. Perhaps that’s why women are such a large democrat voting block, theyre much easier to dupe.

    1. Amazing isn’t it? They scream “freedom” the loudest and yet they want to be governed the most. Why is that?

  25. Like the sentiment, but not convinced that this is a viable path during our lifetimes. Many of our visionary ancestors died before witnessing their philosophies entrenched in history. Perhaps we will be blessed to see red pill philosophy spread like wildfire, though i think we should focus on more short and intermediate goals….Specifically, civil disobedience. That means rejecting marriage, non-participation in politics, creation of strong local institutions and groups, rejection of consumerism.

  26. I can’t see this degree of spending and debt continuing. It is not sustainable. Both parties are responsible

  27. “Scotland, Quebec, Catalonia—if they can be permitted peacefully to vote
    to secede (or not) from their political unions, why can’t our states?
    Lest we forget, America was born in rebellion, and has always had at its
    core the principle of “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Progressives opposing that principle would find themselves in the one place where they truly don’t want to be: the wrong side of history.”
    It seems you are imagining a peaceful withdrawal of 3/4 of the states into a new country; that the north and the left coast will simply stand by and allow that to happen. Absolutely no way.
    This country was founded on violence and has maintained violence consistently throughout it’s history. We fight a major war every 20 years or so and that is sprinkled with countless smaller interventions and aggressions, spanning the globe. Then we call the Germans “warlike”!
    No, the progressives would relish the chance to openly use violence against their enemies. It would be brutal beyond the pale. A fine idea, but it would never happen peacefully.

  28. The secession is already happening–subculturally. McLuhan predicted the global village. In fact, there will be many. Let’s keep this one going and growing. It takes a village, right?

  29. Forget about grand schemes like this. The best you’re gonna do is get yourself on some DHS list as an extremist who merits monitoring.
    You’re not going to save the country anyway. Save yourself instead.
    Move deep into rural, red territory.
    There’s plenty that can be said against living here.
    You’ll have to give up the opera and the art museums for the most part, but the political and social atmosphere in this area is maybe 30 years or more “behind” the more progressive, urban areas in many ways, and it ain’t changing anytime soon.
    Besides, you can take up deer hunting and bass fishing as consolations.

    1. “You’ll have to give up the opera and the art museums for the most part . . .”
      No loss, they seem to have given up me.
      ” . . . deer hunting and bass fishing . . .”
      I prefer trout. That gives me Montana, Idaho or the Northeast Kingdom.

    2. I was thinking about that. Someone was talking about life in Idaho on a forum somewhere a few weeks ago. It sounded…perfect, actually.

  30. It’s you want to secede, your best bet is Texas. They’re the only state I know of that is making an effort to position themselves for possible secession. “Secede” bumper stickers are popular in Texas.

    1. I believe it is actually legal for Texas to secede.
      I seem to remember reading somewhere that keep the right to secede was part of the deal Texas made with the US when they joined the union.
      Texas was a sovereign nation before joining.
      Hopefully some from Texas will know more about his than I do and can post it here.

      1. That is correct. It was part of the terms Texas agreed to upon their annexation to the Union in 1845. A prudent move to be sure….always have a plan B.
        I am not from TX myself but have often considered moving there. Their sense of independence and that grand TX fighting spirit is world renowned. Unfortunately, our current Emperor in Chief is making it a dumping ground for 3rd world human waste. So I may hold off to see if the place becomes Mexico Jr. (tragically, it seems to be heading that way)

      2. Texas succeeded with the South and joined the Confederacy during the Civil War, they were not allowed to remain a sovereign state after the war. So I am pretty sure that won’t happen without a fight.

  31. It’s probably the only solution but it’ll only work in states and regions not fully brainwashed by the left.

  32. What some of you fail to realize, is that there is safety in numbers. First of all, the US won’t allow a state to secede. But even if the US did allow a state to secede, there is nothing stopping a foreign power from conquering/invading the newly independent state and imposing their will on said state(s). So not only would those states have to fight the U.S. military but they would potentially have to fight a foreign power to retain their independence. The grass is not always greener on the other side.

    1. Who’s going to invade and conquer Texas? Or Montana and Idaho? Or a collection of three states on the east coast?

  33. Yes, divorce from progressive America but, do not think stopping there will be good enough. Man is not fighting Liberalism or the Democrats. The war is not between Rred state and blue state but, between Tradition defined by Evola and Modernism. What is needed is a revolt against the modern world, not a revert to a certain date and its institutions.

  34. The only sustainable secession is one along racial lines. Any nation based on culturally conservative ideals needs to be largely ethnically homogenous.
    All common deeprooted cultural bonds are based on similarity of ethnic and religious identity.
    It is simply not possible to uphold a conservative multicultural and multiracial state in the long run. It will sooner or later decay to identity politics, defeating the very purpose of secession.
    I am not sure what the author is advocating more specifically. But a superficial separation based on a dumbed down division of democrat/republican is no way to engage in serious nation building.
    And there is no ensuring that this process will be peaceful. Its nice to hope for a peaceful divorce, but be prepared for violence and bloodshed. These are the brutal lessons from world history.

    1. racial homogeneity is neither necessary nor even possible, but cultural racial supremacy is apparently both. Some American Indian tribes used to adopt whites and blacks, but they were expected to live and behave as Indians. In limited circumstances, gentiles may convert to Judaism without undermining the Jewish tribal identity. In some Asian countries, the Chinese minority may have more money, but the indigenous majority determines the culture. Racial purity will never exist, but a happy nation does seem to need a core ethnic group from which to take its cues in terms of morality, social norms and even dress codes.

      1. Who says it is not possible? Some nations of the world are very homogenous. Tell this to say the Koreans or Japanese. Do you even know how nations have been forged in history?
        So what if indians adopted white or black babies. Are you actually saying that the mass adoption of racially alien babies would not change the underlying culture? Adoptees are often psychologically tormented people who often have a profound need to seek out their biological parents. Once again, blood is thicker than water.
        Judaism is a poor example, since judaism is based on parental decent. Liberal, conservativ or orthodox makes no differnece, you are still a jew if your biological mother is a jew. And it is not easy to convert to judaism, it is a long process with no guarantees of full conversion.
        And even if you convert you are still not considered as “one of them”. The goy normally stays a goy.
        The places where chinese dominate a larger mass of other ethnicities like Malaysia is riddled with identity politics and tribal thinking. Just like the US is dominated by the chosen people.
        Best to avoid this altogether.

        1. I say it’s not possible. With their Chinese and Mongolian ancestry on the one hand and the Ainu on the other, even the Koreans and Japanese are not racially pure.
          It is true on the societal level, as on the personal level, that someone most dominate and lead, but, the wandering eye of man being what it is, racial purity ain’t never, ever gonna happen.

  35. What is it about the anglo saxon man that he must create nation after nation in which he is eventually unwelcome? Well . . . I guess there’s still Antarctica . . .

  36. Excellent article, been waiting for one like this. Problem is it’s been statistically proven that when blue state progtards turn their own areas into multicult Marxist toilets they have a tendency to move to better locales in red states and bring with them the same voting patterns that turned the last places into a toilet so the cycle repeats all over again.
    Shitlibs instinctively know this on some level. Hence why when normal America finally does wake up to what’s going on and the majority say fuck it let’s secede, shitilibs will never allow their safety net to secede. Count on it.

  37. Didn’t bother reading this but guessing that either “marxism”, “leftist”, or “liberal” was used at some point as a slur.
    ROK: now about 2 thirds manosphere/1 third right wing politics.

    1. The manosphere has always been right wing. Opposing feminism is considered far right. Even mainstream conservatives eat up feminist ideology.

  38. The US is ripe for a civil conflict of some sort – secession is not that crazy. UK is in a similar boat. I am amazed the EU is still going – I suppose these things take time. More time than I thought, anyway.

  39. The idea of a right to secede is silly. If the country doesn’t want you to secede, they use violence. If you break a law, they use violence. Saying “there is no right to secede” is the logical equivalent of saying “we will use violence against you if you secede and won’t feel bad about it.”
    There are many conservative countries that function well. Look at the East. They are pretty conservative. America could work as a conservative country. However, if we secede, you must realize that most of those red states have low population, stupid populations, little established banking industry, and not nearly the number of absurdly wealthy people you have in blue states. After secession, I’m sure housing prices would fall like mad, causing whatever wealth there exists in the New South to disappear into thin air. You would have to hope that wealthy people would risk the social fallout of moving south to protect their money, and become entrepreneurs. Otherwise, the New South would end up poor as dirt.
    Secession is definitely fun to think about, though.

  40. From one of the foremost, if not preeminent Consitutional experts on Monetary Policy (beat the Supreme Court twice), Dr. Edwin Vieira (On State “Secession”)
    Edwin Vieira: I believe that “secession” − the assertion by a State of a right to remove herself from the Constitution’s federal system on her own recognizance − is unconstitutional. I have a long series of articles on this subject posted in my archive at And even if such a form of “secession” were not unconstitutional, or some other arguably legal form of “secession” were tried, the exercise would be futile at the present time because no State is prepared to deal with the primary consequences of “secession.” How, for example, could a State successfully “secede” economically if she remained tied to the Federal Reserve System’s phony regime of paper currency and unlimited bank credit? Obviously, as a precondition to “secession” a State would have to adopt an alternative currency entirely independent of the Federal Reserve and the United States Treasury Department. Has that been done anywhere? No.
    Moreover, how could a State expect to “secede” politically if rogue agents of the General Government could enter her territory at will and attempt to enforce that government’s statutes, regulations and executive orders on her citizens? Obviously, as a precondition to “secession” a State would have to revitalize her Militia, in order to be able to interpose against such assaults on her own sovereignty and on her people’s lives, liberties, and property. But has that been done anywhere? Again, no. So in the absence of these necessary preliminary steps (and many others, too), talk of “secession” is plainly little more than the expulsion of hot air.
    The assertion of the States’ special constitutional status within the federal system − what is often described as “States’ rights” − is another matter, though. Many opportunities for asserting the States’ special status now exist. The problem, of course, is that the General Government’s courts are ready, willing and able to attempt to nullify these assertions of federalism by invoking an overly expansive misconstruction of the Constitution’s “supremacy clause” (Article VI, Clause 2).
    So if the States are serious about protecting and promoting their rights and the rights of their people, at some point in the near future they will have to reject the notion that the General Government’s courts, or any department of that government, or all of them acting in unison, are the final arbiters of what the Constitution means.
    Indeed, this should be obvious. The General Government is merely the agent of the people, not the people’s master. The people are the principal. On what theory of agency is the principal required to accept the agent’s unilateral, self-serving and possibly corrupt determination of what the agent’s powers are, thereby effectively subordinating the principal to the agent? To be sure, this is the twisted formula usurpers and tyrants invariably employ in drawing all powers to themselves, at the expense of the people. But to contend that it is a principle, precept, or permissible interpretation of the Constitution is at best a nice piece of effrontery to which no American should give credence, if not a rotten piece of political treachery, which every American should condemn and oppose.

  41. This article rests on the assumption that Red America and its culture and institutions aren’t affected by progressive ideologies to any extent that matters. Dalrock in particular has masterfully written about how this is definitely not the case, not when it comes to feminism, gender roles, marriage, family and divorce. A particularly prominent theme on his blog is how self-proclaimed traditional conservative forces have ended up backing the new feminist social order, choosing to blame men and their failings for all the ills of the current sociosexual order and sternly telling them to Man Up (TM) while keeping on making excuses for and supporting the laws and social structures that enable women’s bad behaviour.
    Contemporary traditional conservatives might oppose the feminists of present day, but they have fully embraced the positions of the feminists of decades past, and proclaim now those as some of the core values of Western civilization.

  42. It’s time for the right wingers to start courting the black vote more aggressively. When so many blacks identify as Christian, it’s only natural that they will agree on certain social issues among Christians (family values, abortion, personal responsibility, etc.). The progs know that the day black America starts leaving their plantation is the day they are truly done.

  43. How would secession stop progressivism? Even in red states there are usually a large contingent of people that vote Democrat–take Georgia for example where Michelle Nunn was defeated, but not by a huge margin. Those people don’t just go away as soon as a new nation is formed, and their ideas and ideology wouldn’t either.

  44. All those red states? You do realize 40% of the American Population voted in the midterms right? The lowest in a century. It was less about conservatism and more about im sick of all parties involved.

  45. This is more an urban/rural divide; it doesn’t follow state lines. On a more detailed voting map you can see that there are no blue states west of the Hudson, just red states with big cities.
    And don’t think red states are some bastion of traditional values — divorce rates there are only slightly lower than in blue states. Read Dalrock and marvel at how deeply feminism has infected almost every church in America.

  46. States should have more autonomy with decentralization by downsizing the federal government to stop overspending, social engineering and bureaucracy. There’s no need for secession. America is strong united.
    Libertarians support Minimum Government, maximum freedom.

  47. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers granted to the federal government, and the power to prevent secession is not one of them. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments state that the powers not delegated to the United States (federal government) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. This being the case, there is no legal force to hang all the men who formed the Confederate government, as Mr. White suggested.
    Lastly, there is this from the Declaration of Independence: “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government … Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.”

  48. My favorite ROK article to date. These are my sentiments exactly. I see where blue state politics have led the region of the country where I come from to ruin.

  49. Concerning the Regnerus study, it does appear that it was inadequate. I am curious to know how many studies which cast sames-sex parents in a positive or negligible light use similar methodology which liberal lobbyists then conveniently ignore.

Comments are closed.