USA Secession / Balkanization

KulturedKaveman said:
But they got the hardware. They got the heavy guns and nukes. The right just has AR15s. The right would have to get Russia and Iran to sponsor them like France and Spain did to the Patriots in the 1700s.
Click to expand...

Yes the actual army would be fighting for the globo homo elites.

I’m not sure a hot civil war would play out. The big brother government would try to cancel the leaders of any potential confederacy or group that would split from the states
 
Christos_NIKA said:
If the US collapsed into civil war, it would be the shortest war ever.
Conservatives armed to the teeth vs. gun haters, twinks, transformers, screeching feminists, and rainbow flag waving 80lb paper weights.
Click to expand...

This assumes the rest of the world simply sits on the sidelines as spectators while we go to war with each other. I think that is entirely unlikely and we'd likely see foreign money funding and training both sides of the fight.
 
Its starting.






The venture fund and a real estate startup behind the development are touting the development as an "aligned community" for people disillusioned with the "cultural insanity of the broader country."

Abbotoy said: "The whole point of it is to plant a flag and say this small town is where our people are gathering. And the question is: who is going to grab the land? Is it going to be good, based people who want to build something inspiring that's culturally authentic to the region's history? Or is it going to be Bill Gates and BlackRock and hippies from California?"
 
If the USA breaks up, I think we should have transit taxes for everything that moves between the Northeast and the Pacific.
For what it's worth, Alex Jones is saying 25 states have now voiced support for Texas regarding their right to defend the open southern border and 10 states are sending their national guard in support.

1706288665462.png
 
Last edited:
Christos_NIKA said:
If the USA breaks up, I think we should have transit taxes for everything that moves between the Northeast and the Pacific.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. This gets back to the original founders non reporting non income tax reality of user fees and other tariffs as the only way to fund a central authority. You can always have referenda, both usually people say NO to those taxes.

The debasement of the USD and the advent of BTC is huge for states controlling wealth that the corporate fascist and Central Banks can do exactly NOTHING about. Talk about your gold all you want, people - BTC is already better and will continue to be in much greater demand.
 
N°6 said:
I am fully aware of the British concentration camps in South Africa. When international finance takes over, nominal white governments will harm white populations.

Modern examples:

1. The Reconstruction
2. The Irish Famine v Whig/ Libertarian parliament
3. The Anglo-South African (the Boer) War and the first instance of concentration camps
4. The Versailles Treaty
5. The fire bombing of Dresden, which had no military significance
Click to expand...
Very interesting what you write. I was reading up on the Boer Wars recently, there were actually 2 of them. If I remember right the British lost the first one very badly, the whole platoon was slaughtered, and won the second one but only just after a very intense battle.

Interesting that even back then it was the Afrikaners, the continental Dutch / Flemish population in South Africa not the English which went on to invent and promote Apartheid perhaps half a century after the Boer wars. That was to segregate on colour so they were obviously over the Boer Wars when they made it and just wanted to split up whites, blacks and colourds although practically, just white from the rest. And that after the British kept the Boers in concentration camps:
Looks like the English had both white Afrikaners and blacks in their concentration camps :
Eventually, there were a total of 45 tented camps which were built for Boer internees and 64 additional camps which were built for black Africans. The vast majority of Boers who remained in the local camps were women and children. Between 18,000 and 26,000 women and children perished in these concentration camps due to diseases.
Click to expand...
It is just interesting that the Afrikaners ultimately went on to want real segregation for whites although they were abused by the British earlier. In more recent times with Orania though, the Boers want to keep out English speakers as well, it's gone beyond just living away from blacks in the modern era, they only want to live among other Afrikaners.
budoslavic said:
The United States is a whore to mammon
Click to expand...
This never occurred to me about the United States but now that you mention it..

It did however occur to me about the British in a really big way. In particular how they are such perfect business partners with the Saudis who do public executions with a sword and only recently allowed women to drive. I also have known some British people who have done a lot of work with Jews and was all perfectly okay for them although from my perspective there was a measure of wrongness in it which they seemed oblivious to.
KulturedKaveman said:
Secession is illegal.
Click to expand...
Really? What, like technically in the lawbooks somewhere like don't try to secede or jail?

Anyway I write about secession in general not just in the US case, it can't be illegal everywhere.

In any case history shows that there is a point at which the state loses the plot and disobedience becomes the only moral path, as was the case with the Covid nonsense.
 
stadtaffe said:
Very interesting what you write. I was reading up on the Boer Wars recently, there were actually 2 of them. If I remember right the British lost the first one very badly, the whole platoon was slaughtered, and won the second one but only just after a very intense battle.

Interesting that even back then it was the Afrikaners, the continental Dutch / Flemish population in South Africa not the English which went on to invent and promote Apartheid perhaps half a century after the Boer wars. That was to segregate on colour so they were obviously over the Boer Wars when they made it and just wanted to split up whites, blacks and colourds although practically, just white from the rest. And that after the British kept the Boers in concentration camps:
Looks like the English had both white Afrikaners and blacks in their concentration camps :

It is just interesting that the Afrikaners ultimately went on to want real segregation for whites although they were abused by the British earlier. In more recent times with Orania though, the Boers want to keep out English speakers as well, it's gone beyond just living away from blacks in the modern era, they only want to live among other Afrikaners.
Click to expand...

That the British ran concentration camps at the turn of the 20 Century makes an interesting party piece when a boomer conservative justifies Britain's pyrrhic victory in WW2 for helping to get rid of the German camps (while turning a blind eye to the transcontinental Soviet gulag system).

The Afrikaners lost the Boer War and their republics joined the British Cape Colony to form the Union of South Africa, which was given dominion class (home rule) to the same extent as Canada, Australia and NZ. They may have lost the war but they won the politics through democratic superiority and the control of the unions in the gold and diamond mines.

It was in the mines where Apartheid started in response to the huge influx of African labour that the Oppenheimers brought into South
Africa following the banker's successful use of the British Army in the Boer War to financialise the mines. Early Apartheid was to protect European semi-skilled, skilled and professional pay grades from huge levels of cheap migration. These migrants came from as far north as Kenya, the Sudan and the Congo and by the 1960s, there were 5:1 Africans to Europeans.

In 1948 the Afrikaners reversed the Boer War completely by voting to change the Union to the Republic of South Africa. The new republic banned British immigration but continued to accept African migration to the mines and allow African domestic labour to live in the European cities. The British working class moved to Southern Rhodesia and Australia instead. Had SA not become a republic and had it developed a British and Dutch working class instead of an African one, Southern Rhodesia probably would have voted to join the Union of South Africa and there might sill have been a viable European population on the Cape, which is again of geopolitical importance now that the West's influence over the Red Sea is waning.
 
Thanks that was an amazing history lesson.
N°6 said:
It was in the mines where Apartheid started in response to the huge influx of African labour that the Oppenheimers brought into South
Africa following the banker's successful use of the British Army in the Boer War to financialise the mines. Early Apartheid was to protect European semi-skilled, skilled and professional pay grades from huge levels of cheap migration. These migrants came from as far north as Kenya, the Sudan and the Congo and by the 1960s, there were 5:1 Africans to Europeans.
Click to expand...
Oh no what a mess.. I heard this whole demand for diamonds was to some extent created with clever marketing from De Beers. Of course they are rare but it wasn't something used as a store of value for millennia like gold. More that it is polished up and many women in the modern era expect a small or large one upon marriage.

5:1 Africans to Europeans in the 1960s while the current percentage of white is 7.3 which makes for a ratio of almost 14:1

So what would the black : white ratio have been prior to that?

I have heard a talk once from Lauren Southern about how it was mainly a white country up to a certain point with just a sparse settlement of black tribes around the place and they all moved down there for a more prosperous life. If that is true it makes the developments since 1991 feel all the more like one huge injustice against the European settlers especially the Afrikaners.
 
DanielH said:
It sounds desperate, and it is, but this is actually somewhat something I agree with. If you're scoring a 50 on the ASVAB, which is the requirement without a GED or diploma, you're of average intelligence. I'm generally against credentialism. I'd rather take a 50 ASVAB guy without a diploma than a 25 ASVAB guy with a diploma any day.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call a GED or diploma average intelligence.

The cirriculum has been so watered down, that its slightly better than an 9th grade education. And they give them out to everyone now a days, participation/attendence is optional.
 
The movement of greater Idaho has been in the works for over a hundred years. Essentially the farmers in southern Oregon or upper California became disenfranchised with city politicians that don’t have their best interests in mind and want to make greater Idaho

IMG_3985.webp


While I get it, I don’t think reforming the states will happen. California, and Oregon will not want to give up land, money, power, etc
 
The 2024 presidential elections could be the needed catalyst for the coming civil war between the Right and the Left.

I don't think a discussion like this could hurt since a US civil war largely seems inevitable at this point.

Here are some questions that I believe are worth talking about on this thread:

When will it start (2024 Elections or later)? What will be the catalyst (Trump assasination, US debt defaut etc.)?
How long could it potentially last?
Factions on each side: On the Right (Christian Fundementalists, White Nationalists, Westernized Ethnic Minorities etc.) On the Left (Deep State, Refugees, Minorities, Antifa etc.)
Who will the military and the police side with (Typically majority Republican)? This question is particularly important as it will ultimately decide the winner

Here's some additional material I've found concering this topic online:

Informational:

Cultural:
Predictive Programming?
 
"needed catalyst for the coming civil war"?

9781515794660.jpg
 
I think succession could happen, this could happen without a serious war, certain red states could just declare themselves independant and close their borders and stop paying tax and start their own countries, would the government sent their military to fight against these states? I dont know? Maybe not,
 
GoodShepherd said:
I think succession could happen, this could happen without a serious war, certain red states could just declare themselves independant and close their borders and stop paying tax and start their own countries, would the government sent their military to fight against these states? I dont know? Maybe not,
Click to expand...
In my opinion, the federal government would absolutely not tolerate any states seceding from the Union.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top