Why Pan-Secessionism?

Most Americans agree that the political system in the United States is incompetent, corrupt and not likely to be reformed in any meaningful way. More and more Americans are getting fed up with the Tweedle Dee vs. Tweedle Dum so-called “electoral process”. The problem is that while Americans frequently agree that “the system” is no good, there is virtually no agreement as to what should be done about it or what an alternative system might be. Enter the idea of pan-secessionism.

Secession, of course, involves the idea of regions or localities separating themselves from larger political units, such as the secession of the thirteen American colonies from the British empire in 1776, the secession of the Confederate states from the Union in 1861, the secession of Norway from Sweden in the early twentieth century, or the secession of the various Warsaw Pact nations or Soviet republics from the Soviet empire in the late 1980s.

As the American economy continues to decline due to America’s massive trade deficits, falling currency, rising fuel costs, unemployment, fiscal extravagance, military overstretch, mass immigration, rising health care and housing costs, American society and American politics will become increasingly polarized along the lines of social class, as is the case in many Latin American or Middle Eastern nations, and as was the case in Europe prior to the mid-20th century.

Americans are divided among themselves along cultural, regional, religious, racial, ethnic and political lines. Yet most Americans agree that the system as it stands is no good. And all Americans have a stake in resisting the corporate oligarchy that presently runs the system.  Pan-secessionism provides a way for all Americans to unite against the common enemy (“the system”) and manage their differences at the same time. Simply put, we should all work together to attack our common enemy, and then go our separate ways.

Pan-secessionism provides the framework whereby social conservatives and counterculturalists, religious fundamentalists and feminists or gays, blacks and whites, Christians and Muslims, conservatives and liberals, anarchists and socialists, communists and fascists, libertarians and communitarians, family values advocates and proponents of alternative lifestyles, yuppies and punk rockers, homeschoolers and drug users, militiamen and gangbangers, skinheads and illegal immigrants, vegetarians and pro-lifers can all achieve self-determination for themselves within the context of communities specifically designed to meet their own cultural or philosophical standards or desires. The “system” uses these differences as a means of dividing and conquering all of us who are under their boot. The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan once remarked, “If we can’t get along, then we need to separate.”

Already there are over three dozen secessionist organizations in North America. Imagine if they all grew to where they had thousands of members and then tens of thousands and then hundreds of thousands and then entire towns, counties, cities, metro areas, states and regions started declaring their independence from Washington, D.C., and began creating their own intentional communities and intentional states with their own schools, health care systems, businesses, labor organizations, social services, cultural organizations, protection services, courts and militias. Dissenting political forces have done just this in many other countries, and we can do it in America as well. So let’s get to it.

5 replies »

  1. I agree that we are near the point, but the American public is years behind facing the big problems, as they bicker amongst themselves as various political identities.
    There is bound to be some yahoos amongst the 3 dozen groups. Would you care to site (PM me as you wish) what you believe to be the most promising and grounded of the groups?

  2. The best organized and most vocal is probably the Second Vermont Republic. The League of the South is probably the largest numerically. These two groups seem to be the leading players so far.

  3. Could I make a recommendation? You may already have an entry that addresses this, but I feel like some of these key documents give the false impression that pan-secessionism simply means everybody being seperated and isolated by their differences, whereas in an ideal world where every group that wished to secede due to cultural differences became autonomous, there would be many, many (most?) regions that would not be separated along lines of black/white, gay/straight, drug users/teetotalers etc. These are all possibilities for people that want them, but there would also be an enormous number of regions that are pretty well mixed/cosmopolitan/multicultural. I feel like if somebody is new to the idea of pan-secessionism this much isn’t very clear from the start, so they envision a world of very isolated, segregated units, which I don’t believe is actually the vision you have in mind. In my mind, pan-secessionism allows people the right to secede with their own ‘community’ if that’s what they wish for, but I feel like a lot of people would want to live in relatively well-mixed communities too.

    • Yes, that is a common misreading of my views. I am sometimes interpreted as favoring a kind of rigid, locked-in, “segregationism” comprised of a world full of communities with electric fences to keep “others” from wandering in. The roots of that seems to be the peripheral similarity between my views and the views of those who favor some system of racially segregated “ethno-states.” But you’re right in the sense that I think rigid separatist ideologies or communities would likely exist only on the social margins.

Leave a Reply to Millennial Transmissions Cancel reply