Identity Federalism

Mondialisation, Mondialisme, Antisémite, Antisémitisme, Propagande, Capitalisme, Transnational, Multinationales, Néolibéralisme, Globalisme, Etatisme, Souverainisme,
PART III: Identity Federalism: From “E Pluribus Unum” To “E Unum Pluribus”

(Please read Part I and Part II prior to this article)

 

Contrary to the geopolitical benefits that the US hopes to acquire from the advancement of Identity Federalism in certain states, there are also some areas of the world in which its purposeful or incidental occurrence could represent a disastrous defeat for its grand strategy. These are the two key European states of Spain and Ukraine, and the unipolar bastion of North America.

 

Anti-Unipolar Blowback

 

One of the cornerstones of US policy towards Eurasia is the exercise hegemonic control over a NATO-occupied Europe, promoting its ever-increasing institutional integration through the EU while simultaneously beholding it to its cross-Atlantic patron via the complementary triad components of NATO and the TTIP. All the while, Washington wants to keep Brussels in a subserviently weakened position so that it can never independently express its natural geopolitical instincts in pragmatically tightening its cooperation with the trans-Eurasian connective cores of Russia and China. In flexibly adapting to various circumstances (especially those in the present day), the US has a back-up plan to canonize a Polish-led “Intermarum” project that would act as an anti-Russian “cordon sanitaire” stretching from the Arctic Coast of Scandinavia to the Eastern Mediterranean shores of Turkey. The objective of this entity would be to prevent a possible Western European rapprochement with Russia, but which nevertheless would critically seek to retain the formal institutional (EU/NATO) unity of the larger Euro-Atlantic proxy that the US has constructed throughout the course of over the past 60 years. If the neo-colonial integrational progress that has been made throughout this time period is undermined in any substantial way, then the entire hegemonic arrangement would be a lot more difficult to coordinate and would run the risk of imploding.

 

It’s through this strategic context that one can better understand the overall debilitating effects that Identity Federalism in Spain and/or Ukraine would have for the entire Euro-Atlantic project as a whole. A very loose federal structure in these peripheral states would weaken the supra-national influence that the EU and NATO hold over both of them (with Ukraine essentially being an unofficial junior member of each). Additionally, it could also set an institutional precedent that other similarly positioned demographics could agitate for, such as the Scots in the UK, Corsicans in France, Northern Italians in Italy, Bavarians in Germany, Silesians in Poland, and/or the Hungarians in Romania. This is one of the reasons why Brussels and Washington are so uncompromisingly opposed to Catalonian independence, but they’re likewise just as equally against an Identity Federal solution to the Kingdom’s domestic owes on the exact same grounds. With Ukraine, the situation is very similar, although it has more New Cold War overtones to it. The US wants to maximize its influence over all of “unitary” Ukraine, and it’s not willing to ‘cede’ any square inch of influence to Russia outside of Donbass in any prospective Identity Federalized state. However, given the intricacies of Identity Federalism, it would be impossible for the US and its allies to fully control all of the other constituent federalized parts that would naturally be created under such a framework, especially around Odessa, so they don’t have any eagerness to see it implemented when they already hold sway over most of the country’s territory as it is now.

 

To return back to the Identity Federalization of Spain, this could weaken the country to the point where it’s institutionally powerless to defend itself and the rest of Europe from any forthcoming immigration wave that could emanate out of a post-Bouteflika Algeria, especially in the event that a successionist crisis there triggers a civil war that eventually involves Daesh. The aforementioned influx of civilizationally dissimilar immigrants might come to be the given trigger for starting the Identity Federalization process in the first place, which in that case would imply an interconnection of geopolitical fates between the Iberian Peninsula and its cross-strait North African neighbors. While the US is cynically interested in keeping Western Europe in a state of perpetual Color Revolution tension to prevent its pragmatic cooperation with Russia and China (the idea of which is explained in full during one of the author’s earlier interviews on the topic), it seems extremely unlikely at this point that it would purposefully deploy another “Weapon of Mass Migration” to do so, as this would obviously be uncontrollable (especially if activated concurrently with the one targeting the Balkan Corridor) and would probably lead to the EU’s full institutional collapse and total existential revision. So long as the entire EU’s strategic utility is still somewhat salvageable for the US (being solidly under its control at this moment and far from precarious), then it won’t risk carrying out a “scorched earth” tactic in destroying it that might also unwittingly endanger the Intermarum project. However, this is exactly what might happen if a conflict organically breaks out in Algeria or the US loses control of a Hybrid War scheme there.

 

North American Forecast

 

Double Standards:

 

The US’ unofficial mantra of “E Pluribus Unum”, or what could otherwise be understood as identity unity, is selectively applied only in areas where it’s most strategically convenient to do so (i.e. Spain, Ukraine), whereas all other places have the potential of falling victim to the divide-and-rule policy of “E Unum Pluribus”, which the research has forecast will more regularly take the form of Identity Federalism in the coming years. Washington’s more popular promotion of “E Unum Pluribus” stands in stark contravention to the way that it administers its own internal affairs, hypocritically demonstrating a striking double standard whereby  the militant export of its ‘democratic’ model habitually omits this key component. This calculated ruse is predicated on obvious strategic considerations, illustrating that the US has an inherent understanding of the destabilizing consequences of Identity Federalism. Being comprised of a plurality of identity groups itself, the US knows perhaps better than any other country the dangers that ‘democratically driven’ Identity Federalism could pose to the cohesive unity of diversely populated states, which explains why it imposes a “national security” (police) state over its citizens and so aggressively targets all grassroots advocates that seek to reform the federal government’s powers in any substantial capacity.

 

The ‘Forbidden’ Topic:

 

Further research into the applicable prospects of Identity Federalism within the US and its Canadian and Mexican neighbors is certainly warranted, although the conclusions reached would assuredly be rendered “politically incorrect” in these countries because of their focus on racial, religious, regional, and other variables of identity separateness. While many studies have undoubtedly been carried out about identity differences within those states, they haven’t (publicly) crossed the threshold into pairing their findings with how this impacts on the potential for reforming the respective country’s internal political administration, which is why anyone who does so runs the predictable risk of having their work labeled as “seditious” and consequently a “national security threat”. For these reasons, the study would have to be conducted by knowledgeable researchers from abroad so as to spare them of the political repercussions that would result from their work if they were based in North America, but that only confirms the unparalleled strategic importance that such a project would entail.

 

Boomerang Effect:

 

Just like Color Revolutions, Unconventional Wars, and Hybrid Wars, Identity Federalism is yet another strategic weapon that could eventually boomerang back against its American creator, whether directly advocated inside its borders via any of these aforementioned means or indirectly promoted through the demonstrational and situational impact that its implementation in Canada and/or Mexico would result in. The threat that the traditional US establishment feels from Identity Federalism and its pursuit through the interlinked political technologies of Color Revolutions, Unconventional Wars, and Hybrid Wars underline why it has so frantically sought to construct the “national security” (police) state since the end of the Old Cold War. The federal elites aren’t necessarily afraid of a foreign power utilizing these techniques to pursue these ends (accurately predicting that American people would resist such a push purely out of patriotic principles), but are fearful that their own citizenry, drunk on the state-sponsored ideology of “democracy” and unaware of its cynically controlling purposes, might one day feel emboldened enough to do so instead.

 

The Achilles’ Heel Of Unipolarity:

 

Objectively speaking, a grassroots movement towards Identity Federalism and “E Unum Pluribus” might actually be the Achilles’ heel in undermining the US’ hegemonic position across the world. A coordinated attempt at pursuing this, especially one which ironically incorporates US-originated publicly available information about Color Revolutions, Unconventional Wars, and Hybrid Wars, could have the potential to substantially upend the US’ hitherto taken-for-granted internal stability, whether by its success or merely its attempt. It’s already been explained how the success of Identity Federalism could achieve this, but its active promotion in the US could also do so simply by prompting a state-on-civilian crackdown. The larger, more public, and physically concentrated that the movement is at the time of the government assault, the more likely it is to result in some sort of collateral physical damage, whether through the injuring and/or death of the involved activists and/or responding state forces (be they local police, national guard, and/or federal agents).

 

Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, And The Militias:

 

There’s always the possibility that these unpredictable encounters could rapidly lead to a cascading chain of chaotic events that escape the government’s control, hence why it’s lately tread very carefully in responding to all sorts of domestic disturbances, be they “Occupy Wall Street”, the “Black Lives Matter” riots, or the Nevada and Oregon standoffs, among others. The last resort is always a brutal military dispersal like the one carried out in 1993 Waco, but that’s exactly the type of scenario that the government is keen to avoid for as long as possible, especially in the event that it’s live-broadcasted and spread on social media. The federal authorities do not want the general public knowing about their violent suppression of the citizenry, and in the event that it’s unavoidable from their perspective, then they want to be able to control the narrative and paint their opponents as “radical, violent, extremists” in order to ‘justify’ their actions.

 

The Common Denominator Of Identity Federalism:

 

Again, it should be emphasized that the US establishment will go to any and all lengths to snuff out Identity Federalism, even in what it suspects to be its prototype manifestations of class awareness (Occupy Wall Street), racial interests (Black Lives Matter), and states’ rights (Nevada and Oregon). The commonality between these seemingly disparate cases is that they all demonstrated the capability to transform their specific type of identity separateness into a political cause, which from the paranoid vantage point of the US elite, could one day combine with one another through a grand front in seeking to reform the country’s internal administration and grant more sovereignty to their respective groups (i.e. Identity Federalism, whether it’s called by this name or not). There’s no greater threat to the existing US powerbrokers than this hodgepodge of identity formations, artificially kept divided through a multitude of crafty media-driven designs and bungling tactical errors, uniting with one another through a broad-based coalition. If brought together under one banner, they could carry out large-scale and coordinated demonstrations to peacefully advocate for an unprecedented and directly democratic change (as in circumventing Congress through a referendum or series thereof) in fundamentally altering the entire way that the US is run, and this scenario has the American elite absolutely frightened.

 

Concluding Thoughts

 

Identity Federalism is a cutting-edge political-strategic innovation that’s only just now being rolled out across the world. On the surface of things, it represents the ideal ‘compromise solution’ for various conflicting parties, granting a high degree of sovereignty to each prospective unit while nominally retaining the unity of the state. It also can provide the ideal ‘face saving’ measure for beleaguered leaders who find themselves victimized by a Hybrid War dilemma, granting them the possibility to remain in office so long as they devolve certain dictated competencies to the newly Identity Federalized unit(s). Analyzed from this angle, Identity Federalism could also be employed as a strategic weapon, and this is actually how it’s anticipated to be used in select battlegrounds in Africa, the Balkans, the Mideast, and South & Southeast Asia. Ironically enough, Identity Federalism might be the only pragmatic solution to retaining nominal Spanish and Ukrainian unity, although in these two cases it’s firmly opposed by the US out of concerns that it could spark a chain reaction which might eventually endanger Washington’s hegemony over Europe.

 

Washington’s hypocritical double standards towards “E Pluribus Unum” within the unipolar sphere and “E Unum Pluribus’ outside of it are explained by its grand strategic vision, whereby it seeks to unite the lands that it controls and divide the ones that it doesn’t. Through a series of eventual meanderings and connivances, the US aims to later ‘unite’ the fractured Identity Federalized states that it helped create by gathering them under its hegemonic umbrella via various proxy mechanisms, thereby bringing the whole strategic concept of “E Unum Pluribus” back full circle to a warped conception of “E Pluribus Unum”. The problem with weaponizing Identity Federalism, however, is that it could one day boomerang back against the US itself, especially in the event that politically motivated identity groups inside the country unite in optimizing their tactics by applying some of the precepts that they learn from the publicly available information about Color Revolutions, Unconventional Warfare, and Hybrid Wars (themselves ironically boomerang-capable weaponizations currently deployed by the US abroad). All in all, while Identity Federalism represents the latest asymmetrical weapon from the US’ Fifth Generation Warfare arsenal, it might unwittingly be the one which finally gets turned against it and offsets all of its previous unipolar gains that were achieved since the end of the Old Cold War.