We had an interesting exchange in the comment section the other day. As some of you may know, Brenton Tarrant, the self-declared “part-time kebab removalist” who cleared out two mosques in New Zealand left a manifesto. In it, he outlines the motivation behind the attack. This includes a section in which he discusses some alternatives and why he chose assault rifles instead. One reason he mentions is that he hopes to create a rift in society, particularly the United States. He writes that if the Second Amendment, which allows U.S. citizens to legally carry arms (at least in some states), gets repealed, then the Union would break apart along racial and political lines.
Of course, the thoughts of a mass murderer, no matter how well-thought out they may be, are not discussed in the mainstream media. Instead, we are told to not look at it because, as we know, if lefties don’t look at something, it simply does not exist. That’s also how they make crimes committed by illegal immigrants disappear. I am happy to fill this gap a little bit here. In fact, people discussing the possibility of a state leaving the Union is far from uncommon online. Usually, at some
In reality, though, laws are not real. They are a fabrication. This reminds me of a statement supposedly uttered by former heavyweight champion Mike Tyson: “Everybody has a plan — until they get punched in the face.” It’s the same with the laws. You may have politicians insist on the sanctity of the law, yet laws need to be enforced. You can see how this turns out in the real world. If you are in New Zealand and share the video of the Christchurch shooting, you get put in prison for a decade. Meanwhile, if you are a member of a particular protected group, it seems that you can freely rape underage women and nothing happens to you. The masterminds behind the Rotherham sex ring, for instance, believed that they were untouchable. Sure, their actions may have been against the law, but in the end the law is just letters on paper. They are worth nothing if they are not enforced or if they cannot be enforced.
I do not think that the United States will experience a secession of some states based on a repeal of the Second Amendment. However, I consider it eminently plausible that some states will leave the Union. The prime candidates are the southern states, which have been systematically colonized by Mexicans. It is simply breathtaking how stupid the politicians who let this happen are. The borders are open. Illegal immigrants can walk around freely, commit crimes, travel back and forth between the U.S. and Mexico and nothing ever seems to happen to them. Heck, they can even vote because proper IDs or a proof of citizenship would be “racist.”
In California, whites are already a minority. From what I gather, there is also
Right now, California seceding may sound implausible. But let the Mexicans keep taking over Cali, the whites leave, tech companies relocate, and so on. The Hispanics will turn that state into an outpost of Mexico in no time. Who knows, an enlightened future president like Alexandria “Occasional”-Cortez may even support Californian secession, viewing it as some kind of “reparation” to disenfranchised Mexicans. Also, you can bet that after the fact, we will have some dipshit Harvard Law professor explain to the unwashed masses why it has always been written in the Constitution of the United States that Mexicans can claim the southern states. After all, re-interpreting the Constitution to fit contemporary mores has a long tradition. The founding fathers would be disgusted if they could see what the United States have turned into.
Sure, we have “the laws”. Speaking with Mike Tyson, everybody has laws — until an enemy force, which you do not dare to combat, occupies your country. If you think all of this is nonsensical, you need to pay more attention. We are already at full speed moving to a dichotomy in the legal system according to which laws are only selectively enforced. This works on the level of individuals and local communities, but an extrapolation to the national level is trivial.
Did you enjoy this article? Excellent! If you want to read more by Aaron, check out his excellent books, the latest of which is Meditation Without Bullshit.
Aaron is available for one-on-one consultation sessions if you want honest advice.
Lastly, donations for the upkeep of this site are highly welcome.
3 thoughts on “Secession and the Fragility of the Rule of Law”
I’m not sure Mexico would officially annex the states because it would end the extractive relationship. Mexican citizens enter the U.S. illegally to gain free medical treatment, welfare, housing, education, legal representation etc that far exceed the value of wages they might earn through unskilled labor — as a failed state their own country provides next to none of these benefits.
This is a good point. However, what do you think will happen once Californa suffers financial hardship and can no longer provide those benefits? Also, you assume that the Mexicans would behave rationally. I would not be surprised that the chance of annexing California would seem so attractive that the loss of benefit payments on an individual level does not matter. Of course, a president like AOC would probably keep benefit payments up to a Mexican California, labeling them as foreign aid.
Indeed, many third world countries are already feeding at the trough. The question is who will continue to finance this, suppose the U.S. faces a failed debt auction after economic downturn. That could lead to changes in the system, though not likely at the individual state level as individual states are too weak and undifferentiated – citizenry decided by who drove there last week.
The larger point is very apt -even judges are no longer bound to language in statutes, this accelerated during Obama administration .