Well, here we go again.
Once again, a pol runs on the ticket of "change", yet nothing changes. Not for the better anyway.
Obama is trying to fire up more bush wars and ramp up the attacks/occupations of a bunch of little places in the middle east that are simply not capable of being a threat to the American public in any meaningful way.
Meanwhile, at home, his "change" consists of nationalizing a large segment of the automotive industry, already held captive by a union that rewards sloth and incompetence while deliberately ignoring and suppressing innovation.
As he and his puppet masters continue the plunder, a small but growing number of people are talking state secession.
I consider this a step in the right direction. In fact, it's an issue that I would even be willing to vote on, even knowing that voting is in itself an act of aggression. I can justify it to myself as returning fire. Whether you can or not is up to you. I can't judge another on this issue, as it's a very difficult subject.
I think secession is the answer, of course, but I take it much further than simply one State breaking off from a larger one. Sure, that's a good idea in that it decentralizes and by implication disempowers the Federation, but it still produces yet another state.
And yes, I know that by definition this would actually be a sovereign state reasserting it's sovereignty. But truth and definition often differ, and this is one of those cases. These United States became The United State(s) with the imposition of Imperial rule on or about June 23, 1865. This became 'law' with the passage of the seventeenth amendment in 1913. This amendment "reformed" senatorial elections by absolutely bypassing the State representation that was one of the core tenets of federalism. It states, in an oblique but absolute way, that the State government is NOT to be represented to the Federal government. Which is to say, the States are NOT RELEVANT to the operation or existence of the federation.
Secession would be one good way to let them know that Sovereign State isn't just a catch phrase for a province. And perhaps the newly formed state could be further seceeded from, right down to the man.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Indeed. One could simply view a vote for secession as means to an end, in this case the dissolution of perhaps the most powerful centralized state during the past century, perhaps in history.
From an anarcho-capitalist (or simply "anarchist") perspective this would present a politico-economic situation where controlling it would prove significantly easier. It perhaps may even create a further dissolution into still smaller states. In any event, the smaller the territory and population that a government oversees, the easier it may become to control the excesses associated with this monopolistic institution.
This may even provide an opportunity to display the practicality of anarchism by demonstrating the unworkability and inefficiency of Big Government in some respects.
For those that are unaware, the following excerpt from Murray Rothbard's four volume treatise entitled, "Conceived in Liberty" does show, among other sources, existential precedence for anarchism. As follows:
Pennsylvania's Anarchist Experiment: 1681-1690
http://mises.org/daily/1865
I would agree with secession in principle if I thought it would do any good. I can't help but wondering if a fracturing of the country is what the American elite want for the country.
http://www.savethemales.ca/test.html
The tea party movement has been totally taken over now too with Beck and Palin being a part of it. Palin is a neo con, pro Israel war hawk.
Keep in mind that Rick Perry is trying to allign himself with the patriotic tea party movement, but that he is a Bilerberg attendee who was in the pocket of Gardisill, the poisonous vaccine manufacturer and he tried to make their vaccines mandatory as makow has pointed out. He's a ringer.
I know this may sound defeatist but people must be aware about wolves in sheep's clothing.
- Drew J.
Biomech, nice to see your work again. Always fun to read it.
Drew,
The political class prefers political consolidation to decentralization. It is within the latter that politico-economic liberty is significantly more likely to prosper. If secession were their goal, considering the power to which you attribute them, then not only would this situation already be in existence but it would complete contradict the Machiavellian principles to which the political class adheres.
Hi, Drew!
Where the hell did the mancoat site go?
I can tell you where Biomech.
www.the-niceguy.com/forum
Your old password and name should still work. Pop on by if you have the time. It would blow away the minds of nearly everyone there.
I understand your point Mechanized. But you have to remember that while there are agendas to consolidate land masses into huge blocs such as the European Union and the North American Union, the elite do like to use decentralization at times. At least as a stepping stone. Why do you think Quebec nationalism was promoted to the point where it almost seperated? Roberto O Driscoll of Canada wrote a lot about this plan, and he wounded up dead in 1996 in Ireland of a heart attack after he fled Canada. I am convinced his heart attack was induced with high tech weaponry, as was canadian truthsayer from Quebec Serge Monast.
Why Rockefeller Created Canadian & Quebec Nationalism
http://www.henrymakow.com/jacques_morency.html
The planned destruction of Canada Through the separation of Quebec
http://www.michaeljournal.org/kealey.htm
Shelly Ann Clark is an almost unsung hero in the Canadian truth business. She herself exposed Mel Hurtig as a fraud years ago.
http://www.scoreboard-canada.com/cin-clarkeinterview.htm
It has only come out moreso now unfortunately. It should have come out sooner.
When seperation didn't work in Canada, they had to change their gameplan. They're trying to break up Canada again.
Could Rothschild Lawsuit Divide Canada?
http://www.henrymakow.com/rothschilds_lawsuit_that_could.html
- Drew J
Even if the elites DO want decentralization to some extent (I don't hold that position as impossible), it still benefits the lover of liberty as well... and we have weapons that they can't defeat.
That's never really been true before. The ability to instantly communicate in so many different ways makes a whole lot of the old conspiracies and elitist schemes unworkable. Divide and conquer only works against other states, not small groups of individuals who don't CARE if the power structure crumbles to dust and dies.
They, the elites in all nations, are FAR MORE dependent on these technologies than we are. They CAN'T shut them down, and any attempt to control them is nearly impossible given their wide dissemination and ease of use.
Just because your enemy uses a tactic that you favor doesn't mean you should abandon it. Hell, let 'em do some of the work for us. In the end, it will come down to whether or not people can actually handle liberty. Which I think a fairly large number can, and even if nations become smaller and more insular, that still leaves US room to work.
ideas are hard to kill.
Post a Comment