Category Archives: Sovereignty and Secession

Walk Back Down…

The Bureau of Land Management has walked backed their escalation of the standoff in Nevada, siting safety of their employees.

To finish the theater, “libertarians” in Congress must be activated to introduce a bill to do away with the BLM, and I recommend as part of the bill, cutting pensions in half (I am a centrist, after all) on the spot for all employees of this entity.

I’ll leave it to the militia sorts who did the street theater in full regalia to crowd source for names and addresses of the employees who used tasers, rustled cattle or held a sniper rifle.

A Microstate Can Survive

It was asked: Would a microstate require nukes to be sovereign?

Probably not. Here’s why:

A microstate would aim to fill itself with highly skilled, productive workers who would provide useful services within the international economy. Other segments of the international economy would not want to be severed from a useful partner.

If economic integration isn’t enough, pay tribute. The hard working segment within the American empire today is already paying tribute. The US redistributes money heavily. Part of the appeal of a microstate is the opportunity to separate from those who refuse to work.

If direct tribute to the aggressive polity fails, then bribing leaders within the aggressive polity might succeed.

Up to this point, it has been assumed the microstate is wealthy. An option however is for a microstate to be strong but poor, an attempt at a 21st century Sparta. (Unlike Athens, Sparta guarded against greed within the polity.) Such a neo-Sparta could defend itself, as Switzerland can today; but it would lack the desirable assets that entice aggressive polities into attacking. The cost of attacking neo-Sparta, even if it lacks MAD, should outweigh the gain.

If all else fails, surrender and rejoin the empire, Live to fight another day. It might be possible for a small group to survive, and even to thrive, for a long period within an empire.

The right-wing blogosphere is full of conspiracy theories of rich bankers, the mass media, and international businessmen. If these are some of the great powers of our time, why can’t we strive to use such financial power ourselves? Or if wealth only invites robbery, then spurn the wealth; embrace Spartan virtues!

A negative of nukes is the same as their positive: fear. No one fears Vermont secessionists, because no one, including themselves, believes they’d aspire to obtain, or to even keep preexisting, nukes.

Secession should have a better chance of success if it’s built upon an ideology of disarmament. I use the word “ideology”, because like all ideologies global disarmament is absurd (MAD is part of what prevents war between Russia and the US right now). But a secessionist shouldn’t want nukes for his own polity, and the best justification for such a rejection is an ideology of global disarmament. The weak shouldn’t seek such power, and in a tech race to preserve a MAD balance of power, a small polity will likely lose anyway. So MAD might only be temporary.

It might be said that the wise reject WMD, even when strong enough to pursue them, preferring to instead bend at the whim of each latest temporary superpower as each rises and self-destructs. The microstate bows; but it also survives, outlives the leviathans.

The Week in Street Theater

Nevada rancher, Clive Bundy, 67 years old/14 children, is the last rancher in his county. He’s had an on-going feud with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management over grazing rights that recently led to his cattle being called trespassers and commenced a round-up.  (Atrocity stories quickly followed.)

“What’s happened the last two weeks, the United States government, the bureaus are getting this army together and they’re going to get their job done and they’re going to prove two things. They’re going to prove they can do it, and they’re gonna prove that they have unlimited power, and that they control the policing power over this public land. That’s what they’re trying to prove.”Clive Bundy

Federal agents (snipers included) have cut off roads to the ranch.

Facebook postings from the rancher and his family show a call for help to local law enforcement (useless), “militias,” and Oath Keepers amongst other such groupings—and they have arrived.

With Environmentalists supporting the government’s efforts to protect a desert turtle, a new propaganda front was provided—the Fed is protecting fracking rights—sure enough, to monkey wrench “Leftwing” reflex.

Ed Abbey approves.

Just takes one Lon Horiuchi or one Andre Strassmeir to turn the events ugly.  Stay tuned…

Russia Today Heralds Microstates as “More Nimble”

From RT:

In the old days everybody wanted an empire. Nowadays, nations leading in best practice are tiny: Estonia, Iceland or Dubai for instance.

The digital age favors nimble nation states, generating growth through bottom up entrepreneurial endeavors, as opposed to old discredited nation states bestowing support inefficiently while promoting that old big state oxymoron: centralized innovation. While multinationals (corporate and political alike) seek to control the future, citizens are increasingly ignoring the memo.

Digital states are best when small and nimble: the world’s wealthiest nations are increasingly at the smaller end of the scale. Singapore transformed from predominantly swampland to a dazzling technopolis in a generation thanks to enabling upward mobility, enshrining property rights, access to education and work while rewarding entrepreneurship. Monaco melds strong welfare with zero income tax.

Ultimately, the supranational ethos of ‘big’ whether government or corporate, is undermined by the power of the smaller state to exploit the ability to be digital, flexible and prosperous. That is good for citizens and great for empowering both individuals and the community to shape their prosperous destiny.

And yes, this sounds a little hypocritical coming from the Russian Federation, but who cares?! Great stuff.

Students for Liberty vs. Ron Paul on Crimea

In case you haven’t been following this, there has been a bit of a dust up in non-interventionist circles. Students for Liberty President Alexander McCobin publically criticized Ron Paul over his statements on the Crimean situatuion. Since then, it has been time, as they say, to “get the popcorn.” I’m working on a longer response to this. As you probably guess, I side with Ron Paul. But I figured I need to cover this situation so here is a list of links.

Here is the original McCorbin post that got it all started.

Here is the original, as far as I can tell, reaction from BuzzFeed.

The (anti-Paul) Washington Free Beacon quickly picked up the story.

Reason chimes in.

Ron Paul’s Institute responds. (Perhaps too harshly?)

McCorbin replies.

Dave Weigel of Slate opines. (Weigel is interesting in cases like these. Weigel currently has anti-paleo biases, but because he once traveled in our circles before going a different dirrection, he gets the subtext better than most.)

Justin Raimondo is his typical firey self at Anti-War.com.

John Glaser says not so fast.

Raimondo steps on the gas.

Anthont Gregory calls for a truce.

Robert Wenzel sides with Ron Paul at LewRockwell.com

Whew! See what I mean about getting the popcorn?

The right to secede

As the Tom Toles cartoon above illustrates, secession in Crimea, like secession in Scotland or Catalonia, is not an academic issue. Nor is it a trend that only affects people “over there.” In fact, all the overgrown political units bound together by brute force in the 19th and 20th centuries are now confronting populations demanding more autonomy, if not outright secession, from their former conquerors.

Writing in The New York Daily News, Dr. Robert Barro of Harvard notes this rising tide as a natural and benevolent development. The ruling elites of the world make a great deal of noise about their commitment to all sorts of human rights, but somehow overlook the one basic right from which all others flow, and that is the right of self-determination:

The potential switch of Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine to Russia raises the more general issue of the right of secession. Many individual freedoms — for example, of speech, the press and religion — are viewed as central elements of liberal constitutions, but the right to secede is seldom viewed this way. …

If I were able to design a constitution from scratch, I’m sure I would include provisions for peaceful secession. The procedure would have to define the underlying sub-regions, such as U.S. states, designate a voting mechanism for residents of a potentially departing region, and might require a super-majority, such as 75%, of the voters. This structure would provide a useful check on central authority, make country borders align better with underlying population characteristics and minimize conflict.

Barro makes clear that secession is not motivated by some irrational hatred of “others,” as nervous apologists for the old order, such as the online snitches at the Southern Poverty Law Center, would have you believe. Secession is instead “the process of generating the optimal sizes and compositions of countries.” Behind that process, says Barro, is “the desire to have a reasonably homogeneous population within its borders.” Without cultural unity, conflict is inevitable. As conflict between sparring ethnic groups rises, social cohesion and liberties can only degrade, as both history and objective scholarship have proven. The old model of a multicultural population kept in check by an authoritarian government is no longer sustainable.

The dustbin of history has a space reserved for that imperial model.

Crimea Votes to Secede and Join Russia … America and Europe Call it Illegal

The Crimean vote is illegal … but the coup against the duly elected* President in Kiev was legal?

Fireworks exploded and Russian flags fluttered above jubilant crowds Sunday after residents in Crimea voted overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. The United States and Europe condemned the ballot as illegal and destabilizing and were expected to slap sanctions on Russia for it.

*As duly elected as any person in that region can be given rampant corruption and outside meddling.

Hmmm … maybe I was on  to something when I pointed out neocon hypocrisy on this issue here.

The international hypocrite

Vox Day cites that notoriously “neo-Confederate” propaganda mill known as the New York Times on the explosive issue of secession in Crimea. The editorial writers at the Times are having a little difficulty making sense of Obama’s opposition to a popular referendum on Crimea seceding from Ukraine:

Consider the different American views of recent bids for independence.

Chechnya? No.

East Timor? Yes.

Abkhazia? No.

South Sudan? Yes.

Palestine? It’s complicated.

It is an acutely delicate subject in the West, where Britain wants to keep Scotland and Spain wants to keep Catalonia.

To which Vox Day adds:

And the USA murdered hundreds of thousands in order to forcibly “keep the Union together” and deny the sovereign Southern States their right to self-determination. This has not escaped the attention of the world’s second-rate powers, some of whom have indicated support for the Russian position.

What the ruling elite can’t grasp is that the peoples of the world do not share their globalist vision. Crimea has a majority Russian population that does not want to be part of Ukraine. This is just one more problem caused by the anti-human policies of the old Soviet Union. And it wasn’t just the Reds who violated natural borders; the West is largely to blame for the unnatural and unsustainable political lines drawn in Africa during colonial times. As the folks in Sudan recently made clear, those borders are being redefined by history and culture.

The lessons of this worldwide trend apply here, too. As our rulers in DC import a more docile population from the Third World, the actual result is not a flowering of diversity but a loss of identification and loyalty to the old American nation. Already, secession is gaining steam in America, and ethnic and racial divisions are openly recognized as the reason. No people anywhere in the world wants to be governed by others – self-determination is just another term for secession. So as DC continues to reconstruct the old America, look for REAL secession movements to arise here at home.

Tom Woods Calls Out Mark Levin

Mark Levin has been ranting against nullification on his radio program recently. I don’t listen to Levin, but my understanding is that this has been prompted by the attempts of several states to nullify ObamaCare. I don’t know if Levin addresses this directly or not, but I also highly suspect that he is upset with the nullification crowd because a lot of the same people and groups are warning against his Constitutional Convention proposal. (That debate deserves another thread.) Now Tom Woods, one of the people Levin has called names, has challenged Levin to a debate:

This is strong stuff, although I wish Woods had left out the money component. The money gives Levin an excuse to weasel out, not that I think he would have accepted the challenge anyway.

FYI, this is not the first time Woods and Levin have tangled. See here and here.

Mike Church not Happy with Jack Hunter Either

Here is a tweet from Mike Church, a Constitutionalist radio host on Sirius/XM. (I don’t know how to post one of those pictures of a tweet, so this is just cut and pasted.)

Mike Church?@TheKingDude 26 Nov
The subjugation of @jackhunter74 aka The Southern Avenger is complete after Politico apologia & now http://www.southernavenger.com is shuttered

This is enlightening. I knew Mike Church was a strict Constitutionalist and advocated nullification and secession, but I didn’t know that he resists PC. This is good to know.

VDARE Column on Jack Hunter’s Politico Apology

Here is a column by Alexander Hart on Jack Hunter’s recent Politico apology. Unfortunately, most of it is behind a paywall, but based on what you can view for free, he doesn’t think much of Jack’s attempt to re-enter polite mainstream con company. If anyone here is a premium member of VDARE, let us know the details.

Update: An old friend sent me the whole article. The article links to this PC movie review that Jack did prior to the Politico mea culpa.

My Thoughts on Jack Hunter’s Mea Culpa at Politico

Let me begin by saying that I have always liked Jack Hunter. I have only met Jack once at a Ron Paul event in Georgia, but I consider him a virtual friend. He is my Facebook friend. I was always especially fond of Jack because in addition to us both being Southern paleocons, we also shared a love of professional wrestling, especially of Ric Flair and the old NWA/Georgia Championship Wrestling on TBS era. We also shared a fondness for old school action movies.  Jack, while a few years younger than me, reminded me a lot of myself. He was an intelligent guy who talked about Kirk, defended the South and seemed to really get it politically, but also couldn’t get beyond his Southern, blue collar tastes. The combination of someone who could talk intelligently about Kirk and Weaver one minute and then be a geeked out fanboy of Ric Flair and Sylvester Stallone the next was rare. Most people who can do either, can only do one or the other. Very few can do both. Hence I always felt a kinship and familiarity with Jack that exceeded our actual familiarity. While I don’t know if Jack felt the same way, I know he knew who I was and that he was familiar with this website.

I have been aware of Jack’s Southern Avenger persona since well before he revealed his identity. In fact, I recall going on an internet snooping session at one point to see if I could figure out who he really was. (To no avail.) The reason I was curious to figure out his true identity is because he seemed so well versed in paleospeak that I figured he might be someone I was (virtually) familiar with. We frequently posted his videos on this site. Contrary to Jack’s protests that he was young and naive, part of the reason that I liked his commentaries so much was because he was very articulate and often threw in references to Kirk and others that seemed intended to established his paleo bona fides. They struck me as winks of a sort. His way of saying “I’m one of you” without wearing it on his sleeve.

So it was with dread that I read his “Confessions of s Right-Wing Shock Jock” which appeared yesterday at Politico. I knew before reading it that he was going to prostrate himself before the gods of political correctness begging forgiveness and seeking to be accepted back into polite company, and he did, as I expected, just that. No worse than what I expected but no better.

I don’t now dislike Jack. I’m not going to disown him. I’m not going to call him names. I’m not going to un-friend him. In fact, when this “scandal” first broke, I counseled others against attacking Jack personally. Since I do consider Jack a virtual friend, to now attack him would be disloyal. It’s also unhelpful. I will say that I’m disappointed that this is the way Jack has responded to the “revelations,” which as someone noted (David Weigel maybe?) when this first broke, had always been hiding in plain sight.

When this came out, Jack had two options. He could do what he did and is doing which is backtrack and denounce his past. Or he could defend what he said vigorously. As I pointed out at the time, nothing he said, taken alone, was all that scandalous. Everything he said was common amoung paleos and in many cases mainstream conservatives. He could have appologized for some of the way he put things – suggesting that Lincoln and Hitler would have been best of friends is a bit provocative – without apologizing for the substance. He could have said he had become more libertarian over time, without casting aspersions on his old belief systems. His backtracking didn’t save his job them, and I’m not sure it will get him back into polite company now. What I do know is that he has hurt the cause he once (maybe still?) supports by accepting the framing of the enemy that what he said was scandalous. It was not. What the system needs is not another generic libertarian. What the system needs is smart articulate people like Jack who aren’t afraid to defend authentic conservatism against the PC mobs whether they be liberal “anti-racists” or Lincoln idolizing neocon thought policers.

I don’t doubt that Jack over time has become more libertarian. The simplicity and reductionism of libertarianism is seductive and has a way of drawing in people who are around it. And while I never got the impresion that Jack was hostile to religion, I did sense that he wasn’t personally very religious, so the slide into libertarianism was likely easier for him than it is for religious socons. Also, I don’t doubt that Jack has become over time more politically pragmatic. Playing the political game tends to do that to people. I had noticed this myself as Jack became somewhat of the designated spokesman for the Ron Paul campaign against conspiracy theorists and no-compromise libertarians. Now whether this was a job Jack was asked to do because it was felt he had credibly with the proponents of these issues or if this was a cause he took upon himself, I don’t know. It is possible that realizing his own past put him in jeopardy, Jack was trying to establish his reasonable bona fides, but this is just speculation.

That conceded, his handling of the racial and Southern issues in the article struck me as completely craven. Jack sort of walks back his support of secession as a principle for example. The passage where he addresses it is confusing. Jack is a good writer and there was no need for the passage to be confusing. I think the passage reflects his own ambivalence.  I suspect he felt he needed to say something that he didn’t really want to say. Jack is schooled enough in Southern conservatism and Rockwell style libertarianism to know that secession is on firm intellectual and historical grounds.

His framing of racial and immigration issues as largely matters of sensitivity was pretty pathetic. As I pointed out at the time, the shock quote that was trotted out in the original hit pieces that was supposed to be so damning regarding race, wasn’t shocking unless you’re a lefty PC hysteric or an easily PC intimidated cowardly conservative. It wasn’t pro-white racialism. It was a standard color-blind conservative denunciation of the racial double standard. Jack’s yammering on and on about the need for conservative sensitivity on racial issues per se and Southern issues in general is profoundly harmful because it gives aid and comfort to the enemy. It accepts their framing of the debate. When a PC hysteric points and sputters because you denounced Cultural Marxist double standards, the way to respond is not, “Oh I’m so sorry. I’ll be more sensitive next time.” The way to respond is “You’re darn right I decried the Cultural Marxist racial double standard! What kind of conservative would I be if I didn’t? Do you defend it?”

My hunch is that Jack doesn’t believe his own crap here, and is just throwing himself on the mercy of the PC rightthink guardians. While he may believe that more care when discussing racial issues is prudent, in the same way he now embraces more pragmatic politics, I don’t think he really accepts that conservatives should abide by PC strictures with regard to language and policy lest they be guilty of wrongthink. Likewise I don’t think he really believes that defense of the South, secession, states rights etc. automatically means one is guilty of thoughtcrime. He’s too smart for that and too much a product of the roots that gave rise to the Southern Avenger.

So I am disappointed that Jack has chosen this route. I wish he had chosen the honorable route that Jason Richwine chose which was to vigorously defend himself because he knew he hadn’t done anything wrong. If Jack wants to remain a libertarian and a politcal pragmatist, I’m fine with that. I think that transformation is genuine. But accepting the framing of left-wing PC obsessives and neocon hit men is not OK. Hopefully Jack’s conscience and pride (the good kind) will set him back on the right path and one day he’ll write a mea culpa for his mea culpa. Maybe Jason Richwine can give him a call.

To Support His Position Michael Cushman Quotes … George W. Bush?

I can’t make this stuff up. Michael Cushman, to prove that America is a proposition nation, quotes George W. Bush.

Since everyone won’t be able to see the link here is the George W. quote he is using. It is from Bush’s 1st inaugural address.

America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests, and teach us what it means to be citizens.

It really don’t know what Cushman is trying to prove. Does he really think citing George W. Bush helps his case?

Michael Cushman Has Engaged Me and CHT at Southern Nationalist Network

For those who don’t follow these matters, there has been an ongoing feud between what I am calling the “New Direction Caucus” in the League of the South and some of us who have been alarmed by some things about this New Direction. I have been planning to address the issue here, but haven’t had the time recently, but I now see that Michael Cushman, who is the clear leader of this New Direction Caucus, has engaged me by name at his website. This is a good thing. These issues need to be debated openly. I will work on a reply. For now I will let the Cushman’s article stand on its own. Please read the article, read my comments, and then read the entire comment section of the post where my comments were taken from to understand the argument.

I don’t want to go into a lot of details about what the debate is about, since I plan a separate post (several really) on the issue, but briefly at issue is whether the US was conceived as a deliberate Enlightenment egalitarian experiment from its inception. I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but I think it is fair to say that Cushman believes it was. I say it wasn’t. (There is more to the problem with the New Direction Caucus than just this. There are a suite of interrelated issues and attitudes, but more on that later.)

I think my position stands on its own if you read the comment section. I don’t have any issue with the way Cushman characterizes my position. In fact, oddly, he doesn’t really attempt to counter my position. He doesn’t attempt to demonstrate that my history is faulty and his is accurate. He simply states his alternative. He seems to be primarily motivated by the fact that he believes that his conceptualization is more useful, not more accurate. He calls it a position of strength. But it’s not a position of strength if it’s wrong.

Please read the links and then give me your thoughts.

Is Red State America Seceding?

Leave it to Pat Buchanan to talk about trends the ruling elite wants us to pretend not to notice. But at some point, even they will have to wake up and smell the reality:

The spirit of secession, the desire of peoples to sever ties to nations to which they have belonged for generations, sometimes for centuries, and to seek out their own kind, is a spreading phenomenon.

Scotland is moving toward a referendum on independence from England, three centuries after the Acts of Union. Catalonia pushes to be free of Madrid. Milanese and Venetians see themselves as a European people apart from Sicilians, Neapolitans and Romans.

Dutch-speaking Flanders wants to cut loose of French-speaking Wallonia in Belgium. Francophone Quebec, with immigrants from Asia and the Third World tilting the balance in favor of union, appears to have lost its historic moment to secede from Canada.

What are the forces pulling nations apart? Ethnicity, culture, history and language — but now also economics. And separatist and secessionist movements are cropping up here in the United States.

The billionaire globalist elites and hate-filled leftists want to dissolve society and transform mankind into a mass of detached, alienated individuals mindful of nothing but short-term economic interests. Alone and lost, people can then be regimented for maximum exploitation, both economically and politically. In other words, lurking behind all the flowery rhetoric about equality is the lust for money and power.

But stubborn human nature resists their plans. We’re social beings, and must have the connections to the cultures we came from. Look for more secessionist movements as a powerful counter to the doomed schemes of our self-proclaimed superiors.

And know hope.

What Would Lincoln Do?

This American Spectator review of Rich Lowry’s recent on Lincoln starts by saying:

Rich Lowry answers the question all Republicans should be asking: What would Lincoln do today?

Yeah Rich and the rest of the Lincoln syncophants, what would Lincoln do today? He would send troops to arrest his political opponents like Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center which advocates nullification, and Tom Woods who wrote a book about nullification, and the League of the South secessionists who will be protesting immigration in Tennessee next month, and all those Red State residents who signed secession petitions after Obama was re-elected, etc.

Check out the comments. I love how you can no longer write pro-Lincoln propaganda on conservative websites any longer without getting called out. Unless the “conservative” site tightly supresses dissent. We are making progress.