0 comment Monday, December 1, 2014 | admin
Over at the Mat Rodina blog, Stanislav writes from a Russian perspective on the possibility of Texas independence via secession.
He notes what correspondents in Texas, or expatriate Texans, tell him about the secession movement in that state. There is the opinion that Governor Perry is merely doing some political grandstanding, or political posturing, while at the same time distancing himself from the secessionist movement.
While most do not believe that their governor Perry was doing anything but trolling for votes in a hard reelection that is upcoming, it makes one wonder what it means in the Texas society if the path to reelection is through talk of succession [sic]. What the good governor may not realize is that such issues, which are already building or have built under the surface, given an outlet, will take on a life of their own. Like a breaking damn [sic], public opinion can and will switch quickly given the proper circumstance and the force that follows will sweep all ahead.''
That last point is something that I have emphasized in various ways; though today secession may not be feasible, given the right circumstances, things may turn on a dime:
''Thus, with 1 in 3 citizens of Texas pro independence, a move to 2 in 3 is only a crisis away and with the americans continuing to sink and their dollar continuing to turn to trash, that crisis is already under way.
The crisis is happening in Yekaterinburg, Russia. It is in the form of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting between Russia, China and six other SCO members. The US request to attend was denied. The jist of this meeting is to work out plans to de-dollarize the trade between the member states.''
this conference, and the potential economic consequences, is unsettling, so we'll see what happens.
Read the whole thing at Mat Rodina, including the interesting comments following.
And if you haven't seen the following articles, you might check them out:
This piece from the L.A. Times.
This piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal recently, which is ironic of course in that the WSJ is notoriously pro-open borders. One wonders if the corporate classes are actually now seeing some angle which would be to their benefit in a secession scenario.
Finally, this article, from a libertarian point of view, is interesting, but it does not acknowledge any ethnic or racial basis on which a breakup might occur; the writer, in true anti-collectivist, race-denying fashion, focuses on political or Democrat-Republican divisions among the states and envisions a pattern based on voting habits. Given the ongoing demographic changes being inflicted on this country, does he not see that today's red state will likely be tomorrow's so-called 'purple' state, and next year's or next decade's 'blue state', with a new ''minority majority"? It's happening as I write this.
He notes what correspondents in Texas, or expatriate Texans, tell him about the secession movement in that state. There is the opinion that Governor Perry is merely doing some political grandstanding, or political posturing, while at the same time distancing himself from the secessionist movement.
While most do not believe that their governor Perry was doing anything but trolling for votes in a hard reelection that is upcoming, it makes one wonder what it means in the Texas society if the path to reelection is through talk of succession [sic]. What the good governor may not realize is that such issues, which are already building or have built under the surface, given an outlet, will take on a life of their own. Like a breaking damn [sic], public opinion can and will switch quickly given the proper circumstance and the force that follows will sweep all ahead.''
That last point is something that I have emphasized in various ways; though today secession may not be feasible, given the right circumstances, things may turn on a dime:
''Thus, with 1 in 3 citizens of Texas pro independence, a move to 2 in 3 is only a crisis away and with the americans continuing to sink and their dollar continuing to turn to trash, that crisis is already under way.
The crisis is happening in Yekaterinburg, Russia. It is in the form of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting between Russia, China and six other SCO members. The US request to attend was denied. The jist of this meeting is to work out plans to de-dollarize the trade between the member states.''
this conference, and the potential economic consequences, is unsettling, so we'll see what happens.
Read the whole thing at Mat Rodina, including the interesting comments following.
And if you haven't seen the following articles, you might check them out:
This piece from the L.A. Times.
This piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal recently, which is ironic of course in that the WSJ is notoriously pro-open borders. One wonders if the corporate classes are actually now seeing some angle which would be to their benefit in a secession scenario.
Finally, this article, from a libertarian point of view, is interesting, but it does not acknowledge any ethnic or racial basis on which a breakup might occur; the writer, in true anti-collectivist, race-denying fashion, focuses on political or Democrat-Republican divisions among the states and envisions a pattern based on voting habits. Given the ongoing demographic changes being inflicted on this country, does he not see that today's red state will likely be tomorrow's so-called 'purple' state, and next year's or next decade's 'blue state', with a new ''minority majority"? It's happening as I write this.
Labels: Secession, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, StateS Rights, Tenth Amendment, Texas Independence
0 comment Sunday, November 30, 2014 | admin
A Russian political analyst, Igor Panarin, is predicting the breakup of the United States.
MOSCOW, November 24 (RIA Novosti) - A leading Russian political analyst has said the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the country is heading for collapse, and will divide into separate parts.
Professor Igor Panarin said in an interview with the respected daily Izvestia published on Monday: "The dollar is not secured by anything. The country's foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse."
The paper said Panarin's dire predictions for the U.S. economy, initially made at an international conference in Australia 10 years ago at a time when the economy appeared strong, have been given more credence by this year's events. When asked when the U.S. economy would collapse, Panarin said: "It is already collapsing. Due to the financial crisis, three of the largest and oldest five banks on Wall Street have already ceased to exist, and two are barely surviving. Their losses are the biggest in history. Now what we will see is a change in the regulatory system on a global financial scale: America will no longer be the world's financial regulator.
[...] He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts - the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.
He even suggested that "we could claim Alaska - it was only granted on lease, after all."
The economic analysis is obvious, being similar to what many in our own country have observed. His analysis of why these problems might lead to a breakup, though, seems a little off-base, and I wonder how much first-hand knowledge of our country and our people Professor Panarin actually has. He evidently has a rather superficial knowledge of the demographic makeup of this country.
I can't imagine why he thinks that Chinese people dominate the West Coast; it's true that they have fairly large colonies in San Francisco, Vancouver, Canada and a few other places, but they are nowhere near a majority, or even a near-majority. Even if you combined their numbers with those of other East Asians, they would not approach a majority on the West Coast.
As for the 'Atlantic states', I don't see much of a unifying culture or mentality there, unless you mean that huge D.C-to-Boston conurbation, with the liberal/elitist power base. There is much more to the 'Atlantic coast' than that area, and there is not much to unify it. The Southeastern states on the coast (except for Florida) constitute part of old Dixie, and they have nothing much in common with the Northeast. American Indian populations in the 'poorer central states', whatever he means by that, are not high enough to be of great significance, either. Perhaps in Oklahoma, New Mexico or Arizona there might be greater percentages of Indians than in other states, but the central states are hardly populated and dominated by American Indians.
As to Texas, it is almost half Hispanic now, and it is minority White, by a small margin. Much as I would hope that Texas might regain its independence as a Republic, it would seem less likely now than 50 years ago, when Whites or 'Anglos' were the majority, and there was no invasion from south of the border on today's scale undermining that majority.
Generally, though, Professor Panarin barely acknowledges the racial conflicts which are simmering in this country now. Whether this is through lack of awareness on his part, or whether through some reticence in discussing race and ethnicity, he simply seems to consider those things secondary to economics in his scenario.
As for Alaska, I would predict that any Russian designs on that state would meet with considerable resistance on the part of Alaskans.
Panarin mentions the Amero as a new monetary unit. Of course the media and our lying politicians deny that any such thing is in the works, including the North American Union of which the Amero would be the currency. Despite the flaws of Panarin's analysis, the fact that one more reputable political analyst is discussing the issue of the breakup of the U.S. is a sign that the idea is becoming more thinkable for many people.
Back in the Cold War era, his comments would elicit cries of 'subversion' and he would be accused of trying to threaten or manipulate Americans by such propaganda. But there's no such response today; I think that more and more people are actually willing to ponder the 'what ifs', and to consider the possibility that this Republic cannot much longer be held together artificially as it is now. We have a unified government in name, but the unity that was a feature of a mostly homogeneous country at one time has long since been destroyed, and we are a divided house in reality if not yet on paper.
How it might happen, or along what lines, is open to conjecture. I would just hope that if I am still around when this fracture takes place, that I will be in the right place, among my kin, rather than in hostile occupied territory, surrounded by strangers.
MOSCOW, November 24 (RIA Novosti) - A leading Russian political analyst has said the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the country is heading for collapse, and will divide into separate parts.
Professor Igor Panarin said in an interview with the respected daily Izvestia published on Monday: "The dollar is not secured by anything. The country's foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse."
The paper said Panarin's dire predictions for the U.S. economy, initially made at an international conference in Australia 10 years ago at a time when the economy appeared strong, have been given more credence by this year's events. When asked when the U.S. economy would collapse, Panarin said: "It is already collapsing. Due to the financial crisis, three of the largest and oldest five banks on Wall Street have already ceased to exist, and two are barely surviving. Their losses are the biggest in history. Now what we will see is a change in the regulatory system on a global financial scale: America will no longer be the world's financial regulator.
[...] He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts - the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.
He even suggested that "we could claim Alaska - it was only granted on lease, after all."
The economic analysis is obvious, being similar to what many in our own country have observed. His analysis of why these problems might lead to a breakup, though, seems a little off-base, and I wonder how much first-hand knowledge of our country and our people Professor Panarin actually has. He evidently has a rather superficial knowledge of the demographic makeup of this country.
I can't imagine why he thinks that Chinese people dominate the West Coast; it's true that they have fairly large colonies in San Francisco, Vancouver, Canada and a few other places, but they are nowhere near a majority, or even a near-majority. Even if you combined their numbers with those of other East Asians, they would not approach a majority on the West Coast.
As for the 'Atlantic states', I don't see much of a unifying culture or mentality there, unless you mean that huge D.C-to-Boston conurbation, with the liberal/elitist power base. There is much more to the 'Atlantic coast' than that area, and there is not much to unify it. The Southeastern states on the coast (except for Florida) constitute part of old Dixie, and they have nothing much in common with the Northeast. American Indian populations in the 'poorer central states', whatever he means by that, are not high enough to be of great significance, either. Perhaps in Oklahoma, New Mexico or Arizona there might be greater percentages of Indians than in other states, but the central states are hardly populated and dominated by American Indians.
As to Texas, it is almost half Hispanic now, and it is minority White, by a small margin. Much as I would hope that Texas might regain its independence as a Republic, it would seem less likely now than 50 years ago, when Whites or 'Anglos' were the majority, and there was no invasion from south of the border on today's scale undermining that majority.
Generally, though, Professor Panarin barely acknowledges the racial conflicts which are simmering in this country now. Whether this is through lack of awareness on his part, or whether through some reticence in discussing race and ethnicity, he simply seems to consider those things secondary to economics in his scenario.
As for Alaska, I would predict that any Russian designs on that state would meet with considerable resistance on the part of Alaskans.
Panarin mentions the Amero as a new monetary unit. Of course the media and our lying politicians deny that any such thing is in the works, including the North American Union of which the Amero would be the currency. Despite the flaws of Panarin's analysis, the fact that one more reputable political analyst is discussing the issue of the breakup of the U.S. is a sign that the idea is becoming more thinkable for many people.
Back in the Cold War era, his comments would elicit cries of 'subversion' and he would be accused of trying to threaten or manipulate Americans by such propaganda. But there's no such response today; I think that more and more people are actually willing to ponder the 'what ifs', and to consider the possibility that this Republic cannot much longer be held together artificially as it is now. We have a unified government in name, but the unity that was a feature of a mostly homogeneous country at one time has long since been destroyed, and we are a divided house in reality if not yet on paper.
How it might happen, or along what lines, is open to conjecture. I would just hope that if I am still around when this fracture takes place, that I will be in the right place, among my kin, rather than in hostile occupied territory, surrounded by strangers.
Labels: Demographics, Disunity, Ethnic Division, Ethnoconservatism, Ethnonationalism, Secession
0 comment Saturday, November 15, 2014 | admin
Abbeville, SC is the birthplace of some of my ancestors, and also the birthplace of Southern icon John C. Calhoun.
It's also known as the 'birthplace and deathbed of the Confederacy'. On November 22, 1860, there was a meeting at Abbeville which drew up a Declaration of Secession. A month later, South Carolina became the first state to secede.
From the Declaration of Secession:
In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."
They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."
Postscript: on the webpage for Abbeville which I linked above, you may notice a ''Preserve America" graphic. It has the following text:
''Preserve America. Explore and Enjoy Our Heritage." We read that
In January of 2008, First Lady Laura Bush designated Abbeville as a Preserve America Community. This initiative recognizes those communities that demonstrate they are committed to preserving their cultural and natural heritage. The City of Abbeville was honored by this prestigious award and we will continue to make sustainable historic preservation a priority.''
A hint to our rulers in Washington: if you care about preserving America, stop fostering foreign invasion by another name, and preserve The People. Another hint: The People ARE America. You can't exchange us for Mexicans or Somalis and expect to ''preserve America'' or anything remotely resembling America.
Ironically, in 2008, it's looking more and more as if the only way to preserve America might be through --- secession.
It's also known as the 'birthplace and deathbed of the Confederacy'. On November 22, 1860, there was a meeting at Abbeville which drew up a Declaration of Secession. A month later, South Carolina became the first state to secede.
From the Declaration of Secession:
In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."
They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."
Postscript: on the webpage for Abbeville which I linked above, you may notice a ''Preserve America" graphic. It has the following text:
''Preserve America. Explore and Enjoy Our Heritage." We read that
In January of 2008, First Lady Laura Bush designated Abbeville as a Preserve America Community. This initiative recognizes those communities that demonstrate they are committed to preserving their cultural and natural heritage. The City of Abbeville was honored by this prestigious award and we will continue to make sustainable historic preservation a priority.''
A hint to our rulers in Washington: if you care about preserving America, stop fostering foreign invasion by another name, and preserve The People. Another hint: The People ARE America. You can't exchange us for Mexicans or Somalis and expect to ''preserve America'' or anything remotely resembling America.
Ironically, in 2008, it's looking more and more as if the only way to preserve America might be through --- secession.
Labels: American History, American Identity, Confederacy, Ethnoconservatism, Secession
0 comment Thursday, August 28, 2014 | admin
Over at the Forum, commenter cabbageroll has started a topic: Freedom and Separatism.
She asks:
''Does "Inherent Human Freedom" allow people to declare independence/secede from their countries?''
This has bearing on a lot of the issues we have discussed here, like various independence movements in Europe as well as with the War Between the States aka the War of Secession or the 'Civil War' in this country. It's a subject that seems to be more relevant than ever these days. So I hope some of you will click over to the Forum and add your two cents to the discussion.
She asks:
''Does "Inherent Human Freedom" allow people to declare independence/secede from their countries?''
This has bearing on a lot of the issues we have discussed here, like various independence movements in Europe as well as with the War Between the States aka the War of Secession or the 'Civil War' in this country. It's a subject that seems to be more relevant than ever these days. So I hope some of you will click over to the Forum and add your two cents to the discussion.
Labels: Balkanization, Freedom Of Association, Nationalism, Secession, Self-Determination
0 comment Monday, August 18, 2014 | admin
Over at the Texas Nationalist blog, (which is now added to my blogroll, by the way) Daniel Miller sounds the alarm for Texans to awake.
He lays out his case for believing that our American Republic is a lost cause.
While I would not like this to be true, I can certainly see all the troubling signs that he sees, and in addition I've been feeling rather pessimistic about the growing divisions among various groups of people -- not just minorities vs. Whites, but the open animus on the part of just about everyone toward Christian believers, plus the North-South rift, rural vs. urban, left vs. right, young vs. old, and all the rest of the ugliness.
We all know what happens to a house divided against itself, and our house is divided all kinds of ways. And the election next week shows little promise of changing anything substantial; the names and faces may change, but I see little evidence of the kind of change we need, given the deep divisions and hatreds that exist, and given the candidates from whom we have to choose.
Judge Andrew Napolitano made a recent statement that it is time for Texas to secede. Follow the link to listen to the audio via Third Palmetto Republic.
Has the time come? I don't know for sure, but it seems to be in the air. And if and when the time comes, I hope it will be Texas which takes that step.
Sam Houston, the first President of the Republic of Texas said:
"Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may."
I hope Sam Houston's words hold true in our time as they did in 1836.
He lays out his case for believing that our American Republic is a lost cause.
While I would not like this to be true, I can certainly see all the troubling signs that he sees, and in addition I've been feeling rather pessimistic about the growing divisions among various groups of people -- not just minorities vs. Whites, but the open animus on the part of just about everyone toward Christian believers, plus the North-South rift, rural vs. urban, left vs. right, young vs. old, and all the rest of the ugliness.
We all know what happens to a house divided against itself, and our house is divided all kinds of ways. And the election next week shows little promise of changing anything substantial; the names and faces may change, but I see little evidence of the kind of change we need, given the deep divisions and hatreds that exist, and given the candidates from whom we have to choose.
Judge Andrew Napolitano made a recent statement that it is time for Texas to secede. Follow the link to listen to the audio via Third Palmetto Republic.
Has the time come? I don't know for sure, but it seems to be in the air. And if and when the time comes, I hope it will be Texas which takes that step.
Sam Houston, the first President of the Republic of Texas said:
"Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may."
I hope Sam Houston's words hold true in our time as they did in 1836.
Labels: Politics, Secession, Societal Division, State Sovereignty, StateS Rights, Tenth Amendment, Texas
0 comment Wednesday, August 13, 2014 | admin
Even though I haven't blogged much about the state sovereignty movement lately, I am keeping an eye on what is happening around the country, and on the discussion here and there about the issue.
Terry Morris over at Webster's Blogspot has been doing a good job of keeping up with this on his blog, with this latest post and others.
On other blogs and forums, there is far less intelligent discussion of this issue, with a great many people still viewing the idea of state's rights and the implicit topic of secession with a skeptical or jaundiced eye. I am disappointed and sometimes disgusted at the lack of common sense on the subject which is evident in some discussions.
One such sophomoric article appears here, but a great many comments follow, with some sensible ones among them. The writer of the article makes the typical objection to state's rights and secession by opining that the previous attempt at seceding ended badly for South Carolina and the Confederacy, therefore the idea is tainted.
'Because the last time they got all uppity and started mouthing off about states� rights, we got our butts kicked.''
This is often the caliber of the arguments found in a lot of online discussions of state's rights and the Tenth Amendment, with the only other 'argument' being based on some kind of quasi-religious reverence for The Union.
Here Jack Hunter comments on the above-linked article and offers a sound examination of the Tenth Amendment movement and secession.
It's a very well-written piece; I recommend reading it all.
Thomas E. Woods describes here how, in the case of a powerful federal government overstepping its bounds, the only recourse was thought to be either arms or secession. However he spells out another alternative, which Thomas Jefferson himself outlined: nulllification.
He quotes Jefferson's words from The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:
Let us recall some of Jefferson�s most potent words, ratified by the Kentucky legislature:
Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self Government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming as to itself, the other party: That the Government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common Judge, each party has an equal right to judge of itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.'
The great theorist of nullification was Calhoun, one of the most brilliant and creative political thinkers in American history. The Liberty Press edition of Calhoun�s writings, Union and Liberty, is indispensable for anyone interested in this subject-especially his Fort Hill Address, a concise and elegant case for nullification. Calhoun imagined a state holding a special nullification convention, much like the ratifying conventions the states had held when debating the Constitution, and settling the matter there.
[...]
The most common argument against nullification is that it would produce chaos, with a bewildering array of states constantly nullifying a bewildering array of federal laws. Given the character of the vast majority of federal legislation over the past several decades (and longer), it is difficult to imagine a libertarian viewing this as an especially grave difficulty.
Having said that, there is little reason to believe that chaos would actually ensue. Consider the historical record. That Americans generally acknowledged the right of a state to secede from the Union-a far more extreme remedy, surely, than nullification-is evident from the number of cases in which states threatened to exercise this option. Abolitionist and pro-slavery spokesman, protectionist and free trader, all at one time or another counseled secession. Yet was the Union overwhelmed with acts of secession before 1860? Most people have little desire to endure a state of crisis for frivolous reasons. But there can be no doubt that the ever-present threat that an oppressed state might withdraw had the salutary effect of restraining the federal government�s exercise of power.
Moreover, to the fear that nullification would lead to intolerable disorder, James Kilpatrick reminds us of the disorder that characterizes the present system: "If power-hungry federal judges may impose one unconstitutional mandate, they may impose a thousand, each more oppressive than the one before." Is this not its own kind of disorder? "But if the Constitution is over the [Supreme] Court, who or what finally is over the Constitution? It can only be the States, who under Article V alone have the power to amend or rewrite it."
In answer to the idea of the Union as being so sacred as to disallow any thought of secession, this piece argues that
The only real argument to hold the Union together is sentimental, since for many Americans the proposition of breaking apart our country sounds repellent and treasonous. But I ask you what is a worse fate for America: To remain geographically united while our founding principles burn to the ground? Or to fracture geographically while our founding principles receive a new lease on life?
To my mind, the first of these options commits the worst sin of modern times, which is to elevate the body over the soul. I would rather live in a small nation with America�s soul intact than a large nation with America�s soul extinct.''
I think he is right; to make some kind of idol out of The Union is to exalt the outward form over the spirit, to say that the idea of The Union is even more important than the idea of freedom and liberty, and as many of us see it, placing the 'nation-state' or the current Empire above the nation in the natural sense of The People, the kindred people who really constitute the nation.
Can there ever be agreement between people who pledge their allegiance to an abstract notion, and those whose allegiance belongs to a 'band of brothers'? Is there any hope of convincing the former group that the nation is the people and not The Union? Watching the debates that are taking place around this issue, I don't see much hope of doing so. And for that reason, because of the deep divides in people's beliefs about what makes up a nation and what their idea of proper government should be, we need to have an option to dissolve a 'union' which forcibly unites people of opposing beliefs and loyalties.
"Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are Sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a Sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever."
"I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it." - Jefferson Davis
"The government of the uncontrolled numerical majority, is but the absolute and despotic form of popular government... If we do not defend ourselves none will defend us; if we yield we will be more and more pressed as we recede; and if we submit we will be trampled underfoot."
- John C. Calhoun
"All we ask is to be let alone." - Jefferson Davis
Terry Morris over at Webster's Blogspot has been doing a good job of keeping up with this on his blog, with this latest post and others.
On other blogs and forums, there is far less intelligent discussion of this issue, with a great many people still viewing the idea of state's rights and the implicit topic of secession with a skeptical or jaundiced eye. I am disappointed and sometimes disgusted at the lack of common sense on the subject which is evident in some discussions.
One such sophomoric article appears here, but a great many comments follow, with some sensible ones among them. The writer of the article makes the typical objection to state's rights and secession by opining that the previous attempt at seceding ended badly for South Carolina and the Confederacy, therefore the idea is tainted.
'Because the last time they got all uppity and started mouthing off about states� rights, we got our butts kicked.''
This is often the caliber of the arguments found in a lot of online discussions of state's rights and the Tenth Amendment, with the only other 'argument' being based on some kind of quasi-religious reverence for The Union.
Here Jack Hunter comments on the above-linked article and offers a sound examination of the Tenth Amendment movement and secession.
It's a very well-written piece; I recommend reading it all.
Thomas E. Woods describes here how, in the case of a powerful federal government overstepping its bounds, the only recourse was thought to be either arms or secession. However he spells out another alternative, which Thomas Jefferson himself outlined: nulllification.
He quotes Jefferson's words from The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:
Let us recall some of Jefferson�s most potent words, ratified by the Kentucky legislature:
Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self Government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming as to itself, the other party: That the Government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common Judge, each party has an equal right to judge of itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.'
The great theorist of nullification was Calhoun, one of the most brilliant and creative political thinkers in American history. The Liberty Press edition of Calhoun�s writings, Union and Liberty, is indispensable for anyone interested in this subject-especially his Fort Hill Address, a concise and elegant case for nullification. Calhoun imagined a state holding a special nullification convention, much like the ratifying conventions the states had held when debating the Constitution, and settling the matter there.
[...]
The most common argument against nullification is that it would produce chaos, with a bewildering array of states constantly nullifying a bewildering array of federal laws. Given the character of the vast majority of federal legislation over the past several decades (and longer), it is difficult to imagine a libertarian viewing this as an especially grave difficulty.
Having said that, there is little reason to believe that chaos would actually ensue. Consider the historical record. That Americans generally acknowledged the right of a state to secede from the Union-a far more extreme remedy, surely, than nullification-is evident from the number of cases in which states threatened to exercise this option. Abolitionist and pro-slavery spokesman, protectionist and free trader, all at one time or another counseled secession. Yet was the Union overwhelmed with acts of secession before 1860? Most people have little desire to endure a state of crisis for frivolous reasons. But there can be no doubt that the ever-present threat that an oppressed state might withdraw had the salutary effect of restraining the federal government�s exercise of power.
Moreover, to the fear that nullification would lead to intolerable disorder, James Kilpatrick reminds us of the disorder that characterizes the present system: "If power-hungry federal judges may impose one unconstitutional mandate, they may impose a thousand, each more oppressive than the one before." Is this not its own kind of disorder? "But if the Constitution is over the [Supreme] Court, who or what finally is over the Constitution? It can only be the States, who under Article V alone have the power to amend or rewrite it."
In answer to the idea of the Union as being so sacred as to disallow any thought of secession, this piece argues that
The only real argument to hold the Union together is sentimental, since for many Americans the proposition of breaking apart our country sounds repellent and treasonous. But I ask you what is a worse fate for America: To remain geographically united while our founding principles burn to the ground? Or to fracture geographically while our founding principles receive a new lease on life?
To my mind, the first of these options commits the worst sin of modern times, which is to elevate the body over the soul. I would rather live in a small nation with America�s soul intact than a large nation with America�s soul extinct.''
I think he is right; to make some kind of idol out of The Union is to exalt the outward form over the spirit, to say that the idea of The Union is even more important than the idea of freedom and liberty, and as many of us see it, placing the 'nation-state' or the current Empire above the nation in the natural sense of The People, the kindred people who really constitute the nation.
Can there ever be agreement between people who pledge their allegiance to an abstract notion, and those whose allegiance belongs to a 'band of brothers'? Is there any hope of convincing the former group that the nation is the people and not The Union? Watching the debates that are taking place around this issue, I don't see much hope of doing so. And for that reason, because of the deep divides in people's beliefs about what makes up a nation and what their idea of proper government should be, we need to have an option to dissolve a 'union' which forcibly unites people of opposing beliefs and loyalties.
"Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are Sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a Sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever."
"I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it." - Jefferson Davis
"The government of the uncontrolled numerical majority, is but the absolute and despotic form of popular government... If we do not defend ourselves none will defend us; if we yield we will be more and more pressed as we recede; and if we submit we will be trampled underfoot."
- John C. Calhoun
"All we ask is to be let alone." - Jefferson Davis
Labels: Constitution, Federal Government, Secession, State Sovereignty, StateS Rights, Tenth Amendment, War Between The States
0 comment Friday, July 11, 2014 | admin
The topic of secession is discussed more and more lately. One of the best pieces on the subject was that by Michael O'Meara, which Dr. D recently reminded me about in a comment. I didn't link to it when it first appeared; I supposed everybody here was aware of it, and had read it. If not, I recommend reading it.
Slate has an interactive piece up asking readers How is America going to end?
The fact that such a piece appears there is another sign that the idea of some kind of breakup of the United States is no longer confined to the right-wing, nor to Southron partisans. The results of the responses over at Slate shows that the average Slate reader probably has a very different conception of how a breakup might occur, and what would precipitate such an event. But go over and check it out, and discuss here if you like.
Another piece which appeared recently is this one: A reasonable case for secession.
See also this blog, which discusses Democratic separatism.
As for my own ideas about secession or some kind of breakup of our formerly-united states, I think I've expressed my thoughts before, so that most of you know where I stand. I was writing about this a few years ago when it was still a shocking idea to some and I've watched the topic become less radioactive over the last year particularly.
I notice that certain ''arguments'' always come up when the topic is discussed, even now that it has become less fringe. The skeptics, who, like the poor, are always with us, say ''It'll never happen! Can't happen! Impossible! Crazy! They won't let us! They'd stop us!'' or some variation thereof.
I suspect those arguments (if we can call them that) were also heard back in 1775 or so. Famous last words, back then.
Moreover, it annoys me that there are some who insist on being doomsayers, or who take some kind of odd pleasure in quashing any suggestion of an alteration in the status quo. I really take issue with the notion that someone, anyone, can say with such ironclad certitude that a given course of action is doomed and impossible, out of hand. That presumes some kind of supernatural ability to predict what may be a year from now or at any time in the future. Nobody has that kind of certain knowledge. Things can change, turn on a dime. Anyone who has read a history book knows that, and our situation now is unstable, and therefore what is true today may not be so in a month or a year or certainly a decade. So it's presumptuous, putting it mildly, to say it cannot happen.
Then again there are the people who like to smugly remind us that ''it didn't work back in the 1860s, so it ain't gonna work now.'' Or this one: ''We settled that back in 1865.'' No, actually, we didn't. The rift still exists. And the War Between the States did not discredit the idea of secession as such; it simply proved that the North was able to subdue the South and force her back into the ''union.'' Might does not make right.
Also, need I tell anybody that the country was a very different place back in 1865, with a very different set of problems -- although some of the same problems have carried over.
I think there are a certain number of people who like to throw cold water on the idea of any kind of big change, whether spontaneous or deliberate, because some people have vested interests in the status quo, and some are simply afraid of the idea of upheaval -- but I think most of us are pretty well certain that upheaval is in the cards whether we choose it or not. ''Things fall apart, the center cannot hold...''
Some simply want the existing order of things to go on, even though it's untenable over the long term, and things seem to be deteriorating rapidly. However, change is and has always been the one certainty in this world, and ''change'' of an unwelcome kind is the order of the day. What alternatives are there?
Slate has an interactive piece up asking readers How is America going to end?
The fact that such a piece appears there is another sign that the idea of some kind of breakup of the United States is no longer confined to the right-wing, nor to Southron partisans. The results of the responses over at Slate shows that the average Slate reader probably has a very different conception of how a breakup might occur, and what would precipitate such an event. But go over and check it out, and discuss here if you like.
Another piece which appeared recently is this one: A reasonable case for secession.
See also this blog, which discusses Democratic separatism.
As for my own ideas about secession or some kind of breakup of our formerly-united states, I think I've expressed my thoughts before, so that most of you know where I stand. I was writing about this a few years ago when it was still a shocking idea to some and I've watched the topic become less radioactive over the last year particularly.
I notice that certain ''arguments'' always come up when the topic is discussed, even now that it has become less fringe. The skeptics, who, like the poor, are always with us, say ''It'll never happen! Can't happen! Impossible! Crazy! They won't let us! They'd stop us!'' or some variation thereof.
I suspect those arguments (if we can call them that) were also heard back in 1775 or so. Famous last words, back then.
Moreover, it annoys me that there are some who insist on being doomsayers, or who take some kind of odd pleasure in quashing any suggestion of an alteration in the status quo. I really take issue with the notion that someone, anyone, can say with such ironclad certitude that a given course of action is doomed and impossible, out of hand. That presumes some kind of supernatural ability to predict what may be a year from now or at any time in the future. Nobody has that kind of certain knowledge. Things can change, turn on a dime. Anyone who has read a history book knows that, and our situation now is unstable, and therefore what is true today may not be so in a month or a year or certainly a decade. So it's presumptuous, putting it mildly, to say it cannot happen.
Then again there are the people who like to smugly remind us that ''it didn't work back in the 1860s, so it ain't gonna work now.'' Or this one: ''We settled that back in 1865.'' No, actually, we didn't. The rift still exists. And the War Between the States did not discredit the idea of secession as such; it simply proved that the North was able to subdue the South and force her back into the ''union.'' Might does not make right.
Also, need I tell anybody that the country was a very different place back in 1865, with a very different set of problems -- although some of the same problems have carried over.
I think there are a certain number of people who like to throw cold water on the idea of any kind of big change, whether spontaneous or deliberate, because some people have vested interests in the status quo, and some are simply afraid of the idea of upheaval -- but I think most of us are pretty well certain that upheaval is in the cards whether we choose it or not. ''Things fall apart, the center cannot hold...''
Some simply want the existing order of things to go on, even though it's untenable over the long term, and things seem to be deteriorating rapidly. However, change is and has always been the one certainty in this world, and ''change'' of an unwelcome kind is the order of the day. What alternatives are there?
Labels: American History, Balkanization, Secession, Separatism, Sovereignty Movement, States Rights
0 comment Sunday, June 29, 2014 | admin
I don't know about the rest of you, but I find it dizzying to keep up with the changes that are underway in this country, as seen in each day's news. And I think that the people in power now are rather giddy from the ease with which they are able to work these drastic changes. I think they are positively shocked at how easy it has been to work their will.
Look back on the last few months and ponder how quickly the promised 'change' has come, and none of this change, as far as I can see, promises good things.
James Lewis says, of the new administration, in the above-linked article from American Thinker:
These are not just rank amateurs, they are willfully ignorant amateurs, who also happen to be grandiose narcissists, and who now have free reign over the levers of power in the United States. We are all watching the Titanic steaming full speed ahead right before that diamond-hard iceberg tears off all the steel rivets from her skin. If you're not aghast, you're just not paying attention.''
And yes, I am aghast, and most of all, aghast at the recognition that many Americans are not equally aghast. That's one of the most troubling parts of the whole situation.
Still, there are some sane people still in possession of the keenness of judgment to recognize what is going on. Karen De Coster is one such person.
The speed with which the federal government intends to take over private institutions and usurp states� rights and individual autonomy is unprecedented. When the Bush-Obama regime maneuvers are compared to the Hoover-FDR New Deal era, it looks like today�s hare vs. yesterday�s turtle. The state�s various propaganda arms, from big media to institutionalized special interest forces, are being empowered to publicize and sell the agenda of the totalitarian state by painting it in glossy colors that warm the hearts of unresisting Americans. There are, however, growing pockets of dissenters who conclude that life, liberty, property, and the futures of their children are more important than the trivial things that occupy the minds of the submissive class. For that reason, the state�s militarized police force, which has been given unparalleled powers by the contrived crises following 9-11, has snowballed in size and is being fortified in expectation of confronting rebellion from those citizens who intend to resist the tyranny of an over-reaching Leviathan.''
She discusses a topic to which we keep returning lately: the state sovereignty movement, and the increasing talk of secession from various quarters. She notes that there has been, and remains, a knee-jerk resistance to the idea and a discomfort with it as being in the realm of extremism. There are, as she notes of the libertarian movement, people who scoff at talk of secession and ask for what they consider more 'practical' solutions, 'practical' meaning:
''....the code word for something that is acceptable to the majority of the Oprahized masses. This kind of thought is known as "libertarian lite," or as I call it, "car wash libertarianism." The car wash libertarians persuade others � "especially those new to libertarianism � to stay away from the radical, "crazy" stuff and hold true to the agenda of getting "our people" elected through legitimate political means. The car wash libertarians still have a voice in the modern LP, which is also known as GOP 2.0. These libertarians are in the game not for reasons of deep-rooted principles and love of liberty, but for the social, bonding aspects, with some mild libertarianism sprinkled on the side. They love attending their local meetings and dinners each month and discussing who is going to run for what local post, and when, and applying strategy.''
Yes, there are these people among 'conservatives' as well. And many of them obstinately refuse to recognize that we are running out of time for what they call 'practical', gradual options.
The rapid-fire socialization of America, I hope, will have the effect of turning many of these libertarians toward more radical plans of action.
''The Feds are engaged in a sweeping series of measures to take complete control of the financial system (which is forever destroyed) and selected business entities; ratchet up plans for perpetual war; socialize health care; further implant federalized education and criminalize homeschooling; grab guns and ammo; remove children from the homes of dissenters; commence race wars and class wars; force young adults into mandatory state service camps; send protesters to FEMA camps; and on and on and on.
At this point, none of this can be undone through time-consuming, political means. Rahm Emanuel, Eric Holder, and the other agents of Obama's unfreedom brigade were brought to Washington D.C. for one very specific purpose: to centralize every last bit of property and life and put it all under federal rule, from money to education to personal behavior. Note the condescending and arrogant behavior of King Obama on the 60 Minutes television show as he laughed at the inability of majority opinion to do a damn thing to stop his freight train of power grabs and federal takeovers.
Perhaps the most significant move on the part of the Feds, outside of crushing the free market through rapid nationalization, is the move on the part of the centralizers to extinguish the single most important characteristic of a free society � the right to bear arms. A society in which individuals cannot bear arms is a society doomed to eternal serfdom and oppression from self-serving overlords.''
Read the rest at the link.
The last sentence in the second paragraph above, about 'sending protesters to FEMA camps', is an idea that has been rumored for some time now, and the more cautious consider it to be urban legend or tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory. I am not sure what to believe on that, but there is little doubt about the accuracy of the rest of the agenda she delineates in the excerpt above; the measures mentioned are all well within the realm of fact and public record.
All of this should be enough to galvanize the 'practical' people into a realization that it is much later than we like to think, and that things are proceeding very rapidly. Maybe it's time to look for less 'practical' yet more effective solutions if we do not want to be dragged further into this new order of which we've heard so much. We may no longer have the luxury of being able to hope for 'throwing the rascals out in 2012' or even in 2010.
While we still have some freedom left, time to use it or lose it.
Look back on the last few months and ponder how quickly the promised 'change' has come, and none of this change, as far as I can see, promises good things.
James Lewis says, of the new administration, in the above-linked article from American Thinker:
These are not just rank amateurs, they are willfully ignorant amateurs, who also happen to be grandiose narcissists, and who now have free reign over the levers of power in the United States. We are all watching the Titanic steaming full speed ahead right before that diamond-hard iceberg tears off all the steel rivets from her skin. If you're not aghast, you're just not paying attention.''
And yes, I am aghast, and most of all, aghast at the recognition that many Americans are not equally aghast. That's one of the most troubling parts of the whole situation.
Still, there are some sane people still in possession of the keenness of judgment to recognize what is going on. Karen De Coster is one such person.
The speed with which the federal government intends to take over private institutions and usurp states� rights and individual autonomy is unprecedented. When the Bush-Obama regime maneuvers are compared to the Hoover-FDR New Deal era, it looks like today�s hare vs. yesterday�s turtle. The state�s various propaganda arms, from big media to institutionalized special interest forces, are being empowered to publicize and sell the agenda of the totalitarian state by painting it in glossy colors that warm the hearts of unresisting Americans. There are, however, growing pockets of dissenters who conclude that life, liberty, property, and the futures of their children are more important than the trivial things that occupy the minds of the submissive class. For that reason, the state�s militarized police force, which has been given unparalleled powers by the contrived crises following 9-11, has snowballed in size and is being fortified in expectation of confronting rebellion from those citizens who intend to resist the tyranny of an over-reaching Leviathan.''
She discusses a topic to which we keep returning lately: the state sovereignty movement, and the increasing talk of secession from various quarters. She notes that there has been, and remains, a knee-jerk resistance to the idea and a discomfort with it as being in the realm of extremism. There are, as she notes of the libertarian movement, people who scoff at talk of secession and ask for what they consider more 'practical' solutions, 'practical' meaning:
''....the code word for something that is acceptable to the majority of the Oprahized masses. This kind of thought is known as "libertarian lite," or as I call it, "car wash libertarianism." The car wash libertarians persuade others � "especially those new to libertarianism � to stay away from the radical, "crazy" stuff and hold true to the agenda of getting "our people" elected through legitimate political means. The car wash libertarians still have a voice in the modern LP, which is also known as GOP 2.0. These libertarians are in the game not for reasons of deep-rooted principles and love of liberty, but for the social, bonding aspects, with some mild libertarianism sprinkled on the side. They love attending their local meetings and dinners each month and discussing who is going to run for what local post, and when, and applying strategy.''
Yes, there are these people among 'conservatives' as well. And many of them obstinately refuse to recognize that we are running out of time for what they call 'practical', gradual options.
The rapid-fire socialization of America, I hope, will have the effect of turning many of these libertarians toward more radical plans of action.
''The Feds are engaged in a sweeping series of measures to take complete control of the financial system (which is forever destroyed) and selected business entities; ratchet up plans for perpetual war; socialize health care; further implant federalized education and criminalize homeschooling; grab guns and ammo; remove children from the homes of dissenters; commence race wars and class wars; force young adults into mandatory state service camps; send protesters to FEMA camps; and on and on and on.
At this point, none of this can be undone through time-consuming, political means. Rahm Emanuel, Eric Holder, and the other agents of Obama's unfreedom brigade were brought to Washington D.C. for one very specific purpose: to centralize every last bit of property and life and put it all under federal rule, from money to education to personal behavior. Note the condescending and arrogant behavior of King Obama on the 60 Minutes television show as he laughed at the inability of majority opinion to do a damn thing to stop his freight train of power grabs and federal takeovers.
Perhaps the most significant move on the part of the Feds, outside of crushing the free market through rapid nationalization, is the move on the part of the centralizers to extinguish the single most important characteristic of a free society � the right to bear arms. A society in which individuals cannot bear arms is a society doomed to eternal serfdom and oppression from self-serving overlords.''
Read the rest at the link.
The last sentence in the second paragraph above, about 'sending protesters to FEMA camps', is an idea that has been rumored for some time now, and the more cautious consider it to be urban legend or tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory. I am not sure what to believe on that, but there is little doubt about the accuracy of the rest of the agenda she delineates in the excerpt above; the measures mentioned are all well within the realm of fact and public record.
All of this should be enough to galvanize the 'practical' people into a realization that it is much later than we like to think, and that things are proceeding very rapidly. Maybe it's time to look for less 'practical' yet more effective solutions if we do not want to be dragged further into this new order of which we've heard so much. We may no longer have the luxury of being able to hope for 'throwing the rascals out in 2012' or even in 2010.
While we still have some freedom left, time to use it or lose it.
Labels: Jeffersonian Principles, Liberty, Secession, Socialism, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenth Amendment
0 comment Saturday, June 28, 2014 | admin
It seems to me that I recently wrote a post on this subject, but it never seems to go away.
Upfront, I will say that this is my definitive statement on the subject. If it is raised in the future, I will just refer readers to this post, rather than saying it all again.
Yet again, I am being challenged as to why I focus on Anglo-American or WASP roots on this blog.
The implication is generally that I am excluding others, and failing to foster general American unity by focusing on one group, even if that group is the founding stock and the creative force behind the Republic that was established here in 1776.
The argument is made that Americans are all mixed, deracinated people who identify only as Americans, and that to identify with any particular ethnicity is to be divisive.
To what extent that is true, I don't know. I know that the 'generic American' identity is embraced by many people of mixed European ancestry, and I know that in many areas people are rather hopelessly mixed so as to identify with no particular ethnicity. That's a problem.
Is it possible to identify as just American when everybody else, especially minorities, have a strong ethnic identity?
Do I have to bring up yet again that many people outside the U.S. sneer at us because we are 'a people of no race or identity'? That is a common view of us in Europe. To expect Europeans to acknowledge us as cousins or even distant kin is often to be disappointed and rebuffed, as they hold us in low regard in many cases, and consider us mongrels, compared to themselves. Yes, there are Europeans who are more welcoming of us, but there are also many who regard us with a blend of scorn and condescension -- because we are a mixed people of no fixed origin.
The word 'American' once meant something. I was quite happy to call myself just American for many years, although I have had a strong Southron identity too. But over the years, the American 'brand' has been cheapened and made meaningless for many people because we are told that the many alien peoples residing here, who speak not a word of English in most cases, are ''new Americans''. Being an American is just a geographical condition, just an address, which tells nothing about who a person is. Remember those 'Ad Council' spots that ran on TV after 9/11, with many foreign people saying 'I am an American'? That's what 'American' has come to mean: anybody who is occupying some spot on American territory.
If America consists of an idea or a proposition, what then are Americans? Just anybody who says they believe in 'freedom' or 'equality'? Is it just a matter of pledging allegiance to a flag or a political system, as many Republicans would have it?
People need more than that. People need roots. They need a sense of kinship and belonging, a sense of who they are in a biological sense, where their actual ancestors came from, how they lived, what they accomplished. They need a sense of their place in history and in the human family.
I put it to you that Americans who feel themselves to be of no particular race or ethnicity, identifying only with a flag or a geopolitical entity, are a people prone to be deracinated, to lack an anchor, to lack confidence. Deracinated and confused people are ripe to be colonized and subjugated, as is happening now.
Such a people, I believe, are also more prone to miscegenation, to want to lose their weak 'identity' by interbreeding or intermarrying with any exotic group of people with an aggressive sense of ethnicity and race, hence you have young people becoming 'wiggers', talking Ebonics, or intermarrying with Hispanics and raising their children as Hispanic. Hardly ever do intermarriages result in the transmission of any kind of White identity. I can think of many cases, and all of them result in Whites becoming renegades to their own race, and 'going native', along with their children.
I firmly believe that we are in a time of re-tribalization. The world will become more ethnically divided, with smaller groups asserting, or re-asserting, their tribal or clan identities. If 'America' in its present form falls apart, which many have predicted will happen, what, then, will be left of an 'American' identity?
People may choose to align with some kind of regional identity. The South has a strong regional identity, or has had, until the recent immigrant influx, along with an earlier migration of Yankees during the Reagan era.
And as to the South, the fact that it had, before the recent Latino invasion, received relatively few immigrants meant that the people of the South were far more homogeneous than those in most of the Northern states. The Northern cities in particular had received most of the Ellis Island immigrants, and the heartland North had many Northern European immigrants (German, Scandinavian, some Dutch) who later formed the sort of generic White European core group.
However, the South had experienced less demographic change than the North. Southron Whites were fairly cohesive, perhaps partly in reaction to the presence of many blacks, and because of the history involving the War Between the States and Reconstruction.
Most of the old-stock Southron people were of British Isles descent. Many colonial stock Southron people identified as Anglo-Norman or Anglo-Saxon. It was understood among most people that there was no racial division between those two groups of people; the Angl0-Normans were generally thought of by Southrons as being the more aristocratic strain, although now there is a negative image of Normans as being some sort of foreign interlopers, with whom few want to claim a connection -- much the same as with the WASP identity in America, ironically.
My particular family line is mostly Anglo-Norman, with some Huguenot French and Ulster Scots roots, but by far, mostly Anglo-Norman. In this, I think my family tree is quite typical of old-stock Southron families. The idea that all areas of these United States are equally mixed in terms of descent is erroneous. The South preserved its original makeup for considerably longer than the North.
The much-criticized New England WASP colonial stock was actually 'ethnically cleansed', to a great extent, from New England as the Ellis Island immigrants fanned out across the East Coast. Many of my Yankee family members went West, settling the vast wilderness that awaited. Some stopped in the Midwest, settling there, others went far West, as far as they could go. The idea that there is some powerful yet strangely invisible 'WASP elite' in New England is persistent but lacking in basis. The old WASP colonial stock moved West, for the most part, preferring not to live in an overpopulated Northeastern megalopolis as the immigrants kept arriving.
A commenter asked why I had alternately referenced and criticized 'Albion's Seed' by David Hackett Fisher. It is an interesting book with much good information, but I find fault with it because I think it has fostered an oversimplified view of Southern ethnicity. Fisher I think has done a great deal, along with writer Grady McWhiney, to popularize the unproven notion of the South as being mostly Scots-Irish. The Scots-Irish, it is claimed, gave the 'warrior spirit' to the South. And were the Anglo-Normans not likewise formidable warriors?
This kind of thing, this unwillingness to credit Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Norman people with any accomplishment or talent (other than 'oppressing' the victim groups of the world) is one of the things which prompts me to champion the Anglo-Saxon heritage of America. It's only fair to give credit where due.
And for some reason, perhaps because of media portrayals (Braveheart, for example) the Scots are seen as a glamorous, tough, admirable people, while the Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Norman is seen as sneaky, cold, ruthless, and vicious. That pattern is repeated time and again in movies and novels. The same kind of stereotype of the English was seen in another Gibson movie, The Patriot. That movie, like others, takes liberties with history.
For the record, quite a few of my ancestors lived in the area of Carolina where the story took place, and they were in the thick of the revolution. Some of my ancestors died fighting the British, but I don't accept the stereotype of the British as being evil and cold-blooded -- and foppish, as well.
It's no wonder that few Americans want to identify with any British ancestry they may have; who wants to be connected to the bad guys, the perpetual villains? We see similar stereotyping in recent PC movies in which White Americans are the villains: remember 'Dances With Wolves', with its ugly stereotypes of dirty, bloodthirsty American cavalrymen? The only good Whites were the renegade Whites who went native.
This kind of propaganda has led to Americans being so reticent to defend themselves in the face of relentless attacks by all and sundry. We are a demoralized people who have been schooled to think we have no defense to offer for ourselves and our ancestors; they were bad people who oppressed and plundered the poor weak peoples of the earth, and we are equally bad, because we have a unique kind of original sin called 'innate racism.'
It's 'racism', supposedly, for us even to feel an identification with our White kin group. All other groups can be aggressive in their identity, while we alone can only safely call ourselves ''Americans'', and even that is now considered hateful and 'nativist.' Latin American interlopers in our country tell us that they are just as 'American' as we are. Some liberal educators propose we call ourselves 'United Statesians' so as not to wrongly appropriate the label American, which belongs to everybody from the North Pole to Cape Horn.
Where to, America? Our identity is too exclusive, and it doesn't really belong just to us -- just as America 'belongs to everybody' as many immigrants brazenly claim.
And our European cousins tell us, as one European commenter haughtily told me on this blog, we are neither a race nor a people. We are nonentities. We are ciphers. It's no wonder many of us are eager to lose ourselves in some exotic new culture or identity.
Where to, in this re-tribalizing world, where ancestry and race will become more important in deciding where we stand? Those Americans who think they can sit it out by declaring that they are 'world citizens' or cosmopolitan planetary citizens, are mistaken. They will have to pick a side, and even if they decline to, they will be assigned a side in the conflict, based on their skin color.
Yes, I agree that White people should unite and feel kinship. We are a dwindling proportion of the world's peoples, and some predict our demise, one way or another. Were it not for my religious faith, I think I would predict that European-descended peoples would be blended away in a few generations. However I believe there is a reason why 'peoples, nations, kindreds, and tongues' were created, and it is not in the Divine plan for the Tower of Babel to succeed this time, or ever. The hubristic plan to create one mingled race will not succeed. That's just my personal faith, and I cannot prove it. I believe we, our kin group, will continue, but we are under siege as apparently our rulers want to eliminate all inequalities, including and especially innate racial inequalities.
I am all for uniting with all ethnic groups in the European family. However I cannot unilaterally make that unity happen. I don't have that kind of influence or power.
There are a great many people whose ethnic grievances against Anglo-Saxons make them hostile towards anyone who claims descent from that group. Just check out any message board where Irish, Ulster Irish, or English people congregate. There is an incredible amount of bitterness over the Irish 'troubles' and remote historical events. Irish-Americans in many cases who have never been to Ireland hold grudges and curse the English. That has got to stop if there is to be any unity.
If I am hard on the ethnic 'Ellis Island' descendants, it is because all too often they tend to be open-borders sentimentalists who identify with immigrants more than Americans. and in many instances they hold grudges towards old-stock Americans (which as I've said includes more than just English.)
If they are willing to stop accusing America I am willing to accept them as brothers. The animosity does not start with me; my animus toward grudge-bearers is defensive, not offensive.
So, do I, and this blog, have enough influence to 'unite' Americans or White people generally? This is not one of those mega-blogs which gets thousands and thousands of hits, and which wields considerable influence. What I write here is unlikely to 'divide' Americans (who are already quite divided, thank you) nor to unite Americans. I am just one isolated voice, and I don't particularly wish to be anything else. I write what I write for the few; you, the readers, decide if you are one of the few I write for. If my words speak to you, then this blog is for you. If my words antagonize you and irritate you, perhaps you are looking for something I don't provide.
This blog is my individual attempt to cry out against what I see happening to this country, and to my people, and as I seem to have to repeat often, 'my people' are all of you who identify with old America, and who hold dear what I hold dear, all of you who wish to defend the 'land where our fathers died.' I am a partisan of the South. because I feel that it embodies the real, original America best of all, and potentially may represent a resurgent 'America.'
Does that alienate my Northern readers? It should not. Because I prefer the South, having lived in both North and South, that does not mean I have animosity towards those of you from the North. So likewise because I write about the Anglo-American culture and heritage, which is neglected and despised by many people, that does not ''exclude'' those of you who have little commonality with that. I find this idea that particularism is somehow hostility towards others to be a curious, and rather liberal idea. It's the essence of political correctness, actually, this idea that we are to 'include' everybody and water everything down so as not to offend or 'leave anybody out.'
The nature of the world is that people group together in various ways, all of which include some and exclude others. That is also the essence of love: love excludes most, and prefers one, or the few, above the many.
Just because I love my particular heritage does not mean that I hate others' heritage.
I do find it hard to understand why my expression of my particular affinities is considered offensive. by anyone, unless it rubs salt in wounds based on past perceived resentments.
I write this blog partly for myself, because I feel compelled to write what is in my heart. This is one person's blog, not an attempt to speak to the whole world. This world, and even this country, is much too big and too complicated and too divided for me to be able to 'speak to' everyone or appeal to everyone. No doubt I offend some, but I cannot alter my message or my preferences because they 'turn away' some people. I cannot tailor my message to everyone.
Few people speak up for old-stock Anglo-Americans. Yet if this country ever succeeds in re-establishing any kind of unity, it will have to rally around a common heritage, and in old America, that common identity was the Anglo-based one. What else, pray tell, can we rally around? Like it or not, the Founding Fathers were Englishmen. English and male.
If any ethnicity or heritage deserves to be preserved as a cement which holds us together, the Anglo-Saxons heritage is the obvious choice. It served us well for many generations.
However, it looks as though a balkanized America is in the cards, with regions dominated by different peoples, but we will all have to decide to unite or separate. It is up to the other ethnicities, including the 'just Americans,' to decide with whom they will stand.
Upfront, I will say that this is my definitive statement on the subject. If it is raised in the future, I will just refer readers to this post, rather than saying it all again.
Yet again, I am being challenged as to why I focus on Anglo-American or WASP roots on this blog.
The implication is generally that I am excluding others, and failing to foster general American unity by focusing on one group, even if that group is the founding stock and the creative force behind the Republic that was established here in 1776.
The argument is made that Americans are all mixed, deracinated people who identify only as Americans, and that to identify with any particular ethnicity is to be divisive.
To what extent that is true, I don't know. I know that the 'generic American' identity is embraced by many people of mixed European ancestry, and I know that in many areas people are rather hopelessly mixed so as to identify with no particular ethnicity. That's a problem.
Is it possible to identify as just American when everybody else, especially minorities, have a strong ethnic identity?
Do I have to bring up yet again that many people outside the U.S. sneer at us because we are 'a people of no race or identity'? That is a common view of us in Europe. To expect Europeans to acknowledge us as cousins or even distant kin is often to be disappointed and rebuffed, as they hold us in low regard in many cases, and consider us mongrels, compared to themselves. Yes, there are Europeans who are more welcoming of us, but there are also many who regard us with a blend of scorn and condescension -- because we are a mixed people of no fixed origin.
The word 'American' once meant something. I was quite happy to call myself just American for many years, although I have had a strong Southron identity too. But over the years, the American 'brand' has been cheapened and made meaningless for many people because we are told that the many alien peoples residing here, who speak not a word of English in most cases, are ''new Americans''. Being an American is just a geographical condition, just an address, which tells nothing about who a person is. Remember those 'Ad Council' spots that ran on TV after 9/11, with many foreign people saying 'I am an American'? That's what 'American' has come to mean: anybody who is occupying some spot on American territory.
If America consists of an idea or a proposition, what then are Americans? Just anybody who says they believe in 'freedom' or 'equality'? Is it just a matter of pledging allegiance to a flag or a political system, as many Republicans would have it?
People need more than that. People need roots. They need a sense of kinship and belonging, a sense of who they are in a biological sense, where their actual ancestors came from, how they lived, what they accomplished. They need a sense of their place in history and in the human family.
I put it to you that Americans who feel themselves to be of no particular race or ethnicity, identifying only with a flag or a geopolitical entity, are a people prone to be deracinated, to lack an anchor, to lack confidence. Deracinated and confused people are ripe to be colonized and subjugated, as is happening now.
Such a people, I believe, are also more prone to miscegenation, to want to lose their weak 'identity' by interbreeding or intermarrying with any exotic group of people with an aggressive sense of ethnicity and race, hence you have young people becoming 'wiggers', talking Ebonics, or intermarrying with Hispanics and raising their children as Hispanic. Hardly ever do intermarriages result in the transmission of any kind of White identity. I can think of many cases, and all of them result in Whites becoming renegades to their own race, and 'going native', along with their children.
I firmly believe that we are in a time of re-tribalization. The world will become more ethnically divided, with smaller groups asserting, or re-asserting, their tribal or clan identities. If 'America' in its present form falls apart, which many have predicted will happen, what, then, will be left of an 'American' identity?
People may choose to align with some kind of regional identity. The South has a strong regional identity, or has had, until the recent immigrant influx, along with an earlier migration of Yankees during the Reagan era.
And as to the South, the fact that it had, before the recent Latino invasion, received relatively few immigrants meant that the people of the South were far more homogeneous than those in most of the Northern states. The Northern cities in particular had received most of the Ellis Island immigrants, and the heartland North had many Northern European immigrants (German, Scandinavian, some Dutch) who later formed the sort of generic White European core group.
However, the South had experienced less demographic change than the North. Southron Whites were fairly cohesive, perhaps partly in reaction to the presence of many blacks, and because of the history involving the War Between the States and Reconstruction.
Most of the old-stock Southron people were of British Isles descent. Many colonial stock Southron people identified as Anglo-Norman or Anglo-Saxon. It was understood among most people that there was no racial division between those two groups of people; the Angl0-Normans were generally thought of by Southrons as being the more aristocratic strain, although now there is a negative image of Normans as being some sort of foreign interlopers, with whom few want to claim a connection -- much the same as with the WASP identity in America, ironically.
My particular family line is mostly Anglo-Norman, with some Huguenot French and Ulster Scots roots, but by far, mostly Anglo-Norman. In this, I think my family tree is quite typical of old-stock Southron families. The idea that all areas of these United States are equally mixed in terms of descent is erroneous. The South preserved its original makeup for considerably longer than the North.
The much-criticized New England WASP colonial stock was actually 'ethnically cleansed', to a great extent, from New England as the Ellis Island immigrants fanned out across the East Coast. Many of my Yankee family members went West, settling the vast wilderness that awaited. Some stopped in the Midwest, settling there, others went far West, as far as they could go. The idea that there is some powerful yet strangely invisible 'WASP elite' in New England is persistent but lacking in basis. The old WASP colonial stock moved West, for the most part, preferring not to live in an overpopulated Northeastern megalopolis as the immigrants kept arriving.
A commenter asked why I had alternately referenced and criticized 'Albion's Seed' by David Hackett Fisher. It is an interesting book with much good information, but I find fault with it because I think it has fostered an oversimplified view of Southern ethnicity. Fisher I think has done a great deal, along with writer Grady McWhiney, to popularize the unproven notion of the South as being mostly Scots-Irish. The Scots-Irish, it is claimed, gave the 'warrior spirit' to the South. And were the Anglo-Normans not likewise formidable warriors?
This kind of thing, this unwillingness to credit Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Norman people with any accomplishment or talent (other than 'oppressing' the victim groups of the world) is one of the things which prompts me to champion the Anglo-Saxon heritage of America. It's only fair to give credit where due.
And for some reason, perhaps because of media portrayals (Braveheart, for example) the Scots are seen as a glamorous, tough, admirable people, while the Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Norman is seen as sneaky, cold, ruthless, and vicious. That pattern is repeated time and again in movies and novels. The same kind of stereotype of the English was seen in another Gibson movie, The Patriot. That movie, like others, takes liberties with history.
For the record, quite a few of my ancestors lived in the area of Carolina where the story took place, and they were in the thick of the revolution. Some of my ancestors died fighting the British, but I don't accept the stereotype of the British as being evil and cold-blooded -- and foppish, as well.
It's no wonder that few Americans want to identify with any British ancestry they may have; who wants to be connected to the bad guys, the perpetual villains? We see similar stereotyping in recent PC movies in which White Americans are the villains: remember 'Dances With Wolves', with its ugly stereotypes of dirty, bloodthirsty American cavalrymen? The only good Whites were the renegade Whites who went native.
This kind of propaganda has led to Americans being so reticent to defend themselves in the face of relentless attacks by all and sundry. We are a demoralized people who have been schooled to think we have no defense to offer for ourselves and our ancestors; they were bad people who oppressed and plundered the poor weak peoples of the earth, and we are equally bad, because we have a unique kind of original sin called 'innate racism.'
It's 'racism', supposedly, for us even to feel an identification with our White kin group. All other groups can be aggressive in their identity, while we alone can only safely call ourselves ''Americans'', and even that is now considered hateful and 'nativist.' Latin American interlopers in our country tell us that they are just as 'American' as we are. Some liberal educators propose we call ourselves 'United Statesians' so as not to wrongly appropriate the label American, which belongs to everybody from the North Pole to Cape Horn.
Where to, America? Our identity is too exclusive, and it doesn't really belong just to us -- just as America 'belongs to everybody' as many immigrants brazenly claim.
And our European cousins tell us, as one European commenter haughtily told me on this blog, we are neither a race nor a people. We are nonentities. We are ciphers. It's no wonder many of us are eager to lose ourselves in some exotic new culture or identity.
Where to, in this re-tribalizing world, where ancestry and race will become more important in deciding where we stand? Those Americans who think they can sit it out by declaring that they are 'world citizens' or cosmopolitan planetary citizens, are mistaken. They will have to pick a side, and even if they decline to, they will be assigned a side in the conflict, based on their skin color.
Yes, I agree that White people should unite and feel kinship. We are a dwindling proportion of the world's peoples, and some predict our demise, one way or another. Were it not for my religious faith, I think I would predict that European-descended peoples would be blended away in a few generations. However I believe there is a reason why 'peoples, nations, kindreds, and tongues' were created, and it is not in the Divine plan for the Tower of Babel to succeed this time, or ever. The hubristic plan to create one mingled race will not succeed. That's just my personal faith, and I cannot prove it. I believe we, our kin group, will continue, but we are under siege as apparently our rulers want to eliminate all inequalities, including and especially innate racial inequalities.
I am all for uniting with all ethnic groups in the European family. However I cannot unilaterally make that unity happen. I don't have that kind of influence or power.
There are a great many people whose ethnic grievances against Anglo-Saxons make them hostile towards anyone who claims descent from that group. Just check out any message board where Irish, Ulster Irish, or English people congregate. There is an incredible amount of bitterness over the Irish 'troubles' and remote historical events. Irish-Americans in many cases who have never been to Ireland hold grudges and curse the English. That has got to stop if there is to be any unity.
If I am hard on the ethnic 'Ellis Island' descendants, it is because all too often they tend to be open-borders sentimentalists who identify with immigrants more than Americans. and in many instances they hold grudges towards old-stock Americans (which as I've said includes more than just English.)
If they are willing to stop accusing America I am willing to accept them as brothers. The animosity does not start with me; my animus toward grudge-bearers is defensive, not offensive.
So, do I, and this blog, have enough influence to 'unite' Americans or White people generally? This is not one of those mega-blogs which gets thousands and thousands of hits, and which wields considerable influence. What I write here is unlikely to 'divide' Americans (who are already quite divided, thank you) nor to unite Americans. I am just one isolated voice, and I don't particularly wish to be anything else. I write what I write for the few; you, the readers, decide if you are one of the few I write for. If my words speak to you, then this blog is for you. If my words antagonize you and irritate you, perhaps you are looking for something I don't provide.
This blog is my individual attempt to cry out against what I see happening to this country, and to my people, and as I seem to have to repeat often, 'my people' are all of you who identify with old America, and who hold dear what I hold dear, all of you who wish to defend the 'land where our fathers died.' I am a partisan of the South. because I feel that it embodies the real, original America best of all, and potentially may represent a resurgent 'America.'
Does that alienate my Northern readers? It should not. Because I prefer the South, having lived in both North and South, that does not mean I have animosity towards those of you from the North. So likewise because I write about the Anglo-American culture and heritage, which is neglected and despised by many people, that does not ''exclude'' those of you who have little commonality with that. I find this idea that particularism is somehow hostility towards others to be a curious, and rather liberal idea. It's the essence of political correctness, actually, this idea that we are to 'include' everybody and water everything down so as not to offend or 'leave anybody out.'
The nature of the world is that people group together in various ways, all of which include some and exclude others. That is also the essence of love: love excludes most, and prefers one, or the few, above the many.
Just because I love my particular heritage does not mean that I hate others' heritage.
I do find it hard to understand why my expression of my particular affinities is considered offensive. by anyone, unless it rubs salt in wounds based on past perceived resentments.
I write this blog partly for myself, because I feel compelled to write what is in my heart. This is one person's blog, not an attempt to speak to the whole world. This world, and even this country, is much too big and too complicated and too divided for me to be able to 'speak to' everyone or appeal to everyone. No doubt I offend some, but I cannot alter my message or my preferences because they 'turn away' some people. I cannot tailor my message to everyone.
Few people speak up for old-stock Anglo-Americans. Yet if this country ever succeeds in re-establishing any kind of unity, it will have to rally around a common heritage, and in old America, that common identity was the Anglo-based one. What else, pray tell, can we rally around? Like it or not, the Founding Fathers were Englishmen. English and male.
If any ethnicity or heritage deserves to be preserved as a cement which holds us together, the Anglo-Saxons heritage is the obvious choice. It served us well for many generations.
However, it looks as though a balkanized America is in the cards, with regions dominated by different peoples, but we will all have to decide to unite or separate. It is up to the other ethnicities, including the 'just Americans,' to decide with whom they will stand.
Labels: American Heritage, Anglo-Americans, Anglo-Saxon Heritage, Balkanization, Divisiveness, Ethnic Division, Ethnic Identity, Ethnic Solidarity, Regional Differences, Secession, South
0 comment Wednesday, June 25, 2014 | admin
Blogger AndyK has another interesting post, relating to the theme on which he has been posting: the possible future breakup of the U.S.A. He presents a story by William S. Lind which was published back in 1995. It's a piece of what I suppose would be speculative fiction about a possible future for the U.S., based on current trends. It's called Militant Musings -- Looking back from the year 2050.
It tells of a breakup of the USA into several smaller countries, with a restoration of traditional conservative values, and is rather graphic at times. It's long but worth the time to read.''
It is worth reading; it's fascinating to see how well the writer foresaw some of the present trends, even from the vantage point of 1995. Anyway I recommend going over to AndyK's blog and reading it. It really is a fairly quick read.
Here's a little excerpt:
You see, some time around the middle of the 18th century we men of the West struck Faust�s bargain with the Devil. We could do anything, say anything, think anything with one exception: Verweile doch, du bist so schoen (Stay, you are so beautiful). We could not rest; we could not get it right and then keep it that way. Always we must have novelty � that was the bargain.
It�s funny how clearly the American century is marked: 1865 to 1965. The first Civil War made us one nation. After 1965 and another war, we disunited � deconstructed � with equal speed into blacks, whites, Hispanics, womyn, gays, victims, oppressors, left-handed albinos, you name it. In three decades we covered the distance that had taken Rome three centuries. As recently as the early 1960s � God, it�s hard to believe � America was still the greatest nation on earth, the most powerful, the most productive, the freest, a place of safe homes, dutiful children in good schools, strong families and a hot lunch for orphans. By the 1990s the place had the stench of a Third World country. The cities were ravaged by punks, beggars and bums. Laws applied only to the law-abiding. Schools had become daytime holding pens for illiterate young savages. Television brought the decadence of Weimar Berlin into every home.
Didn�t anyone realize that when the culture goes it takes everything else with it? Of course, some people knew. But going back to a culture that worked, to traditional, Western, Judeo-Christian culture, meant breaking the Faustian bargain.
Read the entire thing at the link. I like how the story offers some rays of hope. Things may seem to be falling apart, but who knows whether something better might ultimately come of it?
It tells of a breakup of the USA into several smaller countries, with a restoration of traditional conservative values, and is rather graphic at times. It's long but worth the time to read.''
It is worth reading; it's fascinating to see how well the writer foresaw some of the present trends, even from the vantage point of 1995. Anyway I recommend going over to AndyK's blog and reading it. It really is a fairly quick read.
Here's a little excerpt:
You see, some time around the middle of the 18th century we men of the West struck Faust�s bargain with the Devil. We could do anything, say anything, think anything with one exception: Verweile doch, du bist so schoen (Stay, you are so beautiful). We could not rest; we could not get it right and then keep it that way. Always we must have novelty � that was the bargain.
It�s funny how clearly the American century is marked: 1865 to 1965. The first Civil War made us one nation. After 1965 and another war, we disunited � deconstructed � with equal speed into blacks, whites, Hispanics, womyn, gays, victims, oppressors, left-handed albinos, you name it. In three decades we covered the distance that had taken Rome three centuries. As recently as the early 1960s � God, it�s hard to believe � America was still the greatest nation on earth, the most powerful, the most productive, the freest, a place of safe homes, dutiful children in good schools, strong families and a hot lunch for orphans. By the 1990s the place had the stench of a Third World country. The cities were ravaged by punks, beggars and bums. Laws applied only to the law-abiding. Schools had become daytime holding pens for illiterate young savages. Television brought the decadence of Weimar Berlin into every home.
Didn�t anyone realize that when the culture goes it takes everything else with it? Of course, some people knew. But going back to a culture that worked, to traditional, Western, Judeo-Christian culture, meant breaking the Faustian bargain.
Read the entire thing at the link. I like how the story offers some rays of hope. Things may seem to be falling apart, but who knows whether something better might ultimately come of it?
Labels: Future, Secession, Social Divisions, Societal Decay, Speculative Fiction
0 comment Friday, May 9, 2014 | admin
It's been interesting, watching the response to Holder's 'nation of cowards' remarks over the last several days. Responses are still appearing on various blogs and webzines.
Disappointingly, but predictably, some Republicans and 'conservatives' are going the route of protesting that they have seen the light and 'moved beyond race', and now if only the liberals would let blacks do the same, we could all get along. Or there are the responses which essentially concede the blacks' grievances, and issue mea culpas about how we were a terribly 'racist' country but we are all better now; we've learned our lesson. We've repented and paid our debt to society, so give us some credit.
Those kinds of weak and defensive responses are useless, and worse than useless, because they are simply playing along with the politically correct games. They just keep us caught in this endless loop of grievances and demands for apologies, and then apologies and supplications for mercy from our side. Somebody has to break the cycle; if only someone of national stature would do just that, publicly, and repudiate the whole thing. If only we could see a chain reaction of individuals who finally see through the PC conditioning, and resolve to break it and refuse to play the game anymore. Yet many people are looking for a leader to set the example and give 'permission' as it were.
Another discussion that is interesting, though exasperating at times to watch, is the discussion about secession which has been going on this thread at AmRen as well as in a number of other places where the 'state sovereignty' movement is being talked about.
I just want to get one nitpick out of the way first: I wish some of those discussing the topic would learn that the word is SEcession not SUCcession, as so many people seem to be spelling it everywhere, including the AmRen thread. What is it with this confusion? The words don't even sound alike, unless one mispronounces 'secession' as 'suh-cession' as some are wont to do.
End of rant.
But apart from that, the most exasperating thing for me in reading those discussions is the ubiquitous naysayers. You know what I mean: the ones who say 'Secession (or succession, as the case may be) is a fantasy. It's impossible. You're dreaming. Never happen, in a million years. Impossible.''
All I can say is, it's a good thing that attitude didn't prevail back in 1776.
And I am baffled by the people who think that secession is somehow 'illegal' or immoral or shocking or radical (which it may be) or disloyal or un-American or just plain evil. Do they not know that our country came into being by means of secession? If it is wrong now, it was wrong in 1776.
And there are always those who, having been taught the orthodox pro-Northern view of the War Between the States, believe that the South was treasonous and criminal to have seceded from the Sacrosanct Union. There is not much chance of persuading these people otherwise.
It may well be that the naysayers and the doomsayers are right, but I take issue with their dogmatic attitude, and the underlying assumption that they have some kind of crystal ball which gives them perfect knowledge of the future, or some kind of superior knowledge of what is and isn't possible. There are just so many variables and unknowns in our present situation; there are many possible paths that may unfold. Who would have guessed, say, five years ago, that we would be exactly where we are now? Who could have guessed ten years ago that things would be as they are today? We've all seen some staggering changes in our country and in the West generally. You'd think the unexpected twists and turns we've seen over the last decade, or even the last few years, would humble most of us and make us realize that we are in uncharted territory, and that none of us can anticipate exactly what the future holds. We can extrapolate or make educated guesses, but there are a great many unknown factors and variables. So I think those who make categorical statements about what CANNOT happen are on shaky ground, and should not be taken seriously.
And more than that, I think those who make these sweeping pronouncements about how certain futures are 'impossible', or who tell us our fate is sealed, are harming our prospects of working any kind of change for the better. They may not succeed in discouraging people -- if that is their aim in making their gloomy announcements, but they tend to dampen enthusiasm and contribute to the attitude of resignation and passivity which some are prone to these days. So I think these naysayers should be tuned out.
Those who counsel caution and realism are not in the same category as the ''we're doomed, nothing can ever change for the better'' crowd, however.
I think that there are a number of scenarios which might open up a number of unforeseen possibilities.
Many of the naysayers seem to take an 'all or nothing' attitude: either we regain the whole country, or nothing. And since the former seems unattainable, it seems we are doomed. Some like to focus on the problems, which they proceed to tell us are insurmountable. I wonder if our forefathers had to deal with so many people like this in their generation, when they founded this country?
My favorite excuse given by the naysayers is that ''the feds would never let anybody secede.'' This whole mindset is so passive and fatalistic that I am inclined to call it truly un-American. It's just alien to our way of thinking, the idea that we are helpless pawns who can only do what others 'let us' do, rather than what we have the natural right to do.
Our founding forefathers spelled out for us why we have a right to separate ourselves from a government which is destructive of our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.''
The Declaration of Independence alone tells us all that we need to know about whether or not we have a 'right' to separate from any given government. And it seems to be becoming clear that our existing system is not responsive to our collective will, and that it is beyond repair or reform, and impervious to our concerns.
Some of us still think we can tweak our existing system a little, or elect better people; good luck with that hope. Sadly, I think it is a vain hope, as we will likely see over the next few months and years. However I am open to being proven wrong.
If our system could be once more restored to what it was meant to be, a legitimate government based on the 'consent of the governed' and responsive to the will of the people, then I would be happy to stay with the system our forefathers designed for us. But I see little hope of that; the existing evils are becoming entrenched and are expanding.
And as our Founding Fathers said more than once, the system they designed was made for a particular people and a particular time and place. It was meant for a 'moral and religious people', for an educated electorate, and for a people with a common faith, ancestry, and way of life. It cannot be expected to function in a multicultural bedlam, divided every which way.
This brings up an obvious problem which is illustrated by the discussion on the AmRen thread: there is much dissension even among those who are supposedly all pro-White: you have the unbelievers who don't care for Christians, the regional disagreements, the 'culture is more important than kinship' people, the pro-secession people vs. those who think secession is 'surrender.' How do we deal with all these sharp differences?
All I can really say at this point is that it's necessary to keep options open, and 'never say never', because things can change quickly, just as they have been changing over these recent months and years. I simply think we can expect more surprises, for which we must be flexible and prepared to adapt.
Disappointingly, but predictably, some Republicans and 'conservatives' are going the route of protesting that they have seen the light and 'moved beyond race', and now if only the liberals would let blacks do the same, we could all get along. Or there are the responses which essentially concede the blacks' grievances, and issue mea culpas about how we were a terribly 'racist' country but we are all better now; we've learned our lesson. We've repented and paid our debt to society, so give us some credit.
Those kinds of weak and defensive responses are useless, and worse than useless, because they are simply playing along with the politically correct games. They just keep us caught in this endless loop of grievances and demands for apologies, and then apologies and supplications for mercy from our side. Somebody has to break the cycle; if only someone of national stature would do just that, publicly, and repudiate the whole thing. If only we could see a chain reaction of individuals who finally see through the PC conditioning, and resolve to break it and refuse to play the game anymore. Yet many people are looking for a leader to set the example and give 'permission' as it were.
Another discussion that is interesting, though exasperating at times to watch, is the discussion about secession which has been going on this thread at AmRen as well as in a number of other places where the 'state sovereignty' movement is being talked about.
I just want to get one nitpick out of the way first: I wish some of those discussing the topic would learn that the word is SEcession not SUCcession, as so many people seem to be spelling it everywhere, including the AmRen thread. What is it with this confusion? The words don't even sound alike, unless one mispronounces 'secession' as 'suh-cession' as some are wont to do.
End of rant.
But apart from that, the most exasperating thing for me in reading those discussions is the ubiquitous naysayers. You know what I mean: the ones who say 'Secession (or succession, as the case may be) is a fantasy. It's impossible. You're dreaming. Never happen, in a million years. Impossible.''
All I can say is, it's a good thing that attitude didn't prevail back in 1776.
And I am baffled by the people who think that secession is somehow 'illegal' or immoral or shocking or radical (which it may be) or disloyal or un-American or just plain evil. Do they not know that our country came into being by means of secession? If it is wrong now, it was wrong in 1776.
And there are always those who, having been taught the orthodox pro-Northern view of the War Between the States, believe that the South was treasonous and criminal to have seceded from the Sacrosanct Union. There is not much chance of persuading these people otherwise.
It may well be that the naysayers and the doomsayers are right, but I take issue with their dogmatic attitude, and the underlying assumption that they have some kind of crystal ball which gives them perfect knowledge of the future, or some kind of superior knowledge of what is and isn't possible. There are just so many variables and unknowns in our present situation; there are many possible paths that may unfold. Who would have guessed, say, five years ago, that we would be exactly where we are now? Who could have guessed ten years ago that things would be as they are today? We've all seen some staggering changes in our country and in the West generally. You'd think the unexpected twists and turns we've seen over the last decade, or even the last few years, would humble most of us and make us realize that we are in uncharted territory, and that none of us can anticipate exactly what the future holds. We can extrapolate or make educated guesses, but there are a great many unknown factors and variables. So I think those who make categorical statements about what CANNOT happen are on shaky ground, and should not be taken seriously.
And more than that, I think those who make these sweeping pronouncements about how certain futures are 'impossible', or who tell us our fate is sealed, are harming our prospects of working any kind of change for the better. They may not succeed in discouraging people -- if that is their aim in making their gloomy announcements, but they tend to dampen enthusiasm and contribute to the attitude of resignation and passivity which some are prone to these days. So I think these naysayers should be tuned out.
Those who counsel caution and realism are not in the same category as the ''we're doomed, nothing can ever change for the better'' crowd, however.
I think that there are a number of scenarios which might open up a number of unforeseen possibilities.
Many of the naysayers seem to take an 'all or nothing' attitude: either we regain the whole country, or nothing. And since the former seems unattainable, it seems we are doomed. Some like to focus on the problems, which they proceed to tell us are insurmountable. I wonder if our forefathers had to deal with so many people like this in their generation, when they founded this country?
My favorite excuse given by the naysayers is that ''the feds would never let anybody secede.'' This whole mindset is so passive and fatalistic that I am inclined to call it truly un-American. It's just alien to our way of thinking, the idea that we are helpless pawns who can only do what others 'let us' do, rather than what we have the natural right to do.
Our founding forefathers spelled out for us why we have a right to separate ourselves from a government which is destructive of our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.''
The Declaration of Independence alone tells us all that we need to know about whether or not we have a 'right' to separate from any given government. And it seems to be becoming clear that our existing system is not responsive to our collective will, and that it is beyond repair or reform, and impervious to our concerns.
Some of us still think we can tweak our existing system a little, or elect better people; good luck with that hope. Sadly, I think it is a vain hope, as we will likely see over the next few months and years. However I am open to being proven wrong.
If our system could be once more restored to what it was meant to be, a legitimate government based on the 'consent of the governed' and responsive to the will of the people, then I would be happy to stay with the system our forefathers designed for us. But I see little hope of that; the existing evils are becoming entrenched and are expanding.
And as our Founding Fathers said more than once, the system they designed was made for a particular people and a particular time and place. It was meant for a 'moral and religious people', for an educated electorate, and for a people with a common faith, ancestry, and way of life. It cannot be expected to function in a multicultural bedlam, divided every which way.
This brings up an obvious problem which is illustrated by the discussion on the AmRen thread: there is much dissension even among those who are supposedly all pro-White: you have the unbelievers who don't care for Christians, the regional disagreements, the 'culture is more important than kinship' people, the pro-secession people vs. those who think secession is 'surrender.' How do we deal with all these sharp differences?
All I can really say at this point is that it's necessary to keep options open, and 'never say never', because things can change quickly, just as they have been changing over these recent months and years. I simply think we can expect more surprises, for which we must be flexible and prepared to adapt.
Labels: Ethnonationalism, Secession, State Sovereignty, Tenth Amendment