Tubegraph

Historical Precedents and Comparison

6 min read

From: jimruttshow8596

The discussion on “National Divorce” in the United States often draws upon various historical precedents and comparisons to contextualize its potential outcomes and implications [01:52:00].

Historical Context of “National Divorce”

The concept of a “national divorce” refers to the intentional splitting apart of the United States, which could involve individual states seceding (like Texas), or groups of states forming new entities, or even parts of states splitting off (such as the eastern halves of Oregon and Washington from their metropolitan areas) [01:59:00]. This idea suggests that irreconcilable political differences, primarily between conservative rural areas and leftist urban centers, make living under one set of laws no longer viable [02:52:00].

The earliest widely discussed appearance of the modern “national divorce” idea is attributed to Thomas J. Woods’ book National Divorce: The Peaceful Solution to Irreconcilable Differences in August 2022, and its breakout into higher-spectrum media with Marjorie Taylor Green in February 2023 [03:30:00]. The idea has gained traction since the 2020 election among conservatives who feel that Democrat-controlled parts of the country engage in intolerable behaviors related to a two-tier justice system, identity politics (especially concerning children), environmentalism, regulation, and ESG requirements [04:02:00]. The idea is also current in some far-left communities, often involving talks of expelling “bad red people” [04:43:00].

Comparisons to Other Nations and Historical Events

Viable Small States

The discussion notes that in the modern world, smaller states can be quite viable [08:53:00]. Examples include:

For context, American states like Texas have 29 million people, and Virginia has 8 million, while Tennessee has 7 million, showing that U.S. states are comparable in size or larger than many independent nations [09:28:00].

Historical Splits and Divisions

  • Czechoslovakia (Czech Republic and Slovakia): This peaceful split is cited as an example where two nations, formerly 15 million people, decided to separate due to cultural annoyances [09:05:00]. They divided their military assets [33:47:00].
  • Belgium (Flemish and Walloon regions): A similar contemporary discussion exists in Belgium, where the Flemish (Dutch-speaking, conservative) and Walloon (French-speaking, socialist) regions might consider a “national divorce” [11:41:00]. This is seen as potentially amicable due to geographical organization and Belgium not being a world superpower [12:15:00].
  • Northern Irish, Southern Irish, Palestinians, Israelis: These are given as examples of “Freudian narcissism of small differences” where minor distinctions can lead to intense hatred [13:06:00].
  • Breakup of the Soviet Union: The countries that emerged from the Soviet Union often kept the nuclear weapons located within their borders, such as Ukraine (before being bamboozled into returning them) and Kazakhstan [33:18:00].
  • Breakup of Yugoslavia: Various successor states grabbed military assets in their regions, leading to minor wars but ultimately factional control of assets [33:52:00].

U.S. Civil War and Military Control

The most significant historical parallel for a U.S. “national divorce” is the American Civil War [17:38:00]. The essay argues that a split could replicate the circumstances of Fort Sumter in South Carolina, where the seceding state surrounded a U.S. military base, leading to conflict [30:35:00]. This scenario raises concerns about U.S. military bases and nuclear installations located in potential “red areas” [30:23:00]. The belief is that the “blue team” national government would not relinquish these assets, framing any secession as a “Neo Confederacy” and a threat to democracy, potentially leading to international intervention [29:53:00].

However, the counter-argument is that modern precedents (like the Soviet Union’s breakup) show countries keeping nuclear weapons, and the Civil War’s Fort Sumter situation had unique, ambiguous legal statuses [32:24:00].

Political Polarization and Civil Conflict

The current political polarization in the United States is not unique, with similar trends observed in Canada and France [18:48:00]. A “national divorce” is considered a potential way to avoid a Lebanon-type situation of widespread, messy civil war rather than a clean North-versus-South split [17:51:00].

The Big Sort and its Implications

The phenomenon of “the big sort” describes how people increasingly move to areas that share their political and moral values, creating ideological bubbles [23:10:00]. This includes conservatives moving to states like Tennessee and Idaho, and an increasing rural-urban divide [23:27:00]. This sorting, as described by Bill Bishop in his book The Big Sort, leads to increased political instability and enmity rather than solving it [24:52:00].

Richard Florida, an urban planner, proposed “The Great Reset” as a solution to this sorting, advocating for new ways to organize communities, which are seen as a precursor to modern “15-minute cities” or “smart cities” [25:20:00].

Ideological Parallels

Mao and Intersectionality

The underlying logic of intersectionality is compared to Mao Zedong’s methods of identity politics [53:11:00]. Mao created a “proto-critical race theory” around Han racial identity to disrupt nationalists and used a “communist intersectional identity politics model” pitting groups like farmers and landlords against laborers and peasants [53:30:00]. The point of such divisions, it’s argued, is not to create a functioning system but to force compliance and cause division, with different strategies employed at different “stages of the Revolution” [54:06:00].

Mao’s ruthlessness in dealing with “broken people” who might resist new forms of unity (e.g., sending the Red Guard to the countryside to die) is considered a historical precedent for how a “Blue State” might manage dissent within its population [55:21:00].

Wokery as a New/Old Religion

Wokery is described as a new religion, referencing John McWhorter’s book Wokery as a New Religion [56:48:00]. Alternatively, it is posited as a very old religion, identifying it as “the old Gnostic heresies” transposed to a secular, “theosophical” realm [59:12:00]. Carl Marx, for example, is compared to Deepok Chopra, suggesting a similar theological architecture beneath their seemingly different temperaments [59:31:00].

Broader Concerns: Global Takeover

A more conspiratorial view suggests that the current moment is not “historically precedented,” but rather a “bid for a global takeover by a global conglomerate” potentially spearheaded through the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) [37:38:00]. This model, seen in ESG policies, is believed to be identical to what is promoted by the UN and the World Economic Forum, with figures like Klaus Schwab (Henry Kissinger’s mentee) being Harvard men who helped build China into its current model [38:00:00]. This “attempted silent takeover of the West” could be an elaborate blend of neoliberalism, fascism, and communism (or “productive socialism”) [38:18:00].

This perspective suggests that any split would involve “white knuckling for power” and “outright propaganda” to prevent a “red state” from organizing its military power [39:00:00]. The “slow option” in a “national divorce” scenario could see a “Blue State” thrive under a “Chinese style model” to attract “Red State” populations through a “brain drain” [40:51:00]. The aim would be to provoke the “red team” into an action that justifies international intervention and control [50:11:00].

For more information on military strategy, historical revolutions, or technological evolution, consult other articles. The comparison of monarchy and democracy offers insights into alternative governance models. The comparison in epistemic processes sheds light on different ways of knowing and interpreting the world. The shift from premodernity to modernity also provides a broader lens for understanding current political challenges.

Graph View

Backlinks