Category Archives: Secession

Secessionist, Border Realignment Movements Gaining Traction In US, by Alan Stein

The burden of defense should be on those who think a gargantuan country should be run by a small group in Washington D.C., and that a substantial chunk of the GDP plus trillions in debt are necessary to support this monstrosity. What is so wrong about secession and separation when half the country can’t stand the other half? From Alan Stein at The Epoch Times at zerohedge.com:

The American Civil War is often thought of as being the deciding historical factor putting to rest any future ambition of individual or groups of states wanting to secede from the union.

(Angelique Johnson/Pixabay)

Well over a century later, the idea of secession appears far from settled in the minds of millions of Americans—Democrats and Republicans alike.

In fact, secession mindedness has been gaining ground following the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, which showed the nation to be more politically divided than ever.

A newly released poll found that two-thirds (66 percent) of Republicans living in southern states, including Texas and Florida, would approve of seceding from the United States to join a union of southern states.

That number is up from 50 percent from a similar poll conducted earlier this year.

Among southern Democrats, 20 percent are in favor of breaking away and forming a new country, according to the latest poll by YouGov and Bright Line Watch of 2,750 Americans.

For Daniel Miller, president of the Texas Nationalist Movement, founded in 2005, the poll numbers are revealing but not surprising.

Similar polls conducted in the Lone Star State have also shown a willingness among Texans to leave the union and establish their own nation—a Texit, if you will.

“You look at the size of our movement—we are literally the largest political advocacy organization in the state” with over 400,000 members, Miller told The Epoch Times in a phone interview.

At the very core of the state’s secessionist movement is the belief that Texas is “past the breaking point” in terms of dealing with a liberal Washington establishment and its unfavorable policies regarding border control, immigration, culture, and finance, Miller said.

We are being crushed by 180,000 pages of federal laws, rules and regulations every single day. What we want is a basic fundamental right of self-governance. Texans want to be able to create policies that can’t be overridden [by Washington politicians],” Miller said. “That is what this movement is all about.”

Continue reading→

Doug Casey’s Next 5 Shocking Predictions…

In short order the world is going to be dramatically different. Perhaps the biggest question is will it be dramatically freer or dramatically more repressive. From Doug Casey at internationalman.com:

biggest predictions

Editor’s Note: The 2020s are shaping up to be a volatile time on multiple fronts. Globally, the Covid-19 pandemic has ushered in the most extreme government controls in history. Censorship is growing rapidly in the West. Economically, the US government has proven that the US dollar is no better than any other fiat currency, and the geopolitical chess pieces are changing to reflect China’s formidable role in the next decade.

Today, legendary speculator and contrarian thinker Doug Casey shares his biggest predictions for what is coming next and what it means for you, your money, and personal freedom around the world.

International Man: Big Tech’s censorship of alternative voices has been on the rise in the US, Canada, and other places.

What do you think the role of Big Tech companies will be?

Doug Casey: Trends in motion tend to stay in motion until they reach a climax, a crisis, at which point anything can happen.

We’re headed for a gigantic world crisis. My guess is that the long-standing trend towards Big Tech getting bigger and more powerful won’t continue—in other words, Big Tech is in the same position that Big Oil was in 1980. It looked like they were going to take over the world. Oil stocks were over 30% of the S&P 500, but today, they’re under 3%.

Big business in general, and now Big Tech in particular, have always had a very cozy relationship with big government—and big government likes that. The two of them fit together like a hand in glove. Big government funnels contracts to Big Tech, and Big Tech acts as the State’s handmaiden.

It’s part of why the average guy has lost faith in government, corporations, and our institutions. They’re now losing faith in the money as inflation rises. When the stock market crashes, they’re going to lose faith in the financial markets.

Massive societal change is looming. But that doesn’t mean the cultures of either Big Tech companies or the government are going to change. Why? Because throughout society, the elite are overwhelmingly statist and collectivist oriented. They’re quite comfortable and don’t want to rock the boat.

Continue reading→

The Second Amendment’s Right to Bear Arms: What It Means, by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead

Without the Second Amendment, none of the other amendments mean spit. From John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead at rutherford.org:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”—The Second Amendment to the US Constitution

You can largely determine where a person will fall in the debate over gun control and the Second Amendment based on their view of government and the role it should play in our lives.

In the first group are those who see the government as a Nanny State, empowered to look out for the best interests of the populace, even when that means overriding our rights as individuals and free will.

These individuals tend to interpret the Second Amendment to mean that only members of law enforcement and the military are entitled to own a gun. Case in point: President Biden recently (and wrongly) asserted that “the Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own. You couldn’t buy a cannon.”

In the second group are those who see the government as inherently corrupt.

These individuals tend to view the Second Amendment as a means of self-defense, whether that involves defending themselves against threats to their freedoms or threats from individuals looking to harm them. For instance, eleven men were recently arrested for traveling on the interstate with unlicensed guns that were not secured in a case. The group, reportedly associated with a sovereign citizens group, claimed to be traveling from Rhode Island to Maine for militia training.

And then there is a third group, made up of those who view the government as neither good nor evil, but merely a powerful entity that, as Thomas Jefferson recognized, must be bound “down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” To this group, the Second Amendment’s assurance of the people’s right to bear arms is no different from any other right enshrined

Continue reading→

Remembering Our Independence, by Eric Peters

Independence, if it is to mean anything at all, must mean that one political subdivision can secede from another. That is, after all, what the American revolutionaries did. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

 
 
 

This weekend marks another 4th of July, the day marking the announcement by representatives of the American states that they were seceding from the British empire. It is impolitic to mention that fact nowadays.

It does not make it less a fact, of course.

Nor less sound, as an idea.

Secession is nothing more than parting ways – peacefully, ideally – from those who do not share your point of view. We secede in this manner, on an individual basis, in everyday life all the time. We hang out with, date and even marry people with whom we have common interests and goals. Because we like them – and because we want to.

If we do not have common interests or goals we usually agree to disagree and go our separate ways.

 

Who can reasonably argue with the soundness of this? Who likes the idea of being forced into association with others who do not share the same interests and aspirations? Indeed, with others who have opposite interests and aspirations? Who do not like – and even hate – us?

Is that not a guarantee of fractiousness? Who benefits from that? At best, you have a bully – and the bullied. At worst, you have legalized bullying in the form of this thing we commonly refer to as government – which is mechanism  of coercion by which people with dissonant likes, interests and aspirations are forced into association and punished for attempting to peacefully secede from.

Continue reading→

Oregon Is Proof That Leftist Politics Ultimately Lead To Tyranny And Decay, by Brandon Smith

If the states are supposed to be laboratories of democracies, then liberal state experiments are proving to be massive failures, and Oregon is the bottom of the heap. From Brandon Smith at alt-market.com:

What kind of abysmal social and economic conditions would make at least five separate counties of US voters want to flee a state to join the borders of another state? Well, all it takes is a cult of insane Marxists running the entire state into the ground from the safety of their metropolitan communes while demanding that people submit their undying fealty to the draconian medical mandates of an elitist minority. Yeah, things have to get pretty bad to inspire so many people into leaving and taking half the state with them.

Welcome to Oregon…

I used to live right across the state border from Portland, Oregon through the 1990s, and while the place was always considered a bit of a haven for washout hippies, reject grunge bands and limp-wristed wine sipping progressives, there wasn’t enough of them to take the place over completely and the city was still relatively clean and well kept and peaceful. You rarely heard of crime, poverty or unrest; those were problems reserved for places like California.

I can’t recall any moment during that time when people said they felt “unsafe” in Portland, or when they were desperate to leave Oregon for greener pastures. It used to be a decent place to build a life. A lot has changed since then.

Continue reading→

Saving Civilization, by Robert Gore

sydney_opera_house_-_dec_2008

Savagery or civilization?

Imagine you had been picked as a juror for the Derek Chauvin trial. Before you hear a shred of evidence, you very well might make a decision most people would not only admit was the better part of valor, but that harmonized perfectly with prevailing morality.

Your pretrial verdict? Guilty. There had been threats since Chauvin was charged with second and third degree murder and second-degree manslaughter that acquittals would provoke rampaging riots. After the riots last summer, no one could doubt the threats’ credibility. A guilty verdict on all counts could avoid injuries, deaths, and billions of dollars in property damage. Against those consequences, what do the rights or the life of a policeman matter? You’re predetermined verdict is for the greater good.

Even if such considerations never entered your head, you’d need extraordinary courage and independence to impartially hear the evidence and if you thought it warranted, vote for acquittal. You’d have to withstand pressure from your fellow jurors. You’d run the risk that your personal information was leaked by some mainstream or social media scumbag and mostly peaceful thugs showed up at your door. You might be canceled out of a job, your business network, and your social circle. Your privacy would be obliterated and reputation ruined in the wilting glare of nonstop publicity and odium. Politicians and other public figures would denounce you.

The chance that one such person would land on the jury was remote, the chance of twelve nonexistent. Under the inverted standard of justice that prevailed, the outcome was always going to be dictated not by the facts of the case, reasoned consideration of the evidence, deliberation, and the applicable law, but by “social considerations,” which is a polite way of saying the mob.

The mob hailed the verdict as justice. It’s the same justice as John Gotti’s three acquittals after his goons intimidated jurors. Chauvin was guilty unless proven innocent beyond a “reasonable” doubt as defined by the mob. In the same vein, the policeman who shot and killed Ashley Babbitt at the Capitol is not guilty—without a trial—because that’s what the mob demanded. Such blatant contradiction is mob justice.

A morality that confers “rights” on mobs and strips those of an individual is the morality of savages. Maxine Waters is a savage, but so too are the members of the Minneapolis City Council who agreed to pay George Floyd’s estate $27 million before Chauvin’s trial had begun, the judge who recognized the prejudicial unfairness of Waters’ inflammatory statements but passed the buck for doing anything about it to the appellate courts, and the political, media, and celebrity jackals from Joe Biden on down who’ve been howling for Chauvin’s conviction since Floyd’s death.

Whatever the justifications they cite for their pre-verdict demands, they are implicitly insisting that Chauvin’s rights are of no consequence. When the “rights” of some outweigh the rights of one, anything goes. There are people who call for reducing the world’s population to 500 million, which implies a genocide of over 7 billion. That such people are on university faculties rather than denounced and shunned as advocates of mass murder shows just how far the barbarism of collectivist justification has advanced, even when the collective embraced is a fraction of the number of individuals whose lives are to be canceled!

Amazon Paperback Link

Kindle Ebook Link

Service and sacrifice are the watchwords of government, the ultimate mob. Who’s served and who’s sacrificed? There has never been a government that has not arrogated to itself the privilege of using force and fraud to strip individuals of their production, their property, their rights, their liberty, and ultimately, their lives. That privilege is governments’ defining essence and is the privilege that has always threatened humanity. The rationales and rhetoric are invariably collective: the demands of the mob supersede individual rights and individual justice.

Continue reading

‘Aggressive Abroad and Despotic at Home’: VE Day and the End of the American Century, by Boyd D. Cathey

The American empire has faltered from the glory days after WWII the people are sharply and irreconcilably divided, and the government grows ever more tyrannical. It’s time for a split and new arrangements. From Boyd D. Cathey at lewrockwell.com:

Seventy-six years ago, on May 8, 1945, at 2301 hours, Central European Time, World War II in Europe officially ended. Although the war would continue in the Pacific Theatre for several more months, May 8 marked the dramatic end of what was certainly the most horrific and disastrous land war in history. European culture was changed irrevocably. A civilization which had survived the devastation and depopulation of the Thirty Years War, the horrors of the French Revolution and Napoleon, and then the calamity of the Great War of 1914-1918, now witnessed a kind of final collapse, a coup de grace by which its politics, its history, its traditions, its very mode of viewing the world were undone.

Those millennial traditions and inherited beliefs, that time-honored culture, that understanding of how societies function and properly exist so identified with Europe—what remained of that, after the catastrophe of the First World War—was now overwhelmed, subsumed into a new reality dominated by competing blocs: the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its Communist satraps. Both spoke often and loudly of democracy and equality; both projected global visions for the world. Their definitions were, of course, different. But both had the cumulative effect of exiling older terminologies and language, and, in practice how Europe and the rest of the world should be organized and governed, and what principles and beliefs should be held dear.

Continue reading→

The Options, by Eric Peters

We’ve reached the state where America is so divided that separation is the only solution. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The main problem the liberty minded face as regards preserving – and recovering – their lost liberty is that they are enmeshed among those who either do not understand or want to even try to understand liberty.

And those who actively loathe it.

It is not like the Late Unpleasantness (1861-’65) which was fundamentally geographic as much as it was ideological. On the one side – of the Mason Dixon line – you had the South. On the other, the North. Both sides were clearly different, in terms of where each lived as well as their respective languages, culture and history.

Savannah was not Boston.

But how do we separate ourselves from our next-door neighbor? From the authoritarian collectivists who sit on the town council? From the Clover who believes he has a “right” to health care – and “free” education – and thus, a right to force you to provide it? Who demands you “buckle up” for “safety”?

Who insists others wear a Face Diaper or close their businesses . . . to keep him “safe”?

Even in areas that are still culturally a bit more liberty minded – i.e., the “red” states – the canker is there and it is spreading.

Many of the “red” states are purple – on their way to turning blue. Even Texas.

The process has been accelerated, ironically, by the flight of the not-so-liberty-minded from places like New York and California, where their mindset created the fouled nest they now abandon – to foul new nests, elsewhere.

How can liberty survive, given this?

There are two main possibilities.

The first is a terrifying and awful one; a literal civil war (which the Late Unpleasantness was not; it was an unsuccessful attempt at secession, very much like the successful effort of 1776-1783). A fight between brother and brother – and neighbor and neighbor. To the death, probably – as the two ideologies cannot reconcile.

Continue reading→

The United States Of 2 Americas, by John Mills

In a rational world the two Americas would simply split apart. From John Mills at theepochtimes.com via zerohedge.com:

f you haven’t noticed, the United States is reorganizing itself into two Americas – blue and red. Although there is a president of the United States, state governors are in many ways now driving the national narrative in this new America.

The president and the vice president are who they are now because six Republican-controlled states forwarded questionable electoral votes, and Vice President Mike Pence missed a historic opportunity to challenge those votes. The current president and vice president seem trapped in foggy and abstract ideological slogans rather than providing executive leadership. Vague generalities and virtue signaling aren’t replacements for executive leadership.

And who are the true executive leaders of the two Americas? Florida and Texas on one side, California and New York on the other side. Their governors essentially dominate the bully pulpit formerly occupied by a sitting president. Many of the rest of the American states have aligned with one side or the other.

The American political conversation has become a modern Dr. Seuss’s “Sneetches With Stars” on steroids as Americans are now beginning to group, assemble, and march separately according to our ideologies. Both sides have equal ownership of this behavior – neither side should be excused or let off the hook on this matter.

Continue reading→

Does Texit Follow Brexit? by Dennis Miller

If just one state, especially a big important one like Texas, decided to try to secede, it would be a seismic shock to the US government, on the scale of Great Britain voting to leave the EU. From Dennis Miller at theburningplatform.com:

Texas stamp - Does Texit Follow Brexit?In 2016 the British voted (Brexit) to leave the European Union (EU). Brexit finally happened in January 2021.

The EU never negotiated in good faith. Their goal is to punish Britain and discourage other nations from ever considering leaving their fiefdom. Wolf Street ran a two-part series about the progress.

“Brexit began in earnest…on January 1, with the entry into force of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. It is – at least to my mind – the first ever trade agreement that actively seeks to slow down the flow of trade between the two signatory parties. (Emphasis mine)

And the costs are mounting for companies on both sides of the English Channel, particularly the British one, and the benefits remain largely elusive. This is no great surprise; Brexit is a process, not an event, and it will take time for most of the benefits of separation from the EU to feed through.”

Shortly thereafter, friend Phil C. asked about Texit; “Could it really happen?”

The Texan Nationalist Movement tells us:

We loved our time in Texas. Texans are hardy folks and that message will resonate. While the slogan, “Don’t Mess With Texas” was originally to stop littering, it has taken on a whole new meaning.

Continue reading→