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 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