A Brief Case for a National Divorce

File it Under: Irreconcilable Differences

Sometimes a relationship must end. Either it runs its course naturally, or the behavior of one or more parties is such that ending it becomes more rational than to continue trying to keep it together. Sometimes the goals of those involved change so drastically that common ground can no longer be reached. It may be frustrating to see the relationship end; it can also be embarrassing, even infuriating. In some cases, it can be catastrophic for one (or all) of the parties involved. This can cause people to keep trying to keep it afloat long past any rational point. But eventually all but the most stubborn among us will accept reality, and let it end. I believe that our nation has reached this point, and while some of us refuse to accept it, reality will win out in the end. There are four points that I’d like to discuss, in this very brief case for a national divorce.

We No Longer Even Agree on the Problems

Half of the country not only wants less immigration, they want it stopped entirely (at least for a while) and for those here illegally to be sent back to their home country. The other half of the country doesn’t think our high rates of immigration are even a problem; in fact, they wish it to be higher.

Half of the country thinks that abortion is a mortal sin and should probably be banned outright, or at least severely restricted. The other half thinks that it is such a fundamental right for all women that not only should there be no restrictions whatsoever on them, but the procedure should be publicly funded and all social stigma should be removed.

Half of the country thinks that it is their God-given right to keep and bear arms, up to and including semi-automatic rifles in any caliber they wish, and in any number they wish. The other half thinks that firearm ownership should be restricted to the government, except in rare cases like hunting rifles and shotguns.

Half of the country thinks that it is a major problem is that people are not educated well enough, and that federal schools need to be more well-funded and given more respect within our society. The other half of the country views the government with such suspicion and loathing that are trying to eliminate the federal Department of Education entirely.

These are not small differences of opinion. They are not brought about by ignorance, or people not understanding one another’s arguments, or not knowing all the facts. They represent fundamental cultural and ideological divides. We have moved well past arguing over how to solve problems, and are now arguing whether or not something is even a problem. This cannot be rectified by more open communication, and compromise is not possible. The only possible outcome in this scenario is for the group with the most political power to crush the opposition and enforce their will, which simply leads to increased frustration and anger.

Our Goals and Dreams are Completely Different

When I consider the Progressive philosophy and play it out in my head to its logical conclusion, I am appalled. Even in the best-case scenario, if all of their plans come to fruition and they don’t lead to total social collapse or war, what they want is repellent to me and all other Conservatives. An ideal society for me is one that is almost totally racially homogeneous, with very limited government, where active and healthy social clubs provide most of the structure in people’s lives. To a Progressive, my ideal society is just as disgusting as theirs is to me.

No amount of discussion or arguments will get us past this fundamental problem. And so I ask: why bother? I hate the society they wish to build; they hate the society I wish to preserve. Why must we fight over it? Why not go our separate way in peace, allowing them to build a civilization that suits them, while we build one that suits us? Our goals and dreams are not simply incompatible, but rather they are mutually exclusive. It’s not that my ideal society will be difficult by including their values; it is impossible. Likewise, the type of world in which they wish to live is not only hampered by my misgivings, but stopped entirely by my unwillingness to accept even their ethical framework. This is why Leftists, upon attaining power, always start censoring dissent. They are correct to do so. Any strong dissent destroys the entire process of remaking society, and that is their ultimate goal.

It Doesn’t Need to be Violent

There is no particular reason for a national divorce to become violent. Once we all agree that it would be better to go our separate way, then all that is left is negotiating what that looks like. Countries have split apart and combined all throughout history. Sometimes it is bloody and contentious, but occasionally it is not. In nearly every example of a violent revolution or civil war, people argue in hindsight that there was no rational reason for the violence. Even the American Civil War didn’t have to happen - the federal government could have respected the southern states’ sovereignty and allowed them to go their own way.

Perhaps rather than a formal breakup, we could grant states much more autonomy. A neutered federal government, with states having the ability to form alliances amongst each other, set their own taxes, pass their own laws with little to no federal oversight, could forestall the breakup (or even prevent it entirely). In this case we’d be dissolved in all but name.

Of course, some amount of violence is likely. But when one considers that the alternative is to continue living in a nation where the population actively hates one another, and is united in nothing other than their shared loathing of the federal government, then a few skirmishes seem like not too high a price to pay.

It Has Already Happened

Like most personal divorces, by the time we reach the stage of talking about it, it has already all but occurred. Two people lead completely separate lives, and either hate or ignore each other. This is the state the US is currently in. A plumber from Kansas has nothing in common with a vato from Albuquerque, or with a lawyer from Manhattan, or with a software developer from San Francisco. We are living in parallel societies. We watch different television shows, we read different books, we dress differently, and increasingly we speak different languages. The only thing we have in common is a shared banking system, and the only thing keeping even that together is an increasingly bloated and despotic government.

For my entire life I have heard people decry low voter turnout in elections. What is that voter apathy but a natural reflection of people completely checking out of the national process? And why wouldn’t they? It is impossible for federal politicians to reflect the culture-at-large because there is no such thing. We like to imagine that there is, and I think that an increasingly shrinking portion of the population might still believe that fantasy, but most people know that we have nothing in common.

Consider the fact that all federal, and most state, politicians must at all times surround themselves with a team of trained killers to prevent their own assassination, even though they have been elected! What does that say about the state of our society, other than it has completely shattered? Why are we trying to hold this shamble together?

Conclusion

It’s clear that the American Experiment has run its course. The problems facing our nation will never be solved through democratic means. In fact, we cannot even agree on the problems, much less their solution. Why has this occurred? I think there were two causes for the Fall of America: one, active subversion from within, primarily (but not exclusively) by Jewish Communists; two, the system as it was designed was never intended to be this large or to accommodate people from such disparate cultures and races.

What will post-collapse America look like? Who knows? Perhaps it will be two nations. More likely it will be several. I can envision at least five nations: the southwest, the midwest, the northeast, the southeast, and the northwest. Of course there could be many more, similar to most of the rest of the world.

Ultimately, it doesn’t really matter why the country breaks apart, or precisely where the divisions will occur. It will do so. The only questions worth asking now are when it will happen, and in what manner. In my opinion, it needs to happen as soon as possible.