August 30 / 31, 2008
What If the Israeli Lobby was the Islamic Lobby?
By B. R. GOWANI
Abu Faisal was White House press secretary (instead of Ari Fleischer)
Altaf Adham was deputy national security advisor
(instead of Elliott Abrams)
Sofian Bishr was Supreme Court Justice instead of Stephen Breyer
Tarf Kaukab was Nightline host (instead of Ted Koppel)
Dawud Bushr was New York Times columnist (instead of David
Rukan Badar Ghiyath was Supreme Court Justice
(instead of Ruth Bader Ginsburg)
Thamer Furud was New York Times columnist (instead of Thomas Friedman)
Laith Keid was host of Larry King show (instead of Larry King)
Yousuf “Yo” Luqman was US Senator from
Connecticut (instead of Joseph “Joe” Lieberman)
Zuhaa Midlaj was New York Times reporter (instead of Judith Miller)
Dawud Fouad was Bush’s speechwriter (instead of David Frum)
Lu’ay Labib was Cheney’s Chief of Staff (instead of Lewis Libby)
Polat Walif-Rizk was Rumsfeld’s Deputy Secretary
of Defense (instead of Paul Wolfowitz)
Mahdi Parvez was editor of The New Republic
magazine (instead of Martin Peretz)
Basil Kishwar was the editor of The Weekly
Standard instead of (Bill Kristol)
Ali Wisam was the famous Nobel Peace laureate (instead of Elie Wiesel)
Jaafer Ghawth-Badr was a staff writer at New
Yorker (instead of Jeffrey Goldberg)
Rifat Pir was the Chairman of the Defense Policy
Board AdvisoryCommittee (instead of Richard Perle)
Yaman Sikandar was the famous filmmaker (instead of Steven Spielberg)
Ibrahim Faqih-Ma’n was the head of the
Anti-Defamation League (instead of Abraham Foxman)
Alam Daoud-Vida was the famous lawyer (instead of Alan Dershowitz)
Imagine the above Muslims in key positions. There are 2 per cent Jews in the US and the same percentage of Muslims. Now consider for a moment that both communities have exchanged places as it happens on that TV show “Wife Swap.” Here not only wives but the entire community exchanges places. Or a still better example would be the 1970 film “Watermelon Man” in which a white man wakes up in the morning and discovers he has turned into a black person. Blackness becomes his fate.
However, first let us check out the power Jews have in the United States in order to imagine how things would have been different if the Muslims had exactly the same power.
This article, however, realizes that Jews are not a monolithic group. For instance: 75 per cent of Americans supported the war in 2003 in US, whereas the Jewish support was at 50 per cent.
Like many other Jews, the billionaire George Soros favors a dialogue between the Hamas (the elected government in the Palestinian territories) and the Israelis:
“… Israel, with the strong backing of the United States, refused to recognize the democratically elected Hamas government and withheld payment of the millions in taxes collected by the Israelis on its behalf. This caused great economic hardship and undermined the ability of the government to function. But it did
not reduce popular support for Hamas among Palestinians, and it reinforced the position of Islamic and other extremists who oppose negotiations with Israel….”
There have always been Jewish people and institutions who have tried to work for some peaceful solution of the Palestinian/Israeli problem but the Jewish Lobby and pro Israel individuals have always succeeded in silencing or marginalizing those voices.
Bill and Kathleen Christison explain how the word “anti-Semite” is abused:
“Anyone who has the temerity to suggest any Israeli instigation of, or even involvement in, Bush administration war planning is inevitably labeled somewhere along the way as an anti-Semite. Just whisper the word `domination’ anywhere in the vicinity of the word `Israel,’ as in `U.S.-Israeli domination of the Middle East’ or `the U.S. drive to assure global domination and guarantee security for Israel,’ and some leftist who otherwise opposes going to war against Iraq will trot out charges of promoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the old czarist forgery that asserted a Jewish plan for world domination.”
A Few Clarifications
Before proceeding any further, it is important to remember the historic injustices suffered by the Jewish people. The past has not been especially nice to the Jews; rather it has been extremely cruelÂ, mainly, in the form of European Christianity. The atrocious climax reached between 1939 and 1945 under Nazi Germany. Between five to six million Jews were murdered. But since then, although there have been some instances of
targeting Jewish people and desecrating their cemeteries in Europe and elsewhere, these have not in any way affected their survival and growth as a distinct religious and cultural entity. And economically they are one of the few most powerful groups in the world.
In addition: There are many interest groups or lobbies in the United States who are doing immense harm to people within and without, and the dominant corporate press is one of those groups. People who want to register their protest or recommend changes are at the mercy of the media managers. So, the Jewish Lobby is not the only one exerting influence. Nevertheless, the Lobby’s power is enormous and it has wielded it
in such a devastating way that the whole of Middle East has been burning for quite a long time now Â and in turn it affects the entire world.
There is, of course, a convergence of the US interest to control the oil; and, the Israeli interest to be the sole regional power. If one thinks from that perspective, then without doubt the US would have been in a better shape if it would have avoided the 2003 complete destruction of the almost-destroyed Iraq of 1991 and if it had left Saddam Hussein pitted against Iran. Not only would this have saved the US billions of
dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives but would have preserved its hegemony a little longer.
Anti-Arab, anti-Palestine, anti-Iran, anti-Muslim?
When a corporation exploits its workers it is
called an exploiter. When a member of the
majority discriminates against a member of the
minority then she/he is called a racist. When a
male discriminates against a woman he is called a
sexist. When one person discriminates another on
the basis of religion then that person is called
a communalist. When anyone hates or kills a Jew
(simply because he is a Jew), that person is
called an anti-Semite. When a Muslim kills
someone in the name of Islam, he is called a
What would you call those influential Jews,
individuals and those belonging to the Lobby, in
the US who played an important role in the war to
destroy an Arab country of Iraq without any
reason or are now pushing for a war against Iran?
They are beardless, suited, booted. They are not
overtly religious like Taliban and so we can’t
call them Jewsratics or Jews who are Israel
Fanatics. However, their religion is Israel and
so the appropriate word (for their world
devastating pro Israel stand) should be “Israel
Fanatics” or “Isratics.” These Isratics are on a
revenge path for past injustices.
The victims are now the victimizers. Their
victims are not the white Europeans but the Palestinians and other Arabs.
And the Isratics are equipped with a WMD or word
of mass destruction, and so the moment anyone
points out their control over the US Congress,
government, news media, etc. she/he will be labeled an “anti-Semite.”
Auschwitz, located in Poland, (then under German
control) was the largest of the many
concentration camps where the Jews were
transported and were murdered using all sorts of
inhuman methods. Other communities suffered too.
For the organized Jewry, the “Holocaust” has
become a profitable enterprise, as Norman
Finkelstein’s insightful study, “The Holocaust
Industry,” makes clear. Just one example: The
Swiss banks’ offer of $600 million was rejected
by the Jewish leaders and so in August 1998, they
agreed to pay $1.25 billion. A press release by
Swiss banks explained “the aim of the additional
payment” “is to avert the threat of [US]
sanctions as well as long and costly court
proceedings.” Back in March, Edgar Bronfman,
president of World Jewish Congress had warned the
Swiss banks: “If the Swiss are going to keep
digging their heels in, then I’ll have to ask all
US shareholders to suspend their dealings with
the Swiss [emphasis mine].” Finkelstein reminds
us that the United States is equally guilty of
the three categories (Swiss denial of asylum to
refugees, claimants to inactive Swiss bank
accounts, and victims of slave labor which proved
advantageous to the Swiss) for which the Swiss
had to pay; whereas, the US has not even been
threatened, let alone charged.
“Many” lawyers were charging $600 an hour for
filing claims, and one lawyer wanted $2,400 for
reading Tom Bower’s book “Nazi Gold.”
Many other European governments, including
Germany, have also paid huge sums of money to organized Jewry.
The US itself has never paid any money to the
Native Indians, the blacks, and many others. One
may wonder as to why the US government threatens
other governments or their institutions to pay reparations to the Jews!
(In 1986, the World Court ordered the US to pay
$17 billion to Nicaragua for multiple crimes. The US ignored the verdict.)
Most interesting to note: Finkelstein says, “The
Holocaust’s mystery, Wiesel avows, is
`noncommunicable;’ `we cannot even talk about
it.’ Thus, for his standard fee of $25,000 (plus
chauffeured limousine), Wiesel lectures that the
`secret of Auschwitz’s `truth lies in silence.'”
Daniel McGowan provides a good portrait of this peace laureate.
“He is a multi-millionaire, but carefully
cultivates the image of a perpetually disheveled
professor. Although he has won the Nobel Peace
Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the
Guardian of Zion Medal, and the Oprah Book Award,
many people in Israel resent the way he has used
the Holocaust to make his living. Some Israelis
refer to him as a `sho’an.’ The word `sho’a’ is
Hebrew for Holocaust; with the suffix it
indicates a professional specializing in the
subject. So it is both funny and derogatory, not
unlike Norman Finkelstein referring to Wiesel as
the `resident clown’ of the Holocaust circus.”
Wiesel was awarded a Noble Peace Prize in 1986.
In 1983, according to the Norwegian Nobel
Committee’s secretary, his name was recommended
by half of the US Congress.
Noam Chomsky says that in the US, Wiesel is
respected as a “secular saint” and is considered a “critic of fascism.”
However, the saint keeps his mouth shut where Israel’s crimes are involved:
“I support Israel, period. I identify with
Israel, period. I never attack; never criticize
Israel when I am not in Israel.”
This so called harbinger of peace was in the
White House on February 27, 2003 to see the
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.
President George Bush was also there. Wiesel
echoed the same old nonsense of comparing Germany
of the late 1930s with 2003’s Iraq. In simple
words he wanted Bush to start a war. He said:
“It’s a moral issue. In the name of morality how
can we not intervene.” “I’m against silence.” So
he wanted Bush to scream out loud with weapons.
Further, there are people like the late Nahum
Goldmann, President of the World Jewish Congress,
who have criticized those who exploited the Jewish tragedy:
“We will have to understand that Jewish suffering
during the Holocaust no longer will serve as a
protection, and we certainly must refrain from
using the argument of the Holocaust to justify
whatever we may do. To use the Holocaust as an
excuse for the bombing of Lebanon, for instance,
as Menachem Begin does, is a kind of “Hillul
Hashem” [sacrilege], a banalization of the sacred
tragedy of the Shoah [Holocaust], which must not
be misused to justify politically doubtful and
morally indefensible policies.”
The letter H in the word “Holocaust” is in
capital letter because many influential Jewish
leaders firmly believe that theirs is the unique
tragedy. In other words, they have a copyright
over the word “Holocaust” and thus the millions
of Native Indians, African slaves, Armenians
(victims of Turks), the Congolese (victims of
Belgium), the Bengalis of East Pakistan, later
Bangladesh, (victims of West Pakistan, now
Pakistan), Roma and Sinti people or gypsies
(victims of Nazi Germany), and others can’t claim
their tragedies as holocaust.
Robert Fisk tells us that the word holocaust has
been in currency since the 18th century. The
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, as a
matter fact, used it for the Armenians:
“In 1915 the Turkish Government began and
ruthlessly carried out the infamous general
massacre and deportation of Armenians in Asia
Minor.” The “war criminals,” that is the Turks,
massacred “uncounted thousands of helpless
Armenians – men, women and children together;
whole districts blotted out in one administrative
holocaust – these were beyond human redress.”
Money Talks, Politicians Walk
It is the power of the influential Isratics. And
they are everywhere in the US. The third richest
man in the US (and the richest Jew in the world)
and the owner of two of Las Vegas’s huge casino
resorts, the Palazzo and the Venetian, Sheldon
Adelson, opposes the two-state (Israel/Palestine)
solution. In October 2007, during Republican
donors’ visit to the White House, he warned
President George Bush that the policy which
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is pursuing
in the Middle East would ruin him.
His both arms around Adelson and his wife’s
shoulders, Bush replied: “You tell your Prime
Minister [Israel’s Ehud Olmert] that I need to
know what’s right for your peopleÂbecause at the
end of the day it’s going to be my policy, not
Condi’s. But I can’t be more Catholic than the Pope.”
AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee)
The Jewish Lobby is made up of several Jewish
groups. The Israel Lobby includes some pro Israel
Evangelical Christians and Christian Zionists.
AIPAC is one of the most important of the Jewish groups.
Jeffrey Goldberg wrote in 2005 that AIPAC’s
“leaders can be immoderately frank about the
group’s influence.” Years back, while dining with
AIPAC’s Steve Rosen, Goldberg asked if the 1992
incident involving the then AIPAC President David
Steiner had hurt the AIPAC’s influence. “A half
smile appeared on his face, and he pushed a
napkin across the table. `You see this napkin?’
he said. `In twenty-four hours, we could have the
signatures of seventy senators on this napkin.'”
The above conversation is not an isolated incident.
On October 22, 1992, New York businessman Haim
(Harry) Katz [HK] recorded his conversation with
AIPAC President David Steiner [DS] without his
knowledge. Later, when the conversation became
public, Steiner resigned. Excerpts of that conversation:
DS: Besides the $10 billion in loan guarantees
which a fabulous thing, $3 billion was in
foreign, in military aid, and I got almost a
billion dollars in other goodies that people don’t even know about.
DS: … I said look Jim [Baker, Papa Bush’s
Secretary of State], “You don’t want a fight
before the election. It’s going to hurt Bush….
HK: … But you met with Baker. . .
HK: Personally. Because you know, he’s the one
who cursed, who cursed the Jews.
(When the Jewish influence in the US was
mentioned at a government meeting on Middle East,
Baker supposedly said, “Fuck the Jews. They don’t
vote for us [Republicans] anyway.”)
DS: Of course, do you think I’m ever going to forgive him for that?
DS: Do you think I could ever forgive Bush for
what he did September 12th  a year ago?
What he said about the Jews for lobbying in Washington?
(Bush Sr. had said: I was “up against some
powerful political forces . . . I heard today
there was something like 1,000 lobbyists on the
Hill working on the other side of the question.
We’ve got one lonely little guy down here doing it.”)
HK: … I thought [presidential candidate Rose]
Perot did marvelous in the debates.
DS: He doesn’t know how to govern. He’s not going
to make it. And there was an incident where his
daughter was going out with a Jewish professor at
school and he said, “I wouldn’t have my daughter marry a Jew.”
DS: … you ought to think about coming to some
of these things. I’ll have a dinner this fall.
I’ll have 18-20 senators there. I run programs in
Washington. We just had a, I had at Ted Kennedy’s
house last month kosher dinner. I brought
foremost caterers down. I had 60 people on the
couch for dinner. Last year, I did it in Al Gore’s house.
DS: I personally am not allowed, as president of
AIPAC, to get involved in the presidential
campaign, because I have to deal with whoever wins.
HK: … what will he [Bill Clinton] do for Israel, better than Bush…
DS: … Gore is very committed to us.
(Gore once said: “I have a 100 percent voting
record for Israel, even though there wasn’t one
synagogue in my congressional district.” And this
person had lectured Jesse Jackson for meeting Yasser Arafat.)
DS: I’ve known Bill for seven, eight years …
One of my friends is Hillary Clinton’s scheduler,
one of my officer’s daughters works there. We
gave two employees from AIPAC leave of absences
to work on the campaign. I mean, we have a dozen
people in that campaign, in the headquarters.
DS: Let me tell you the problem with the $10
billion in loan guarantees, right? We only have
the first year. We have authorization from
Congress, but it’s at the discretion of the
president every year thereafter, so if Bush is
there, he could say, you know, use it as a club,
you know. `If you don’t give up Syria, I won’t
give you the money. If you don’t give up the Golan Heights.’
DS: … A girl who worked for me at AIPAC stood
up for them [Clintons] at their wedding. Hillary
lived with her…. We have never had that with Bush…
DS: … He’s got something in his heart for the
Jews, he has Jewish friends. Bush has no Jewish friends.
DS: Reagan had something . . . He knew Jews from
the film industry; he was one of the best guys
for us. He had an emotional thing for the Jews.
Bush doesn’t have it…. Bush is, there’s a man
with no principles. Absolutely no principles.
HK: … I wish we had a Jewish candidate for president.
DS: I don’t think the country’s ready.
HK: … I think Joe Lieberman would have, uh,
would have, if he wasn’t Jewish….
(Lieberman was Albert Gore’s running mate in the
2000 presidential elections.)
DS: I’d like to see him on the Supreme Court.
HK: If Clinton is elected, has he told you who
he’s going to put on the Supreme Court?
DS: We’re talking now…. We’re more interested
right now, in the secretary of state and the
secretary of National Security Agency. That’s more important to us.
HK: If Clinton is elected, who do you think will be secretary of state?
DS: I’ve got a list…. I’m not allowed to talk about it.
John Mersheimer and Steven Walt point out the use
of pro-Israel congressional staffers as one more
source for the Lobby. They quote former AIPAC chief Morris Amitay:
“There are a lot of guys at the working level up
here” â€“ on Capitol Hill â€“ “who happen to be
Jewish, who are willing . . . to look at certain
issues in terms of their Jewishness . . . These
are all guys who are in a position to make the
decision in these areas for those senators . . .
You can get an awful lot done just at the staff level.”
A former AIPAC staff member Douglas Bloomfield
sheds light on how the congresspersons conduct their research:
“It is common for members of Congress and their
staffs to turn to AIPAC first when they need
information, before calling the Library of
Congress, the Congressional Research Service,
committee staff or administration experts.”
“[AIPAC is] often called on to draft speeches,
work on legislation, advise on tactics, perform
research, collect co-sponsors and marshal votes.”
A senior congressional staffer, writing under the
pen name George Sunderland, here on the
CounterPunch site, explains how the politicians
attending the annual AIPAC meetings act:
“Command performances before AIPAC have become
standard features in the life of a Washington
elected official, like filing FEC reports and
hitting on interns. The stylized panegyrics
delivered at the annual AIPAC meeting have all
the probative value of the Dniepropetrovsk
Soviet’s birthday greeting to [the Soviet leader,
Joseph] Stalin, because the actual content is
unimportant; what is crucial is that the
politician in question be seen to be genuflecting
before the AIPAC board. In fact, to make things
easier, the speeches are sometimes written by an
AIPAC employee, with cosmetic changes inserted by
a member of the Senator’s or Congressman’s own staff.”
Talking to the New York Sun in January 2003,
Howard Kohr said, “Quietly lobbying Congress to
approve the use of force in Iraq was one of
AIPAC’s successes over the past year.”
Occasionally AIPAC is not successful. In 1981, it
vehemently opposed the US sale of AWACS (Airborne
Warning and Control System) to Saudi Arabia but
failed to block the sale. Former President Gerald
Ford was infuriated at the AIPAC antics and
called a Republican senator and fumed: “Are we
going to let the fucking Jews run American foreign policy?”
Reagan announced the AWACS sale on national
television with these words: “It is not the
business of other nations to make American foreign policy.”
But Edward Tivnan sees this sale as not much of a victory:
“… AIPAC had taken on the President of the
United States, and almost, as Ronald Reagan
himself had claimed, embarrassed him in front of
the whole world. (What kind of President couldn’t
sale five airplanes to a small Arab country,
particularly one sitting on billions of dollars
of oil crucial to American prosperity?) … ”
In March 2003, Collin Powell had said: “It is not
driven by any small cabal that is buried away
somewhere, that is telling President Bush or me
or Vice President Cheney or [National Security
Adviser Condoleezza] Rice or other members of the
administration what our policies should be.”
But the reality is exactly opposite.
Foxman, National Director of Anti-Defamation
League, is a very important figure; his power can
be gauged by the meeting he had with Colin
Powell, the US Secretary of State, i.e., foreign minister,
“`In his [Powell’s] own State Department there
was a keen awareness of the strength of the
Jewish lobbyists. Secretaries of State did not
usually meet with lobbyists, but both Jewish
officials and Jews that did not officially
represent specific groups from Abe Foxman of the
Anti-Defamation League to Ronald Lauder, could
meet with Powell on short notice…. At the State
Department, Foxman had an aura of omnipotence. He
was held responsible for the appointment of
[Martin S.] Indyk as Undersecretary of State
under Clinton, and was thought to have played a
role in the appointments of Secretaries of State
[Warren] Christopher and [Madeline] Albright.
Powell related to Foxman almost as if he were
someone to whom he must capitulate. Once Foxman
told one of his deputies that Powell was the weak
link. When the Secretary of State heard this he
began to worry. He knew that in Washington a
confrontation with the Jewish lobby would make
his life difficult. Once he arranged a meeting
with Foxman, but the busy Foxman postponed the
meeting three times. When they eventually met,
the head of the Anti-Defamation League apologized
to the Secretary of State [for the
postponements]. “You call, we come,” replied
Powell, paraphrasing a well known advertisement
for a freight company. That statement had much
more meaning than just a humorous polite reply.'”
(from Raviv Drucker and Ofer Shelah, Boomerang…).
Nevertheless, one has to accept the fact that
even though Powell had been a part of governments
during the 1991 Iraq War and the 2003 Iraq War,
he was not in favor of war. One can argue that in
that case he should have quit his position and
thus boosting the morale of the anti-war movement.
Once on a visit to Jerusalem, he stood his
ground, when he refused to comply with Sharon’s order.
Sharon: I don’t want you to go to Damascus
[Syria]. I don’t think it serves the interests of
peace, and we don’t like it here in Israel when you go to Damascus.
Powell: Ariel, thank you very much but I am going
anyway. I am Secretary of State of the United
States of America and not the foreign minister of Israel.
Powell was fed up with the neo-cons pushing for
war and called them the “fucking crazies.”
It is obvious that it is the Israel Lobby’s power
that enabled Sharon to order Powell; otherwise,
in reality, he was just a premier of a tiny
country Â although in military means, the fourth
most powerful country in the world.
To be continued Monday
Quote of the Week:
“We can expect as little from society as from the state. Salvation lies with the individual.”
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â -Ernst Junger
Biden for Vice-DictatorÂ by Glenn Greenwald
When the Cure is Worse Than the DiseaseÂ by Bill Sardi
World War LoomsÂ by Simon Jenkins
You Can’t Trust the FDICÂ by Doug French
The Underground History of American EducationÂ by John Taylor Gatto
Russell Kirk, the Canon and the Conservative MovementÂ by Gerald Russello
Did Somebody Say Elitism?Â by Taki Theodoracopulos
Mika Etchebehere, POUM Militia CaptainÂ by Larry Gambone
The Long Silence: American Jews and the PalestiniansÂ by Howard Lisnoff
New Issue of “Republic” Magazine Is Out! (Thanks to Flavio Goncalves)
Traitors Beware: A History of Robert DePugh’s MinutemenÂ by Eric Beckemeier (Thanks to Ean Frick)
Black Fez ManifestoÂ by Hakim Bey
Toward SecessionÂ by Richard Kostelanetz
Foreign Lobbyists and the Making of US Foreign PolicyÂ by Justin Raimondo
The Hideous Horror of the Biden SelectionÂ by Arthur Silber
Pushing Russia Into the ColdÂ by Pat Buchanan
War with Russia is on the AgendaÂ by Paul Craig Roberts
On Obama’s Move to the CenterÂ by Joe Bageant
Strip-Search NationÂ by Dave Lindorff
The Politics of AvoidanceÂ by Ralph Nader
Saakashvili: The gun went off by itself while I was just holding itÂ by Steve Sailer
Failed States and Other Good NewsÂ by William Norman Grigg
Bush’ Armada of AggressionÂ by Gary North
The Militarized States of AmericaÂ by Fred Reed
Both Parties Want DictatorshipÂ by Lew Rockwell
Obama’s CheneyÂ by Justin Raimondo
Obama’s Fascist Security CorpsÂ by Dario McDarby
What If Obama Loses?Â by Pat Buchanan
The Obama Transformation: From Antiwar Leftist to Liberal HawkÂ by Richard Spencer
How to Make Health Care Anarchistically BetterÂ by Francois Tremblay
McCain’s Useful FoolsÂ by Libby Spencer
Poison As Food, Poison As AntidoteÂ by Roderick T. Long
How the Chicago Boys Wrecked the EconomyÂ by Mike Whitney
GoodbyeÂ by Charley Reese (he’s retiring)
When Desertion is a DutyÂ by William Norman Grigg
Massive Police Raids on Protestors in MinneapolisÂ by Glenn Greenwald
A Better Question Might Be, “How Isn’t It Fascism?”Â by Tom Harrington
America’s Unwelcome AdvancesÂ by Chalmers Johnson
Stunning Statistics on Prison LaborÂ by Francois Tremblay
Paleos for Palin? Not This OneÂ by Dylan Waco
The Ethics of the Homestead StrikeÂ by Shawn Wilbur
This is the Face of FascismÂ by Mona
Obama’s Speech, McCain’s PalinomyÂ by Alexander Cockburn
centralisation of the power of the state and therefore in their view an impediment to progress. The words liberty, equality, fraternity meant very little more than the paper they were written on. In their name the guilds that dominated the Middle Ages were abolished giving way to the capitalist wage system. We have accepted the idea that employment is a decent goal for the unemployed, without confronting the fact that employment is the lowest form of economic activity: that is, a man reduced to mechanical functions,
deprived of the capacity to fully enjoy the fruits of his work. This fact is today ignored, neither understood nor realised by the modern analysts within the new economic ethos. And yet this man, who is a slave by most standards of the past, is considered free because it says so in the constitution” (Vadillo, op. cit., pp. 142-143).
Los Angeles Times
Â Letters to the Editor
Re: The extreme-right way to make a buck,” by Tim Rutten, LA Times, Aug. 16, 2008
Â Dear Sirs,
The title of Mr. Rutten’s piece suggests that the surest way for a conservative scholar to become rich is by embracing an extreme right philosophy. This proposition does not sound convincing given that Rutten’s target, Dr Jerome Corsi, in his book The Obama Nation, discusses a topic which defies the canons of political correctness and which, in addition, could easily fall under the legal category of hate speech. In Europe, Dr Corsi would likely be subjected to thought police scrutiny, his tenure revoked, and his circle of friends would shrink to ground zero.
Also, Corsi was to be interviewed by a relatively small radio station, the “Political Cesspool” from Memphis, whose source of income is very frugal. Having been myself a Political Cesspool guest, I was amazed at the quasi monastic modesty and genuine courtesy of its staff. Its main host, Mr. James Edwards and his guests, debate issues ranging from ante-bellum Southern literature to international politics, including the rising tide of political censorship in Americ. The Southern Poverty Law Centre, which Mr Rutten cites as his source, would have us believe that the Political Cesspool is run by baseball club wielding skinheads, sporting swastikas and harassing minorities. This is not true. Labeling a person “white supremacist,” if he or she opposes the multicultural experiment, is the ugliest form of hate speech in which apparently the SPLC excels. Feigned multicultural conviviality, as recent history shows, always yields opposite results regardless of someone’s racialist or ecumenical beliefs. What happened in the Balkans yesterday is happening today in the Caucuses and will likely be tomorrow’s scenario in LA. Both Mr. Rutten and myself had some foreboding of race riots in April 1992. Note being able to reside on my professorial salary in a gated community in south LA, I decided to search for safer pastures, i.e. my “in-group” of my native and racially homogenous Croatia.
Â Pursuant to the prevailing codes of intellectual duplicity Mr. Corsi and scores of other thought criminals in the USA and Europe, who lost their jobs or who are often maligned as racists, would have been better off had they not rocked the boat of political rectitude, and had they wisely avoided guilt by association. Instead, there are brave enough to tackle the topics that secretly preoccupy the minds of millions of white Europeans and Americans; uncontrolled non-European immigration and US military over-extension around the globe. Alas in the land of the brave and its appendage the European Union, modern Soviet-style ukases of political correctness prevent hundreds of “right wing” intellectuals from being heard.
Which purported right wing scholar, which white supremacist — as modern masters of discourse, dub their traditional conservative opponents — would not be happy to have access to the mainstream media or even catch a glimpse of his photo next to some op-ed in a big mainstream journal? This opportunity is rarely granted to them. They can only go on air at some small radio shows like Political Cesspool, a rare conservative outpost still resisting the onslaught of left-leaning intellectual mendacity.
On a personal level let me add the following. Having spent a good portion of my life both in communist multicultural Yugoslavia and in the capitalist West, including America, I pride myself on knowing rather well how these two systems work. The advantage of communism was that its party hacks and scribes lied so brazenly, they themselves had a hard time believing in their Communist Kingdom Come stories. By contrast the liberal discourse, coached in the fine semantics of human rights and masquerading as free speech, is more difficult to decipher. Its meta-language relies on generic expressions that are successfully deployed against would-be dissidents. Dreaded, shut-up words, such as “Nazi”, “anti-Semite”, and “white supremacist” float over dissenting opinion like an intellectual death sentence. Among academics in America and in Europe the intellectual ostracism of opponents is total. A professor without tenure must comply with an inventory of bizarre legal and verbal constructs of Bolshevik provenance, such as “ethnic sensitivity training,” “affirmative action,” “diversity,” etc, just to keep his job.
The author of the article might have avoided hasty conclusions about the right wing scene. May it come true, though, one day when he writes that “American publishing houses decided that there’s money to be made in funding right-wing boutique imprints…” Alas, with the current leftist-liberal cultural hegemony this is far likely for now.
Â Dr. Tom Sunic
Â Tel. 00385-1- 6261-55
Â cell: 00385-91-793-9454
(Tom Sunic is a former US professor in political science, author and translator). His latest book is Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age, 2007. He currently resides in Croatia.
Quote of the Week:
“In 2042, the Republican Party platform will include a plan for comprehensive reform of the US’s national health care program. Republican Congressmen will engage in furious debate in an attempt to limit the penalties for discrimination against homosexuals to fines rather than imprisonment.
Anybody who really merits the moniker “conservative” had better prepare to be a revolutionary at this point.”
Afghanistan: Where Empire Goes to Die by Michael Scheuer
Jackbooted Airport Thugs by Emily Feder
Neocon Crybabies by Steven LaTulippe
The U.S. Government is Corrupt from Top to Bottom by Charley Reese
Russophobia: A Political Pathology by Justin Raimondo
War in Georgia Shows US Foreign Policy is a Bust by Sheldon Richman
Who Started Cold War Two? by Pat Buchanan
For Most People, College is a Waste of Time by Charles Murray
Back in the U.S.S.R. by Daniel Koffler
Antiwar Conservatism by Dylan Waco
Georgia Versus Mother Russia…Another Neocon Scam? by Werner Scott
What is the White House Smoking? by Eric Margolis
Ambivalence of War by Charley Reese
George, Stay Out of Georgia by Bill Lind
Are You Ready for Nuclear War? by Paul Craig Roberts
Constitutions and Organic Bases by Shawn Wilbur
Blood in August: On Avoiding World War Three by John Zmirak
What Will a White Minority Mean for America? by Steve Sailor
Russia Threatens Nukes from AnarchoNation
“Sweet Neo Con” by The Rolling Stones
America’s Outrageous War Economy by Paul B. Farrell
Western Political Correctness Obscures Communist Atrocities by John Markley
I Resign from the Imperialist-loving Mount Pelerin Society by Paul Craig Roberts
Back in the USSA by William Norman Grigg
Gore Vidal: The Last Republican by Bill Kauffman
What Libertarianism is Not by Johnny Kramer
The Narrative Versus the News by Justin Raimondo
Rice Goes Deeper Into the Absurd by Glenn Greenwald
War: Why Your Gas is so Expensive Scott Horton Interviews Greg Palast
US Role in Georgia Cannot Be Ignored by Stephen Zunes
Musharraf Out, Like Nixon; Bush Still In, Like Flynn by Ray McGovern
Why Is Norman Finkelstein Not Allowed to Teach? by David Klein
Norman Finkelstein: A Pariah in ExileÂ by Stewart Ain
The Pyramid of the Capitalist System by Francois Tremblay
America’s New Economic Plan…Nationalize Banks? Werner Scott
Extending NATO to Russia’s Borders is Insane by Thomas Sowell
Thoughtful Anarchy by John Steele
International Criminal Court Should Leave Georgia Alone by Helen Rittelmeyer
China’s Religious Problem-And Ours by Grant Havers
Scalia on the Loose by Daniel Koffler
The Paradoxical Nature of the Geopolitics of Secession by Thomas N. Taylor
The Military Commissions, So Far by Joanne Mariner
The Middle Kingdom’s Middle Way by Jean-Louis Rocca
All Experts Agree-Legalize Drugs by Julian Critchley
The Shape of Cuba’s Reforms by Saul Landau and Nelson P. Valdes
The Futility of Hope by James Leroy Wilson
Soldier Worship by Laurence Vance
The State’s Legitimacy Crisis by Bill Lind
Bizarro Imperialism by Justin Raimondo
Afghanistan Invasion Going From Bad to Worse by Werner Scott
More Mischief from the Gangsters in Blue by Rad Geek
Why Not Let the Republicans Deals with this Mess? by Dave Lindorff
Quote of the week:
SOMEWHERE there are still peoples and herds, but not with us, my brethren: here there are states.
A state? What is that? Well! open now your ears unto me, for now will I say unto you my word concerning the death of peoples.
A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: “I, the state, am the people.”
It is a lie! Creators were they who created peoples, and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life.Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â -Friedrich Nietzsche
There Is No Statute of Limitations on MurderÂ Vincent Bugliosi Speaks to the House Judiciary Committee
Plug the Plug on the War StateÂ by Charley Reese
Daniel Ellsberg’s Lesson for Our TimeÂ by James Bovard
Christopher Hitchens vs Waterboarding: Waters WinsÂ Â by Francois Tremblay
McCain More Hawkish Than Bush?Â from Thus Spoke Bellinsky
Exit Strategies Â by Pat Buchanan
Batman: Anarcho-Fascist or Unassimilated Jew?Â by Richard Spencer
Republican HypocritesÂ by Paul Gottfried
The Birth of an ObsessionÂ by Paul Gottfried
The Military-Industrial ComplexÂ by Chalmers Johnson
The Death of Rachel HoffmanÂ by Paul Armentano
Call for a Chicago Student StrikeÂ How About a Nationwide Student Strike??!!
Obama Plans to Make Afghanistan into VietnamÂ by Pat Buchanan
Twenty Years for Pot PossessionÂ by Paul Armentano
A Peoples’ Court for America?Â by Jacob Hornberger
Foundations for the New EconomyÂ by Kevin Carson
Feudalism vs Anarchism?Â by John Zmirak
The Public-Private Imperial Police StateÂ Interview with Chalmers Johnson
Is the Surge Working?Â byÂ Justin Raimondo
Choosing a King in NovemberÂ Â Glenn Greenwald Interviews Daniel Ellsberg
The Father of LiesÂ by Philip Giraldi
In Praise of InequalityÂ by Richard Spencer
Against Trademarks Â by Stephan Kinsella
The Unfortunate Case of Herbert SpencerÂ by Damon W. Root
Remembering Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn Â by Enrico Peppe
He Ventured Forth to Bring Light into the WorldÂ by Gerard Baker
Hegemony Everywhere But At HomeÂ by Paul Craig Roberts
The Believer: Obama Gets the Left Closer to GodÂ by Daniel Flynn
Egoism vs Natural Rights TheoryÂ by Wendy McElroy
Whitey Need Not ApplyÂ by Pat Buchanan
Authentic Black ConservatismÂ by Dylan Waco
Federal SlaveryÂ by William Norman Grigg
“Common Knowledge” About World War TwoÂ by Richard Spencer
Was Wilhelm Just Another W? Â Â by Paul Gottfried
A Free Market Agenda for Healthcare ReformÂ by Kevin Carson
Jewish NeoconservativesÂ by Daniel Koffler
Demagoguery WorksÂ by Charley Reese
Of all the contemporary scholars and theorists of the state of which I am aware, the one whose work I find by far the most compelling is the Dutch-Israeli military historianÂ Martin Van Creveld. It is his position that the conventional nation-state system that emerged from the time of the Treaty of Westphalia is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, for a variety of reasons. Van Creveld outlined his theories in a lecture to the Mises Institute some years ago. The text of it can be viewed here:
A recent work that has gotten some attention in the mainstream press is Bill Bishop’s The Big Sort, aÂ book that describes how Americans are in the process of mutually self-segregating along cultural, political, economic, ethnic, racial and religious lines, not only on the basis of the well-known “red state/blue state” divide but also on a more localized, neighborhood basis.
Now comes a new poll from the highly respected Zogby International polling group, commissioned by the Middlebury Institute, that indicates support for secession is much higher than many, including myself, would have suspected. What do the numbers show?
More than 20 per cent of American adults – one in every five – agrees that â€œany state or region has the right to peaceably secede from the United States and become an independent republic.â€ Another similar percentage (18.2 per cent) even says that they â€œwould support a secessionist effort in my state.â€
This is rather extraordinary. I would have predicted something like three percent agreeing on the “right to secede” with maybe one percent supporting such an effort.
The support for secession held true for every region in the country, though the percentage was slightly higher in the South (25.8) and the East (23.6). The figures were also consistent for every age group, but backing was strongest among younger adults, as high as 39.9 per cent in the 18-24 year category and 23.6 for 25-34 year olds.
Not much surprise here. Of course, support for secession is going to be highest in the South. The higher support among young people is consistent with Van Creveld’s view that the state is breaking down in partÂ because of its inability to hold on to the allegiance of younger people. The super-patriotic WW2 generation is starting to die out, and the older generation is now the Vietnam generation.
Broken down by race, the highest percentage agreeing with the right to secede was among Hispanics (42.6) and African-Americans (39.5), with â€œother and mixedâ€ accounting for 21.1 per cent and whites 17.1 per cent. On the question of giving support to secessionist efforts, slightly more blacks (32.7 per cent) than Hispanics (31.6) agreed, with 20.2 per cent â€œotherâ€ and 14.5 per cent white.
This is interesting. Apparently, many racial minorities do not regard secessionism as “racist”, despite the claims of professional “anti-racists” to the contrary. The higher support among Hispanics is possibly due to the influence of the reconquista movement, and it is also possible that the influence of groups like the Nation of Islam have much to do with the higher support among blacks. Indeed, the higher support in the South may ironically be due in part to the large black population in the South. Also, I have long believed that a genuine revolutionary movement would have to be rooted in the lumpenproletarian and underclass populations, and the racial minorities are disproportionately represented in these socio-economic groupings.
The currently faltering economy may have played a part in the endorsement of statesâ€™ right to secede, with 18.7 per cent of those considering themselves in the â€œinvestor classâ€ agreeing, along with 21.2 per cent of non-investors.
This is a bit confusing. How is an “investor” defined? An “investor” can be anyone who owns a single share of stock anywhere. A method of defining class positions more precisely might have indicated a wider gap between classes on this issue than what these numbers would indicate, although it is certainly possible support for secession can come from the affluent as well as the poor. The Lombard League of Northern Italy has considerable middle to upper-middle class support.
To gauge the extent to which support for secession comes from a sense that the country as it is now made up is not working, a separate question was asked about agreement that â€œthe United Statesâ€™ system is broken and cannot be fixed by traditional two-party politics and elections.â€ As many as 44.3 per cent agreed strongly or somewhat, as against 29.9 per cent who strongly disagreed.
These are about the numbers I would have expected.
-32 percent of mainline liberals were sympathetic to secession as an idea.
-28 percent of “ultra-liberal” were supportive.
-17 percent of mainline conservatives were supportive.
This should dispel the myth of secession as a “right-wing extremist” movement. What this seems to indicate is that “conservatives” are hindered by jingoism and can’t bear to countenance an end to the empire, and the hard-core Left does not want to cede territory to the Right. Hence, the lower numbers of supporters among these than among “liberals”, a generic term that probably includes a wide assortment of people who are genuine liberals, moderates, non-jingoist paleoconservative types, libertarians, progressives, anti-authoritarian leftists, ecological radicals, counterculturalists, ACLU-types, populistsÂ or simply those who would classify themselves as “not a Republican”.
-38 percent of those with less than a high school diploma would support secession, while less than 10 percent of college graduates were pro-secession.
This probably represents a class division as much as anything else. The more educated tend to be more affluent, with a greater stake in preserving the system, and less inclined to sympathize with radicalism or upheaval.
-18 percent would support a secessionist effort in their state.
That’s roughly one in six. We need to double or preferably triple this percentage so as to give ourselves either a majority or a large, well-organized, vocalÂ minority. So how do we do this?
As I see it, supporters of secesssionist movements could probably be broken down into three basic categories:
1. Leaders and Activists. Many of these are likely to be people who are culturally and politically alienated from the mainstream to a much greater degree that the “average” person expressing political discontent. For instance, thus far the leadership of various secession groups has been drawn from the ranks of environmental radicals, anarchists, hard-core libertarians, neo-confederates or “southern nationalists”, members of the religious right who are to the right of the Republican Party, anti-establishment conservatives and others whose ideology is not exactly representative of prevailing opinion in American society at large. This is to be expected, as a greater degree of political alienation is naturally going to spawn greater support for something like secession.
2. Constituents. These would be those who support secessionist ideas and sympathize with secession movements in their own communities or regions, but are probably not as ideologically radical as many hard-core activists are. For instance, these people simply think the Empire has gotten too far out of hand with its war-mongering or civil liberties abuses, or its economic policies, or they might simply think it would be better if their town, county, city, state or region had more or complete autonomy over their own affairs.
3. Critical Mass. A “critical mass”, as I’m using the term here, would be those persons who either support secession, either actively or passively, or who do not actively oppose secession, out of a sense of immediate personal self-interest or some single issue they feel will be advanced under a secessionist regime. These people are not likely to be ideological radicals in any serious way, and may well be indifferent to higher political considerations like foreign policy, the overall state of the economy, and major social questions but feel, for example, that they will simply profit personally from the likelihood of lower taxes in the event of secession, or the greater availability of health care (whether public or private), or that some issue of importance to them personally, like the right to bear arms or abortion rights or the repeal of municipal zoning ordinances or legalized marijuana, will be advanced if secession takes place.
If one in six Americans would support a secession movement in their state, then it is important to have a secession movement in every state and also to identify those states where secesssion is likely to be the most popular (probably in the South and the East according to the Zogby poll). It is also important to begin cultivating leaders, activists, and constituents for such movements with the eventual goal of achieving a critical mass. Individual secession movements should orient their political programs towards the political and cultural environment they find themselves in. Most of the currently existing secession movements are doing this. The League of the South reflects the conservative values typical to many Southerners while the Second Vermont Republic represents the unusual liberal-libertarian hybrid that state is known for.
The need to reach a wider constituency can present certain conflicts. One of these involves the radical versus moderate dichotomy. Should secessionists “tone it down” in order to make secession more palatable to those with stronger residual attachments to the empire? Or should secessionists “turn up the volume” and adopt a more confrontational approach? I think a happy medium is in order. There is a such thing as trying to appeal to fence-straddlers to such a degree that the hard-core that acts as the real engine of any movement loses its morale in the face of perceived constant sell-outs. However, the inflammatory approach is not necessary advisable, either. Not only will this drive away potential converts, but it will be increasingly dangerous in the ever-degenerating political environment we find ourselves in. A certain amount of prudence is in order.
Another matter concerns the issue of ideological conflicts within particular secession movements, or between the leaders and activistsÂ of these movements and their prospective constituents. Here, a certain amount of prudence and pragmatism is necessary as well. Serious ideological conflicts can only be resolved with still more secession. Bishop’s The Big Sort indicates that Americans are naturally separating themselves not only on a regional but on a highly localized basis. Therefore, some degree of hard-core decentralization is in order. A realistic pan-secessionist movement will likely feature “red state” secessionist tendencies with “conservative” leadership and values, with serious territorial concessions made to others, while “blue state” secession movements will display “liberal” values, and make similar concessions out of necessity. Alan recently raised this issue in the Comments section:
“Most and perhaps all secessionist movements need to reduce their territorial claims and this certainly includes the LOS. They need to claim only a small contiguous area that avoids the big cities and probably the communities of color. SVR will probably have to reduce their territory as well, and Cascadia certainly must abandon itâ€™s claims on Idaho and Montana. There just arenâ€™t enough secessionists to build majorities in whole states and regions like that. Ideology is OT but territoy is certainly not and both LOS and Cascadian territorial claims are hugely excessive. Secessionists without excessive territorial claims include Christian Exodus, Free Town Project, and Liberty Districts.”
There is nothing inherently wrong withÂ a secession movement making seemingly extravagant territorial claims. After all, that’s the way it’s frequently done in business negotiations or in lawsuits. One party asks for an outlandish price or settlement and then negotiates their way down. Yet, as a practical matter, secession will only work if large numbers of people do not view it as forcing them under a political roof they find even more objectionable than the present system.
It is also important to distinguish the single-issue of secession from wider ideological agendas. An excellent role model on how to deal with this matter is conservative Christian and Texas Independence activist Larry Kilgore. Mr. Kilgore would be considered a “right-wing Christian theocrat” by the standards of all “mainstream” ideologies, yet he ran for the Senate in the Republican primary this year and received around 225,000 votes. He did so not as an ideological Christian theocrat but as a single-issue advocate of Texas independence, campaigning on a platform of using his position as Senator solely for the purpose of advocating and negotiating Texas independence if he were to be elected.
The issue of the relationship between “extremist” movements and secessionism is likely to be a sticky one. Some secession movements may be guided by ideological outlooks that are relatively middle of the road while others may seem bizarre or threatening to many people. The standard answer to objections raised by the participation of “extremists” should be that the worse their ideas or beliefs are, the better that they be separated from others. Also, persons with unusual beliefs are likely to be much more motivated to do the groundwork for a secession movement that someone who shares many beliefs with supporters of the System. As a hypothetical illustration, a secession movement in Oklahoma or Kentucky might have cults of polygamists, UFO believers, racists, or users of hallucinogenic drugs among its most hard core adherents. It may well be from the ranks of these people that the movement’s most dedicated activists and even some leaders are drawn. Yet it is unlikely that such groups would ever be numerically large enough to conquer significant pieces of territory. Instead, the scenario might be that a state secedes, and the “extremists” who comprise its hard-line activists congregate into a single town and set up a sovereign city-state while everyone else goes about their business as usual.
There is also the need to actually address issues that are of interest or concern to large numbers of people. Economic questions are foremost among these. What will be done about Social Security? Welfare recipients? Veterans? State-dependent business entities? Banking? Some like, Sean Gabb and Kevin Carson, have offered some viable and practical solutions to these matters. Race is another issue. Support for secession is apparently surprisingly high (relatively speaking) among the minorities. Perhaps an offer of reparations and sovereignty along the lines proposed by the Americans for Self-Determination Plan would push those numbers higher.
Of course, there is the wider consideration of how to proceed once the critical mass is finally achieved. In Democracy: The God That Failed, Hans-Hermann Hoppe offers some suggestions. Hoppe argues that “an important lesson must be learned by comparing the failed second American experiment with secession with the first one.”
The first American secession was facilitated significantly by the fact that at the center of power in Britain, public opinion concerning the secessionists was hardly unified. In fact, many prominent British figures such as Edmund Burke and Adam Smith, for instance, openly sympathized with the secessionists. Apart from purely ideological reasons, which rarely affect more than a handful of philosophical minds, this lack of a unified opposition to the the American secessionists in British public opinion can be attributed to two complementary factors. On the one hand, a multitude of regional and cultural-religious affiliations as well as of personal and family ties between Britain and the American colonies existed. On the other hand, the American events were considered far from home and the potential loss of the colonies as economically insignificant. To be sure, at the center of political power, which had shifted to the northern states of the U.S. by then, opposition to the secessionist Southern Confederacy was not unified, and the Confederate cause also had supporters in the North. However, fewer cultural bonds and kinship existed between the American North and South than had existed between Britain and the American colonists, and the secession of the Southern Confederacy involved about half the territory and a third of the entire population of the U.S. and thus struck Northerners as close to home and as a significant economic loss. Therefore, it was comparatively easier for the northern power elite to mold a unified front of “progressive” Yankee culture versus a culturally backwardÂ and “reactionary” Dixieland.
I’m not quite certain how the first part of Hoppe’s argument applies to the present political situation in the United States. To be sure, secession by regions of any size would be a significant and, from the perspective of the “power elite”, unacceptable economic loss. That much is understood. However, it is far less clear that cultural homogeneity of the type shared by American colonists and Englishmen in the eighteenth century is currently present. If anything, the “cultural divide” is wider today than it was at the onset of the Civil War in 1861. The Confederate Constitution was virtually identical to the U.S. Constitution minus certain points of economic contention. Then as now, the South was a hotbed for religious fundamentalism, but there was a thriving evangelicalism in the North that would be considered “fundamentalist” by today’s standards. Slavery was certainly a major point of contention, yet most whites of the time, North or South, were certainly “racist” by modern standards and not a few opponents of slavery actually favored repatriation of the slaves to Africa. It is likely there are fewer “cultural bonds and kinship” among Americans today than there were in 1861. The Civil War was toÂ a large degree a war between left-wing evangelical Christians and right-wing evangelical Christians and anti-slavery racists and pro-slavery racists. Other than that and some regional economic differences pitting southern agriculture against northern industry, the Union and the Confederacy were virtally identical in terms of race, religion, preferred political and economic systems and, for the most part, culture.
Where Hoppe’s analysis is more solid relates to his pointÂ about the efforts of the northern elite to depict the “war between the states” as a battle of enlightened progressives and backward reactionaries. This is precisely how groups like the SPLC attempt to depict anti-government movements today. It doesn’t appear to work very well if the statistics gathered by Zogby are accurate, as sympathy for secession appears to be higher among the “left-wing” constituents like racial minorities, young people, the poor, the less educated and “liberals”, though there’s no doubt plenty of secessionist sentiment among the “far right” (those so far right as to be outside the Republican Party)Â as well. Hoppe offers his own ideas on how secession might be achieved:
” In light of these considerations, the, it appears strategically advisable not to attempt again what in 1861 failed so painfully: for contiguous states or even the entire South trying to break away from the tyranny of Washington, D.C. Rather, a modern liberal-libertarian strategy of secession should take its cues from the European Middle Ages when, from about the twelfth until well into the seventeenth century (with the emergence of a modern central state), Europe was characterized by the existence of hundreds of free and independent cities, interspersed into a predominately feudal social structure. By choosing this model and striving to create a U.S. punctuated by a large and increasing number of territorially disconnected free cities-a multitude of Hong Kongs, Singapores, Monacos and Liechtensteins strewn out over the entire continent-two otherwise unattainable but central objectives can be accomplished. First, besides recognizing the fact that the liberal-libertarian potential is distributed highly unevenly across the country, such a strategy of piecemeal withdrawal renders secession less threatening politically, socially and economically. Second, by pursuing this strategy simultaneously at a great number of locations all over the country, it becomes exceedinly difficult for the central state to create a unified opposition in public opinion to the secessionists which would secure the level of popular support and voluntary cooperation necessary for a successful crackdown.”
I would agree thatÂ a strategy of secession by scattered units rather than by a contiguous geographical region is more viable for a number of reasons. First, such an arrangement is more conducive to the prevention of the emergence of yet another tyrannical central state following secession from the present tyrannical central state. Second, such an approach is likely more compatible with the need to accommodate the kinds of cultural and ideological diversity that would be found in a modern pan-secessionist effort. Third, as Hoppe recognizes, secessionist potential varies widely from location to location. Fourth, the current process of self-separation Americans are undergoing is just as much a matter of conflict between cities and counties, races and ethnic groups, social classes and religious, cultural or “moral” outlooks as it is a conflict between regions.
However, I am not convinced that the present ruling class would be any less offended by secession on the part of scattered clusters of city-states than it would by secession by a unified block of states in the South, West, East or on the West Coast. Yes, the latter may end up suffering the same fate as the Confederacy, but the former may well suffer the same fate as the people at Waco in 1993. This is an empire that claims the right to interfere in the internal politics of remote African nations. The overlords of this system will certainly not let, say, Chicago or Dallas or even Kennesaw County simply say, “So long, feds, we ain’t payin’ you no more taxes.”
Secession will likely need to be doneÂ by clusters of insurgent city-states of the type Hoppe suggests, and these may well reflect an amazing variety of beliefs and cultural systems, but they will need to be at least somewhat supportive of one another in the political and military realm (though not necessarily in the wider cultural or ideological realm) if they are to avoid the fate of the Tibetans at the hands of the Chinese.
Quote of the Week:
“Soledad Oâ€™Brien, at the beginning of CNNâ€™s â€œBlack in America:Â Reclaiming the Dream,â€ cited as evidence of the at least partial fulfillment of Dr. Kingâ€™s dream that â€œSome are CEOs.Â Some are Secretaries of State.â€
Well, I have a dream of my own:Â To strangle the last CEO with the entrails of the last Secretary of State.
Seriously, thereâ€™s something really nauseating about a model of â€œProgressiveâ€ politics thatâ€™s perfectly willing to leave the present structures of political and economic power intact, so long as the board rooms and cabinets contain a representative selection of races and genders (â€look like America,â€ as Slick Willie put it).
As a white man, I can tell you, I derive very little satisfaction from the knowledge that Iâ€™m being screwed over by people who look like me.Â Instead of worrying about the racial and gender makeup of the board rooms and cabinets, Iâ€™d like to tear them down.”
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â -Kevin Carson
When You SeeÂ a Turtle Sitting on a FencepostÂ by Kevin Carson
James Dobson: Neocon StoogeÂ by Dylan Waco
The Mother of All MessesÂ by Paul Craig Roberts
A Brazen EvilÂ by Justin Raimondo
How Good Was the Good War?Â by Thomas E. Woods Jr.
Obama: The Democratic War PresidentÂ by Eric Margolis
The State is Above the LawÂ by Glenn Greenwald
A Tattoo for Every Politician’s ForeheadÂ by Charley Reese
Children in GuantanamoÂ from AnarchoNation
The Un-Tied States of AmericaÂ by Chellis Glendenning
Who Really Rules?Â by Paul Gottfried
The Rebellion in OklahomaÂ by Walter Williams
The Religious Right is AWOL From the Real WarÂ Â by Chuck Baldwin
Thoughts on the Canadian Genocide and the “Apology”Â byÂ Larry Gambone
Videos from 15th London New Right Conference:
WarÂ by Soren Renner
CosmotheismÂ by Larry Nunn
ImperiumÂ by Norman Lowell
On CarlyleÂ by Jonathon Bowden
The State vs. GuerrillasÂ by Bill Lind
Obama on the BrinkÂ by Robert Scheer
Are You Ready to Face the Facts About Israel?Â by Paul Craig Roberts
Honorable Exit From EmpireÂ by Pat Buchanan
Labor Struggle in a Free MarketÂ by Kevin Carson
Obama Will Probably Win Â by Christopher Roach
Grand New Party, Same Old IllusionsÂ by Austin Bramwell
Having an Agenda: The Black Libertarian’s Greatest Fear?Â by Wilton Alston
Quagmire ExchangeÂ by Charley Reese
Abetting Police Aggression: The COPS EffectÂ by William Norman Grigg
Hitchens on the Sectarian LeftÂ by Alexander Linklater
Pim Fortuyn and the Next European LiberalismÂ from BraveNewWorldWatch
Quote of the Week:
“Â Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”
– Thomas Paine
Proudhon Seminar: What is Property?Â Ch. 2 notes, Pt. 1 by Shawn Wilbur
Proudhon Seminar: What is Property?Â Ch. 1 notes, by Shawn Wilbur
Bush Acts Like an Oaf at Gang of Eight ConferenceÂ by Eric Margolis
A Phony Crisisâ€”and a Real One, On The Path To War With IranÂ by Pat Buchanan
Enabling Tyrannyâ€”Brigitte Bardot And Other VictimsÂ by Paul Craig Roberts
Police Quotas Motivate Unfair Treatment from Left Conservative Blog
The Lesser Evil Just Keeps Getting More EvilÂ by Kevin Carson
Â All You Need to Know About ObamaÂ Â by Brad Spangler
Why They’re Called “Cockroach Caucuses”Â by Kevin Carson
“Have Nothing to Do with Conquest”Â by Michael Scheuer
Conservative Confusion on Iran by Philip Giraldi
Just Another Drug War RantÂ by Kevin Carson
You Say You Want a RevolutionÂ by Kevin Carson
One Million Terrorists?Â Â by Paul Craig Roberts
Nothing Honorable About the Vietnam WarÂ by Ted Rall
John McCain is the Candidate of Mars, God of WarÂ by Doug Bandow
Little War Criminals Get Punished, Big Ones Don’tÂ by Paul Craig Roberts
America’s First Affirmative Action CandidateÂ by Pat Buchanan
Is There Sovereignty Beyond the State?Â by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
The Myth of the Conservative Legal Movement Â Â Â by Kevin R. C. Gutzman
Housing and SquattingÂ Â Â Â Â from AnarchoNation
Notes on the Revolution MarchÂ Â Â Â Â from Social Memory Complex
Drug War HogwashÂ Â Â Â by Charley Reese
Panarchy: A Means to Jeffersonian IdealsÂ by Mike Rozeff
We’re in a World Economic CrisisÂ by William Norman Grigg
Text of a speech from Adam Kokesh of Iraq Veterans Against the War
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Text of speech delivered 080712 at the west lawn of the capitol:
When I joined the Marines at a little strip mall in Santa Fe, and when I was in boot camp in San Diego, and when I was dodging mortars in Fallujah, I could not have imagined that I would one day share a stage with such renowned speakers. However, to march shoulder to shoulder, and to stand in solidarity with you, is a far greater honor.
It has been said that when in the course of human events, an oppression so revolts its subjects, it becomes necessary to alter or abolish the means of that tyranny. Is it that time when our Bill of Rights is defiled every day? When our adventures abroad threaten our security at home? When the Federal Reserve keeps our free nation enslaved by debt? When the people of the world tremble under the thumb of corporate imperialism? And now our nation is drifting dangerously from freedom to fascism. So I have to ask, is it time? The time is now, the threat is clear, the bands of tyranny are tightening around America, and it is our duty to resist!
As empowered patriots, let us take stock of our commitment to the ideals upon which this country is founded. America without her freedoms is like a body without a soul. The challenge before the Freedom Movement is no less, than to bring about a revolution of values, inspire a renaissance of American politics, and breathe new life into the tortured body of our nation. We will meet that challenge with courage and love, and as always, we the people, will prevail!
To rally the troops of the Revolutionary Army in the winter of 1776, Thomas Paine said, â€œThese are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot, will in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered.â€
As Iraq Veterans Against the War, we are resisting an occupation that we once risked our lives for. We swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, but we found out the hard way that the greatest enemies of the Constitution are not to be found in the sands of some far off land, but rather right here at home! We are your new winter soldiers and we are still defending America.
We bring the values, skills, and commitment that make us warriors to the fight before us today. We are working to end the war by strategically withdrawing our material support and inspiring others to do the same. By advocating for veterans, we honor those who served, and empower soldiers to become successful civilians. With Truth In Recruiting, we are inspiring a generation of young Americans to find a better way to serve this country than dying for empire. By supporting those who are actively resisting, we inspire further resistance, and ensure that soldiers still have the right, as is their duty, to disobey illegal orders.
During the siege of Fallujah, a young Lance Corporal was shot through the side of his flak jacket in a firefight to the west of the city. The bullet hit an artery near his spine. My team was called to help get him to the field hospital at Camp Taqadum. He was on a stretcher in the humvee in front of me, and I watched the Corpsman treating the external wound in a frightened, hurried panic, as the dust from the hot road swirled around us. When we got there, I carried him in as he moaned and writhed in pain, barely conscious. He flailed his arm off the stretcher, and as I put it back by his side I told him, â€œDon’t worry. You made it. You’re gonna be OK.â€ But he died only minutes later from the internal bleeding.
I have to live with that memory every day, but I have learned from it. I will not tell you that the band-aids applied by Republicans and Democrats will heal us. I will not pretend that everything is just going to be ok while we are bled dry by tyrants. And if it takes the last full measure of devotion, I will not allow the same fate to befall this country!
This young movement, is getting past the external wounds to the greater evils plaguing this nation. We know, that the greatest threat to American security is the current corruption of our government! No politician has ever ended a war. Civil rights were won in this country not by any legislator, but by a movement. I have great hope for America, but not because of an election. No, my hope comes from you!
Our tragic love affair with the state, has led us to put far too much trust in a government that we hoped could improve our lives, but has instead come to run our lives for us. We have become, as a people, like a frightened, battered, beat down victim of an abusive relationship. A servile, unquestioning, obedient people, will always produce tyrants. We must, as a nation, once again, embrace defiance, rebellion, and resistance!
Every day more and more Americans are avoiding unenforceable taxes, leaving government jobs out of disgust, and sending their kids to college instead of combat. But our efforts as a movement must become unified and deliberate to fully withdraw our compliance and support. Be it with your lives, labor, or tax dollars, stop investing in your own oppression! Guard your communities from the police state! Do not waste a single vote, or a single dollar, on the two-party system! Do not be content merely to grumble and to march while they are using fear, force, and violence as weapons of oppression. We must embrace the opportunity to resist civilly while we still can!
We are compelled to be here for many different reasons, and there is strength in our diversity. As within Iraq Veterans Against the War and Veterans For Peace, we do not need to be uniform to be unified. Take a look at the thoughtful, passionate people around you on this field, and throughout this country. Do not leave here without meeting a new brother or sister in the struggle. Take with you the inspiration to share your passion with someone who does not know they are yet part of our movement. Seek out where you can be most effective in the cause of liberty.
Challenge our force fed culture of unquestioning conformity and compliance. Embrace a world that is not defined by the politics of fear, our obedience producing schools, or the false prophets of the corporate media. As we have been awakened, we must stir the sleeping masses. As the forces of oppression are diligent, so must we toil. As they are committed, we must surpass them. As they step up their efforts, we must rise up to defeat them as a unified movement!
We have been labeled rebels, traitors, enemies of the state. All terms King George would have used to vilify our founders. I, for one, will always rebel against oppression, a traitor only to tyranny, and I would be remiss to not be the enemy of a state, that so blatantly tramples our freedoms.
American values have been nearly vanquished by consumerism, militarism, and authoritarianism. Yellow ribbons and lapel pins will not save this country. When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty. The utmost manifestation of love and devotion to America, is today as it always has been, resistance of tyranny! Resist we must, and resist we will! We will not be silent! We will not obey! We will not let our government destroy our humanity! We will not wait another moment in fear to stand up for what we know to be right! It is time the government starts fearing the people again! It is time that we meet oppression with resistance!
They cannot stop us! Humanity marches on. You can fight it, or fight for it. When we say revolution, we say it with love. As we march onward from this place where we have pledged to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor, let us embrace the struggle, cherish the fight, and live in that love. The passion of our hearts will be raised with our fists!
NA23 offers this suggestion:
The key is the breaking down of the Left/Right dichotomy with a real social alternative. We have to disrupt the labels and stereotypes held by the left, right and the media. This can only be done succesfully through frequent street actions and public involvement, on as many issues as is possible.
The strategy of tension and the disruption of dogmas through confusion.
This may well be correct, as it has been the National-Anarchists of Australia and New Zealand that have been achieving the highest level of recognition so far as “neither left nor right” movements go, and they have been doing it through street actions.
What the folks in Australia have shown is that even a small group that acts correctlyÂ can make something of an impact.Â A few years ago, I was having a conversation with a non-political acquaintance who told me that most leftist demonstrations he had observed appeared to be nothing more than chaotic, incoherent nonsense with a bunch of people swarming around and heading off into all sorts of different directions and often carrying signs (usually exhibiting the quality of what a third-grader with a box of crayons might produce) with slogans that were irrelevant to the purpose of the protest itself, for instance, “Save the Whales” signs being carried at an antiwar demo. I suggested in response that it would be more effective if a group of protestors simply marched in an organized way, carrying one big banner that was professionally done and that got the message across, with relevant literature available to give out to interested passersby.
From the photos of the New Right Aus/Nz actions, it appears that this is precisely what they do. Hence, their effectiveness. Also, notice that many of them are wearing black outfits and some are wearing masks (warning: wearing a mask in public is illegal in some US jurisdictions). This is good as it gives the marchers an appearance of seriousness that counterbalances the hippy-dippy, hysterical leftoid image of protest demonstrations.
So how would we do what our Australian/Nz friends are doing in the USA? NA23’s position of adopting such tactics towards many issues seems appropriate. No doubt different issues will be more significant in certain places and at certain times. On the secession question itself, image a demo similar to that depicted inÂ these NA-NR Aus/NZ photos outside of federal buildings in the capital cities of individual states demanding autonomy for regions and cities. Imagine such demos outside courthouses, jails and police stations demanding an end to the police state and the legal racket and prison-industrial complex built up around it. Imagine demos outside the headquarters ofÂ corporations, banks and businesses institutions involved inÂ nefarious activities. Imagine such a demo outside military recruitmentÂ centers handing outÂ antiwar literature making serious arguments as opposed to the usual “No Blood for Oil” leftoid crap.Â Â There could be similar actions against the eradication of low income housing, or against corporate welfare-funded development projects, and many other targets.
What would be particularly advantageous is if anti-System groups from opposite ends of the political or cultural spectrum could get in the habit of marching together against common enemies, not out of a sense of brotherly love, but out of recognition of common enemies. For instance, religious fundamentalists and environmentalists demanding an end to the feds’ harassment of pro-life, environmental or animal rights groups. Left-wing anarchists, black nationalists and white nationalists marching over, say, police brutality or housing issues (yes, such groups have actually engaged in joint actions in the past). Homosexuals and motorcycle gangs marching in protest over harassment of gay bars and biker bars by zoning and liquor licensing boards.
You get the idea.
Of course, any such actions have the potential for violence as well as legal complications. Go in with your eyes open. Consult with lawyers, train your people in how to deal with the police when arrested, do your homework, etc.
Maybe we can reclaim the good name of protest.
‘Tis the day to consider the immortal words of Thomas Jefferson:
“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. …
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it’s rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure.”
Let’s not let Uncle TJ down!
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. â€” That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, â€” That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. â€” Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. â€” And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
â€” John Hancock
An interesting new book by Bill Bishop, The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart, explains how Americans are self-separating along cultural, political, religious, ethnic and racial lines. Here’s how the book is described:
|This is the untold story of why America is so culturally and politically divided.America may be more diverse than ever coast to coast, but the places where we live are becoming increasingly crowded with people who live, think, and vote like we do. This social transformation didn’t happen by accident. We’ve built a country where we can all choose the neighborhood and church and news show â€” most compatible with our lifestyle and beliefs. And we are living with the consequences of this way-of-life segregation. Our country has become so polarized, so ideologically inbred, that people don’t know and can’t understand those who live just a few miles away. The reason for this situation, and the dire implications for our country, is the subject of this ground-breaking work.
In 2004, journalist Bill Bishop made national news in a series of articles when he first described “the big sort.” Armed with original and startling demographic data, he showed how Americans have been sorting themselves over the past three decades into homogeneous communities â€” not at the regional level, or the red-state/blue-state level, but at the micro level of city and neighborhood. In The Big Sort Bishop deepens his analysis in a brilliantly reported book that makes its case from the ground up, starting with stories about how we live today, and then drawing on history, economics, and our changing political landscape to create one of the most compelling big-picture accounts of America in recent memory.
The Big Sort will draw comparisons to Robert Putam’s Bowling Alone and Richard Florida’s The Rise of the Creative Class and will redefine the way Americans think about themselves for decades to come.
What does this mean for the pan-secessionist cause? It means it’s already happening and that secession may well happen sooner and be less messy than some would expect. What all of these de facto separatists are doing is creating the framework for the anarchies, mini-republics, micro-nations and intentional communities that will be the political framework of a future North America.Â Consider some of the political arrangements that have existed in the past. Did you know how many anarchist political systems there have actually been?
Are you aware of the Icelandic Commonwealth or the Holy Roman Empire, a federation of three hundred autonomous kingdoms at its peak?
Were you aware of the ancient and medieval republics and city-states?
And don’t forget contemporary micro-nations:
This doesn’t include the thriving intentional communities all over the world:
There are plans for many more communities underway:
Indeed, anarchism, separatism and communitarianism are being practiced all over the world:
What needs to be done is already being done. All that’s left is to get rid of the imperialist police state that is hindering further progress.
Ever wonder why anti-System movements never get any further than they do in spite of near universal disdain for the American government and ruling class?
One obvious problem is that while most people agree they don’t like the status quo, they disagree wildly on WHY they don’t like the status quo. Either the System is too racist, or it’s not racist enough, or its too pro-gay, or not anti-gay enough, or too socialistic, or too capitalistic, or too decadent, immoral, hedonistic or libertine, or too puritanical, repressive, moralistic or conservative. Either the System does too much to protect the environment, or not enough, or spends too much money on education and welfare or not enough.
Would not the solution be to have different systems for different kinds of people with different values? Why should there be only one system for 300 million people? Why shouldn’t people who dislike one another and can’t get along simply separate themselves from one another? No doubt there is a practically unlimited number of reasons why someone might want out of the System. These could include everything from anti-zoning activists who wish to create a separate county or municipality without zoning ordinancesÂ to UFO believers who think the federal government has fallen under the influence of extraterrestrials.
What does it matter, so long as the System is attacked.