What Is This?
Welcome to the Quick Read Feed for the Hidden Dominion.
This section provides our readers access to our articles using a traditional blog layout.
This ‘old fashion style’ blog layout has its advantages, mostly in being able to quickly skim and catch up on a week’s worth of articles on one page. I’ve had a few requests for this more traditional layout, so here it is. The articles are the same as published traditionally on our homepage.
If you prefer a single page to catch up on recent articles, or if you just prefer the more traditional blog layout, consider bookmarking this page to use as your primary source for new articles.
The Institute For The Provoking Of World War 3
Russian War Analysis: Examining The Institute For The Study Of War
There is an organization called “The Institute For The Study Of War”. It is a think tank (“a public policy research organization”) out of Washington D.C.
I’ve nicknamed them The Institute For The Provoking Of World War 3 given their non-stop barrage of ‘Attack Russia’ stances. But I’m open to reader suggestions on improvements to the rebranded name.
It is a very politically connected think tank. A lot of their recommendations get put before Congress and many of the members of Congress end up using this think tank’s arguments to put forward new geopolitical strategies.
They are #90 out of the list of 100 Top Think Tanks. I would wager to bet that they’re probably the biggest neocon war-policy institution around the D.C. area. I know that is a big claim, but I think what I’m gonna show you today will help point you toward that conclusion as well.
This organization recently put out arguments in favor of Ukraine striking Russian territory with American-made weapons.
Not only do they claim this is a logical thing to do, they claim it is a “moral” thing to do!
I’d say they’re out of their minds, but I only could wish it was that easy. I think they’re genuinely evil instead.
They recently published some interesting graphics showing how the Russians can strike within Ukraine from their own territory (thereby creating a “sanctuary”), arguing that it is unfair that Ukraine cannot strike back.
While I do not believe the claim that the Russians are truly only launching from their own territory and hiding in their land to prevent Ukraine from attacking back (that is clearly neocon propaganda), the maps are still interesting to see the ranges of the weaponry and the thought process of the neocon mind. You can find those images below:
[right click -> image in new tab for larger size]
Unsure of what these are showing? See below regarding notes from the House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair (also further proving my point that this Institute has direct-to-Congress access):
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Rep McCaul posterized ISW–Critical Threat’s map of Russian military and security services bases in the Russian Federation within the range of US weapons for today’s appearance before the committee of Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
The bold, outermost line shows the maximum range of ATACMS (300km); the solid line before that shows the maximum range of the mid-range ATACMS the US has provided to Ukraine (170km); and the dotted, innermost line shows the maximum range of HIMARS (77km).
The shaded parts of northeastern Ukraine represent Ukrainian territory in range of glide bombs launched from Russian airspace (60km).
“[What the Russians] are doing is lining up all of their artillery and rockets and missiles just across the Ukraine border that they then use to attack Ukrainians. However, the administration has restricted [Ukraine’s] arms use so that Ukraine cannot defend itself and fire back at Russia.” — Chair McCaul
You can find the article underlying this map and data here, or simply read the cliff notes below:
PUTIN’S SAFE SPACE: DEFEATING RUSSIA’S KHARKIV OPERATION REQUIRES ELIMINATING RUSSIA’S SANCTUARY
Current US policy prohibiting Ukraine from using US-provided weapons in the territory of the Russian Federation is severely compromising Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against the renewed cross-border invasion Russia has recently launched in Kharkiv Oblast. US policy has effectively created a vast sanctuary in which Russia has been able to amass its ground invasion force and from which it is launching glide bombs and other long-range strike systems in support of its renewed invasion. Whatever the merits of this US policy before the Russian assault on Kharkiv Oblast began, it should be modified immediately to reflect the urgent realities of the current situation.
The Russian military began an offensive operation along the Russian-Ukrainian border in northern Kharkiv Oblast on May 10 — an effort that will pose serious challenges to Ukrainian forces over the coming months. The operation seeks to fix Ukrainian forces across the theater and thin them out along the 600-mile frontline to create opportunities, specifically in Donetsk Oblast, among other significant objectives that ISW has warned about at length.[1] Russian forces will likely leverage their tactical foothold in northern Kharkiv Oblast in the coming days to intensify offensive operations and pursue the initial phase of an offensive effort likely intended to push back Ukrainian forces from the border with Belgorod Oblast and advance to within tube artillery range of Kharkiv City.[2] The operation could set conditions for a major offensive operation that seeks to seize Kharkiv City, though Russian forces’ current limited efforts do not suggest that Russian forces are immediately pursuing a large-scale sweeping offensive operation to envelop, encircle, or seize Kharkiv City.[3] Russia’s operation is still nonetheless dangerous and is already diverting some Ukrainian forces and resources from Donetsk to Kharkiv.[4] Russia’s Kharkiv operation will force Ukraine to make difficult prioritization decisions that can generate significant operational effects in favor of Russia in the coming months.
[…]
Reevaluating Russia’s sanctuary is not an all or nothing affair. Standing US prohibitions on how Ukrainian forces may use US-provided weapons will not prevent Western weapons from striking Russia. Western states are already beginning to reevaluate Russia’s sanctuaries in part or in whole. The United Kingdom (UK) officially eliminated Russia’s sanctuary from UK weapons when Foreign Minister David Cameron announced in early May 2024 that London now permits Ukraine to strike Russian territory with UK-provided weapons.[21] Ukraine has long struck legitimate targets in Russia with any weapons it can and will continue to do so.
The US need not greenlight the use of all US-provided military systems against any target in the Russian Federation and still lift its restrictions enough to allow Ukrainian forces to defend themselves against immediate operational assaults. Neither Russia nor any other state has the right to view its sovereign territory as inviolable in a war of aggression that it has initiated. Establishing the principle that nuclear-armed states can earn such inviolability through threats of escalation encourages other such potential predators to imagine that they, too, can attack with impunity and demand sanctuary in their own territory. US restrictions on Ukraine’s use of US-provided weapons were one thing when the question was of a possible long-range strike into the deep Russian rear. Preventing Ukraine from using all of the resources at its disposal against a renewed cross-border invasion makes no sense.
In effect, The Institute For The Study Of War is claiming that because Russia can strike a limited way into Ukraine without leaving their own territory, we should greenlight Ukraine to bomb far into Russia with our own weapons. They claim it would be in a “limited capacity”, at first. Naturally, we would expect this “limited capacity” to increase, as it always does with U.S. interventionism.
I guess they don’t really see this as an escalation on the side of America’s part. They just claim that it is a moral and logical thing for Ukraine to be able to attack Russia territory proper.
This is the mind of a neocon. This is what they think and believe. They never stop to think, “Hey, maybe Ukraine can’t win this war. Maybe we shouldn’t provoke the Russians even further.” Nope, never crosses their minds.
This article also pairs nicely with my article from last week: A Primer On Geopolitics: The United States’ So-Called “Red Lines”. The U.S. hegemon currently claims that the United States has a redline against Ukraine attacking inside of Russia. But all the think tanks and neocon institutions that are directing our “red lines” are in favor of attacking Russia inside its territory.
This clearly indicates that our elites have one public policy and one private policy. Publicly, they claim Ukraine can’t attack Russia with our weapons. Privately, they are fine attacking Russia. And our rapidly advancing that as a reasonable policy proposal through these kind of institutions.
This institution, and many others, are preparing the groundwork for the next stage of this war. That stage is once America and the rest of the West openly allow Ukraine to attack within Russia’s territory openly. Heck, they might even openly encouraging it. To get a larger response out of Russia, which could then give them the ability to be even more confrontational. They could even aim to get Russia to strike NATO first by continually pushing them. Many options. All bad for us regular people.
There is a lot here from this neocon institution that we can break down. But one thing is for certain. And that is that these people are complete lunatics.
Ukraine is not going to win this war, but they are going to make sure there is chaos until this inevitable defeat occurs.
Institutions like these that continue to drag this on have a lot of blood on their hands. Ukraine will probably never be able to rebuild following being used as NATO’s pawns in this capacity.
The West provoked this conflict in 2014. And that truth will inevitably come out. Once it does, the Ukrainians will hate us a hell of a lot more than they hate the Russians.
If there are any of them left, that is.
Read Next: A Primer On Geopolitics: The United States’ So-Called “Red Lines”
If you enjoyed this article, bookmark the website and check back often for new content. New articles most weekdays.
You can also keep up with my writing by joining my monthly newsletter.
Help fight the censorship – Share this article!
A Primer On Geopolitics: The United States’ So-Called “Red Lines”
‘Red Lines’ In Geopolitics: What They Actually Mean
If you have read the news at all lately, I’m sure you’ve seen the term or the concept of “red lines” thrown around an awful lot.
The United States supposedly has red lines in the Russian-Ukraine war, in Israel’s war, in the Venezuelan conflict, in the Asian theater, and all sorts of other places.
Red lines here, red lines there. Red lines all over the friggin’ place.
But the catch is that they are always broken. And nothing ever happens.
Common sense should tell us that these foreign states keep breaking our so-called red lines, but we keep funding and supporting them, so they aren’t exactly a red line.
One such example is this Zerohedge article about Ukraine’s actions in Russia:
Desperate Ukraine Launches Massive Kamikaze Drone Attack Against Russian Black Sea Coast, Sparking Fire At Major Refinery
In defiance of repeated warnings [red line] from the Biden administration, the Ukrainian military continues ramping up kamikaze drone attacks on the Russian energy complex, a move to crush the nation’s crude oil and crude product export revenues and curtail Moscow’s ability to fund President Putin’s ‘special operation’ in Ukraine.
[…]
The problem? All of these so-called red lines are made up nonsense.
First off, the United States does not care at all if Ukraine is blowing up Russia’s oil refineries. Does any sane person genuinely think Washington gives a damn about that? We’re openly financing the entire war against Russia itself. Hell, I bet the United States is the one ordering those drone strikes on the refineries!
Our leaders simply claim we don’t want Ukraine to bomb Russia’s oil refineries. We claim it is a red line, even though we probably are the ones authorizing the strikes. They just don’t want to say the truth publically, for obvious reasons. It would make us look like the bad guys. Which we are.
The same logic applies to the other so-called red lines in the news. Like Biden’s “red line” of Israel not invading Rafah. Israel literally just did this, and we immediately sent them a boatload of more money and support.
Plus, it is not exactly rocket science to figure out that the United States actually wants Israel to invade its neighbors.
So much for a “red line”. More like a green light.
The similarities between this and Ukraine, Taiwan, and similar places are striking. The U.S. claims we have red lines that conveniently just keep shifting and also conveniently don’t matter at all once they are crossed.
For newcomers, this seems confusing. For those of us who have been around for a while, this is nothing new. But it’s helpful information to point out to get the newcomers up to speed.
So here is a little tidbit of information when looking at war-based geopolitics: very little said publicly is actually true. If there are actual red lines, they are being discussed and directed through covert intelligence channels. Anything being said publicly is just for show for the grey masses and to mask these kind of back room actual negotiations. Public red lines don’t exist.
If you ever hear of talk about red lines in the news, you can almost certainly know that whatever being discussed is not the actual red line, but a ploy. And once you see it is a ploy, you can figure out the root reason that is actually being stated publically.
For instance, the U.S. says a red line exists against Ukraine bombing oil refineries in Russia to make itself look like the sane party in the conflict, wanting to avoid escalation.
Likewise, the U.S. says a red line exists in Israel to appear as the moral “middleman”, giving the appearance that it cares about both justice for Israel and the innocent Gazan civilians.
Both “red lines” give a certain appearance to the U.S. that is beneficial for its strategic objectives. But covertly, the story for both of these is much deeper.
As usual, the truth always goes much deeper than initially meets the eye. Look for it and you’ll find it. It is usually right out there in the open; it is just a little hard to see at first for the untrained eye.
Read Next: Iran Versus Israel: An Inevitable War
If you enjoyed this article, bookmark the website and check back often for new content. New articles most weekdays.
You can also keep up with my writing by joining my monthly newsletter.
Help fight the censorship – Share this article!
‘Beautiful Trouble’: A Guidebook On Leftist Activism
Popular Leftist Resources: The ‘Beautiful Trouble’ Toolbox
Believe it or not, today I am sharing a leftist activism website.
No, I have not become a leftist (praise God). But I have been infiltrating some leftist channels lately to get more of an insider perspective of how the leftwing became so nutty. I hope to have a write-up on some information from my insidious activities soon. But for now, this will have to hold everyone over.
There is one website that comes up all the time on every leftist channel I have engaged with. For the informed dissident, this particular website is one you should also get acquainted with:
It may seem confusing at first, but what they are doing is pretty obvious once you see it.
In practice, what they do is coordinate leftist social movements and provide strategies on how to be successful with them.
Beautiful Trouble is a brain-dump and strategy powerhouse for worldwide leftism.
If you read their “values”, it is clear about what they are all about:
Collective Liberation
We — wait, what do you mean we? — are the 99%!
We strive to bring about a world liberated from unjust systems such as capitalism and classism; racism, white supremacy, Zionism, and colonialism; patriarchy, sexism, and heterosexism; ableism, ageism, sizeism, and other forms of oppression.The Beautiful: From our forthcoming book Beautiful Solutions to amplifying tactics like Prefigurative Politics to supporting small direct actions around the world with our Get Up Rise Up Fund, we seek strategies to simultaneously dismantle the forces that hold us back, while constructing new ways of being in the world together.
Wherever people are rising up to defend their fundamental rights we offer our solidarity, support, and tools.
At the same time, we remain vigilant to the corrosive effects of the NGO-ization of resistance, and so-called “democracy promotion,” as well as direct efforts by governments or corporations to usurp social movements.
These guys created a 500-page book on revolutionary strategies that leftists are using all around the world today.
Think of this website like a more modern version of Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules For Radicals‘. You’ll see dissidents talking about Alinsky’s book all the time, but no leftist I know of even bothers with it anymore. All of them are using Beautiful Trouble and have been for a long time.
Hell, half of the leftists I have engaged with have never even read Alinsky/Marx/etc., but almost all of them know of Beautiful Trouble. Us dissidents really need to catch up with the time. We’re fighting an enemy that hasn’t actually existed for three decades.
The way to defeat your enemy is to know them. They literally put all of their strategies online, so we really should have no excuses.
To be more specific in my recommendation to check out this website, I encourage you to spend some time in their “toolbox”. This is where their ground activism is recorded.
The toolbox has six categories:
- Stories
- Tactics
- Principles
- Theories
- Methodologies
- Sets.
Each detail exactly what you would expect.
If you are short on time, I encourage a look into “tactics” and “principles” first. Those two combined are a complete leftist manual on how they operate and strategize.
The “theories” and “methodology” are great if you want to get into the mind of a leftist. Or to understand their more long-term approaches to perceived problems.
The “stories” are useful for understanding what they consider success—Which radically differs from what a right-winger would argue.
Finally, the “sets” are combinations of the other five compiled about a specific event. For instance, the Black Lives Matter set is of particular interest, since Beautiful Toolbox was used heavily during the BLM riots of years past.
We can hate on the leftists all we want, but they consistently outdo right-wingers on actual activism and strategies. Along with disseminating such information and overtaking key institutions.
We need a dozen of these websites for our own side, but I can’t seem to find a single one. If anyone has a knack for making this kind of content, the need is there. Get to work on it.
But until then, we can at least modify the leftist’s own strategies for our own purposes since they make them public. And we can use the knowledge of how the leftists operate against them.
Learn the enemy to overcome the enemy.
Consider this an open invitation to enter the enemy’s toolbox playground. Use it however you will.
Read Next: The Psychology Of The Leftist
If you enjoyed this article, bookmark the website and check back often for new content. New articles most weekdays.
You can also keep up with my writing by joining my monthly newsletter.
Help fight the censorship – Share this article!
Should Women Be Allowed To Vote?
On Women Voting And An Ideal Voting System
I had two voting-related questions come up from my “Send Me Your Questions, Topics Of Interest, And Memes” article. These two questions were:
- What are your thoughts on women voting?
- What would voting look like in your ideal system, if at all?
These are both great questions, and two that need to be answered together in one article given their intermixed nature.
First:
What are your thoughts on women voting? Should women be allowed to vote?
My answer is no.
“Why Not?” is explained in answering #2.
Second:
What would voting look like in your ideal system, if at all?
If we’re going to have voting at all in our future political system, the voting system itself needs to change to have these two new components:
- The voting system must be oversight voting, not direct voting or representational voting. I.e., we should not vote directly for leaders or laws, but rather vote to enforce some level of oversight over what the leadership does.
- Direct democracy has demonstrated itself to be a massive failure and the republic system has fared little better. I do not understand how people living through the horrific republic we have right now still want to keep a republic. This system sucks. Our original (actual) republican system even failed within a hundred years (1776—1865). And don’t get me started on direct democracy. That would just be even worse.
- We need strong leadership, not a bunch of losers elected by the average person. If we’re going to have voting at all, it needs to be for oversight over the actions of the leadership to restrict their excesses only. This is how we achieve “rollback” sustainability of a political system. Oversight voting can only restrict progressivism advances, not to push forward new things or new radicals, which inevitably degenerate/corrupt the system. I write about this more in these two articles: Oversight Voting Instead Of Representative Or Direct Voting & Oversight Voting: Preventing Psychopaths From Getting Power, but I do admittedly need to dive into this topic further to explain all my thoughts surrounding it.
- Voting must be done solely by families. Absolutely no individual should be allowed to vote for anything—Male or female. Families only.
- To get a vote, one must be married with kids (in a traditional Biblical marriage—not sodomy/polygamy/other modern abominations). (Sidenote: I always get the retort “What if we can’t have kids?” My response is harsh but straightforward: I don’t care. Go adopt, then. Someone voting must have a stake in the future of the country past their own death. Childless people do not. So you’re out.)
- Divorced? Lost the vote. Single parent? No vote. It is what it is.
- Families should only get one vote. A family should be in consensus or it shouldn’t be voting, anyway. Since the Bible says that the man is the head of the household, he should fulfill the family vote requirement. This renders women voting moot.
This is how a voting system should be setup, if we end up keeping the vote around.
This process is similar, but more formal and voting-based, to how the average people “overseen” the monarchy in many nations during Christendom. Those Middle Ages people used to keep the leadership in check by curbing their excesses if they ever went too far. They “overseen” through rioting, financial rebellion, or other pushback methods against the king. This kind of voting system is a simple way to get that same outcome without the old Middle Ages bloodshed/rebellion.
With this, we could return to the last time our civilization was working well (Christendom). But we’d still be able to incorporate a hedge against totalitarianism. We can also develop further from this point later to refine everything else out.
Therefore, to answer the second question: We don’t have to have voting, but I’d prefer it if we structured it like this. Oversight voting by family is the way to go. That’s my ideal setup.
I do not come to these conclusions lightly. I’ve been studying sustainable political systems for over a decade now. The harsh reality is that I see no way to create a sustainable voting system where non-families vote. It just is not possible. We need mature people with a stake in the future of the country to be the only voters. Everyone else can enjoy the fruits of the land, but should not oversee it. Even with this restriction, voting still needs to be oversight based and not direct or representational to be viable.
There are my thoughts on voting systems. My sympathies in advance to all those who will be offended: Single men, women, sodomites, the divorced, and everyone else alike. This position may seem “extreme”, but it was also common-sense and completely reasonable for all of human history minus the last hundred or so years. So maybe I’m not the odd one out: Modernity is.
Family oversight voting or bust. That’s my position.
Read Next: Regional Independence Movements Within The U.S.
If you enjoyed this article, bookmark the website and check back often for new content. New articles most weekdays.
You can also keep up with my writing by joining my monthly newsletter.
Help fight the censorship – Share this article!
Bird Flu: The Next Pandemic?
Bird Flu: Fear-Mongering Or The Next Scamdemic?
A very interesting interview came out of NewsNation last week. They spoke with Dr. Robert Redfield, a former CDC director about the “bird flu” hysteria that has been ongoing for a while.
Instead of writing it off as another Monkeypox, he actually appears very nervous about it.
Find the short 5-min interview here:
Two highlights (that starts about 3:50 into the video above):
I’m obviously most worried about bird flu. Right now, it takes five amino acid changes for it to be effectively infecting humans. That’s a pretty heavy species barrier – but this virus is already in 26 mammal species, as you most recently saw cattle. But in the laboratory, I could make it highly infectious for humans in just months.
[…]
[The] real biosecurity threat that these university labs are doing bio-experiments that are intentionally modifying viruses – and I think bird flu is going to be the cause of the Great Pandemic – where they’re teaching these viruses to be more infectious for humans.
Bird flu has been on the mainstream media’s tongue since covid first began. It seems like now they are laying down a “danger” narrative even thicker than before.
They’ve even recently been tying avian flu outbreaks to raw milk, for a double-whammy against the anti-mainstream crunchy-types like myself.
This means that the elites just might try to run a bird flu pandemic. A pandemic that is supposedly transmitted by grass-fed cows through raw milk. You really cannot make this stuff up.
I could easily see them taking this relatively no-risk virus, mutating it to target humans, and then claiming that it is because of the anti-vax, natural-types drinking raw milk that this happened. It almost seems too perfectly planned and positioned for them to not take this approach.
All I’m saying is to be on the lookout for more information on this “bird flu”—Keep your eyes open regarding it. They wouldn’t be hyping it so much and for so long if it did not have some insidious purpose.
I think we all know that covid is not the only gain-of-function nightmare we will all experience in our lifetime. Bird flu sure seems like a strong contender for the next round of insanity.
Read Next: Covid Lies: A Reminder
If you enjoyed this article, bookmark the website and check back often for new content. New articles most weekdays.
You can also keep up with my writing by joining my monthly newsletter.
Help fight the censorship – Share this article!
End Results From Winning World War 2
World War 2: A Victory Or Deferred Defeat?
Sometimes it is useful to look at the ramifications—the actual, tangible end results—from any event to determine if it was actually a net positive.
The West supposedly “won” World War 2. So what were the fruits of that victory?
Don’t forget to add:
- Increasing hatred of the races/nations that actually “won” the war
- Complete loss of kin/community because of individualism
- Proliferation of soyboy and industrialized foods
- Widespread demoralization
- State-enforced laws against whites
- Complete loss of true religious faith in the mainstream
- And plenty of others.
Sounds kind of like a bad tree bearing bad fruits, doesn’t it?
We sure acquired material abundance here in the States from that war. But given the spiritual decay and massive cultural degeneration that the abundance came wrapped in, I think I would have preferred poverty, truthfully. At least then we’d still have our national soul.
Matthew 16:26:
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
Just replace “man” with “civilization”. The West (The United States specifically) certainly won the whole world from that war.
As Christ asked, what was the profit? Sixty-ish years of prosperity and abundance?
Maybe I’m radical, but the prosperity we had for those sixty-some years does not quite seem worth the above degeneration list.
And the most hilarious part? That prosperity always was fleeting. It never was going to stay. It was nothing but a short-term abudance that lead to permanent degeneration. Which will lead us into full collapse.
We made that Faustian trade. Looking back, it sure does not seem worth it. These end results are worse than anyone that actually fought that war back then could have ever imagined.
Read Next: Meek Is Not Weak: To Be Meek, You Must First Be Strong
If you enjoyed this article, bookmark the website and check back often for new content. New articles most weekdays.
You can also keep up with my writing by joining my monthly newsletter.
Help fight the censorship – Share this article!
Regional Independence Movements Within The U.S.
My Take On Regional Independence Movements
I have had a couple of different people ask my thoughts about certain independence movements in the United States (or just regional independence movements as a whole).
These inquiries came coupled with questions surrounding America being split into different nations/internal areas and how it would work.
All of these generally boil down to regional/state independence movements and what a segmented America would or should look like. We’re talking about things like Texit, “Yes California”, Southern secession, Cascadia, and the like.
In general, I am in support of all of these movements, even the leftist ones. For many reasons:
- From a moral standpoint, every people deserve to have their own right to self-determination. God made the nations. We should not destroy them through forced intermixing or conquest.
- From a practical standpoint, the only way we’re going to avoid the inevitable decline of empires is to grant national states their own right to exist. Empires cannot sustain. It is impossible. Nation-states can.
- From a personal standpoint, I want to live with my own people and be among them in a unified, even quasi-centralized manner. I don’t want to be a part of the same nation as the Californians or New Englanders. [Sorry to my readers who live there. I’m sure you all are great. But as a whole, I want you to have your own place and me my own.]
Some people would disagree with allowing the leftists their own lands. But frankly, I do absolutely want the leftists to have their own state where they can go wild. Unlimited diversity, free money, and trannies. They’ll destroy themselves without us and serve as a great warning to the rest of the world. Plus, it would be humorous to watch.
Some people would also disagree with my support of specific-state independent movements like Texit (in favor of a more unified “All-Southern” secession or similar). I will address this more below when I talk about the reality of such movements.
Then there is the conservative talking point I must address: I do not believe in a “Red State/Blue State” secession, which is what most people call for or think of when they imagine a partition. We’re not all ‘Americans’; whatever that word even means anymore. We’re too different as a people.
I certainly think red states should work together, maybe even in a confederation. But in an ideal world, they’d form their own bonds and go out on their own. The South her own, the Mountain states their own, and the Midwest their own. Each region would be happier that way. This is how I think regional breakoffs should work (again: In an ideal world).
A situation like the nations of Europe would be nice, where each independent American region and culture could form in their own lands and be cultivated over time.
Can you imagine what an interesting, unique land this would be after even just a couple of decades? Travelling from Florida to Washington State through those three newly culturally freed regions? What an exceptional experience that could be.
Maybe we could even toss in a less corrupt version of NATO (defensive pact), some trade pacts, and easy border travel between the newly independent nation-states. That’d be helpful.
With this kind of setup, we still get the vastness of America, but we could also preserve the uniqueness of her regions and peoples. And we don’t lose out on any defense or trade problems.
No more empire; Just a collective of happy, mutually supportive independent nations. With a few regions on the outskirts where we could toss all of our leftist refuse.
That is my ideal. What I think we should see, if ever given the chance.
With all of that said, I do need to note that there is near zero percent chance this is going to happen. While I adore the idea of regional independence, I also accept the reality that they won’t be successful.
We’re not going to have a peaceful split or partition. The American Empire has conquered the world; it will not give up its own internal land without a fight.
We require an imperial collapse to move forward at this point. No region is going to peacefully break off.
Once a collapse happens, regionalism will be natural. All empires revert to this condition when the empire crumbles. But it won’t be clean and easy like I have portrayed it here, or how your average regional independence movement person portrays it. Lands and people will be in conflict, with much fighting over who goes where and who gets what. We’ll end up seeing what happens and where the lines are drawn once the dust settles.
Right now, my belief is all we can do is peaceful noncompliance and local enclaving. Break away from the beast however we can, while we can. Under the radar as much as possible. We must wait and strategize for the grand finale of the American Empire. Once that day arrives, then we can make any moves needed.
I once believed in fighting for that partition. But I see it as too late now. A few years ago, sure. Which is when I wrote many articles on this very subject:
- The Only Path Forward For Americans
- For The Anti-Secessionists: Hope You Enjoy Living With These People
- The [Much Needed] Great American Partition
We still need a partition. But it will not come about by our movements, but by force when everything crashes.
So I do not want my readers to be deceived by thinking that the regional movements will be successful in themselves. They won’t. But they are preparing us for that day of collapse. They are preparing us perhaps better than anything else. We cannot discredit that important piece, which is why I still support them.
What do I mean by this? Well, the independence movements are great at helping the different regions think in terms of identity. This is incredibly needed.
These movements are also useful in building new institutions for when that collapse happens. For instance, I personally know a lot of Mountain State organizers that have small towns fully coordinated for if the federal government would ever stop being able to support them. Southern secessionists have also been doing that for decades.
Both of these are important: the regional identity factor and the institutions/systems to take over when the centralized entity fails. Regional independence movements get people in that mindset and make them actually start creating those kind of necessary precursors, which are absolutely beneficial.
So even though I recognize they won’t be successful, just by existing they are still a net positive deserving of our full support.
The regions that have stronger versions of these movements will also fair far better when a crash happens, because they’ll already be in a position to use such a crash to their advantage.
While we won’t see a nice reasonable split while the American regime still exists, the regional movements are building the foundation for what will come about after the current system fails. That is something we should all be able to rally behind.
Read Next: The Idol Of Ideology
If you enjoyed this article, bookmark the website and check back often for new content. New articles most weekdays.
You can also keep up with my writing by joining my monthly newsletter.
Help fight the censorship – Share this article!
[NOTE: The Quick Read Feed is limited to a maximum of 10 pages of results to improve performance. We have plenty of older articles outside of this time range that can be found by searching below or heading over to the Post Archive. This section is designed more for active users wanting to view our recent articles in a different fashion, not a review of old pieces.]