The threat from domestic terrorism is rising, but, with Republicans decrying the “deep state,” the F.B.I. is cautious about investigating far-right groups. Vigilantes are leaping into the fray.
This is how nations destabilize. States perpetuate themselves through maintaining the exclusive monopoly on violence and using that monopoly to secure certain guarantees for or against its people. The Roman empire saw a similar decline of administrative willpower and rises in both vigilantism and shitty little civil wars between the wealthy elite who really ran the show (spoiler alert). I’m convinced that Balkanization of the US is, at this point, inevitable. I’m not saying that’s necessarily a good or bad thing in its own right. On one hand, it might be better for both the states and the world if we went to more of an EU type structure. On the other hand, a nuclear armed independent Texas.
I honestly believe Texas wouldn’t last more than a few years without begging for someone, anyone to help them.
They aren’t a self-sufficient state, no matter how much they pretend to be. They need a massive influx of goods that would all immediately halt or be indefinitely postponed (and massively marked up) if they broke off.
The real question is whether the treasonous MAGAt politicians who run the state would make a deal with Russia for assistance.
The TX grid experienced grid wide brown outs during a heat wave, and it’s only getting warmer. I don’t see them lasting longer than a few months, especially since only so much material can come in through Beaumont. With the grid down not a whole lot of rail travel will be happening and fueling depot pumps are electric.
Not really. The vast majority of refineries in the US can’t use Texas crude. It’s why the idea of shifting to using American oil over imported is laughable. Not only that we have no pipelines from our oil wells to the refineries, so those would have to be built, as well. Basically, it’d take decades and tens to hundreds of billions of dollars to shift from foreign oil to American.
I understand the words you are using and the concept they are conveying, but I’m having a hard time getting around said concept making zero sense, at least to my uninformed brain.
There’s two types of oil, essentially and I don’t remember what they are called. When oil was easy to get we built refineries for that kind. When it got scarce you could only get the other kind.
The US in its infinite wisdom decided it was too expensive to build refineries for the new kind, so what we’ve been doing is sending the oil we pump to other countries who can refine it, then import the kind we can refine.
You are correct except for the pipeline requirement as tech is changing.
Haliburton and the like have plans for in field micro refineries, they can easily switch to whole crude or even get it down to J8 which is similar to diesel without the additives, it wouldn’t require a pipeline, and one wouldn’t really be in the best interest considering how mobile shale-fracking well heads need to be.
There’s a startup being funded by guess who that’s aiming to do just this
Texas has so much of the US military production that I imagine the clandestine powers that be would take over the state in a fashion that would make the Epstein and Boeing whistleblower ‘suicides’ look tame.
I don’t know that I’d agree that the EU and the articles of confederation are comparable. There were a few big differences, including states printing their own currency without a common exchange medium (as opposed to the Euro), and that the mechanism for funding the federal government was (IIRC) entirely voluntary. States could just choose to not send money without consequences, and most or all made the obvious choice of not funding the federal government. The articles of confederation also had a few things about it that were more progressive than the constitution; for example, if I’m remembering right, it offered automatic citizenship to all native Americans, which pissed a lot of the farmer-settlers right off.
Still, I think mentioning it is still at least somewhat useful in terms of demonstrating what “an EU type structure” is (a confederation, as opposed to a federation like the United States is now) and pointing out that weakening the central government in exchange for more sovereign individual states doesn’t necessarily mean the public in those various states would be appeased.
This is how nations destabilize. States perpetuate themselves through maintaining the exclusive monopoly on violence and using that monopoly to secure certain guarantees for or against its people. The Roman empire saw a similar decline of administrative willpower and rises in both vigilantism and shitty little civil wars between the wealthy elite who really ran the show (spoiler alert). I’m convinced that Balkanization of the US is, at this point, inevitable. I’m not saying that’s necessarily a good or bad thing in its own right. On one hand, it might be better for both the states and the world if we went to more of an EU type structure. On the other hand, a nuclear armed independent Texas.
…would be
invadedliberated for oil during the first extended power outage.I honestly believe Texas wouldn’t last more than a few years without begging for someone, anyone to help them.
They aren’t a self-sufficient state, no matter how much they pretend to be. They need a massive influx of goods that would all immediately halt or be indefinitely postponed (and massively marked up) if they broke off.
The real question is whether the treasonous MAGAt politicians who run the state would make a deal with Russia for assistance.
Year, singular. One hurricane or ice storm and they’ll have their hand out for welfare.
The TX grid experienced grid wide brown outs during a heat wave, and it’s only getting warmer. I don’t see them lasting longer than a few months, especially since only so much material can come in through Beaumont. With the grid down not a whole lot of rail travel will be happening and fueling depot pumps are electric.
I’m giving the politicians extra time to let the plebs die off before they admit defeat.
Perhaps a bit generous, but I like to estimate with wiggle room.
Let’s be honest, the moment a storm or heat/cold wave knock their grid out, they’ll be demanding neighboring nations keep them afloat.
No Deal Texit, anyone?
Not really. The vast majority of refineries in the US can’t use Texas crude. It’s why the idea of shifting to using American oil over imported is laughable. Not only that we have no pipelines from our oil wells to the refineries, so those would have to be built, as well. Basically, it’d take decades and tens to hundreds of billions of dollars to shift from foreign oil to American.
I understand the words you are using and the concept they are conveying, but I’m having a hard time getting around said concept making zero sense, at least to my uninformed brain.
In other words,
There’s two types of oil, essentially and I don’t remember what they are called. When oil was easy to get we built refineries for that kind. When it got scarce you could only get the other kind.
The US in its infinite wisdom decided it was too expensive to build refineries for the new kind, so what we’ve been doing is sending the oil we pump to other countries who can refine it, then import the kind we can refine.
The transition to renewables cannot happen fast enough. My brain hurts.
You are correct except for the pipeline requirement as tech is changing.
Haliburton and the like have plans for in field micro refineries, they can easily switch to whole crude or even get it down to J8 which is similar to diesel without the additives, it wouldn’t require a pipeline, and one wouldn’t really be in the best interest considering how mobile shale-fracking well heads need to be.
There’s a startup being funded by guess who that’s aiming to do just this
https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2024-06-06/texas-startup-hopes-4th-times-a-charm-to-build-first-big-us-oil-refinery-since-1977
Texas has so much of the US military production that I imagine the clandestine powers that be would take over the state in a fashion that would make the Epstein and Boeing whistleblower ‘suicides’ look tame.
That’s what the US already was once, under the Articles of Confederation. It didn’t really help in the way you’re hoping it would.
I don’t know that I’d agree that the EU and the articles of confederation are comparable. There were a few big differences, including states printing their own currency without a common exchange medium (as opposed to the Euro), and that the mechanism for funding the federal government was (IIRC) entirely voluntary. States could just choose to not send money without consequences, and most or all made the obvious choice of not funding the federal government. The articles of confederation also had a few things about it that were more progressive than the constitution; for example, if I’m remembering right, it offered automatic citizenship to all native Americans, which pissed a lot of the farmer-settlers right off.
It was also 250 years ago, so yeah.
Still, I think mentioning it is still at least somewhat useful in terms of demonstrating what “an EU type structure” is (a confederation, as opposed to a federation like the United States is now) and pointing out that weakening the central government in exchange for more sovereign individual states doesn’t necessarily mean the public in those various states would be appeased.