PDA

View Full Version : Chuck Baldwin: U.S. To Break Up Soon?




KCIndy
10-02-2009, 05:04 PM
forgive me if this has already been posted... I searched and didn't find it here on the forums.


All I can say after reading it is... wow. Makes one wonder.



Chuck Baldwin's latest column:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090929.html


U.S. To Break Up Soon?

According to Macedonian Radio and Television On-line (MRT), a Russian professor predicts the United States will fall apart in July 2010. MRT reports, "'Mr. Obama is similar to the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev was also making great promises for the Soviet Union, but the situation was only getting worse,' he said. By next summer, according to Professor Panarin, the US will disintegrate into six blocs--and everyone will get their piece. 'The probability that the United States of America fall apart in July 2010 is more than 50 percent,' said Igor Panarin, Professor at Moscow's Diplomatic Academy within the Russian Federation's Ministry of Foreign Affairs."

MRT went on to report, "Panarin came up with his grim forecast while analyzing the parallels between the Soviet Union in its final days and the current situation in the United States. 'American dream ballooned seven times in 11 years. During Gorbachev era, the Soviet dream ballooned five times.' Americans hope [President] Barack Obama 'can work miracles,' he wrote. 'But when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles.'"

See the MRT report at
http://tinyurl.com/mrt-report

The Drudge Report confirmed the MRT report and added, "Professor Igor Panarin said in an interview with the respected daily IZVESTIA . . . 'The dollar is not secured by anything. The country's foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse.'"

At least some of what Panarin said back in the fall of 2008 either has taken place or is in the process of taking place. Drudge reported, "When asked when the U.S. economy would collapse, Panarin said: 'It is already collapsing. Due to the financial crisis, three of the largest and oldest five banks on Wall Street have already ceased to exist, and two are barely surviving. Their losses are the biggest in history. Now what we will see is a change in the regulatory system on a global financial scale: America will no longer be the world's financial regulator.'"

Drudge continued reporting Panarin as saying that "the U.S. will break up into six parts-- the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong."

Panarin further suggested that Russia might even "claim Alaska."

See an archived version of Drudge's report at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/readarchive_20090107.html

Reporting on the same story, The Wall Street Journal said, "Prof. Panarin, 50 years old, is not a fringe figure. A former KGB analyst, he is dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry's academy for future diplomats. He is invited to Kremlin receptions, lectures students, publishes books, and appears in the media as an expert on U.S.-Russian relations."

The WSJ goes on to say that Panarin believes that "mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar."

See The Wall Street Journal report at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html

This is not the first time that Comrade Panarin has made such a prediction. Joseph Farah, editor of World Net Daily, noted in December of 2008 that Panarin has been making similar projections for the past ten years. In a column regarding Panarin's predictions, Farah wrote, "Until recently, no one took him very seriously. And then came the economic calamity that has rocked Americans and the rest of the world, too. Now, Panarin's predictions of an end of the United States, due to economic and moral collapse, is being taken seriously by many."

Read Farah's column at
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84884

So, will the United States break up in 2010? Or 2011? Or 2012? Or anytime in the near future, for that matter? If history is any teacher, the chances would seem good that Panarin's predictions may be closer to reality than anyone would like to admit.

A historian and linguist from South Africa recently wrote me a fascinating letter, in which he chronicled the major world empires of history, dating the time of their rise and fall. Here is what his calculations look like:

Assyria (859-612 B.C.): a 247-year reign.
Persia (538-330 B.C.): a 208-year reign.
Greece (331-100 B.C.): a 231-year reign.
The Roman Republic (260-27 B.C.): a 233-year reign.
The Roman Empire (27 B.C.-180 A.D.): a 207-year reign.
The Arab Empire (634-880 A.D.): a 246-year reign.
The Mameluke Empire (1250-1517 A.D.): a 267-year reign.
The Ottoman Empire (1320-1570 A.D.): a 250-year reign.
Spain (1500-1750 A.D.): a 250-year reign.
Romanov Russia (1682-1916 A.D.): a 234-year reign.
Great Britain (1700-1950 A.D.): a 250-year reign.
The USA (1790-2009 A.D.): 219 years and counting.

My honorable historian-friend calculates America's reign using its post-Revolutionary War years. He notes that America's reign is currently at 219 years. He further notes that the average duration of every world superpower listed above is a little over 238 years.

One does not need to be a master mathematician or possess a Ph.D. to realize that America is fast approaching the mark in which every major world power in history has either collapsed or, at a minimum, lost its world leadership and power.

My friend also reminded me of his homeland's (South Africa's) demise. He told me that he noticed the handwriting on the wall in time to relocate his family to a more peaceful and stable European country. Many of his friends and countrymen were not so fortunate, however, and thousands were killed and their properties confiscated. He then warned me, "The period of Grace is closing, in what is your homeland."

In addition, serious students of Holy Writ are also struck with the similarities between societal conditions in America and those of Old Testament Israel (as well as with Gentile nations) at those times of divine judgment and retribution. As someone trenchantly said, "If God spares the United States, He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah."

Will the Russian analyst's prophecies come true in 2010? Probably not. Does that mean that America is impervious to some sort of national demise? Not at all. Is America already in serious trouble? You bet. Could there be some sort of break-up within the United States in the near future? In my opinion, that is a very realistic probability. If this happens, will freedom suffer? Almost certainly. Will those with tyrannical tendencies use the opportunity of any national disaster to try and enslave us? They already do. I personally do not believe that there is any "If" to the question. The only questions are, "When?" and "To what degree?"

And, of course, there is another question: "When the break-up comes, how many Americans understand the principles of liberty enough, and are personally prepared enough, and are willing enough to resist whatever power it may be that seeks to place us under the thumb of oppression and fight for the same protections and vanguards of liberty that first established this land?" Obviously, the answer to that question is yet to be determined, isn't it?

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

Chuck Baldwin

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090929.html

pcosmar
10-02-2009, 05:36 PM
I am afraid I agree with Chuck on this, especially this last bit.

And, of course, there is another question: "When the break-up comes, how many Americans understand the principles of liberty enough, and are personally prepared enough, and are willing enough to resist whatever power it may be that seeks to place us under the thumb of oppression and fight for the same protections and vanguards of liberty that first established this land?" Obviously, the answer to that question is yet to be determined, isn't it?

I think Ron Paul's greatest victory was waking up a base of folks to survive what we see coming.

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-02-2009, 05:41 PM
When the dollar collapses....I fear to witness the day, as I am not sure that there are enough people that understand Liberty, to throw off and fight against any who would try and oppress us. I do hold out hope for the last vestiges of American individualism which remains strong in rural areas. The cities will become very bleak, very fast.

I don't buy into the apoplectic scenarios envisioned, but it will be chaos. I do think it's all, but enivatable that either the Federal Government relinquishes its power by citizen uproar and State Sovereignty, or that States seceede and we have 1861 all over again, but I am hopeful that this 1861 will be won by Liberty.

I am dead serious when I say this about the Dollar, it will collapse and we all need to be prepared for whatever events come to fruition.

LittleLightShining
10-02-2009, 05:47 PM
I think Ron Paul's greatest victory was waking up a base of folks to survive what we see coming.He has called us "the remnant" many times.

KCIndy
10-02-2009, 05:50 PM
I don't buy into the apoplectic scenarios envisioned, but it will be chaos.


What really bothers me is that Baldwin doesn't really project this as an apocalyptic scenario, for which I give him kudos. It's real easy for ministers to thump the Bible and preach about doomsday.

The thing is, this article makes a valid, historically sound argument that every empire and world power comes to an end, usually through over extension, apathy, and financial mismanagement.

It wasn't the end of the world when the empires of Greece, Rome, Spain and Britain fell. But it sure wasn't fun for many of the people living through it, either. :(

pcosmar
10-02-2009, 05:52 PM
When the dollar collapses....I fear to witness the day, as I am not sure that there are enough people that understand Liberty, to throw off and fight against any who would try and oppress us. I do hold out hope for the last vestiges of American individualism which remains strong in rural areas. The cities will become very bleak, very fast.



I have been working on folks in my area, many are like minded. I am very rural.
It is also why I warn others to have a plan to escape the cities. Survival may well depend on it.

catdd
10-02-2009, 05:58 PM
The last thing this country needed was another puppet President to carry on the status quo for the banksters...
I fear Obama may have been the last nail in America's coffin.

pcosmar
10-02-2009, 05:58 PM
He has called us "the remnant" many times.

Yes he has.
ISAIAH'S JOB
by Albert J. Nock
http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/isaiah.htm

``Ah,'' the Lord said, ``you do not get the point. There is a Remnant there that you know nothing about. They are obscure, unorganized, inarticulate, each one rubbing along as best he can. They need to be encouraged and braced up because when everything has gone completely to the dogs, they are the ones who will come back and build up a new society; and meanwhile, your preaching will reassure them and keep them hanging on. Your job is to take care of the Remnant, so be off now and set about it''....

Icymudpuppy
10-02-2009, 07:17 PM
The russian analyst greatly overestimates chinese influence in the Pacific states. While we do have significant Asian populations compared to the rest of the US, they still remain less than 10% of the population, and that is fairly evenly distributed between Chinese, Korean, Filipino, Japanese, and all others. There are more blacks and hispanics than Asians, and far more whites.

Standing Like A Rock
10-02-2009, 07:20 PM
Many of those dates are wrong. For example the Roman Republic was 509 BC–27 BC and the Roman Empire was 27 BC–AD 476 (1453 if you count the Byzantine Empire).

t0rnado
10-02-2009, 07:29 PM
The dates on there are wrong and he purposely only included empires that existed for around the same time the US has existed. Here are some empires that have lasted for over 500 years:

Ottoman Empire 1299AD - 1922AD - The article has incorrect dates.
Abbasid Empire 750AD - 1258AD
Bornu Empire 1396AD - 1893AD
Chalukya Empire 600AD - 1200AD
Egyptian Empire 1570BCE - 1070BCE
Holy Roman Empire 962AD - 1806AD

Baldwin decided to only include the ones that would back up his sensationalist crap.

Icymudpuppy
10-02-2009, 07:29 PM
Chuck is painting things a little bleakly. While things may be bad here, they will not be nearly as bad as they were in the fall of most of those other empires which were dependent upon their empirical holdings and trade for even their basic needs.

The US has more agricultural capacity than the rest of those empires combined, even if petroleum based fertilizers are not to be found.

justinc.1089
10-02-2009, 10:19 PM
If the country broke up when the dollar collapses like the Soviet Union did, I think its fairly obvious how the eastern side would break up. You would have a chunk of states in the South that would resemble the states that made up the Confederacy a long time ago, and there would be a chunk of Northern states together in the Northeast.

But some of the Southwestern states would probably go independent of the Southeastern states. Some people in the states there would want to join Mexico, and Mexico would want that, but they would probably not do that. I think they would just be there on their own, and not join Mexico or the Southeastern states.

I'm not sure of how the western states and central states would break up though. My guess is California would be on its own, and certainly not join China lol. I think thats kinda nutty to think that lol.

I don't think Russia would get Alaska either because I doubt they will gain that much influence, and I doubt there would be enough people in Alaska that would go along with that. I don't think they would join any country, but just be their own.

libertarian4321
10-03-2009, 05:08 AM
"Great Britain (1700-1950 A.D.): a 250-year reign.
The USA (1790-2009 A.D.): 219 years and counting.

My honorable historian-friend calculates America's reign using its post-Revolutionary War years. He notes that America's reign is currently at 219 years. He further notes that the average duration of every world superpower listed above is a little over 238 years."

This is just sloppy analysis to make the numbers fit a pre-determined outcome.

Take these two countries. He starts the USA's "reign" at 1790, when the USA had effectively zero power or influence internationally. The USA did not become a major player on the world scene until the late 19th century, at the earliest- meaning we've been a power for maybe 150 years, at most.

He starts Britain at 1700, which is hundreds of years after Britain first became a global power. A better starting point for Britain would have been 1346, after defeating France at Crecy- thereby giving the Brits a "reign" of 604 years (but, of course, he doesn't do that because it doesn't fit his convenient theory).

Many of the other numbers are also obviously massaged to fit the theory. He also conveniently left out many empires that lasted far longer.

In science this is called "fudging"- playing fast and loose with numbers to arrive at a pre-determined result. I don't know what the historians call it. Perhaps "bull shit?"

libertarian4321
10-03-2009, 05:18 AM
Chuck is painting things a little bleakly.

This Russian "professor"- a former KGB man and a big fan of Stalin, predicted (in 1998, btw, not this year) that roughly one third of the USA would be occupied by CANADA.

Yes, you read that right, Canada is taking over most of the mid west in 9 months. Better learn how to play hockey and say "eh?" if you live there, folks.

That alone should convince you that he is a crank.

He also has China, Russia and Mexico (really? Mexico? I doubt Mexico has the strength to deal with the New Mexico National Guard, let alone much else) controlling portions of the USA.

libertarian4321
10-03-2009, 05:22 AM
BTW, if Chuck Baldwin swallows this nonsense hook, line, and sinker, without doing any critical analysis of this obviously flawed theory, one has to wonder how much knowledge and brain power he has- this is the kind of nonsense I'd expect from a mental midget like Sarah Palin.

catdd
10-03-2009, 10:19 AM
I think you are overlooking what will become of this nation if the dollar collapses.

justinc.1089
10-03-2009, 10:42 AM
This Russian "professor"- a former KGB man and a big fan of Stalin, predicted (in 1998, btw, not this year) that roughly one third of the USA would be occupied by CANADA.

Yes, you read that right, Canada is taking over most of the mid west in 9 months. Better learn how to play hockey and say "eh?" if you live there, folks.

That alone should convince you that he is a crank.

He also has China, Russia and Mexico (really? Mexico? I doubt Mexico has the strength to deal with the New Mexico National Guard, let alone much else) controlling portions of the USA.

I agree.

I doubt there are any people in Canada that want control of any part of America, and I doubt there are any people in America that want to be a part of Canada either lol.

China?! I don't even know what to say to that. Sure there are Chinese people here but that doesn't even come close to supporting the idea that China would have control of any part of this country lol.

And yes Mexico is absolutely too weak to take control of any part of America even with a collapse.

justinc.1089
10-03-2009, 10:43 AM
BTW, if Chuck Baldwin swallows this nonsense hook, line, and sinker, without doing any critical analysis of this obviously flawed theory, one has to wonder how much knowledge and brain power he has- this is the kind of nonsense I'd expect from a mental midget like Sarah Palin.

Yeah this makes me wonder if I should have voted for Barr instead of Baldwin.

tpreitzel
10-03-2009, 11:03 AM
Chuck's historian is probably accurate in principle. These empires have periods of maximal influence, i.e. growth period, during their zenith and his historian was likely referring to these periods. Sure, the process is somewhat subjective and not technically accurate. Empires can go on for long periods as they slowly die, but their influence does not necessarily remain significant.

"A historian and linguist from South Africa recently wrote me a fascinating letter, in which he chronicled the major world empires of history, dating the time of their rise and fall. Here is what his calculations look like:"

Emphasis mine. IMO, he should have used terms indicating periods of maximal influence although rise and fall can surely convey the same idea. He didn't say begin and end.

pcosmar
10-03-2009, 11:03 AM
I am doubtful of some of the speculation too. and as far as the time lines, Well, what empires are still around in total control? As I have heard many say, including Ron Paul, all empires have the same fate.

I have heard much speculation as to how the country will divide or be reorganized. It is all speculation.
I am sure that the Dollar is coming to an end, an economic crash is predicted by many.
When goods and services are no longer provided, food and fuel shortages, water and electric outages become common, our society will become chaotic.
This is a when, not an if.

I myself don't expect to see the country divided along the lines predicted.
I believe that there will be areas that the Globalists will try to prop up and control, and places where communities maintain some civility. Mostly I expect chaos.

justinc.1089
10-03-2009, 11:08 AM
I just hope if the United States has a soviet-style collapse and falls apart that the South will become its own nation again, and that it will promote much more freedom that any part of the world has before. I also hope if it becomes its own nation that black people there won't buy racism based propaganda against it that would without doubt come. And I hope ignorant racist redneck idiots don't try to act like the nation is racist either. But if the U.S falls apart and the South becomes its own nation again those things are likely to happen as a result of the history of the South sadly.

I would love to go back in time and do who knows what to the people that started slavery in the South. It was so wrong and such an embarrassment.

pcosmar
10-03-2009, 11:18 AM
I would love to go back in time and do who knows what to the people that started slavery in the South. It was so wrong and such an embarrassment.

:eek:
:confused:

Slavery did not start in the south.
It was started many thousands of years earlier. It was practiced by the natives here before "white" man. It was brought by those from Europe. It was practiced in Africa, They sold their slaves to Europeans that brought them here. And there were Free Blacks in the south long before the "Civil"War.

Please. Quit with the dumb shit.

KCIndy
10-03-2009, 11:37 AM
I'm not sure of how the western states and central states would break up though. My guess is California would be on its own, and certainly not join China lol. I think thats kinda nutty to think that lol.

I doubt that China would invade or enact any sort of physical takeover. But in terms of alignment of power and strategic alliances, who knows?? After all, the Soviet Union imploded in '91. Can you imagine anyone in, say, 1989, making a credible prediction that in less than twenty years many of the Warsaw Pact nations would either be in, (or requesting to be in) the North Atlantic Treaty Organization?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#Membership




I don't think Russia would get Alaska either because I doubt they will gain that much influence, and I doubt there would be enough people in Alaska that would go along with that. I don't think they would join any country, but just be their own.

Population of Russia: 140,041,247 (July 2009 est. - source: CIA factbook)
Population of Alaska: 686,293 - (July 2008 est. source: U.S. Census Bureau)

Who's to say that Alaska will be given a choice? :rolleyes:

Blueskies
10-03-2009, 04:14 PM
As someone who's studied the final days of the Soviet Union, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

The difference between the collapse of the USSR and a possible faltering of the US Empire, is that the USSR fell apart along the lines of the states it had absorbed in its formation.

The USSR took over Georgia, Azerbajin, Armenia, Estonia, etc. etc. in the early 1920s. When the USSR collapsed, it lost these states. But Russia itself did not come apart.

Likewise, if the US Empire falls apart, it would lose control over its puppet states like Israel, Columbia, South Korea, etc. (of course if these are puppet states or not is highly debatable, the issue isn't clear). But the central US would remain intact. It's far too interconnected.

To cite a historical example, in the late 1980s there were constant masacres, riots etc. in Azerbajin against Armenians and in Armenia against Azerbajin. The people didn't see themselves as Soviet citizens, but rather Armenians and Azeris.

So come get me when Texans start killing Yankees living in their state.

justinc.1089
10-03-2009, 04:59 PM
:eek:
:confused:

Slavery did not start in the south.
It was started many thousands of years earlier. It was practiced by the natives here before "white" man. It was brought by those from Europe. It was practiced in Africa, They sold their slaves to Europeans that brought them here. And there were Free Blacks in the south long before the "Civil"War.

Please. Quit with the dumb shit.

Did I say it started in the South and spread? No...

So I didn't say any dumb shit. I think its dumb shit to assume someone is as dumb as shit because its obvious anyone with a pea brain knows slavery existed long before the South.

So I will say it once again, I would love to do who knows what to the people that started slavery in the South.

Its dumb shit not to look at all the words in a sentence. The phrases "started slavery" and "started slavery in the South" have totally different meanings. You assumed I meant "started slavery," as in all slavery, and that that happened "in the South," when I meant what I wrote which was the people that "started slavery in the South." Not meaning as in starting slavery, but as in starting it in the specific location of the South. The people that started it in the South did not start it everywhere, and I didn't say that because thats some dumb shit to say.

justinc.1089
10-03-2009, 05:03 PM
As someone who's studied the final days of the Soviet Union, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

The difference between the collapse of the USSR and a possible faltering of the US Empire, is that the USSR fell apart along the lines of the states it had absorbed in its formation.

The USSR took over Georgia, Azerbajin, Armenia, Estonia, etc. etc. in the early 1920s. When the USSR collapsed, it lost these states. But Russia itself did not come apart.

Likewise, if the US Empire falls apart, it would lose control over its puppet states like Israel, Columbia, South Korea, etc. (of course if these are puppet states or not is highly debatable, the issue isn't clear). But the central US would remain intact. It's far too interconnected.

To cite a historical example, in the late 1980s there were constant masacres, riots etc. in Azerbajin against Armenians and in Armenia against Azerbajin. The people didn't see themselves as Soviet citizens, but rather Armenians and Azeris.

So come get me when Texans start killing Yankees living in their state.

The South is under the United States' control...

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-03-2009, 05:25 PM
As someone who's studied the final days of the Soviet Union, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

The difference between the collapse of the USSR and a possible faltering of the US Empire, is that the USSR fell apart along the lines of the states it had absorbed in its formation.

The USSR took over Georgia, Azerbajin, Armenia, Estonia, etc. etc. in the early 1920s. When the USSR collapsed, it lost these states. But Russia itself did not come apart.

Likewise, if the US Empire falls apart, it would lose control over its puppet states like Israel, Columbia, South Korea, etc. (of course if these are puppet states or not is highly debatable, the issue isn't clear). But the central US would remain intact. It's far too interconnected.

To cite a historical example, in the late 1980s there were constant masacres, riots etc. in Azerbajin against Armenians and in Armenia against Azerbajin. The people didn't see themselves as Soviet citizens, but rather Armenians and Azeris.

So come get me when Texans start killing Yankees living in their state.

Americans aren't like that. We will evict the Government not the people. Apparently you don't know anything about our Civil War. America today is so polarized, its extremely probable of a looming conflict between the States and the Government once again. Look around, it's partly happening. The fire has been lit under a significant part of the population, and it is EXTREMELY tenuous at best. Have you not watched the town halls? Protests?

I think it would be far better for the people of this nation to sever the bonds that tied us, as it has become increasingly clear that we have become shackled with unscrupulous tyranny and there is a significant divide that is not only cultural, but regional. The 2009 America is no different than the 1860 America. The South still has the tradition of Liberty, and there are still States that at least in rhetoric exert their rights. The North still wants to impose their views on the nation. Now, tiny area's can influence huge swaths of America. Literally, 10 cities can dominate America....in our electoral process.

heavenlyboy34
10-03-2009, 05:27 PM
"even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. " <-- Last I checked this isn't true.

pcosmar
10-03-2009, 05:29 PM
Did I say it started in the South and spread? No...

So I didn't say any dumb shit. I think its dumb shit to assume someone is as dumb as shit because its obvious anyone with a pea brain knows slavery existed long before the South.

So I will say it once again, I would love to do who knows what to the people that started slavery in the South.

Its dumb shit not to look at all the words in a sentence. The phrases "started slavery" and "started slavery in the South" have totally different meanings. You assumed I meant "started slavery," as in all slavery, and that that happened "in the South," when I meant what I wrote which was the people that "started slavery in the South." Not meaning as in starting slavery, but as in starting it in the specific location of the South. The people that started it in the South did not start it everywhere, and I didn't say that because thats some dumb shit to say.

So you are ignoring the people that had slaves in the North?
Just what do you mean? Slavery was a fact of life at the time. No one "Started it in the south"
other than the people that moved there with slaves.
The settlers that came form the North brought their slaves with them.

Though it was common among the Indians there before the "white man" moved in. Warring tribes often kept slaves.
Look at the history of Key West (Cayo Hueso) or Bone Island. It was where the bodies of enemies were dumped.

Blueskies
10-04-2009, 02:39 AM
Americans aren't like that. We will evict the Government not the people. Apparently you don't know anything about our Civil War. America today is so polarized, its extremely probable of a looming conflict between the States and the Government once again. Look around, it's partly happening. The fire has been lit under a significant part of the population, and it is EXTREMELY tenuous at best. Have you not watched the town halls? Protests?

I think it would be far better for the people of this nation to sever the bonds that tied us, as it has become increasingly clear that we have become shackled with unscrupulous tyranny and there is a significant divide that is not only cultural, but regional. The 2009 America is no different than the 1860 America. The South still has the tradition of Liberty, and there are still States that at least in rhetoric exert their rights. The North still wants to impose their views on the nation. Now, tiny area's can influence huge swaths of America. Literally, 10 cities can dominate America....in our electoral process.

It is apparent that you didn't comprehend my post.

I wasn't arguing against the idea of a second American revolution or the possible fall of the American empire.

I was simply saying that if any of these events do occur, they will not lead to a breakup of the US mainland as this Russian Prof believes.

The difference between the USSR and the USA of present is that the USSR of the past was a collection of 15 individual nations held together by a strong central government. Each of these nations were dominated by different ethnic groups, spoke different languages and had different cultural practices.

So, when the USSR collapsed, the country splint along these national lines.

The USA is composed of a single nation. The government may collapse, but the nation will not split. I suppose you could argue that their are two nations--the south being one and the rest of the country being the other--and that, if the government collapsed, the south would break away. But I just don't think thats possible. Southern nationalism is nowhere near the level it was in the 1800s.

To summarize succinctly: the USSR broke apart because it was a collection of different nations held together by a strong central government. When that government collapsed, the bonds where removed, and the nations drifted apart.

The USA is one nation. It is not being held together by a central government. Even if the central government collapsed, the nation itself would stay intact.

South Park Fan
10-04-2009, 09:36 AM
The USA is not one nation. It is a collection of 50 different nations held together by a strong central government.

Liberty Star
10-04-2009, 09:43 AM
Is the Russian prof basing this on Afghanstan/Iraq costs?



Updated October 5, 2004

CRS Report for Congress

9/11 Terrorism: Global Economic Costs

The 9/11 attacks were part of Al Qaeda’s strategy to disrupt Western economies and impose both direct and secondary costs on the United States and other nations. The immediate costs were the physical damage, loss of lives and earnings, slower world economic growth, and capital losses on stock markets. Indirect costs include higher insurance and shipping fees, diversion of time and resources away from enhancing productivity to protecting and insuring property, public loss of confidence, and reduced demand for travel and tourism. In a broader sense, the 9/11 attacks led to the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq (and the Global War on Terrorism) and perhaps
emboldened terrorists to attack in Bali, Spain, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia. A policy
question for Congress is how to evaluate the costs and benefits of further spending to counter terrorism and its economic impact. This report will be updated periodically.

A strategy of Al Qaeda is to hurt the Western world by attacking economic nodes and avenues of commerce. Osama Bin Laden has pegged the cost of the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. economy at $1 trillion.1 This attack, along with the Bali bombings in Indonesia and the Madrid train bombing, was aimed partly at taking down the global economic system and inspiring recruits by demonstrating that Al Qaeda’s terror attacks could cause significant damage and to raise fear levels that would cause governments, businesses, and individuals to change the way they behave in everyday life. This fits into aim of Al Qaeda to destroy Western powers by exhausting them in much the same manner that the resistance did after the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan or the United States did to Russia

in the Cold War. In each case, the prolonged war ended as much from economic exhaustion as from military victories. The purpose of this report is to briefly survey the global economic costs of 9/11. Details of the effects of 9/11 and terrorism on the U.S. and world economies are also addressed in other CRS reports and various studies. 2




http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:euNdAoCIg-gJ:digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-7725:1+economic+cost+9/11&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AFQjCNEvZ3bfeeKMrzuxDq-fAb0zG2Dicg

Deborah K
10-04-2009, 10:14 AM
Yes he has.
ISAIAH'S JOB
by Albert J. Nock
http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/isaiah.htm

Quote:
``Ah,'' the Lord said, ``you do not get the point. There is a Remnant there that you know nothing about. They are obscure, unorganized, inarticulate, each one rubbing along as best he can. They need to be encouraged and braced up because when everything has gone completely to the dogs, they are the ones who will come back and build up a new society; and meanwhile, your preaching will reassure them and keep them hanging on. Your job is to take care of the Remnant, so be off now and set about it''....

__________________




This makes me cry.

heavenlyboy34
10-04-2009, 10:21 AM
It is apparent that you didn't comprehend my post.

I wasn't arguing against the idea of a second American revolution or the possible fall of the American empire.

I was simply saying that if any of these events do occur, they will not lead to a breakup of the US mainland as this Russian Prof believes.

The difference between the USSR and the USA of present is that the USSR of the past was a collection of 15 individual nations held together by a strong central government. Each of these nations were dominated by different ethnic groups, spoke different languages and had different cultural practices.

So, when the USSR collapsed, the country splint along these national lines.

The USA is composed of a single nation. The government may collapse, but the nation will not split. I suppose you could argue that their are two nations--the south being one and the rest of the country being the other--and that, if the government collapsed, the south would break away. But I just don't think thats possible. Southern nationalism is nowhere near the level it was in the 1800s.

To summarize succinctly: the USSR broke apart because it was a collection of different nations held together by a strong central government. When that government collapsed, the bonds where removed, and the nations drifted apart.

The USA is one nation. It is not being held together by a central government. Even if the central government collapsed, the nation itself would stay intact.


I disagree. The US is anything but homogenous. Every region is VERY different and have different lifestyles, cultures, etc. It isn't exactly like the USSR, but similar. I would argue that the US is (sadly) forced together by the central government. You're right tho-if the central government was destroyed, the states would remain. (w00t for secession! :cool:)

Blueskies
10-04-2009, 02:40 PM
The USA is not one nation. It is a collection of 50 different nations held together by a strong central government.

No, sorry, its not.

Just because the country is carved up into fifty different governing districts, does not mean that there are fifty nations.

Are there hundreds of nations in a given state? After all, each state is composed of hundreds of cities/towns...

To an extent, the people in California are different than the people from New York. But they share the same culture and have a common background, and are thus the same nation. They still consider themselves to be Americans first, and Californians/New Yorkers second. People move freely from state to state without experiencing extreme culture shock.

Sure, local customs vary, but the nation is the same.

The USSR was not like that. Each individual republic was composed of very different ethnic groups. They had different common backgrounds, different languages, etc. In central Asia they still had a tribal structure, while in Russia the system was more westernized. The people in the Soviet Republics considered themselves to be nation first, soviet second--especially in the later years of the USSR. They didn't like their neighbors and this erupted in violence against one another.

So again, I'll say: get back to me when Americans start targeting other Americans. When a Texan shoots a New Yorker just because he's from New York. And don't say Americans aren't like that because its happened before: read your history and go look up "Bleeding Kansas".

KCIndy
10-04-2009, 02:46 PM
No, sorry, its not.

Just because the country is carved up into fifty different governing districts, does not mean that there are fifty nations.

Are there hundreds of nations in a given state? After all, each state is composed of hundreds of cities/towns...

To an extent, the people in California are different than the people from New York. But they share the same culture and have a common background, and are thus the same nation. They still consider themselves to be Americans first, and Californians/New Yorkers second. People move freely from state to state without experiencing extreme culture shock.

Sure, local customs vary, but the nation is the same.

The USSR was not like that. Each individual republic was composed of very different ethnic groups. They had different common backgrounds, different languages, etc. In central Asia they still had a tribal structure, while in Russia the system was more westernized. The people in the Soviet Republics considered themselves to be nation first, soviet second--especially in the later years of the USSR. They didn't like their neighbors and this erupted in violence against one another.

So again, I'll say: get back to me when Americans start targeting other Americans. When a Texan shoots a New Yorker just because he's from New York. And don't say Americans aren't like that because its happened before: read your history and go look up "Bleeding Kansas".


Blueskies, no offense - don't take this the wrong way, but I'm a little confused.

It seems that you're first arguing that Americans would not turn on fellow Americans in the event of a catastrophic economic collapse because, you say, we're Americans first.

Then at the end of your comments you make the valid historical point that Americans have indeed turned on (and killed) fellow Americans because of regional and cultural differences.

It sounds like you're negating your own argument. Can you clarify?

Blueskies
10-04-2009, 02:56 PM
Blueskies, no offense - don't take this the wrong way, but I'm a little confused.

It seems that you're first arguing that Americans would not turn on fellow Americans in the event of a catastrophic economic collapse because, you say, we're Americans first.

Then at the end of your comments you make the valid historical point that Americans have indeed turned on (and killed) fellow Americans because of regional and cultural differences.

It sounds like you're negating your own argument. Can you clarify?

Yeah.

In the current environment, common American citizens would not turn against other common American citizens, and if they did, it wouldn't be on the basis of some regional national antagonism.

And in order for the US to break apart, that's what you'd have to get.

Someone earlier in this topic suggested that the US would break apart anyway, and that Americans citizens would not fight each other because somehow Americans are intrinsically unable to fight other. I was pointing out that this wasn't the case, and I cited Bleeding Kansas as an example.

The last time the US almost broke apart was the civil war. Prior to that, you had common Americans fighting against one another. So then, if the US was going to break apart or attempt to once again, you'd expect to see violence between common Americans now, and you don't see that.

And I don't expect that you will see that, because I don't think the US will breakup. Any possible antagonism would be directed towards the feds, not one state (or group of states) against another.

Deborah K
10-04-2009, 03:10 PM
Wait until they try to ram amnesty down our throats. You will see a country divided like never before. And bear in mind that liberal latinos and hispanics are the fastest growing collectivist group in the country.

Flash
10-04-2009, 03:18 PM
Wait until they try to ram amnesty down our throats. You will see a country divided like never before. And bear in mind that liberal latinos and hispanics are the fastest growing collectivist group in the country.

There's an idea called "Vinland" which aims to start a White & Amerindian seperatist state in the Pacific Northwest. I think it's a pretty cool idea considering how Aztlan seperatists seem to get a 'free pass' simply for being non-white.

Deborah K
10-04-2009, 03:22 PM
There's an idea called "Vinland" which aims to start a White & Amerindian seperatist state in the Pacific Northwest. I think it's a pretty cool idea considering how Aztlan seperatists seem to get a 'free pass' simply for being non-white.

I could never go for something like that. But I could go for a colony of people who lived by the dictum: Live and let live. :D Could care less about a person's skin color, religion (or lack thereof). Only about their philosophical views regarding individual freedom.

But the collectivists that are driving the amnesty train do care about skin color, unfortunately, and because of that, we are in for the fight of our lives.

pcosmar
10-04-2009, 03:30 PM
Folks are focusing on the Russian Observer's opinion, or the States seceding. That was not the point of the OP and I suspect that it is lost on many.
With the collapse of the Dollar, State employees are not going to be paid, Neither are truckers or plant managers. Trucks stop moving and there is no fuel, no deliveries to supermarkets.You will see cities without food and water. No electricity, no TV.
You don't think americans will fight americans? Think again. They will be fighting for whatever scraps they can find.
Social breakdown. Only areas that have some plan and cooperation will hold a level of civility.
That is the point, to be prepared locally and personally.

Deborah K
10-04-2009, 03:33 PM
folks are focusing on the russian observer's opinion, or the states seceding. That was not the point of the op and i suspect that it is lost on many.
With the collapse of the dollar, state employees are not going to be paid, neither are truckers or plant managers. Trucks stop moving and there is no fuel, no deliveries to supermarkets.you will see cities without food and water. No electricity, no tv.
You don't think americans will fight americans? Think again. They will be fighting for whatever scraps they can find.
Social breakdown. Only areas that have some plan and cooperation will hold a level of civility.
That is the point, to be prepared locally and personally.

qft.

Blueskies
10-04-2009, 10:24 PM
The collapse of the dollar will not trigger the end of the world.

Its happened in other nations and they've kept on trucking. Yes, there will be civil unrest for a time, but its not the apocalypse.

Germany had hyperinflation in 1923, but the Weimar Republic managed to survive another ten years afterwards.

South Park Fan
10-04-2009, 10:36 PM
The collapse of the dollar will not trigger the end of the world.

Its happened in other nations and they've kept on trucking. Yes, there will be civil unrest for a time, but its not the apocalypse.

Germany had hyperinflation in 1923, but the Weimar Republic managed to survive another ten years afterwards.

No nation has ever survived for very long that debased its currency.

justinc.1089
10-05-2009, 01:34 AM
So you are ignoring the people that had slaves in the North?
Just what do you mean? Slavery was a fact of life at the time. No one "Started it in the south"
other than the people that moved there with slaves.
The settlers that came form the North brought their slaves with them.

Though it was common among the Indians there before the "white man" moved in. Warring tribes often kept slaves.
Look at the history of Key West (Cayo Hueso) or Bone Island. It was where the bodies of enemies were dumped.

Did you read my post?:confused:

Its not that hard to understand what I am saying....

At some point some person at some time used the first slave in the South because prior to that slavery there had not been there referring to European settlers, even if that means when there were none of them, and when the first one stepped off a boat he had a slave rowing it. But whoever those first people were that helped to start the slave trade ****specifically****, did you get that, ****specifically****, in the South should really get some serious punishment for their actions.

You are acting like I said the South caused all the slavery in the world that ever existed and loved slavery or something stupid like that when I'm clearly not. Before you try to argue with someone again make sure you at least understand what they said.

I mean you just said what I said talking about people that moved to the South with slaves and stuff like that.

There were people responsible for the beginning of slavery in the South. People brought them to the South, people sold them in the South, people bought them in the South, and people used them in the South. And the first people starting all that should not have done it.

That is CLEARLY NOT saying ALL slavery started in the South.

And if you think I'm so dense that I'm saying at one point in time in the South there were no slaves, and suddenly some people caused slavery to exist, I'm not saying that either.

If you can't get what I'm saying I don't know how else to say it. But the context of my first post should have made it clear even if you did not get what part of the post meant. Its obvious I was not saying stupid remarks with a prejudice against the South using slavery as an excuse like some people do. I am from the South, and get sick of people using slavery as an excuse to say how terrible the South is and has been, and I think thats why you assumed I meant something than what I actually said.

So if thats the case, I understand your point exactly, and sympathize with it, but we are not in disagreement here because I did not say any dumb shit like you thought I said lol.;) I promise lol.:D

pcosmar
10-05-2009, 07:59 AM
Did you read my post?:confused:

I I did not say any dumb shit like you thought I said lol.;) I promise lol.:D

Yes I read your post, that is why I responded.
It made no logical sense.

And it was a thread derail. Perhaps it will drop and the thread can stay on topic. ;)