Is Political Separation in Our Future?
Is Political Separation in Our Future?
www.abbevilleinstitute.org
8 mins read
In a recent column, “Nationalism vs. Secession: Should America Break Up? (July 27),I included references to an essay I had published at THE UNZREVIEW (July 26), and then which was picked up nationally by anumber of other Web magazines, including LewRockwell (July29) and TheAbbeville Institute (August 2).
For that essay “Nationalism vs. Secession,” I added a newintroduction in which I briefly discussed a recent “National ConservatismConference” held in Washington DC on July 14-15, and I mentioned that evidenceexists that its organizers (e.g., Yoram Hazony, David Brog, etc.) had as theirpurpose to attempt to “corral” and in some way assert control over theincreasingly restless American nationalist and populist elements (and they arenot necessarily the same). In a sense those “dissident” elements had beenawakened and given new life by the election of Donald Trump who was not bydefinition an Establishment Conservative, that is, not a card carrying memberof what some writers call “Conservatism Inc.”
I quoted some fascinating pieces on this effort at control, inparticular essays by Dr. PaulGottfried and journalist ChristopherDeGroot (editor of The Agonist).In Christopher DeGroot’s essay he mentions that even though conferenceorganizer David Brog announced at the outset that the conference would NOTconsider anything concerning ethnicity—this topics was off limits to the“conservatives” gathered there—at least one intrepid conference speaker in herremarks, Dr. AmyWax, Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania, transgressed the taboo. And the reason is quiteobvious: how can anyone discuss what is going on in America today…how can therebe any talk of nationalism or so-called “national identity”…how can we hope tocomprehend the rise of populism…how is it possible to understand theideological narrative of the lunatic progressivist social justice warriors whocompletely dominate one political party and scare the hell out of theother…without examining the huge pink elephant in the room, the very difficulttopic of how mass immigration and disparateethnicity fit into these discussions?
Professor Wax’s presentation was met by the academic and mediaestablishment with horror and charges that she was—of course—a racist. But thefacts speak for themselves. In her presentation she focused exclusively andsignificantly on ethnicity from a strictly cultural perspective, that is, what the unlimited infusionof essentially “unmixable” Third World immigrants is doing to what is left oftraditional American culture, and theeffects it is having on our historic institutions.
Certainly, the effects of ethnicity must be considered becausethe simple fact is how ethnic diversity and homogeneity are viewed and treated determinesin many ways how our society respondsand, critically, how it exists as a culture and a polity. Historical examplesabound, and historical efforts to meet multi-ethnic situations can provide a valuableroadmap.
Here we can cite several notable historical examples. Thereis, of course, the Roman Empire and its diverse system of subinfeudatedkingdoms and satrapies. Then, of course, there is the British Empire and how itexisted and, for a couple of centuries, thrived; or the multi-lingual andmulti-national Austro-Hungarian Empire: just several examples.
And in these cases, there were certain “keys,” certainessentials that basically kept those imperial states more or less in unity orconfederation.
In the more recent British and Habsburg cases there wererevered monarchs whose influence and nearly sacral positions went well beyondethnicity and local nationality. Those monarchs symbolized the authority whichunited in very special ways all the different peoples of the divergent statesunder their rule. A Hungarian might differ ethnically from a Bosnian and speaka completely different language, for instance, but both could revere theemperor in Vienna and the dynasty which reached back to the early Middle Agesas a symbol of continuity, history, and a quasi-religious and civilizationalmission.
Then, both the Brits and Habsburg understood—in some cases,had to learn the hard way—that regionalism, local control, and autarky wereessential if the empire was to stay together. Thus, the functioning British Rajin India and the series of “sub-monarchies” and states under the British crown.Thus, the Habsburg understanding in 1867 that Hungary must have its own localand national authority, but, of course, under the old Kaiser (as King/Konig, ofHungary), Franz Josef. And Franz Josef’sheir, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand wanted to extend that regional autonomy andself-government under the Kaiser to Slavic regions of the empire as well.
Indeed, that was one of the precise reasons he was assassinated in June 1914 bya Serb ultra-nationalist—to keep him from following through on that program(which might well have prevented the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire).
Interestingly, as a kind of an illustration of this: thefamous Czech composer Bedrich Smetana (1824-1884), whose popular “Ma Vlast”(“My Country”) symphonic poems and opera TheBartered Bride are world famous, was a fervent supporter of what could becalled “Czech nationalism.” In a real sense he was the founder of modern Czechclassical music. Yet, in 1853 he composed his “Triumphal Symphony” whichcombines the Habsburg national anthem, “Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser” in amoving final musical apotheosis—celebrating the young Habsburg monarch inVienna, with a hope expressed in music that the empire would recognize the regionalistand popular aspirations of the Czech peoples under the German Habsburg dynasty…perhapslike what later occurred with the Hungarians.
All of this is to say, in summary, that countries withdivergent populations, with differing ethnicities and historical backgroundsand traditions may only successfully exist with a modicum of liberty if thosedifferences are fully taken into accountand acknowledged publicly and in law constitutionally…and if thosedifferences do not reach a breaking point where conversation, respect,commonality, and adherence to certain central principles cease to exist.
What the Establishment Conservative movement fails tounderstand is that the creaky old American “nation,” certainly since the defeatof the forces of Constitutionalism and States’ Rights on the battlefield in1865, has become what the authors, the Kennedy brothers (Donald and Ronald),call the “YankeeEmpire,” an administrative super-state where a concentrated andlargely-untouchable and unelected managerial bureaucracy and political andacademic class, essentially suppresses us as virtual retainers and enslavedsubjects.
The Achilles’ Heel and undoing of this Yankee—American—Empire iswhat Dr. Wax notices with alarm: its open door welcome to continuing waves ofnon-assimilable immigrants, enthusiastically supported by open borders groups(progressivists in league with corporate business types). And with thisuncontrolled influx of immigrants there has come a concomitant unhinged ideologicalmulticulturalism, enforced by a frenzied and rigid political correctness inboth law and practice…and not just for the new immigrants, but for nativecitizens, as well.
For the open borders template is only part of a vision ofAmerica as a kind of “global nation” in which there is no nationality save“citizenship in the world” and in which regional character and historicaltraditions, ethnicity, religious belief and heritage, and shared commonexperience are all rigidly subsumed and, in effect, abolished in the name of anamorphous concept of “humanity,” to be guided by progressivist ideologies ofrace and gender, and zealous opposition to heritage and historic identity.
Our constitutional, states’ rights traditions and ourregionalist heritage have been a bulwark historically against the power of suchadministrative aggrandizement. Those advancing the globalist program understandthat for their template to triumph, that constitutionalism, our traditions, andour regionalism must be suppressed, and “population replacement” through mass immigrationis a major constituent of this long-range strategy.
This globalism, let it be said, is not so much the opposite ofAmerican nationalism (which it attempts to harness and divert through suchefforts as the “National Conservatism Conference”), as it is the inverse of genuineand rooted American populism and historic regionalism which have never beencompletely extirpated, despite the best efforts of the administrative state.
Especially since the election of Donald Trump in 2016, theglobalist program has run into serious roadblocks. Not only have unregulatedimmigration and millions of essentially indigestible immigrants become a majorissue and concern to millions of American citizens, but severe ideological andcultural differences among native citizens have come sharply into focus,reminiscent of the radical differences just prior to the outbreak of the WarBetween the States in 1861. And with this there is also a nascent rebirth ofregionalism and separatism (as witness the growth of such movements as Calexitin California).
Despite the continuing frenetic attempts from the top, fromthe central state, to control and suppress such tendencies, what actuallyappears to be happening is, practically speaking, a de facto centrifugal “break up” of the American Empire into dividedbelief structures and uncommunicating divisions which are very probably notreparable. And often these extreme divisions are not just regional, butintra-state and city-versus-rural. In effect the genie is out of the lamp, andHumpty-Dumpty has fallen and shattered into a thousand pieces, and most likelyvery little can be done to put those pieces back into an American whole.
The Progressivists recognize this, and, in a way, it explainstheir relentless and frenetic efforts to suppress any and all opposition totheir plans and ideological template, including de-legitimating any discordantvoices, enacting new “civil rights” and gun laws, and now Internet censorship.In other words, the suppression and subjugation of one part of America byanother part, with no limitations on methods, all to control a nation that infact appears to be breaking up.
This is something that lurks as an underlying cautionary notein Professor Wax’s address. No: she does not advocate secession or separation,at least not yet. But her well-thought-out observations and commentary offer adire warning: our present policies of immigration and domestic favoritism of radicallyand culturally discordant Third World populations are pointedly against ournative population which is largely white, but also includes native blacks whohave been here since colonial times.
As a part of the swirling maelstrom and rapidly devolving,unbridgeable divisions already present in our society, this may well lead to asituation where at least one of the three potential scenarios I have writtenabout earlier may occur:
Either a continuation of the present course, with one group—mostlikely the post-Marxist Progressivists—basically subjugating any opposition, andthe disappearance of America as we have known it into some globalist statewhere our remaining liberties will have disappeared.
Or, there will be some climatic event, perhaps a mammothdepression or war, and a collapse followed most probably by a fiercedictatorship: political order abhors a vacuum.
Or, finally, and despite our hesitation to imagine it: a kindof separation or secession (such as now in California and elsewhere), includingsuch actions as state interposition or nullification. Indeed, steps in this directionare already occurring with states and cities basically ignoring the Federalgovernment on sanctuary city status. Of course, in such an eventuality mostlikely large population exchanges would occur.
Dr. Wax in her remarks is attempting to raise (as ThomasJefferson once wrote about the Missouri Compromise) “a fire bell in the night.”Our national policies that favor Third World immigration and an open door aredestructive of what is left of the country’s unity. And, given the alreadystark divergences among our citizenry, she adds, it may already be toolate….And, then, what is left? Chaos, dictatorship, or separation?
Looking at America in 2019 that is the question that should beraised. The American Empire has not had the good sense of the Habsburgs or theBrits; rather after 1865 it commenced upon a journey of active empire-building,continuing to destroy the already gravely-wounded and impaired rights of thestates and the citizens of those states. Our government elites erected what mylate mentor (and founder of the Old Conservative movement) Dr. Russell Kirkcalled the “Pax Americana.”
And now, with many decades ofacademic post-Marxist revolutionary indoctrination in our schools and ourcolleges, and the perversion of our cultural environment, and the sovietizationof our media, those future “factions” that James Madison warned about in The Federalist have emerged with aterrible ire and desire for vengeance, and an irreducible nature that forces usto consider what will happen and how we should prepare for it.
Are secession and separation in thiscountry’s future?
read:https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/b...in-our-future/
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Hoppalong
