Part X: Balkanization and American Civil War II

It is a fact of history that homogeneous nations arise out of heterogeneous nations. Since 1965, America has been full-speed ahead on making itself as heterogeneous, or “diverse,” as possible.

The result, especially after 8 years of Obama aggravating racial tensions, is a far more divided society. Combined with an acceptance and even celebration of lawlessness, and it is a powder keg waiting to blow.

Prior to the Obergefell decision which forced gay-marriage upon the land, I recall pointing out to a liberal in my social circles that in 2014, no less than seven State Attorneys General refused to do their jobs and enforce the laws of their state, in addition to the Federal executive apparatus illegally abandoning DOMA. These weren’t objections based in religion, but simple declarations that since they disagreed with the laws, they would simply do as they saw fit. I asked the liberal if they saw the problem here, that as soon as the shoe was on the other foot, they’d likely be screaming about Republican politicians refusing to execute their jobs in accordance with law. The reply was, “No, I think it is a very good thing that all these officials are doing.” But sure enough, as soon as a county clerk in Kentucky objected on religious grounds to signing gay marriage licenses, this very liberal was screaming loudly on social media for the immediate termination of this official for refusing to enforce the law (just recently legislated from the Supreme Court Bench).

And then there are all the cases of liberal and progressive tolerance of voter fraud, so long as it is in their favor.

What do you do when approximately half of your fellow citizens celebrate lawlessness so long as it works in their favor? Is it even possible for a “social contract” to exist anymore at that point? “Laws for thee but not for me?” Should I stand by and play fair and operate within the system while my neighbor cheats as hard as possible to create new laws to disadvantage me? I’m keeping my personal answer to myself, but a large swath of citizens will soon be asking themselves this, and the answers are not going to be pretty.

Just because you are tolerant toward your neighbor doesn’t mean they will be tolerant toward you. There’s plenty of hype in the media about the evils of white supremacist groups like the KKK. Just because a black man like Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell or Ben Carson lives next door and harbors no racism doesn’t mean the KKK will say, “Nah, you’re cool with us.”

Likewise, if you are not part of BLM and you had a neighbor like this, demanding even at point of violence that you must surrender your money, your house and your property for social change, do you really think if you told him how tolerant and not-racist you are he’ll make an exception for you?

Or when this BLM leader publically insists that all white people are genetically inferior sub-humans who need to be wiped out as a race, do you think she might say, “Except you, since you say you’re color-blind to race?”

Or what if this fine example of the modern American college student of 2016 were going to school with your daughter? He and three others raped her, urinated on her and degraded her, got it all on video, told her she deserved because of her skin color, and finished up by saying “That’s for 400 years of slavery you b—-!” I don’t know about you but my ancestors (from several continents) were not in this country 400 years ago, and some of them not even 100 years ago.

Or what if these four guys were your neighbors, who have the stomach to kidnap and torture a special needs kid while cursing Trump and all white people and upload the torture video to the net?

I already quoted the Univision anchor above, speaking for Hispanics when saying “America belongs to us now!” Do you think that attitude would include “…and black people too, they can stay,” or “…and white Republicans too, like Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush and George Zimmerman?”

Whenever someone boasts about being a [something]-American, is their allegiance to America or the group identity in front of the hyphen? If violence breaks out between the [something] and those who see themselves as simply “American,” which side do you think the hyphenated-Americans will take? (I’m including all European descendants as well who boast about being Irish-American or Italian-American or whatever.)

My point is NOT that any one race needs to take arms against any other particular race.

Rather, my point is that “tolerance” tends to only exist either among white liberals in gated communities, or among rural conservative communities who put American values ahead of racial identity. If your neighbor doesn’t fit into one of those two categories, then you might be a target of opportunity when violence breaks out.

Consider this article written by a survivor of Yugoslavia, who says:

Yet the collapse of Yugoslavia offers several cautionary tales to Americans today, and if they are wise they will heed them and set the United States on a correction course before it is too late. As one who witnessed the dreadful collapse of Yugoslavia and its terrible aftermaths — including the seemingly permanent impoverishment of Southeastern Europe, mired in crime, corruption, and extremism — I would very much like America to discover a far happier fate.

However, some of the parallels are eerie and troubling.

The root of Yugoslavia’s collapse was economic, particularly its parlous state finances.

After two years of study, Krajgher’s commission in 1983 released its report, which correctly assessed that Yugoslavia needed to get its economic house in order to avoid financial, and then political, collapse…Its effect, however, was zero. The report was ignored, and Communist officials never made any effort to seriously implement any of Krajgher’s solid recommendations. It was too politically painful to make cuts, so the government pretended there was no problem. Until it was too late.

Comparisons to Obama are unavoidable. Early in his first term, he empowered a bi-partisan board, known colloquially as the Simpson-Bowles commission, to investigate improving the long-term condition of America’s state finances. The commission’s findings were thorough and persuasive, and they offered a way out of the country’s fiscal morass. At a minimum, Simpson-Bowles set the terms for a necessary debate. But Obama inexplicably pretended that his own commission ever existed. No debate ensued, since discussing cuts of government benefits to voters is electorally toxic — Republicans are no more eager to talk about this pain than Democrats — and nothing happened.

Worse, economic problems, including unemployment and inflation that impoverished Yugoslavs rapidly — by the time the country went over the cliff in 1991, real incomes were half what they had been a generation before — exacerbated the country’s serious ethnic grievances. When combined with economic emergency, Yugoslavia’s ethnic politics proved a lethal combination that led directly to wars and genocide.

Yugoslavia was a very diverse country, ethnically and religiously, and the divisions between groups were real and serious. Unlike 21st century Americans, Yugoslavs were under no illusions that “diversity is our greatest strength” — they knew the opposite was the truth — and the Communists went to great lengths to keep ethnic peace by banning what we would term “hate speech” while mandating that the official doctrine that Yugoslavia’s diverse peoples really loved each other deeply be placed at the level of quasi-religious dogma…

Perhaps worst of all, by preventing any honest discussion of ethnic matters, the Communists had a perverse knack of making each of Yugoslavia’s many ethnic groups feel that it was uniquely aggrieved.

Playing political games with race and ethnicity in any multinational society is a dangerous thing. Obama, by promising that he wanted to be president of all Americans, then governing as a highly partisan Democrat, has laid the groundwork for a hazardous future for the United States, hardly helped by his public indulging of black nationalism, particularly his incautious discussion of crimes both real and imagined against African Americans. However verboten discussion of white nationalism is at present among polite Americans, it is unavoidable that this will become an issue in the future, with potentially explosive consequences — to say nothing of the rise of Hispanic and Asian nationalisms too, as the United States becomes even more diverse than Yugoslavia was.

Do we really believe that America will succeed were every other nation in history has failed? Here is an interesting warning from all the way back in Aristotle’s day (Politics, book 5, part 3[emphasis added]):

Another cause of revolution is difference of races which do not at once acquire a common spirit; for a state is not the growth of a day, any more than it grows out of a multitude brought together by accident. Hence the reception of strangers in colonies, either at the time of their foundation or afterwards, has generally produced revolution; for example, the Achaeans who joined the Troezenians in the foundation of Sybaris, becoming later the more numerous, expelled them; hence the curse fell upon Sybaris. At Thurii the Sybarites quarrelled with their fellow-colonists; thinking that the land belonged to them, they wanted too much of it and were driven out. At Byzantium the new colonists were detected in a conspiracy, and were expelled by force of arms; the people of Antissa, who had received the Chian exiles, fought with them, and drove them out; and the Zancleans, after having received the Samians, were driven by them out of their own city. The citizens of Apollonia on the Euxine, after the introduction of a fresh body of colonists, had a revolution; the Syracusans, after the expulsion of their tyrants, having admitted strangers and mercenaries to the rights of citizenship, quarrelled and came to blows; the people of Amphipolis, having received Chalcidian colonists, were nearly all expelled by them.

After making his point, he immediately provides no less than 8 examples which would have been familiar to readers in his day, where admitting large groups of people foreign to your civilization lead to revolution.

Here’s another pointer toward Balkanization, from American expat Fred Reed who now resides in Mexico:

Is it possible for the United States to break up, either de facto or formally?

I wonder. The country is not a happy place. Today it is more consciously and resentfully divided, politically, regionally, racially and by sex and class than perhaps ever before. The rich prosper and the middle class sink. Three major racial blocs eye each other with fear and hostility. The hard left controls the media and government against the desires of much of the country, enforcing social engineering that is deeply disliked. Feminists make war on men, and destroy the schools and universities. Washington is widely loathed. Rules, laws, and regulations never voted on grow ever more burdensome and intrusive. Many quietly want out. The question is how to get there.

Defiance of federal law grows common. For example,“Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) says Chicago is the friendliest immigrant city in the nation since they, “made sure that we no longer cooperate with immigration authorities when it comes to the deportation or separation of our families.”

A US congressman, and a US president, defy federal law. This is an ungluing of note.

What can Washington do if states and regions simply go their own way? If large number of people stop paying income taxes, say? One tax evader can be arrested. Fifty thousand cannot. A problem for the feds is that if a state’s police decline to enforce federal laws, the feds have to do it themselves, and they don’t have the manpower.

So as the Fatal Four southwestern states [CA, TX, AZ, NM] become ever more Latino, what if they de facto eliminate the border with Mexico? They wouldn’t describe it that way. They probably wouldn’t describe it at all. They would just ignore sovereignty. In a globalizing world, the very idea of sovereignty seems less important that it once did. I will guess that the young, who will one day be older, care less than their elders about national identity.

How then would Washington enforce its will? Send the Army? Bomb Los Angeles? Them as has the numbers gets their way. And are getting it.

In the past the rock-solid unity of the United States existed because people wanted it. The foundation was a largely uniform white, Christian, European culture which no one thought about because there was no reason to think about it. Minorities were minor enough that they had to conform to the dominant culture. People shared ideas of morality, education, crime, music, religion, dress, manners, and patriotism.

That unity is gone forever. The old, functioning system has been replaced, not by another functioning system, such as that of Japan, China, or Korea, but by civilizational chaos. A law of human behavior is that people want to live among people like themselves. Another is that they do not like being ruled from afar by people they detest. Who likes Washington today?

Here’s another national example – Ukraine. Cracked gives 5 examples of how civil war here could play out similarly. Here are some interesting quotes:

We’ve got no shortage of political strife in the USA. But for all the antagonism inherent in our democracy, we all agree to put up with the Other Guys when they win power. The only alternative to that would be some sort of civil war, and that kind of thing could never happen here. The people of Ukraine thought the same thing two years ago. And then, while they were busy getting degrees, raising families, and starting careers, a civil war snuck up and slapped their lives right in the…

Ukraine’s civil war started after a months-long protest unseated the president. People in Western Ukraine were generally happy with this development. But over in the East, where the president enjoyed more support, people were less happy. Within a matter of weeks a huge chunk of Eastern Ukraine, centered around the city of Donetsk, declared itself a new country…

A month or two before, these people had all just been her fellow citizens. In less time than it takes to earn an Introduction to Psychology credit, their political differences had made the leap from amiable disagreements to people dying in the streets.

The first soldiers we saw at a checkpoint on our way to the front seemed to back this up. They had nice uniforms, full body armor, and weapons all over their bodies. Our interpreter pointed out that they might’ve actually been cops. Apparently, there’s not much of a line between the two in a warzone.

If you live in the suburbs, imagine the city nearest to you seceded from the United States. Suddenly Houston is a battleground, but, shit, you still need to go there — you might even work there. That doesn’t change just because some fools with cannons happen to be blasting the shit out of the Jamba Juice.

During the Civil War, the Lincoln administration arrested at least 14,401 civilians: one person out of every 1,563 in the country. Again, this pattern is repeated in Ukraine.

They also offer 6 reasons a civil war might actually start in the USA now. One of the more interesting items is an almost total breakdown of trust between citizens from the 1970’s to now:

“Trust” isn’t just an intangible concept when we’re talking about the potential for civil warfare. Sinisa Malesevic is a professor who studies the sociology of civil wars and a survivor of the Yugoslavian civil war. He’s someone Marvel really should’ve reached out to for script advice, and he noted the breakdown of trust was one of the first traumatizing steps to war, “… in a very short period of time, there is a complete sense of fear, you do not know who is who, who is supporting which side … that fear spreads.”

Sinisa also pointed out that most civil wars start after a loss of trust in the government, particularly law enforcement: “One of the defining features of any state is a legitimate monopoly on the use of violence.” In other words, if we trust the police to handle bad guys better than armed groups of vigilantes, we’ll probably trust the government more than armed groups of insurgents.

“And if police are not seen as doing their job … I think that certainly has an impact.”

Mike Cernovich gives an excellent summary and collage of how exactly that is happening now.

After police allowed left wing activists to pepper spray several women at a MILO event at Berkeley, free speech activists took lawful self-defense into their own hands. Thus, at a March 4th pro-Trump rally, people entered the fray prepared.

Left wing police departments issue stand-down orders allowing women to be beaten, pepper sprayed, and raped. The police in liberal cities like Berkeley and San Jose will not do their jobs. They do not “serve and protect.”

Women are attacked by the feral left. The fake news media won’t speak out against this. The police won’t do their jobs. It’s up to private citizens to stand up for one another.

There’s Milo Yiannopoulos again, whom I mentioned as a case study of establishment workings. Defintely take a look at Cernovich’s article, as it gives many photos of all the victimized Trump supporters who lost blood while police forces stood by and watched.

Tomorrow: Part XI: The Battle Lines