This is how it goes, a step at a time.
@jeremiah
The UK is about to fully collapse economically into a civil war and they are still getting high on hard drugs. These people can't be saved, just hang them and be done with it.
@jeremiah
That's a very interesting viewpoint and I would say it gives us a good path to follow. I agree that decentralization is the way, europeans need to segregate into different tribes and form a clear alliance among the ones that have the same goal - let the leaders rise naturally through competence.
But to determine the real life solutions, we need to know how they want their society to be. That's something I see barely anyone articulating properly and honestly and how we get there.
@jeremiah
Those are gigantic changes when coming from our current society and how it's culturally, economically and politically structured.
Let's talk logistics: everything you say can be defined as balkanizing: essentially separating smaller parts of the country into effectively a new country, which would then ally themselves with other communities.
That will work but not without blood and the inevitable war. Very similar to Yugoslavia or depending on the country, to the US independence war.
@jeremiah
I love Balkanization. I use it positively because is necessary but there is a lot of conflict in the short term. Yugoslavia was a communist shithole of people who hated each other crammed together, but later they became their own countries and manage to prosper in their own way, as it should be.
I wish we could have more decentralization, specially in the west that has been held together by nothing other than money. I hope the revolution comes because changes are desperately needed.
i think the amount of bloodshed would depend on where, and to some degree, who. For example, I doubt there would be much in the UK countryside, but in Certain Places occupied by Certain Non-Indigenous People, it might be notably greater.
Yugoslavia was a case of using terror to check ethnic tensions and call it unity; as soon as that terror broke down, the tensions came back with vengeance. In the UK, that would be more neighborhood by neighborhood than region by region.
Any such movement would need to be very clear about who stays, who goes, and what the consequences for non-compliance are.
I used the word "revolutionary" deliberately because, yes, it would be a radical, massive shift... for some people. For others, not so much. Consider that the depression of the 1930s was felt highly in the middle and upper classes in the city, and almost not at all by midwestern farmers.
In a place like the UK, their legal and political system is like an ancient forest aggregated over time, so it would take a great deal of care to develop a plan that respects the culture while pragmatically solving the problems... this is not impossible, just tedious.
Consider that the changes that actually occurred there from the 1890s to the 1950s are no less radical than the proposition presented here.
In the US, we've had effectively four revisions of the country that more or less follow an 80 year cycle. The first being the revolution to the civil war, the second being the civil War to WW2, the present being WW2 to present, and we're due for another any day now as midcentury to present is 80 years-ish.
Whatever is organized and prepared for such changes is influential, if not dominant. Whatever isn't, is generally swept aside.