The Coming Breakup?

Posted on June 26, 2017 by Robert Ringer Comments (33)

Font:

Back in the early eighties, when I was publishing my newsletter The Tortoise Report, the thought crossed my mind that the crumbling American Empire might eventually break up into smaller pieces — similar to the path chosen by the Roman and British Empires.

When it comes to maintaining control over your subjects, bigness tends to be a handicap. The most recent example of this is the former Soviet Union. With its satellite countries biting at its ankles at an accelerating pace and its troops bogged down in Afghanistan, the bitter truth finally came to the surface: Notwithstanding its military might, Moscow couldn’t stop the disintegration of its empire.

When I first started thinking about the possibility of the U.S. breaking up into independent states or regions, it seemed to me that people in places like Wyoming and Utah would simply grow tired of supporting welfare states like California, New York, and Maryland.

But I now realize that it’s a lot more complicated than that. The problem with my vision was that it didn’t take into account that, through the magic of gradualism, all fifty states are doomed to ultimately yield to the disease of collectivism.

Some years back, a leading Russian political analyst, Professor Igor Panarin, predicted that the United States would eventually break up into six regions based along cultural lines, as follows:

  • The Pacific Coast, with its growing Chinese population.
  • The South, with its Hispanics.
  • Texas, where independence movements are already on the rise.
  • The Atlantic Coast, with its distinct and separate mentality.
  • Five of the poorer central states, with their large Native American populations.
  • The northern states, where the influence from Canada is very strong.

Panarin saw the breakup as a direct result of a total collapse of the U.S. economy. Further, he believes that China and Russia will replace the United States as “regulators of world markets.” And he may be on to something, because both of those countries have one big advantage over the United States: Their politicians don’t have to fight for votes!

Instead, they maintain power through the use of force. Though it’s a bit offensive to those of us who prefer persuasion over force, the truth is that Machiavelli’s advice on the subject of keeping the masses in line is remarkably effective. Dictatorships (and to a great extent Russia is back in that mode) violate the rights of their citizens, repress free speech, and can be brutally harsh in meting out punishment.

Hmm … come to think of it, that sounds a bit like the United States, a country that routinely violates the rights of its citizens and is moving rapidly toward the elimination of free speech (i.e., the elimination of conservative and libertarian free speech). But, in all fairness, it’s not yet nearly as harsh as countries like Russia and China when it comes to crushing dissent.

In any event, I agree with Professor Panarin that the U.S. economy has barely begun its collapse, and that there is no way it can sustain the government’s insane fiscal policies. Regardless of whether we have a deflationary or inflationary collapse (or both!), millions of folks are certain to become downright hostile toward Washington as their standard of living continues to decline.

And if that hostility leads to “civil disobedience,” a dictatorship could be the government’s only way of maintaining control. But even if that should happen, I doubt it would last very long. The U.S. government is too much of a clumsy giant to maintain authoritarian control for very long, because there are still too many Americans who take Patrick Henry’s words literally.

The reality is that no one knows for certain how things are going to play out in the coming years, but I, too, believe there’s a real possibility that the United States could eventually break up into a number of independent states or regions. Let’s face it, most Oklahomans are as different from Californians as the Kurds are from the citizens in Baghdad.

The primary reason Iraq has been able to force the Kurds to remain under its control is because of its small geographical area (roughly twice the size of Idaho) and its relatively small population (about 28 million). And, of course, it helps to have the freedom-loving U.S. and other Western countries insist that the Kurds not be set free.

Remember that paragon of wisdom, Rodney King, who once asked, “Why can’t we all just get along?” The answer is because thousands of years of human history have clearly demonstrated that people of different cultures don’t particularly like to be around each other.

I said cultures, not colors. In this day and age, I believe a majority of people don’t care much about skin color. But they do care about the social and cultural mores of their neighbors. The fact is that diversity, contrary to the propaganda drumbeat of the globalists, is not a strength; it’s weakness. Which brings me back to a possible breakup of the U.S.

If it should occur, I don’t see it happening along the lines Professor Panarin suggests. I believe many states would secede individually, and a number of them would work to weed out the evils of big government and return to Jeffersonian principles of government.

In other words, ideology would be the driving force behind such a breakup. Which would probably make Panarin’s view accurate in some respects — e.g., on ideological grounds, it might be convenient for such states as New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Maine to stick together in the Northeast, and California, Oregon, and Washington to form a coalition of some kind on the Left Coast.

To paraphrase the signers of that long-ago-forgotten document, the Declaration of Independence: It is the right of the people to alter or abolish the government and institute new government. It is not only their right, but their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security.

Of course, Rodney King’s thinking was correct — it would be much simpler if we could all just get along. But based on the hatred and violence the Radical Left has displayed of late, what odds do you think Las Vegas bookmakers would give on that ever becoming reality?

Robert Ringer

+Robert Ringer is an American icon whose unique insights into life have helped millions of readers worldwide. He is also the author of two New York Times #1 bestselling books, both of which have been listed by The New York Times among the 15 best-selling motivational books of all time.

33 responses to “The Coming Breakup?”

  1. Bob Diamond says:

    I hope you are incorrect that the move to collectivism is inevitable. Time will tell on that one. One comment I am curious about – I have seen claims that California contributes more in taxes remitted than monies taken from the Federal Government. Do you know if that is actually true? It would surprise me if it were true given their policies and spending.

  2. Angelo says:

    The fact remains that it is practically impossible to “just get along” when a segment of the population (the socialist/fascist/communists, in this case, who inhabit what is incorrectly called in America, the leftist “liberal” space) is full of hatred and espouses a philosophy based on IMPOSING their will on everybody else and violently silencing those who disagree with them (fully or partially). We seem to have forgotten the “progressive” is simply a euphemistic reference to communism and totalitarianism and that “representatives of civil society” is a similar reference to communist front groups.

    “Just getting along” is NOT part of the mind-set of these people. You can tell that from their daily speech.

    Johnny Depp wants to be the actor that kills the president in the 21st century. Madonna wants to burn the White House down. Some idiot “comedian” goes around with a simulated bloody severed head. And these are just examples from the buffoonish “celebrity” crowd, whose philosophical knowledge is on a level with, perhaps, an anopheles mosquito.

    When you look at the “thinkers” among the socialists/fascists/communists, you find them, at most, at the reptilian level. Their own frustrations, inadequacies, inferiority complexes, hatred for their equals and betters, and numerous other psychological deficiencies, lead them down the path of spite, vengeance, violence and destruction. “Just getting along” doesn’t work for them, unless they are holding the whip and those who “must get along” are their slaves. It’s just the way they are. There is NO negotiating with people (and I am generous in the use of that word) like that.

  3. JoeyBronx says:

    How about looking at the most recent presidential election voting results map? That is, a county-by-county blue vs. red map across the entire U.S? Even in the traditional "blue" states like , Washington Minnesota, Oregon, and Virginia, if you remove a SINGLE blue county from those states, Trump wins them ALL in a landslide! (Just look at what would happen in Minnesota, for instance). Even in my hometown, if you eliminate the parasites of Upper Manhattan, Bronx, Kings, and Queens counties, New York is wall-to-wall Trump country! So maybe these ares don't have to be contiguous, but these city/states could be left alone to devour themselves. And don'y woory about them "invading" other countries, as they are a bunch of lazy, limp-wristed pansies!

  4. When I moved to Houston, TX mid- 70s during "Boom Town" time, I said, "OK, I'm in. Let's seeceeeed!" I lived 12 years in Houston, Austin and San Antonio. Loved every bit of it. Esp the Old Laredo & Nuevo Laredo. I still don't believe Texas needs Washington B.S., but, I've heard that Houston has changed, and NOT for the better! But then I guess most every place in the U.S. has been changing since the 70s. I guess California is only returning to Mexico that it had been a part of back in "olden days".

    • Jon says:

      You are correct about the changes taking place in Houston. My oldest son has been a firefighter there for 20 years. His retirement funds were just appropriated by the city to offset the shortages the city created in other areas of operations. The firefighters had foregone pay raises in order to improve their retirement funds while the police took pay raises every time they became available. As a result, the police retirement was extremely underfunded so the city bailed-out the police with funds taken from the firefighters. The socialists have truly ruined what used to be a great city.

    • Phil says:

      San Antonio just passed a resolution requiring the City to live under the rules and diktat of the Paris Accord on climate change. I have long believed that, sadly, Texas will in fact ultimately turn blue. But not so sure. Our red population is, how do you say….., well….committed.

  5. Osceola64 says:

    Secession in my opinion would be preferable to an outright civil war. Unfortunately, even in a secessionist scenario, the collectivist being what they are, will continue to infiltrate and undermine any of their conservative neighbors. It's what they are!

  6. Reality Seeker says:

    ” The answer is because thousands of years of human history have clearly demonstrated that people of different cultures don’t particularly like to be around each other."

    Yes, and I'll even go you one further: people with generally higher IQs, i. e., white people ( including white Asians as opposed to darker colored Asians with lower IQs) those people who are more intelligent don't like to be around those who are less gifted. We don't like our children growing up around them; we don't even like them petting our dogs… Yeah, a growing number feel that way, and that's the truth. And to put it in plain, vulgar English: some of us are really getting f*%+king pissed off when we see our schools, hospitals, welfare system(s), public parks, National Parks, roads, inner city and every corner of our country being or about to be overrun and overwhelmed with dimwitted, low-skilled , unemployable foreigners….

    Our quality of life is diminishing quickly enough without adding tens of millions more outsiders to our healthcare and welfare and other social systems…..

    This won't end well. You can count on it!

    • JimD says:

      … kind of a "dimwitted" comment of your own… and offensive … even to many "white" people. There are plenty of dimwitted, low-skilled, unemployable "white" people in this country. A person's skin color is probably the least impactful factor in determining a person's intelligence, work ethic, ability to learn & develop skills, and most importantly, their ability to seek the same values and ideals that you or I might seek.

      "White" Asians vs "brown" Asians? Hey, I thought they all were "yellow". You must not know too many Asians, otherwise you would be aware that many ethic Asians actually look down on "whites", because THEY think we're stupid, lazy, petty, narrow, ….

      Go figure.

      • texas wolfie says:

        Mr. Jim, my wife says I have over 2,000 books in my ancient library. May I say to you that the skinniest book I own is "The Contributions of the Black Race Toward the Betterment of Mankind". Offensive to you? Or maybe the truth. Booker T. Washington was one of the greatest black men in American history; yet he is viewed as an "Uncle Tom" by todays black leaders. ….Go Figure……

  7. Wally says:

    Great interesting article. However, I don't believe it will happen in the near future. I feel that a secession from any state will only invite a take over from the federal government (militarily) and rid of that state's government.

  8. larajf says:

    California is a sad story. I mean, they originally came here to get away from the idiocy of the East. Then the idiots followed.
    California needs to be broken up into a few states to allow for better representation. There's fewer people living in the larger land masses of the states, and the idiots are clumping in smaller areas. That means that a tiny geographic region is dictating the direction of the state. And that needs to stop.
    I think the US will hold together, but we need to fix a few things…like ensuring true representation rather then having a political ruling class.

  9. Kevan Rowlee says:

    Sharing to my Facebook wall.

  10. Scott theczech says:

    There was a ballot initiative in 2016 to split California into six states; it failed at the petition level due to lack of signatures, though not by many. Venture capitalist Tim Draper led this initiative spending about $5 million dollars. See please http://www.sixcalifornias.com/ and the Wikipedia article for more information. One of the proposed states, Jefferson, has been at this project for some time. In fact, several of the counties in the northernmost part of California have already voted to leave California. The primary reason for this effort is due to lack of representation in rural parts of the state. Truly the state is controlled by about 7 of the 57 counties. Consider also Texas, parts of Florida, the activity around secession in Idaho, Wyoming and Arizona and you've got the recipe Robert so aptly describes in this article.

    • larajf says:

      I think they needed to get out the word better. I knew of it, but not that there was a petition…and I've been looking.
      And indeed, it's a great opportunity to try to get it through since there's so many people in the bay area wanting to secede. Of course, the Northern California would want to be separate because they're more libertarian and conservative, and wouldn't want to be saddled with progressive ideas.

  11. Rick G says:

    Whatever happened to Calexit? I would love to see The People's Republic of California severed off from the country into its own socialist state where it belongs.

    I have often fantasized about a group of southern and borderline states (where I live) breaking off from the US and forming their own "country". In the process, all the Radic-Libs would be forcibly translocated out forever. Who needs Radic-Libs anyway? They are the initial cause of our problems in the first place. Then, we would no longer be subjected to the tyranny of Washington again!

    This country is rapidly headed for a civil war between the right and left. And don't be surprised when it happens. A lot of people are very unhappy about the current state of affairs and what is going on in this country. A lot more than you may think.

  12. Ellis Baxter says:

    At present it is difficult to get people to think. Reason disappeared with Religion. Less religion = less reason. After the Civil War: The Country was held together by the Progressive North and the Independent West being held in bay; by the Southern Democrats. Fiscal Conservatives but at the same time cultural liberals. When this was ended by the shift of California going to the Democrat party, it offset the move of the South to the Republican side of the ledger. This paradigm shift moved the dysfunctional mix from region to ideology, this they shifted as the democrat party started to purchase votes with Favor. Such that today California sans its claimant would have no high earners. This is the nature of the problem the north is shedding population as the democrat run cities are failing not just a few; but all of them. I fear it is going to move this cold civil war to a hot one …

  13. Phil says:

    The concept of federalism used to be a bit of a steam valve with respect to cultural differences. The corruption of the courts has led to increasing political centralization, with all of the dystopic realities referenced by Robert. Can only hope the breakup occurs quickly enough to see in our lifetimes.

  14. Rocketman says:

    I agree that succession is much preferred over a civil war, but this isn't IMHO going to be a "traditional" civil war. Back during Civil War 1 (1861-1865) it was over states rights because the south was paying something like 2/3 of the money to keep the federal government going. With slavery gone there is no way that the average citizen that has been screwed over by big government for decades is going to put their lives on the line to help prop up big government. This will be a war of the federal government against the people.
    Governors need to meet up and discuss this. Texas doesn't have much in common with New York but they do with Oklahoma and so on. I see a new country being formed called the Jefferson Republic with Idaho, Wyoming and Montana as the new country. There are many patriots and libertarians in those states and they could create a nation that obeys the principals that the founding fathers wanted America to have.

  15. David dslyoga says:

    I often wonder, Robert, why you don't revive your long lost book, How You Can Find Happiness During the Collapse of Western Civilization? Call me naive or a throwback, but I thought that was among your greatest books, even if more than a bit too early.

  16. Ivan says:

    Break up unlikely. There are too many people and it's complicated, but turmoil yes. The lower socioeconomic folks will have to learn to accept themselves and be responsible for their own situations.The subsidies will run out. I can see neighborhoods and cities going downhill.

  17. Muthuswamy N says:

    I feel the fear of insecurity will keep Amerian States together because they cannot afford the military might of the collective USA!

  18. Jim Hallett says:

    The heart of the problem is the politics of the State. It only survives by theft and coercion, so even if present-day states secede from the federal govt. (NOT a bad idea, btw), then THEY will be the new aggressors, as they also believe in theft and coercion. The phyles (groups of people with like interests and values, regardless of how diverse they may or may not be demographically) want to be able to pursue their own lives, liberty and happiness WITHOUT the dictates of some immoral fools in the capital – federal or state. I have been to all 50 states (lived in 10) and some of my favorites are those that have been overrun with Left-wing lunatics, so why should those immoral folks get to keep the entirety of the beautiful geography of places like WA, OR, CA, MA, NH, ME, VT, etc.? There is NO political solution, since politics itself is by definition, COMPLETELY IMMORAL!!! Once productive and rational people have had enough of being stolen from, lied to, and pushed around, they will rebel in one way or another. It may not be pretty, either. Human nature craves freedom, and when it is blocked, pressure builds up, and it MUST have a release. We could all get along IF everyone was willing to abide by the Commit No Aggression paradigm. Obviously, they are not, since many feel entitled to have what another has, and will seek remedy through the corrupt political system. Thus, you have the mess that is Amerika 2017!

  19. Angedur says:

    The antifa crowd never wants people to all get along. A long time ago, a couple of peeps took an interest in me. Thought it was odd and when they said walk this way, , I did. And a few minutes later someone drove up and threw some sort of debris at me. Never saw those two peeps again, leading me to believe they took a fake interest in me to have that happen. Was aware of these types of things since and just recently too. Not very clever nor bright of these peeps. Of course, they feign no idea of such a thing and much like the Clintons, lie and deny. Antifa tactics are evil.

  20. Angedur says:

    Mother nature will keep any talk of lets leave the USA.from happening.
    Soon as a state as weather problems such as flooding or tornados, earrthquakes and mudslides, they all want Uncle Sam to rush in and help out. The states ate simply not self sustaining in that whey.

  21. Nasdaq7 says:

    In my view, it was a great mistake to give China so much trade. To export to China is difficult. So it is basically one way trade now. If the US ever breaks up because of the poor performing economy, it will be because of this huge trade imbalance.

  22. Jon foo says:

    Thanks for share this thought. http://nba2k17apks.com/

Leave a Reply