Adam Piggott

Gentleman adventurer

It doesn’t matter if Trump wins or loses.


how much longer has this got?

I had a conversation today about the looming US election. While I’m quite sure that Trump is going to carry it, I don’t think it really matters in the long run. If Clinton wins then I predict outright tyranny within a couple of years. A Trump victory would serve merely to kick the can a bit further down the road. So maybe tyranny in twenty years’ time with a Trump victory.

This is all just a natural endgame to the course that the US set itself in 1865. The War between the States may have used the topic of slavery as an excuse but it was actually a conflict concerning self-determination and the rights of states to govern their own people. The national construct that resulted at the end of that war was an artificial construct. It has been held together by force for the last 150 years but it is now breaking down at a fast rate. This breakdown has been accelerated by welfare, social justice, the encroachment of big government, globalism, race relations, and mass immigration.

I predict that the US will Balkanize into individual nation states formed along racial and ethnic lines. It’s ironic because while Europe has been attempting to strike down its individual nations and form a single United States of Europe, the US looks set to head in the opposite direction.

In the short term this will be a traumatic set of events. No break up ever occurs peacefully. But in the long run I can see it being a good thing. The US isn’t salvageable in its current form. Think of the Soviet Union around 1985. If at that time you had told them that they had four years to go they would have mocked you out of existence. But these events happen and they tend to happen quickly once the gradual buildup has been in place for some time. And the US has been building up to this since at least 1965 and the passing of the Immigration Act.

Think of the US as a train speeding along a set of tracks with a single destination. At the end of the tracks lies a splintering of individual nation states. Before this sits a tunnel which represents the trauma that such a breakup would deliver. A Clinton victory would cause the train to speed up whereas a Trump victory would merely cause a slowdown on the inevitable course that has been set. The train cannot be reversed – it is past time for that.

So the question is, do you want to take your medicine sooner or do you want to put it off for a while?


Shock headline – Women want more money for playing sport before they play the sport.


Podcast #17 – The Unicorn episode plus weekly links.


  1. GFR

    Your analysis is not unreasonable and has been espoused by many, particularly here in the US.
    But I think there is at least ONE factor that people are NOT taking into account. The local civil authorities in much of the US are STILL strong. The police in particular are MUCH stronger here than they are in almost any other country except places like Switzerland and possibly Australia where the cops are armed AND the people are still civilized.
    The principal reasons being that they are (once again) ARMED, they are largely NOT corrupt, they WILL take on violent criminals and they ALWAYS win.
    Could that change – sure, if the cops weren’t being paid they might become corrupt like they are in mexico which would result in criminal gangs becoming defacto political powers..
    But it hasn’t happened yet..

    • Adam

      These are all the same police who got taken out by a single sniper? And US households have the highest private gun ownership in the world. I’d be very nervous if I were a cop.

      • Brian_E

        I wouldn’t be nearly as nervous as a law abiding cop as I would be as a pandering politician (party affiliation is unimportant here). What’s key is a populous deciding essentially spontaneously and across large parts of our vast country – that the only remaining way to get the offending elected official’s attention is to make examples of a few of the more egregious individuals. A particularly chilling fictional work that explores this route is ‘Unintended Consequences’ by John Ross (published in 1996). It also gives an interesting view into the American ‘Gun Culture’, and how the so-called ‘Gun Control’ laws we live under came to exist. It was out of print for quite a while, but is now available in paperback and ebook formats. There are some ‘distasteful’ parts of the story, but that’s not unexpected – given the subject matter. Just the education regarding US gun laws makes the book worth reading, regardless of anything else one might take from it.

        FWIW – and for the record: I’m not affiliated with the publisher, any distributors, nor Mr. Ross – and have no financial interest in this book. Nor do I condone any specific actions taken by characters in the book. I just found reading it to be an educational albeit unsettling experience.

      • Floyd R Turbo (American)

        Cops are not indestructible – if somebody really IS willing to risk their life they can probably kill a cop. Killing multiple cops is very rare because they shoot back.
        But the principal reason why that doesn’t happen very often is that most people AREN’T willing to risk their life. You will notice that the Dallas shooter WAS killed by the cops.
        Legally owned firearms aren’t a danger to cops – quite the opposite. Every year in the US between 2.5 and 4.5 MILLION violent crimes are prevented by legally owned firearms – 90% of the time without the firearm being discharged.
        But my point WASN’T that cops are invulnerable to a civil uprising – my point was that a civil uprising is MUCH less likely to occur because people know that the cops WILL respond. The LA riots were instructive in this regard. At first the cops ran away and the rioters were encouraged. Later a large number of cops equipped with riot gear showed up to oppose the rioters and shut them down very quickly.

  2. Neville

    Interesting article, Adam. I have wondered about this issue for many years; even back then, it appeared to me that the US was heading for a break-up. Possible as few as six countries, maybe as many as twenty, or more.
    I suspect that a VERY strong leader (ie: semi-NON-democratic!) could hold it together as one country, but since about 1950 or so, with the tremendous effort by the cultural marxists and the critical theory promoters, it’d need a colossal effort, and no small amount of catastrophic societal damage.

    • Adam

      You’ve already had the catastrophic societal damage. Now you’re just on track for the physical version which is par for end game.

  3. I don’t see it happening that way at all. Strife along racial and ethnic lines? Sure. The difference is that the south was a viable economic unit on it’s own. What some see as regional units just don’t have an economic viability.

    For example Southern California, what I know best. Without a national economy and infrastructure it would go belly up in a week. Just about all of it’s food, water, and electricity is imported. Break that system and the cities are on fire within 2 to 3 days. People see the wealth, as evidenced by currency, of So. Cal. and assume that translates to everything. Arizona and New Mexico are very similar.

    There is a reason why the Spanish only set up missions in California and never tried to heavily colonize it.

    • Adam

      You could look at any separate and existing countries in the world today and say the same thing about them not seeming to be economically viable. Take New Zealand. What have they got? Sheep and some touristy areas. But they do fine. Don’t think of the future US lines being redrawn around existing ones. It won’t be the nation of South Dakota. The line might follow a completely different route. They’ll probably team up with some other states as well. This will all come out in some nasty fighting as it has always done. The Holy Roman Empire or the Austrian-Hungarian Empire are also fine historical examples of these same situations. They were dominant, they were thought of as being forever, the smaller parts were thought of as weaker than the whole. But they broke up just like they always do.

      And they broke apart based on ethnic lines. People want to be around their own kind. The whites will get their little nations, and the blacks will get theirs, and the Latinos, and the Asians. It is as it has always been. We are no different from our forebears apart from the fact that they were harder working and smarter than us.

  4. Hi, Adam. First-time visitor to your site; found it through a comment of yours on SovietMen.

    You made an intriguing comment expressed in chess terms, which got me thinking, THIS:

    “This is all just a natural endgame to the course that the US set itself in 1865.”

    The actual endgame of the United States is the Imperial Eagle astride the whole world, mimicking a world federation with closed borders and economic and political control from Washington.

    When you talk about the fracturing of America along ethnic (and perhaps economic-class) lines, you underestimate two things:

    (1) The passivity of the mass of people;

    (2) The force-clench ability of the federal government, which would never docilely allow that to happen.

    Both Liberals and Conservatives at the national level would FIGHT to ensure the Republic remains intact. But as for an American world empire, THAT endgame has been brewing since before 1776, when the vast potential of the new continent was first realized. Even early American commentators made light asides about U.S. global dominion, back when there were only 2 million Americans and hundreds of millions of established members of other civilizations.

    At my site, I have an article called “Who Trump Must Coopt To Seize America.” If Trump is lucky, he gets to usher in the American Interregnum 150 years ahead of time. Rather than a global empire in 2166, we might see it as early as 2022. I would like you to comment on my site about that, under the appropriate article — and welcome all other regular commentators to my Thought Sphere. Look forward to seeing you there. ~ Greg Nikolic,

  5. Adam

    Bit light on facts and reasoning this article. What are the reasons this will happen, what are the forces causing it to happen or not happen, what are the facts that support your prediction? You can’t just throw this out there without supporting evidence.

    I think this article needs to be about 10 times as long, right now it’s a thought bubble. Interesting but undeveloped.

Comments are closed.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén

%d bloggers like this: