That was a mistake, I meant to type in Islamic Emirate.
I guess they got lucky? I don't understand that bit either, I just chalked it up to being part of making the scenario work.
An Examination of Extra-Universal Systems of Government
- Thread starter Ephraim Ben Raphael
- Start date
- Status
That was a mistake, I meant to type in Islamic Emirate.
I guess they got lucky? I don't understand that bit either, I just chalked it up to being part of making the scenario work.
American Union
In my opinion, the Sokolov school of architecture is a crime to anyone with eyes. The flat, concrete faces are havens for moss, so even important government buildings such as the Office of National Health on 5th Street, look ill-maintained. The statues, extolling the virtues of the Caucasoid races, are all immaculate marble, of course. Billboards, from the aforementioned Office of National Health, offer five thousand dollars in cash for anyone who voluntarily submits themselves for sterilization. Needless to say, this Philadelphia is a foreign place to me.
My taxi drops me off at National Plaza, only a few miles away from Independence Hall. Here, the wealth of the American Union is on full display, with dozens of cameras to witness it all: brand new office buildings, in a modern style that would not be out of place in Paris or the new St. Petersburg; the Museum of National History, with the original American flag; and in the center, a stone map of the world, with a marble figure standing on each continent. I find my contact, Mr. Michael Guillaume, admiring the work.
“It represents the central principle of Sovereignism,” he helpfully explains. “Every people should have a homeland. Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, and so on.”
“And the Europeans have Europe and North America?” Mr. Guillaume nods his head, and gestures to the plaza around him.
“Everything here was built by European hands, and paid for with European blood. But I understand that you are not here to dwell about the past.” I remarked that, as Deputy Undersecretary of the Office of Culture and History, I thought he would be more interested in the history of his own country. He waved that off and asked we continue our conversation in his office. Presumably, he was concerned about any unwanted eavesdroppers.
“Let us talk about history, Mr. Chana,” Mr. Guillaume began. “The bloody struggles of the Second American Revolution led America to one inescapable conclusion: that if any state is to survive, it must be homogeneous. History, time and again, has proved that a multicultural society is one that has inbuilt fault lines that make it inherently unstable. These fault lines may be quaint, even imperceptible in times of plenty, but in times of hardship, we need only look to the examples of Rome in the late 5th century, or Austro-Hungary during the Great European War.”
I have detailed the history of the early United States multiple times in previous chapters, so I will not retread old ground. Like many other incarnations of the United States of America, this version fought a major war against its seceding southern states in the mid-19th century. The violent conflict led to a period of political instability known euphemistically as Reconstruction, beginning with the assassinations of President Abraham Lincoln, Vice President Andrew Johnson and Secretary of State William Seward in 1865.
“Reconstruction, of course, pleased nobody,” Mr. Guillaume explained. “Prior to his assassination, President Lincoln wanted reconciliation with the southern states. His own political party, the Republicans, opposed these measures, rightfully claiming the southern states as conquered territories, and to be treated as such. With Lincoln assassinated, the Republicans successfully installed one of their own, Schuyler Colfax, into the office. The defeated southerners continued their war even after the surrender of their major generals, terrorizing federal troops and the newly-freed Negro slaves.”
I asked if Mr. Guillaume believed that the American government could have done more to help the freed slaves. He shrugged his shoulders.
“What more could have been done? Federal troops were unable to be everywhere at the same time, so the terror continued. Sensibly enough, the Negros started arming themselves. This only led to more violence, as defensive actions led to retaliation. The southerners in particular had a habit of hiding their faces, so oftentimes retaliation was misguided. By the 1880s, it was clear that any illusions of long-term harmony between the two races was impossible. So, we explored our options.”
Back to Africa?
“Precisely, Mr. Chana. The groundwork for the return of the Negro populations to their homelands was already laid even before the War of Secession. President Lincoln himself championed the solution, and doubtless would have enacted it had he not been assassinated. So the federal government began the long process of returning the Negros to their home. Many Negros championed the solution, and they naturally became leaders in Africa. But the mission was not without its opponents.”
Who opposed this movement? The white southerners?
“The white southerners were more than happy to assist with the program, as it meant their continued political dominance over the South. No, opposition came from the colonialists and imperialists of Europe. The success of the African homelands not only became a beacon of hope for a people once enslaved, but also inspired every people oppressed by colonial rule. The British in particular believed that the entire project was a scheme by the American government to increase its influence in Africa.”
Continuous wars in Europe, particularly the Spanish Revolution and the Austro-Prussian Wars, led to increased military spending among all the European great powers as the balance of power shifted. With the United States establishing puppet governments in Africa, and its economy booming, the Americans were perceived as a threat by the colonial European powers of Britain and France. This led to America becoming an ally of the new German Empire.
“The project wasn’t completed by the time of the Great War,” Mr. Guillaume told me, shaking his head. “Racial tensions were inevitable, particularly as the old United States foolishly imported cheap labor from Eastern Europe and East Asia. These populations naturally coalesced in the urban centers of the East and West Coasts, and they were capable of forming miniature communities which did not need to assimilate with the greater American culture. The stresses of the Great War also revealed that our economic strength could not match the military might of Europe, and so the country experienced another period of civil war.”
“The Second American Revolution was a complete shambles. It initially began as a socialist revolt against the robber-barons in control of the country at a time, but it did not take long for this conflict to expand to general violence. Old grudges, some centuries old, broke out throughout the country. The initial aim of the socialist revolutionaries was lost in an ocean of blood. Thus, the seeds were sowed for Sovereignism.”
I asked Mr. Guillaume how he would define Sovereignism.
“Sovereignism is the radical notion that humans are biologically and culturally diverse, and that this diversity must be preserved. We Americans are a naturally independent lot: so long as you leave us alone, we will leave you alone. We are quite free of any desire to impose our culture and values on others, but we likewise refuse the introduction of foreign cultures into our own. Fences make good neighbors, and oceans make better ones. That is the message of the Second American Revolution.”
What was the result of the Second American Revolution?
“After winning the war, the New Founders sensibly rid the country of the democratic, capitalist system that had failed the American people so badly. But they were left with millions of people who were not Americans, who did not want to be Americans, who could never be Americans. There really was only one solution.”
I was displeased by this vagueness, and asked Mr. Guillaume to explain exactly what he meant by “one solution.” Mr. Guillaume shook his head.
“The New Founders were flawed men. Even the most patriotic of us in the government will admit this. The New Founders conducted the largest forced migration since the days of Genghis Khan, perhaps the largest in all of human history. Those who did not share the Western European heritage of America’s core populations were deported to their appropriate homelands. Those that could not make the move, were deported to internal homelands until they could be moved elsewhere.”
And those that could not be deported? What happened to those who were turned away, or refused to leave? Mr. Guillaume looked away.
“We aren’t supposed to be talking about what the New Founders did to preserve the country’s heritage. We can change the topic, or end the interview here.”
I opted to change the topic. What does the government do now to “preserve its heritage”?
“We have long since moved away from the most radical and coercive strategies. The government’s most important priority now is preserving the American cultural identity. The American Union is not totally racially homogenous; we do allow the remaining ethnic minorities to remain in their internal homelands, and they can move to the rest of the Union as guest workers. We have recently allowed very limited number of immigrants to live here permanently, so long as they have skills the nation needs and are willing to assimilate totally into American culture.”
Isn’t this hypocritical? I thought Sovereignists believed that all cultures must be preserved.
“This limited immigration does not drive a culture to extinction. Very few arrive in our shores, and all of them do so voluntarily. We would never seek to destroy cultures abroad, as the French do now.”
But what about the racial aspect?
“The government decided some time ago that a very limited number of non-Americans is ‘digestible,’ so to speak. The immigrants we seek are very skilled, and unlike most more than capable of adopting the culture of a foreign land. Genetically, their populations are small enough that they will not affect the greater gene pool. Besides, as long as power remains in the hands of the Sovereignist Party, they cannot form a faction that will lead to instability.”
This led to my next question: whether Mr. Guillaume believes that the Sovereignists would ever liberalize the political system.
“Of course not, and I would leave the Party if it ever did! The American people have proved they are not ready for democracy. Our efforts to create a homogeneous society must attain a much greater degree of success if democracy is to ever work in this country. Democracy in a heterogeneous population inevitably leads to ethnic factionalism, and we have already seen the effects of that, here and abroad.”
That led to one last question. I was interested in the American Union’s approach to foreign affairs, as I had heard much about it in my travels. For the first time, Mr. Guillaume smiled.
“We maintain our commitment to Sovereignist principles, and we more than make up for any compromises here with our mission abroad. The American Union supports the efforts of all peoples to liberate themselves. We support the African Liberation movements in Africa, and the efforts of the Indochinese to free themselves from French imperialism. While we Americans have a natural affinity for European cultures, we do not believe that forcing it down the throats of others, as the French wish to do, is appropriate.”
I was unsatisfied with Mr. Guillaume's answers, and sought more information from more frank sources. Ireland was the home of many American exiles, many of whom were more than happy to shine a critical light on the American Union. Anticipating my dissatisfaction, I had scheduled a meeting with Ms. Margaret Pemberton, a student activist who was crippled by an American cataphract during a protest. I met her in a bookstore in Dublin. I immediately noticed that both of her legs were amputated. She began with her story.
"I was standing in front of the column of cataphracts as they rolled down the street. There were some elderly protesters - we were not all students - who were still in the streets trying to get away from the gunfire in National Plaza. I knew that if I didnt' stop the cataphracts there, they would make it to the others and massacre them." The disability did not seem to harm Ms. Pemberton's spirit, as she recounted the events of that day with pride.
"I was a young woman. An Anglo-Saxon woman. The image of what America was supposed to protect. I believed that they would stop." Ms. Pemberton paused a second to recollect herself. "I was wrong. Everyone in those cataphracts had their orders, and their orders were to disperse us, even if it meant crushing people to death. The American Union has no real army, the army belongs to the Sovereignist Party. It obeys the Party's commands, and all the Party is interested in is maintaining its power."
I mentioned my interview with Mr. Guillaume, and how he described the Sovereignist Party. To my surprise, Ms. Pemberton nodded in agreement.
"Even they agree that they are willing to violate their own principles if it means maintaining their own power. Yes, they couch this in terms of doing good for the American people, but I have seen what they do to the American people. Actions speak louder than words."
What about America's "liberation wars" in Africa and Asia? I was told these were improving the lives of the locals.
"The American Union claims to be a liberator, but this is all to their advantage. They want to weaken the European powers, so they support their enemies: the independence movements. Yes, the Party does support nationalist movements, but these movements are co-opted by the Party long before they take power. They ensure that cronies take control, and give lucrative deals to American companies and state agencies. These new governments work together with the Americans to squeeze everything they can from some of the poorest nations on Earth, and they share the profits. The leaders may be black, yellow or brown on the outside, but they are all corrupt on the inside. Everything the Party does is to advance the Party's interests. But believe it or not, this is an improvement."
This was surprising coming from a dissident who was almost killed by the regime. How could the present state of affairs be an improvement?
"The Sovereignists were worse when they believed their own dogma. Have you heard of the Population Transfers?"
I said that I did. Mr. Guillaume told me about the forced movement of black Americans to Africa. Ms. Pemberton shook her head.
"Not that, I am talking about the internal movements. Have you heard of those?"
At this, I mentioned that Mr. Guillaume alluded to something being done to "preserve the heritage," but refused to speak about it. Ms. Pemberton explained the allusion.
"The Population Transfers were made up of external and 'internal' deportations. The external deportations were bad enough, but at the very least, there was a decent chance of surviving if you were subjected to this. The internal deportations had no such safeguards. During the Second American Revolution, the Americans successfully conquered Canada from the British. There, they had thousands of square miles to make 'homelands' for 'undesirable populations.' Millions of people were arrested, solely for their ancestry, and forcibly moved by rail or marched to the Northern Territories. Hundreds of thousands never made it. It is often called a Second Trail of Tears."
What happened to those who made it?
"They found desolate wasteland. Some were worked to death mining gold and other minerals or working in logging camps, others were left in 'villages' that were built in a few short months. The least fortunate were left in the wilderness to fend for themselves. This wasn't the machinery of death that the Russians were operating in Eastern Europe, but this was no better. The New Founders believed that the cold could do the work of poison gas."
I told Ms. Pemberton that I understood why Mr. Guillaume refused to explain this to me. It would be difficult for a Party functionary to accept this.
"And so they don't. After the New Founders clique died, the Party wanted to rebrand itself. It wanted to grow rich by trading with the outside world it so despised. Being the perpetrators of some of the worst mass murder in human history wouldn't do, so they brushed the Population Transfers under the rug. Pretended it never happened, and arrested anyone who would say otherwise." Ms. Pemberton gestured to her missing legs. "This happened to me because I was part of a protest that wanted to oust corrupt Party functionaries, but at the time few of us cared about the Party's past crimes. They did this to me for speaking out about corruption, what do you think they do to people who talk about the Population Transfers?"
And the rest of the world went along with it? At this, Ms. Pemberton seemed almost enraged.
"Of course! America was a major market for goods, and its industrial capacity was still untapped. There were trillions of francs and pounds to be made. If it meant ignoring the Sovereignist Party's crimes, past or present, what does it matter?"
In an effort to calm her, I asked Ms. Pemberton if she believed that her message could help. She shook her head.
"Many have tried, but the Sovereignist Party is too rich. I mentioned before that they co-opt independence movements. They do the same to corporations and political parties in Europe and Asia. Too many people are making too much money on continuing Sovereignist rule. The Party, foreign leaders and corporations, even the Americans who are too blinded by their gilded cage.Until that system is broken, the Sovereignists are there to stay."
Last edited:
A world where the South winning the war may well have been a better option! Congrats?
Weird thing? I think a harsher Reconstruction would've been a good thing. Re-draw state lines, execute Jeff Davis, subject the Southern secessionist legislators to hard labor (overseen, of course, by their former slaves), let the lower classes off easy and blame the big plantation guys. If they blame the plantation owners, then you can gut the KKK early.
Anyway, that dystopia made me wonder, have you ever seen '30s Mexican racist propaganda? A state hooked on their "hybrid vigor" and seeking to breed away "pure races" in favor of "superior mestizos" would be an interesting kind of craphole.
Anyway, that dystopia made me wonder, have you ever seen '30s Mexican racist propaganda? A state hooked on their "hybrid vigor" and seeking to breed away "pure races" in favor of "superior mestizos" would be an interesting kind of craphole.
I haven't seen 30s Mexican racist propaganda but that is the racial ideology of the Coalition of Western Republics in AAPA.
Neat!
I was introduced to Mexican racism in Latin American History class in college, which I took because I was severely lacking in LA history knowledge. It was...enlightening.
Basically, the postcolonial governments encouraged ethnic mixing, mestizaje, in reaction against the colonial caste system. This led to later 19th and early 20th century governments embracing "hybrid vigor" and the idea of the mestizo man as a powerful, masculine figure to enhance national pride.
I did discuss with EBR the idea of a utopian world-state attempt that tries to blend together all of the world’s cultures and ethnicities, and make everyone speak Epseranto. Of course, they just end up creating a new national identity. Maybe a Mexico that’s taken the ideas you’re talking about way too far would work. Of course, irony of ironies is this is going on the nationalist chapter and Chana directly calls the person he is interviewing out on this.
Looks like the alt-right was about a century and a half too late to get what they wanted.
So much for globalism if it leads to a bizarre multi-ethnostate of sorts; though honestly I'm all for featuring "world states" in this thread.
I think you mean the /pol/ section, specifically the far right types.
It's like a cross between the PCR and Nazi Germany with an American flavor.
It’s meant to be the fascist version of the modern PRC: fascism with American characteristics.
Since its the American PRC and most American exiles are living in Ireland, I guess there's no American RoC?
How many exiled governments are there? Because I have an idea based on a game mod (tno last days in Europe) where the Japanese civilian government resides in a port in Los Angeles and Japan is carved up between the army and navy (the last part sounds more interesting in retrospect)
- Status