“Parachuting the leader of the Green Party into a foreign bioregion and pouring in the money, will not change Canadian politics by one iota.”
What a shot! A certain political career dangles in the wind. The end is nigh.
Sebastian Ronin216 Stewart Road, Pugwash River, NS B0K
Green Party Leadership Candidate Declares as the “Peoples’ Candidate”
Green Party of Nova Scotia leadership candidate, Sebastian Ronin, has announced that he will present himself as “the peoples’ candidate” for his leadership bid.
“There are several factors that go into this decision,” says the Pugwash area resident.
“Firstly and most importantly, there is the poor perception of the GPNS by the public over financial mismanagement and failure to follow governmental protocol, as made evident by media reports during the recent provincial election,” claims Mr. Ronin. “The GPNS has no moral capital in the eyes of the public. $200,000 of taxpayer money has been squandered over a period of two years with very little to show for it. My platform aims at a severe re-invention, and ethical and financial accountability for the GPNS.”
Mr. Ronin has proposed in his platform that the natural base of support for the GPNS is to be found in rural Nova Scotia. In order to reach out to rural Nova Scotians, Mr. Ronin has proposed that the GPNS office be re-located to Truro.
“The GPNS has recently decided to ban public participation from its forum web site,” says Mr. Ronin. “For me this was the straw that broke the camel’s back. For a party that purports to endorse the principle of grassroots democracy, shoving the hammer of censorship down the public’s throat is an odd way to show it.”
Mr. Ronin has started an online petition encouraging Nova Scotians to support his candidacy for the leadership of the Green Party.
“By signing the petition, Nova Scotia taxpayers can relieve some of their dismay over the past conduct of the GPNS,” said Mr. Ronin. “I can wave the petition in the face of the small clique of the party’s insiders. For those who wish to go beyond signing the petition, a GPNS membership taken out to support my candidacy will, of course, be greatly appreciated.”
Mr. Ronin’s online petition can be found at: http://www.gopetition.com/online/30175.html
Mr. Ronin claims that rural Nova Scotians have an obligation to themselves and their families to support a revitalized Nova Scotia Green Party. He claims that with the decimation of the Progressive Conservatives and a four-year time line to work with, the opportunity for rural Nova Scotians to re-invent the GPNS has never been better.
“The cradle for the re-invention of the GPNS is what I refer to as “The Northumberland Triangle” claims Mr. Ronin. “It is that rural area bounded by the Amherst-New Glasgow-Truro triangle.”
The Green Party AGM will be held October 24 and 25 in Dartmouth. Mail-in ballots will be accepted right up to the day prior the AGM.
Mr. Ronin’s leadership platform can be viewed at: http://roningpns.ning.com/. There will be an online Q&A “meet the candidate” meeting every Wednesday evening at 7:00 PM right up to the AGM at Mr. Ronin’s leadership candidate site. All are welcome to participate.
“No one need be concerned about the dark shadow of censorship,” said Mr. Ronin.
216 Stewart Road, Pugwash River, NS, B0K 1L0
Cumberland County Resident Announces Green Party Leadership Bid
Former Pictou County resident, now living in Cumberland County, Sebastian Ronin, has announced his intent to seek the leadership of the Green Party of Nova Scotia.
In light of the controversy and public skepticism surrounding the GPNS which came to light during the recent provincial election, Mr. Ronin proposes a major overhaul for the party. This would include a re-invention of the party’s philosophy and policies and a re-positioning of the party with the Nova Scotia electorate.
“The most important message for the GPNS to relay to the people of Nova Scotia at this time is the Peak Oil message,” claims Mr. Ronin. “It is the primary global condition through which all of the party’s policies must be filtered. The social and economic consequences of Peak Oil trump those of global warming and climate chaos by several decades.”
“To advocate a smooth transition to a post-industrial way of life without severe social dislocations is a political lie,” says Mr. Ronin. “The time to act and prepare is now.”
Mr. Ronin proposes that the natural support base for the GPNS is rural Nova Scotia. He further claims that rural Nova Scotians have an obligation to themselves and to their families to support a revitalized Nova Scotia Green Party. He claims that with the decimation of the Progressive Conservatives and a four-year time line to work with, the opportunity for rural Nova Scotians to re-invent the GPNS has never been better.
“The rebirth of the GPNS can begin in what I refer to as The Northumberland Triangle,” said Mr. Ronin. “It takes in that rural and jurisdictional area connected by Amherst-New Glasgow-Truro. It can spread to the rest of rural Nova Scotia from there. Except for a handful of university students, forget HRM. It is Orange and will remain to be so.”
One of Mr. Ronin’s planks in support of his intent to bring the GPNS to rural Nova Scotia is to have the party's central office re-located to Truro.
Mr. Ronin has released a 30-point platform which is available for public view at the GPNS forum at: http://novascotiagreens.ning.com/.
Two major elements of political re-invention that Mr. Ronin proposes to bring to the GPNS are a constitutional de-coupling from the Global Green Charter and a necessary distancing from the federal Green Party of Canada. "The optics of both suck," claims Mr. Ronin.
Mr. Ronin says that his proposals are being fought by a significant proportion of the “old guard” in the GPNS.
"Rural Nova Scotians will understand Peak Oil immediately,” claims Mr. Ronin, “If the tank is half-empty, then it's half-empty. Why supposed Greens cannot or will not understand that the natural support base for a Green party lies in rural districts is beyond me,” he says. “I cannot fathom it.”
For all rural Nova Scotians who might be interested in supporting Mr. Ronin’s leadership bid at the Green Party’s AGM slated for mid-October, he requests that he be contacted by email at: firstname.lastname@example.org. A dedicated campaign forum can be visited at: http://roningpns.ning.com/.
Please note that "North American Secessionist Congress" as name for pending corporate entity, has been officially reserved with the Ohio Secretary of State. In part, the certificate states:
"It is hereby certified that the Secretary of State of Ohio has custody of the business records for NORTH AMERICAN SECESSIONIST CONGRESS and, that said business records show the filing and recording of: NAME RESERVATION."
NASC Steering Committee member, Harold Thomas, did the leg work on this one and hats are off to him. Yesterday, Jenna Orkin over at the FTW Blog gave us a very good plug; international hits to the NASC Forum were up considerably.
For those who are not yet familiar with the proposed NASC, one of several aims is to gather already-committed secessionists, Peak Oil advocates, States' Rights advocates and disenchanted Greens under a common secessionist roof. The common denominator for these three demographics, to one degree or another, is a shared acknowledgement and comprehension of secession. Furthermore, the NAmerican secessionist movement will finally have elected representation via an Executive that functions within the incorporated and legal parameters of a Constitution and Bylaws as determined and ratified by the membership. For anyone who has not yet, to view the forum please visit North American Secessionist Congress, October 2010.
Thanks for your attention,
Chair, NASC Steering Committee
Mr. Naylor reiterates the 12 percent support for secession in Vermont translating into 60,000 registered voters. There is a large chasm to leap between the endorsement of an idea and its support. Sam Young, the acknowledged secessionist gubernatorial candidate in Vermont during the '08 elections drew 0.8 percent (2,466 votes).
There is a glaring disconnect here. Questions to be asked are: Why does the disconnect exist? How can it be resolved?
Part of the problem may lie in the fact that, as of yet, there is no real secessionist political platform and policies that can be offered to the voting public. Waiting for Republicrats to seize the secessionist initiative is self-defeating. As such, the creation of a secessionist party, as proposed by the Green Mountain Brigade in Vermont, may prove the way to go. The SVR is on record as opposing such a development. Such a party would translate into a concrete alternative for the electorate to entertain. Via such a political vehicle, the 12 percent, if it actually exists, may step out from the shadows knowing that its support would actually translate into true State legislative representation.
If the 12 percent support really does exist then the paper revolutionaries in Vermont owe it to those citizens to organize politically around their support, as opposed to leaving them dangling in the wind. With a first-across-the-line voting system, parliamentary representation, and multiple parties (at the State level) to not crunch the numbers and to not enter the electoral fray in a wisely-targeted electoral district with a distinctive secessionist party brings Tallyrand to mind: “It is worse than a crime, it is a mistake.” The same electoral dynamics apply for a couple of Southern states and especially for Texas. For the latter, we have had that discussion in this space before.
This particular revolution will not be a re-enactment of a sixties love-in. Each geographical jurisdiction carries the responsibility to safeguard and promote its own and unique autonomy. Vermont’s business is Vermont’s business. However, until such time as the secessionist struggle goes political then it is all just make-believe. As we have known all along, some will get it right, some will get it wrong, and some won’t get it at all.
As for the interview itself, the same applies here as to last week’s WSJ article, Divided We Stand. NAmerican secessionists will have to tweak their media savvy. It always helps to know who is playing whom…and to whose advantage.
The stakes are growing in leaps and bounds.
My original take on the article was: Why this? Why now? And why via the WSJ? My most concrete thought is directly related to Post-Peak Oil collapse, i.e. with a financially bankrupt federal state, the public is being prepped on the federal state having to bail out, ergo my entire notion of secession-by-default. This particular take on secession makes me a bit of a freak even within the secessionist community. With all due respect to my States' Rights colleagues, the clamp-down on individual freedoms is a symptom of a greater cause. The cause, the social driver of socio-political devolution is the entry onto the depletion slope of Post-Peak Oil and the shattering of social institutions that will accompany this historical collapse and transition.
As pointed out by Chris Hedges in The American Empire Is Bankrupt:
It is the first formal step by our major trading partners to replace the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. If they succeed, the dollar will dramatically plummet in value, the cost of imports, including oil, will skyrocket, interest rates will climb and jobs will hemorrhage at a rate that will make the last few months look like boom times. State and federal services will be reduced or shut down for lack of funds. The United States will begin to resemble the Weimar Republic or Zimbabwe. Obama, endowed by many with the qualities of a savior, will suddenly look pitiful, inept and weak. And the rage that has kindled a handful of shootings and hate crimes in the past few weeks will engulf vast segments of a disenfranchised and bewildered working and middle class. The people of this class will demand vengeance, radical change, order and moral renewal, which an array of proto-fascists, from the Christian right to the goons who disseminate hate talk on Fox News, will assure the country they will impose.
It would seem that it was no accident that the WSJ article appeared when it did and where it did. As a complimentary article to the Hedges article, see:
De-Dollarization: Dismantling America’s Financial-Military Empire, by Prof. Michael Hudson.
Over the course of the coming years secessionists will need to be wary as to who is setting the agenda and to who is establishing the filters through which information is sifted. We cannot and must not allow the secessionist movement to be framed by our adversaries. To do so would merely render us as useful idiots, obedient lap dogs unwittingly serving a greater, globalist agenda. One need simply look at the example of how the Green movement has been co-opted for such purpose.
That secessionist organizations will be infiltrated by COINTELPRO's should come as no surprise. If the movement is legitimate, this is par for the course. To borrow from previous historical examples, the challenge will be to flush out the infiltrators and turn them! We will need to be wary of who is playing whom and to whose advantage. Who is the dog, who is the tail, and who is wagging whom?
Only a legitimate, continental secessionist organization with an Executive elected by the constiuency that it purports to represent can, rightly or wrongly, assume such responsibilities.
My sensation is one of awe and gratitude, as it was me who coined the term "Novacadia."
On April 6, 2008 I placed a call to Thomas Naylor, founder of the Second Vermont Republic, and ran the idea past him. He had no problem with it. On April 8, 2008 I sent an email to Kirkpatrick Sale of The Middlebury Institute and Burt Cohen who had interviewed me for his Portside radio program in New Hampshire. The email reads verbatim:
Please see attached word doc. I discussed this shift with Thomas on the week-end. He had no problem with it. As I have had a few days to toss it around and put things to paper, I shall fax a copy of the attached word doc to him to-day. The spark for this shift came from a tactical disagreement I had with Jonathan Dean of the Atlantica Party several days ago, IMO, nothing more than a pretense to squeeze me out. Cutting bait with the AP is all for the better anyway. Now things will be out in the open on a very clean slate where I can push my own personal envelope...and a true secessionist agenda at the provincial level.
Kirk: Please make appropriate change from Atlantica Alliance to Novacadia Network on the Questionnaire for Registry which I sent to you yesterday. Nothing has been lost over the one-week lifespan of the AA. Hits to the site were minimal. For those who have visited, they will be re-directed to http://www.novacadia.org/. The domain change will hopefully be in place by day's end. You will note that I have also fired up a dedicated gmail account.
Burt: If you can somehow squeeze in a plug for the Novacadia Network site prior to Thursday's broadcast that would be great and, again, nothing has been lost during the short lifespan of the AA. Actually, not having plugged it during the original broadcast now comes in as an asset.
I would appreciate your feedback on the rationale for making this shift. Thanks for your attention. Later.
The attached Word doc referenced to in the email reads as follows:
Political Mandate and Identity Shift to The Novacadia Independence Party, Rationale for
Distance and differentiate from Atlantica Party
The Atlantica Party is somewhat soft on Maritime Union (a political necessity prior to secession as a unified region)
The Atlantica Party’s motive/premise for Maritime Union is to foster greater economic prosperity for the Maritimes
The motive/premise for Maritime Union of the Novacadia Independence Party is diametrically opposed to Atlantica Party’s position, as it is politically misleading within the context of “owning” the economic and social consequences of Peak Oil and incorporating such into party constitution and policies
Atlantica Party identified by the public with the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS), if valid or not does not matter
In the public mind, AIMS is the front organization/think tank for a right wing, corporatist agenda
The Atlantica Party’s constant denial that it is not affiliated with AIMS hardly negates the fact that it is one of the first questions asked of it
Rightly or wrongly, the perception of affiliation exists
Lastly, in spite of the Atlantica Party’s constant refutation of affiliation with AIMS, that it in fact may be a shill for AIMS is quite probable
Although the “marketing baggage” for the Atlantica Party at this stage is minimal, it can only increase rather than decrease; it is barely out of the gate and having to deal with a serious political liability
Rather than work with a hidden agenda within the Atlantica Party, take the secessionist initiative on the provincial level to the fore, i.e. the high ground, and position the secessionist initiative for the public to clearly see, contemplate, and decide to support or not (“no secrets” is a much stronger and more ethical tactic than “hidden agenda”)
Will make for several interesting years on the Nova Scotia and Maritime political fringes (Novacadia Independence Party, Atlantica Party, Green Party)
There’s certainly nothing wrong with some good old competition
I am confident that, over time, support can be weaned from both the Atlantica Party and the Greens
If I did not believe that the Novacadia Independence Party will come out on top after several years of ideological street fighting, then I would not bother putting this initiative into the world
Meet SVR halfway with its proposal for New Acadia; makes for a sincere and concrete diplomatic gesture that may hold great media appeal at the conference
Novacadia, as an identity, speaks politically to both Scottish and French history and heritage in The Maritimes, ergo a hybrid identity incorporating Nova Scotia and Acadia
Until such time as the Novacadia Independence Party is up and running, use the organizational tool of the Novacadia Network with which to promote, i.e. shift from Atlantica Alliance to Novacadia Network (tentative domain name change by my server has already been approved)
As “peak oil and hard political action” will be one of the major themes of my presentation at the conference, the Novacadia Independence Party serves as a regional political entity and prototype for delegates to consider to further their own secessionist agendas
With this initiative I cross a personal Rubicon, thus forcing me to own it fully and assume responsibility at the highest levels of my own political conduct
So in the span of 14 months the notion of Novacadia has gone from idea to the pages of the WSJ. The political designation of Novacadia was officially introduced at the Third North American Secession Convention last November in Manchester, New Hampshire via my paper and presentation, Post-Peak Oil and NAmerican Regional Secession. Since the convention, two blogs and a web site have been dedicated to the idea of Novacadia, plus a Facebook page has recently been launched. During the winter a probe went out to New England secessionists for a Novacadia conference in the spring. There was no interest. It seemed that focus was going towards creating the Switzerland of North America. Outreach in the Maritimes is ongoing, though slowly and carefully. A discussion on the role of the monarchy in Canada is here, after all, still legitimate political discourse.
It is for such reasons that I find it odd that, when quoted in the WSJ article, Kirkpatrick Sale would say that the idea of Novacadia, "did not actually evolve into very much."
Hosting my position paper on the Middlebury Institute site might alleviate that, although that would compete with other secessionist interpretations. The guess is ventured that showing some courage and decency by the Vermont Commons editorial board against one stringent voice might alleviate that. Making the slightest of dents in one's American exceptionalism might alleviate that. Pointing the writer of the WSJ article towards the founder of Novacadia might have alleviated it even more.
“Did not actually evolve into very much!” I mean honestly, what kind of a politically and diplomatically asinine comment is that to make by the self-anointed, go-to guy for the NAmerican secessionist movement?
Paul Starobin, the writer of the article, states, “The Middlebury Institute, a group that studies and supports the general cause of separatism and secessionism in the U.S., has held three Secession Congresses since its founding in 2004.”
I doubt if the term “Secession Congresses” dropped into Mr. Starobin’s mind out of the blue. It has already been pointed out that the Middlebury Institute went out of its way to bill its events as “conventions.” Now that concrete plans are underway to hold the inaugural meeting of the proposed North American Secessionist Congress in 2010, backtracking and a re-writing of history to make Joe Stalin proud is all in vain.
If it quacks like a thief, then odds are, it’s a thief.
Alas, contrary to Mr. Sales' pedestrian and myopic secessionist agenda, the geographical designation of Novacadia is doing just fine, thanks very much, all things considered. We're in the WSJ! It only took 14 months to get there! And no one, no one who has not earned it deserves any credit for it being there.
During times of intellectual revolution great and courageous perceptions and statements will occur, as will the small and petty. The onus falls on the pioneers who congregate around a movement to determine who makes which, from which motives, and towards which ends.
We make our beds, and then we get to sleep in them.
Of the many political illusions that are currently being shattered by the decline of industrial civilization (the collapse of the American Empire is a sub-collapse), two of the most important are the shattering of the two-party system and the shattering of the political notions of “left” and “right.” The symbolic emperor literally wears no clothes!
The political notions of “left” and “right” are in process of being denuded; they still hold significant sway in the public consciousness. Until such time as the two hemispheres converge and, in the process shatter pre-existing molds, the dynamic of far left and far right coming together retains its hold in the public psyche.
It has been proposed that the three political demographics encompassing the secessionist convergence triad are the States’ Rights movement, the Peak Oil movement, and disenchanted Greens. Each demographic recognizes, to one extent or another, the common denominator of secession.
The States’ Rights movement flirts with secession, up to and including the insertion of secession trigger clauses in resolutions. The Peak Oil movement acknowledges institutional collapse and devolution, while still weakly maintaining that such institutional collapse, i.e. secession, does not apply to the social institution of the large industrial nation state. Disenchanted Greens acknowledge the primacy of bioregional, secessionist politics in the face of bastardized federal parties. Within each demographic there reside minority cadres who will perceive the secessionist common denominator and political logic as put forward by the proposed North American Secessionist Congress.
For sake of argument, the convergence may roughly constitute the following breakdown: States’ Rights advocates (political right, 50% of convergence total); Peak Oilers (political left, 30% of convergence total); disenchanted Greens (political left, 20% of convergence total).
So there we have the unlikely partnering of "the far left and far right of American politics coming together." The historical condition always dictates what can and cannot be done. The trick is to perceive the condition for what it is, without resorting to subjective and jingoistic security blankets, and act accordingly.
Towards this end, a forum/network has been started for the North American Secessionist Congress. Please consider becoming a member of the forum so that we can entertain as much input as possible to pull this thing off in 2010.
Retreat is never surrender. It is merely a tactical necessity at times. The trudge continues.
The most recent established institution to endorse the notion of secession is the Ludwig von Mises Institute with the publication of Secession Is In Our Future. This article offers a concise overview of the legality of secession ranging from the inalienable right of secession, to international law of secession, to U.S. law of secession. It is a good read for all those federalists whose immediate, knee-jerk response to secession is that it is illegal.
Unfortunately, the von Mises article displays two shortcomings that are common to most U.S.A.-centric analyses of secession.
The first of these shortcomings is the focus on individual state secession as opposed to more regional perspectives and perceptions. Granted, secession can only proceed via the legislative authority of one state at a time. However, this does not preclude the incorporation of regional alliances and federations towards the establishment of new, autonomous nations upon the geographical dimensions of North America. As a guide to how these regional breakdowns may evolve, please see How would the U.S.A. fragment? by Phil Gyford.
The second shortcoming is a major philosophical and political blind spot. It is the analysis of secession as a socio-political driver as opposed to secession being a consequence and symptom of greater, underlying dynamics and phenomena. It cannot be stated enough that secession will be a consequence of ecological and financial collapse, in particular, the descent onto a Post-Peak Oil reality.
As the physical infrastructure collapses, so too will the institutional infrastructure. The dynamic of secession is not reversed, as far too many secessionists mistakenly believe. Yes, it will be imperative to retain the social principles of "freedom and liberty" (i.e. States' Rights movement), but in a world of increasing scarcities and hardships this will prove to be a daunting challenge, yet one that must be pursued. It is quite possible that a social contract encompassing social responsibilities will influence and mold our current understanding of what is meant by "freedom and liberty."
For further reading on secession and Post-Peak Oil, please see Post-Peak Oil and NAmerican Regional Secession.
The liberal media quickly trotted out its attack poodles in the form of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. Aside from the now lame and questionable interpretations of the American Civil War and Lincoln's merits as a freedom fighter, one has to assume that secession would be bad for General Electric's bottom line as an arms merchant. On the conservative side, much finger pointing went in the direction of Fox News and Glenn Beck's 9/12 Project for the ultra-jingoistic primping of the Tea Bag protests. Both "left" and "right" media missed the mark, as was pointed out by Alex Jones. However, not even the writers at Inforwars picked up on the realpolitik motives behind Gov. Perry's sudden attachment to the secession of Texas from the Union.
Gov. Perry is locked in a bitter fight for the Republican Primary gubernatorial nomination with Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in March, 2010. Reports have it that the two do not particularly like each other and that the gloves are already coming off for what will likely be nasty campaigns. Furthermore, as reported by Richard Murray (also here), Sen. Hutchison currently holds about a 10 point spread. Gov. Perry has just less than a year to play catch up and then some. The challenge for the incumbent becomes from where and how to make up the difference. It is at this point that Gov. Perry's newly-found embracement of secession comes into play.
A name that has not yet been mentioned in any of the blog action or by the corporate media around Gov. Perry's secessionist pronouncements is that of Larry Kilgore. Mr. Kilgore is a dedicated Texas secessionist who has six attempts at public office under his belt. In 2006, he gained 8 percent of the vote in the GOP Primary for Governor. His most recent electoral effort was the 2008 primary challenge for the Republican Senate nomination, during which he received 225,897 votes! Lastly, Mr. Kilgore has announced his intent to let his name stand for the 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary. The sheen on Gov. Perry's newly-discovered secessionist empathy takes on a whole new tone.
Sen. Hutchison's demographic backing comes from the more moderate, professional and urban wing of Texas Republicans. Gov. Perry's support, on the other hand, is based on hard-right conservatives who are strongly pro-life, opposed to gay rights, hostile to teaching evolution in the public schools, and tough on immigration. It is the very demographic that delivered for Mr. Kilgore, with his platform of Biblical Law for an independent Texas, 225,897 votes during the 2008 Republican Senate primary.
One now gains an altogether different (and more clear?) picture of Gov. Perry's secessionist motives: he's out to grab Mr. Kilgore's support to fend off the challenge from Sen. Hutchison. Unless Mr. Kilgore finds a way to defend both his position and support, with a secessionist slant, then he very well faces insurmountable odds to fend off an incumbent Governor from staging a well-financed and aggressive raid into his electoral base.
Richard Murray (link above) throws further light on the numbers up for grabs for both Gov. Perry and Mr. Kilgore:
- for the last four Republican gunernatorial primaries, the average turn-out has been 691,000 (2006 turn-out was 665,616)
- for the last four Republican gunernatorial general elections, the average primary vote was 30.4% of the general election turn-out (2006 general election turn-out was 1,716,792)
- odds are that of the 13 million registered voters in Texas who can vote in the Republican Primary next year, less than a million will actually cast ballots
- the very selective GOP primary voters from 1994 – 2006 have been disproportionately hard-right conservatives
Sen. Hutchison needs a high turn-out primary that attracts moderate urban voters. Gov. Perry needs a low turn-out in March 2010 where the born-again Christian vote wields power. Mr. Kilgore needs to clarify who the real secessionist candidate is to prevent his support from draining over to Gov. Perry.
For Sen. Hutchison, going after Mr. Kilgore's grass-roots, Republican support is not an option. For Gov. Perry, tapping into some, most or all of Mr. Kilgore's support could be the difference between political life and death. If the Governor has his eyes on the Presidency in 2012, then he will first have to overcome the 2010 hurdle. The stakes here are serious and they are huge. Mr. Kilgore stands to be a giant slayer in more ways than one and in ways that are not yet even visible on most political radar.
(Note: In a follow-up post I shall deal with Gov. Rick Perry and Secessionist Realpolitik II. This was touched on by the Infowars report on Gov. Perry's questionable secessionist beliefs, but was not followed to conclusion, i.e. Gov. Perry's ties, as a Bilderberger, to a globalist New World Order and the related dismantling of nation-states as part of the globalist agenda.)
"STATE SOVEREIGNTY MOVEMENT UPDATE
"The following article from the Christian Science Monitor gives an update on the state sovereignty movement of the last few months. (I have also attached it.) A good website, Tenthamendmentcenter.com, has agreed to monitor the movement's progress. (emphasis mine)
"It's not secession, of course, but it has the seeds of that. Worth following.
"Kirkpatrick Sale, Director, Middlebury Institute,
It is quite conceivable that less incendiary fabrications have warranted a shot across the bow via a letter on lawyer's letterhead demanding two things: to cease and desist, and to offer a public retraction and apology.
Mr. Sale's statement would seem to infer three crucial things: 1./ that there is a direct relationship between The Middlebury Institute, a representative body of the NAmerican secessionist movement, and The Tenth Amendment Center; 2./ that The Tenth Amendment Center is working to his guidance, and; 3./ that the inferred relationship has The Tenth Amendment Center occupying the junior position.
That such a seemingly brazen misrepresentation should come from someone who fancies himself "The Leader" of a one-man think tank is neither here nor there. What is of political and diplomatic importance is that Mr. Sale's statement denigrates the work of someone like Harold Thomas who, for the last three months has been walking a fine line between his own secessionist sentiments and working diligently, while keeping the two issues separate, on behalf of the Ohio States' Rights movement.
As has already been pointed out by Harold on his blog is that Mr. Sale is just a tad Johnny-Come-Lately. The same out-of-sync grasp of events was witnessed in an email I received from Mr. Sale last week.
In the email Mr. Sale raises concerns about the efforts underway to launch The North American Secessionist Congress (NASC) this coming October in Columbus, OH. As his concerns reflect on the NAmerican secessionist movement in whole, the movement deserves the courtesy to know what those concerns are. Mr. Sale's email is as follows:
"I don't have any clear idea of what you are planning for October, or why, and you might have consuloted (sic) me before embarking on this, but I would ask you to consider changing the name of the meeting, for it will clearly not be a Congress, as were my three events, as that means official delegates from independent organizations (as the members of the Philadelphia Congresses in 1770s). 'Convention' would fit your bill.
"BTW, there was never any congress slated for Texas. It was a possible site if I determined there was enough secessionist action going on to merit another gathering of delegates; I haven't so far."
Mr. Sale's feigning of ignorance as to what is being planned for October is a bit of a stretch. Prior to last November's Third North American Secessionist Convention, I had hoped to place a motion on the agenda for the creation of the NASC. To this end, again prior to the Convention and as a first-time Convention delegate, I asked Mr. Sale if he would broker an introduction to a seconder for the motion. He declined. Furthermore, I asked him if he would consider allowing his name to stand as the NASC inaugural Chair, should the motion make it to the floor and pass. There was no response to this question, ergo a negative. As the motion was built into a PowerPoint presentation and, as the A/V equipment that was promised me was not delivered and, as the meeting was not conducted conducive to presenting a motion (Mr. Sale held the "Chair"), the motion was not presented. Not only did Mr. Sale show indifference to the idea of an NASC, but via his conduct he was actually hostile towards it. Since that time, Mr. Sale fails to understand (or purports to not understand) the several posts on my blogs beginning with NAmerican Secessionist Movement Asleep-At-The-Wheel dated January 9, 2009. (Email records for all of the above available on request.)
Whom I choose to approach and work with is my prerogative. I was not aware that it was necessary to pander to Mr. Sale's approval and endorsement as to what I choose to "embark" on. I have asked for support within the secessionist community towards the building of the NASC and slowly that support has and is materializing. Trust is not a freebie; it must be earned. A Steering Committee is in place. I work with whom I share a certain degree of synergy, political affiliation and common vision. This is not exactly rocket science.
By claiming that "his" three events constituted a Congress, Mr. Sale would seem to be treating the truth somewhat cavalierly. As a matter of fact, The Middlebury Institute has gone out of its way to bill its events as conventions. What else, pray tell, could they be? There is no executive, no officers, no due parliamentary process as per Roberts' Rules, a unilateral rubber-stamping of the "declarations" without full delegate input, etc. In short, a legal, incorporated entity that represents the North American secessionist movement does not exist. However, there is a one-man think tank with a mandate of "the study of separatism, secession, and self-determination" that purports to do all of the above. To now claim that The Middlebury Institute has the rights to the notion of a secessionist Congress, after having out rightly rejected that very notion at the Third North American Secessionist Convention, could seemingly be seen to border on political panic and intellectual theft.
Ditto above re Mr. Sale's claim that the proposed inaugural meeting of the NASC would fit the bill of "convention." It would seem that he is now desperately clutching at straws. We get to make our own beds, and then we get to sleep in them.
Lastly, for any delegate at the Third North American Secessionist Convention who had the ears with which to hear, it was firmly decided that the Fourth Convention (since cancelled by Mr. Sale) would be held in Texas. It was not a "possible site" and certainly was it not a possible site dependent on Mr. Sale's "determination." Or maybe it was. Who can actually determine these things within an organizational vacuum wherein accountability constitutes a nebulous after-thought?
The overabundant use of first-person directives by Mr. Sale merely highlights the obvious: there is no Congress, there is no organization, there is no coordination, there is no plan, there is no executive, there is no democratic process, there is no reaching out to the public, there is no accountability, and there is no responsibility. The efforts being made by the NASC Steering Committee towards the launch of the NASC are efforts to fill this dangerous and self-defeating void. Mr. Sale may find it difficult to believe, but this effort is for the eventual benefit of not only him, but for the benefit of all secessionists, myself included, who are currently floundering around in a sea of directionless futility, yet are convinced that NAmerican secession will be the political wave of the future within several short years. These are crucial times that warrant crucial decisions and responsibilities. That the consequences of the latter for the NAmerican secessionist movement will likewise be crucial should be self-evident. It is beyond any one individual.
(NASC Steering Committee Update: The Committee currently sits at three members. Several invitations-to-sit have been refused. Invitations pending are to representatives of Texas, the West Coast and Quebec. We hope to top off the Committee at five members.)
The official communiqué states: "We start from the belief that prosperity is indivisible; that growth, to be sustained, has to be shared; and that our global plan for recovery must have at its heart the needs and jobs of hard-working families, not just in developed countries but in emerging markets and the poorest countries of the world, too; and must reflect the interests not just of today's population but of future generations, too."
The industrial mantra of growth and prosperity is front and center. This is the underlying premise for the injection of $1 trillion into the IMF by participating nations. This is the cornucopian blind spot that is offered the public. In simplest terms, no matter how bad the global financial and economic predicament may happen to be (and there are now thousands of analyses that one may fall back on) the premise that has come out of the Summit is standard and reactionary: it is business as usual.
Peak Oilers are unanimous in their position that "business as usual" is a non-starter. The underlying collateral for industrial development, i.e. the energy in the ground, has entered the downward slope of depletion. If not full consensus, there is strong opinion within the PO community that 2008 was the peak year. What is more real? The energy collateral in the ground or the financial and economic templates that are superimposed on the collateral, the false notions of capitalism vs. socialism as trumpeted by the corporate media inclusive? (Who owns the "means of production" is secondary to having access to the means of production.)
This break-out onto the terrain of a new paradigm has been outlined clearly and simply by the PO pioneer, Colin Campbell: "Throughout history, people have had difficulty in distinguishing reality from illusion. Reality is what happens, whereas illusion is what we would like to happen. Wishful thinking is a well-worn expression. Momentum is still another element: we tend to assume that things keep moving in the same direction. The world now faces a discontinuity of historic proportions, as nature shows her hand by imposing a new energy reality. There are vested interests on all sides hoping somehow to evade the iron grip of oil depletion, or at least to put it off until after the next election or until they can develop some strategy for their personal or corporate survival. As the moment of truth approaches, so does the heat, the deceptions, the half-truth and the flat lies."
The G20 Summit, in a nutshell, has delivered nothing more than smoke and mirrors, a band-aid for the bankers and an attempt at soothing drool for the public.
The condition matures. The condition will expose the false premises hatched by the G20. The condition is the slide towards Post-Peak Oil and the collapse of industrial civilization. Any analysis short of that is smoke and spin. It is a lie.
If the average person on the street is stopped and questioned as to from where stems his/her sense of nationalism, one might well be informed that it is a genetic pre-condition. That is, of course, nonsense. Nationalism is learnt behaviour, it is Pavlovian conditioning to the max.
Until such time as the disintegration of the industrial nation-state (in our case, the United States and Canada) is legitimately incorporated into the Peak Oil dialogue, then the Peak Oil movement remains a political skeleton, a sham and hoax, of what it could and must be.
You can't have it both ways. Massive and cheap energy flow-through over the last 150 years, with the guidance of capital, created the industrial nation-state. The lack and negation of same translates into the demise of said nation-state. To keep heads stuck in the sand around this eventuality merely chases the best of intentions into the herd of denial, but with oh such radical and progressive differentiations.
By "this" Senator Baker was referring to a capped equalization formula that Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams insists will cost the province $1.5-billion worth of federal cash in the next three years. The capped formula is contained within the Federal Government's bail-out budget. Also on the hit list is Quebec which is purported to be short roughly $1 billion of transfer payments.
That provincial jurisdictions that are not altogether friendly towards the Conservative Government are the ones that are getting hit with the budget would seem to be self-evident. Premier Williams was the architect of the "Anything But Conservative" campaign during the recent federal election, and Quebec Premier Jean Charest turned on the Conservatives during the election over proposed cuts to the arts community.
The nature of federal-provincial feuds is about to change drastically. The case of Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec are prime examples. The former is politically expendable, as are the Maritime provinces, because they carry no political clout in the federal system, i.e. 32 seats out of 308. The latter is owned by the Bloc Quebecois and no federal party of whatever political stripe is about to alter that.
The nature of federal-provincial feuds that is about to change needs to be seen within the greater context of the global financial meltdown and the related entry onto the Post-Peak Oil descent curve. Federal financial largess towards the provinces is a thing of the past. The federal coffer is running on empty and will continue to do so. The Canadian financial, political and geographical hinterland is best off awakening to this fact.
Via the secessionist shot across the bow taken by Senator Baker, one can only predict that the sleepy and politically corrupt Maritime provinces will be stirred to at least awaken, if not to immediate action. When the Maritimes finally get around to taking some kind of action the proposed Novacadia Independence Party should be reasonably cobbled together to field several candidates to advocate the inevitable secession of the Maritime provinces.
Post-Script: On March 6, 2009, the defender of the national fabric (along with the CBC) weighed in on the issue. In an editorial titled "Intolerable in a national party" The Globe opined:
"Mr. Baker belongs to the caucus of a national party that hopes to soon form a government. His status within that party, as a senator and former cabinet minister, gives him a platform. When he uses it to effectively advocate the formation of a nationalist - and possibly separatist - movement in his home province, he behaves so recklessly that fellow Liberals should be tripping
over each other to distance themselves, not making apologies on his behalf."
Someone is nervous.
This one is not over by a long shot. Rep. Dan Itse and his co-sponsors of HCR 6 are to be congratulated...and saluted. Has the House vote inadvertently handed Rep. Itse the State's Governorship during the next gubernatorials? I guess we all get to stay tuned on that one.
Thanks go out to Harold Thomas at The Ohio Republic, not only for being so on top of this story, but also for the very important work he is doing in the States' Right community, especially rounding up support for Ohio's bid.
On another note to-day, Igor Panarin, the Russian analyst who is becoming somewhat of a secessionist poster boy, was back in the news, this time via an AP story that was picked up by both MSNBC and Fox News, Russian analyst: U.S. will collapse next year. Canada's National Newswatch linked to the Fox article.
Mr. Panarin and his hypothesis for U.S. implosion first broke last November and then the story was picked up by the WSJ on December 29. What is popping my antennae is the "legs" that the story is being given by the corporate media. First the WSJ and now MSNBC. Makes one wonder, yes?
As a commenter pointed out over at ClubOrlov, the word "collapse" is more and more creeping into the mainstream media, e.g. The collapse of manufacturing in The Economist...along with the notion of Peak Oil.
Having attended the Third North American Secessionist Convention in Manchester, NH this past November, three things became very clear:
- Delegate coordination and support, and media coverage of the secessionist movement were drastically weak and counter-productive relative to the pending conditions of empire collapse;
- Events were quickly far out-stripping and out-distancing the philosophical positioning of the movement and its ability to be representative of those events;
- The existing organizational structure to effectively coordinate the NAmerican secessionist movement was terribly lacking and, by virtue of a haphazard organizational initiative, was sadly undemocratic.
None of these observations is meant in any way to denigrate from the work invested by individuals and secessionist organizations over the past three years to kick-start the NAmerican secessionist dialogue. At any given time, we do what we can with the resources at-hand. However, there comes a time at the early stages of the life-cycle of any organization and/or movement when it is necessary to claw one's way up to the next level. That time has arrived.
As a sub-item of the first point above, i.e. lack of delegate coordination and support, it was also apparent that the secessionist movement was not well-represented by two major demographics: Peak Oilers and disillusioned, bioregional Greens, to both of which secession is practically an automatic fit.
Two other events have come into play since the Third North American Secessionist Convention. The first is, of course, the wild-fire flourishing of the States' Rights movement in the United States. The second event is the assertive, secessionist re-positioning of both the federal Bloc Quebecois and the provincial Parti Quebecois in Canada.
Taking the above conditions into consideration and after initial dialogue with other secessionists, it has been decided to bring into play a Steering Committee to pull together the inaugural meeting of the North American Secessionist Congress in Columbus, OH on October 16-18, 2009. The status of this proposed historic event is still "tentative." However, work is underway by the Steering Committee to firstly solidify its own legitimacy and then to probe for and determine support for holding the Columbus meeting.
Please check in every now and then to see how things are going as we prepare to trudge towards Columbus.
Albert Einstein is purported to have said about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, "It is likely the truest law in the physical universe." The Second Law is the Entropy Law. It foreshadows and dictates that our world rushes towards a state of maximum disorder. Nowhere is this more evident than with the events we witness on a daily basis, events that signal the pinnacle and beginning collapse of industrial civilization. The only hypothetical antidote to the dictates of entropy is the creation of small pockets of negative entropy, the creation of small eco-states inclusive.
Industrial civilization has arrived at its apex, as is so clearly signaled by the ever-increasing acknowledgment of Peak Oil. It is all about energy, or lack thereof, as laid out by the Second Law: the ability to do work is dependent on access to energy; without energy, social institutions collapse/implode, the institution of the large industrial nation-state inclusive.
As an historical metaphor, I offer the following: we live in Copernican times. A new worldview, a true paradigm shift, is birthed from out of the cauldron of crisis. As the false notion of the earth being the center of the universe was rejected because it had to be rejected, I maintain that the false notion of the large industrial nation-state will in time be rejected because it also has to be rejected.
The rationale and motives for my being a secessionist revolve around my first of all being an entropist. Cultural and ethnic drivers towards secession, even the bourgeoning States' Rights movement, are contained within the meta-conditions and meta-dictates of the Second Law. It is my hope that one will perceive that our destiny as citizens lies in responsibly embracing a political philosophy of secession-by-default in order to seize the opportunity at hand, in order to begin the creation of new eco-states upon this continent, in order to extend social and political liberties and responsibilities beyond the cadaver of the industrial nation-state, and lastly, in order to survive and continue the human adventure.
Thomas Naylor of The Second Vermont Republic has outlined in a previous issue of Vermont Commons why secession is such a difficult sell. Although the marketing hurdles raised by Mr. Naylor warrant considerable reflection, it can be argued that secession, as a political philosophy and act, is a difficult sell because it is the wrong "widget" and/or "better mouse trap" that is being sold. It is even more so the case when at the preliminary stages of "missionary sales" with related brutal cold-calling. It also applies not only to the dynamics and logistics of secession, but also to its labeling and packaging. A product feature that frightens and/or alienates the "political consumer" is not about to generate any great political returns. It simply will not sell. Holding to a business analogy, the "secessionist business venture" stands to be bankrupt before it is even out of the gate.
It is put forward for consideration that secession is merely a symptom of a larger historical dynamic. In and of itself, secession is not a primary historical driver, one of the major fault lines of social and political transition. It is an element and reflection of the latter. To focus political strategy and tactics on a symptom, as opposed to focusing on the cause, is a mistake that will generate a plethora of self-defeating consequences.
That secession is not a driver in and of itself is the position taken by The Novacadia Alliance. In particular, it is argued that the primary social and political driver of our age is the collapse of industrial civilization, as is made starkly evident by the descent onto the Post-Peak Oil slope of reduced energy availability. This energy descent will transform our social, economic and political institutions inside out, the social institution of the large industrial nation-state inclusive. This message is neither alarmist nor negative. The message is deceivingly optimistic and sellable. It is: Be conscious and prepare, prepare, prepare!
By employing a re-adjusted (value-added?) premise for secession, the secessionist political initiative is transformed from a subjective grasp inside a philosophical vacuum to an historical inevitability with proximity to scientific certainty. Civilizations are born, they live, they die. Within a historical context, we deal with secession-by-default and adapt to such accordingly at local and regional levels. The fringe and marginal constituency currently supporting secession is reinforced by a beleaguered middle class searching for answers to a crumbling financial reality. Furthermore, the middle class is identified and targeted as the historically designated and legitimate social agent to carry secession to fruition. We shift from the finger painting of a limited rebellion to the canvass of a revolution in perception and crafting of political will.
Massive and cheap energy flow-through has been the direct source and collateral for the growth of the industrial nation-state, the growth of the American Empire inclusive. It stands to reason, from a thermodynamic and entropic interpretation of events, that maximum institutional and ecological disorder pushing against a closed system, i.e. the earth, will result in implosion and collapse. The large nation-state, as a redundant institution, will implode because it must implode. If a balloon is blown up to its maximum limit, it bursts, leaving behind shards of rubber. The analogy to large nation-state devolution and implosion is that simple. The actual parameters of the shards, i.e. determination and governance of negative entropy, will be open for human re-invention.
As such, an alternative "marketing strategy" for North American (NAmerican) secessionist initiatives might be along the lines of:
The perception and acknowledgement that the immediate 100-year era of Post-Peak Oil is the actual secessionist "widget" that needs to be sold.
The social and political benefits of secession are features inherent in the "product" of Post-Peak Oil acceptance, i.e. secession equals survival.
Secessionist devolution and implosion on the NAmerican continent will follow along regional lines, as opposed to individual state/provincial secessions, the New England and Maritime designation of Novacadia inclusive.It is likely that the third point nudges the VC reader onto new intellectual territory. The balance of this article deals with a preliminary introduction to the notion of Novacadia in particular, and to the merits of regional secession in general. It is a beginning, but a beginning happens to be the only place where one can make a start.
It is put forward for consideration that by the end of the current century the two nation states of America and Canada will be displaced by several regional and autonomous eco-states. This is the position that has been brought to the secessionist table by the Novacadia Alliance. Those secessionists who maintain that 48 independent nations, plus Canadian equivalents, on the NAmerican land mass is reasonable merely hamper and subconsciously sabotage the forging of a sound and marketable political analysis. It is imperative to address the issue of secession with a 2009 analytical microscope, complimented by systems theory and thermodynamics, as opposed to one that peers myopically and longingly out onto a romantic political landscape of either 1776 or 1865.
For secessionists the fundamental issue lies with the most proper, the most reasonable, and the most balanced size of the jurisdiction to be governed, primarily as relates to population size and only secondarily as relates to physical size. The most reasonable and most balanced size, in turn, translates into reasonable rights and liberties, reasonable safety and civic integrity for its citizens, and the reasonable functioning of a free market economic system with like financial infrastructure. This principle of reduced size is the bedrock of secessionist philosophy. Reduced size will be the consequence of nation-state implosion.
Novacadia is the region that consists of the Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and the American states of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont. Vermont retains its status as the secessionist flag ship within this bioregional distribution channel; it is the political nucleus attached to both the development of regional identity and the weakest link in the American federal state (complimenting Quebec in Canada). That Vermont is leading the secessionist charge in Novacadia is simple fact.
The secessionist designation of Novacadia borrows from the bioregional model. Within this model, a political designation based solely on geographical factors such as mountain ranges, watersheds, prairie land, rivers, etc. quickly becomes convoluted for practical political purposes. Although the evolution of events and political context over the last two decades have largely made bioregionalism (and attendant Green politics) as a concrete political tool redundant, it is not necessary to throw the baby out with the bath water. From wherever it is possible to realistically borrow and most effectively aid secessionist goals surely does no harm.
The identification of Novacadia as a future autonomous eco-nation remains an element of conjecture. But all secessionists are currently constrained by conjecture. They tread on uncharted political territory. There is no secessionist crystal ball. There are no maps, no charts. Secessionists are pioneers; they are the mapmakers.
The combined population of the three Maritime provinces and the three New England states of Novacadia is approximately five million people. This is a reasonable population size for civic conduct and administration. More importantly, it is an optimum population size to house, feed and employ within greatly reduced economic parameters and expectations. Economic self-sufficiency will be at a premium. Within this regional population of five million, the three largest cities are Greater Halifax with a population of 370,000, Saint John at 122,000, and Manchester at 108,000.
The vast majority of Novacadia's population is rural. With a pre-determined economic shift to a predominantly agrarian economy complimented by small-scale secondary industry in a Post-Peak Oil world, this is crucial. An agrarian economy, coupled with a small population and compact channels of distribution, makes the economic challenge of self-sufficiency that much easier to attain. Novacadia is novel in that political power already resides in the country, and not in the city. This is a political opportunity of extreme importance.
Novacadia is endowed with ocean coastline which directly implies a seafaring nation. The natural resources to support this industry are in place. A serious development of tidal energy, as opposed to corporate posturing, could make Novacadia energy self-sufficient. The shared coastline more than compensates for a rough, but useable, highway infrastructure. Upgraded and new rail lines would be welcome. Most importantly, the sea is a cultural tie. It is a common point of identity. This cultural tie highlights a bioregional social dynamic that a people "are of place." A regional identity is innate; it evolves naturally. It does not have to be artificially hammered into minds beginning at kindergarten age and relentlessly reinforced with gaudy symbols and social spectacles for the duration of a lifetime.
In many ways, the economic possibilities for Novacadia are merely a return to the pre-industrial, pre-tariff economies of New England and The Maritimes when natural north-south trade relations existed. These economies were primarily agrarian and, due to seafaring capabilities, mercantile in nature and in practice.
As a region that has largely been bypassed by industrial development, Novacadians share a relatively undamaged natural environment and a shared history of hardships, of living within material means, and of a condescending arrogance displayed towards them by the "more developed" metropole.
In a Post-Peak Oil world, social and economic relations and institutions will be turned on their heads. What once was a liability becomes the richest of assets. Underdevelopment becomes an asset; a rural political base becomes an asset; traditional community ties become an asset; small population becomes as asset, and so on. There is almost a poetic justice, a long overdue karma of sorts, to identifying the Novacadian secessionist adventure on the very soil where European settlers first stepped to embark on continental expansionism.
It is imperative for Novacadians to acknowledge the historical conditions for secession as they exist in the present, conditions which were not created by secessionists and which quickly approach a crisis and, as such, call to be acted upon. To undo the institutional construct of the large industrial nation state, an artificial imposition that has been in place for two centuries, is no small task. It is the historical condition abetted by political synergies that will unravel the artificial identity of large-scale nationalism. Secessionists need merely to perceive the opportunities afforded by societal implosion and adapt accordingly. This is the unfolding of history; it need not be taken personally.
No one yet knows how the hybrid secessionist initiative of "radical right meeting radical left" will actually present and play itself out. However, the political hybrid slowly begins to come into focus. The future already exists; it's just not here yet.
Most of the work to be undertaken over the next two decades will be to agitate and to educate, as the revolution that is proposed is largely a revolution of thought, a revolution of perception. As a people are "of place" a contemporary ownership of identity is more a matter of acceptance than it is a matter of needing to be crafted. Although covered by layers of a fawning and false patriotism, a regional identity already exists. This is easily verified by walking over to the nearest mirror and saying out loud, "I am an American. I am a Novacadian. I am a Vermonter." Which statement feels right and carries the greatest challenge of responsibility within the context of global civilizational decay and collapse?
During times of crisis, one looks to one's neighbors. This is as true on the regional level as it is at one's immediate community level. The social motivators inherent in a Post-Peak Oil world will drive political intellects and imaginations towards perceptions that currently are barely imaginable. One could venture a reasonably safe guess that at this time the notion of Novacadia is yet such a perception. What requires building is the organized notion, the spark of political imagination with relative features and benefits.
As a simple woodworker, I can only conclude by saying that before it can be built it first has to be imagined. As for the actual marketing once it is built, that is simple: Build it and they will come.
These are early days. Welcome to the womb of political imagination.
Prof. Chossudovsky's name may be familiar to some as the Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He was also an instrumental research source for Mike Ruppert for the writing of Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil.
If you wish, you can weave Prof. Chossudovsky's writings and a reading of Rubicon in with Chris Martenson's Crash Course which deals with the inter-relationship of the three E's (economy, energy, environment).
Lastly, remembering that this is a secessionist blog, you may choose to cap a wrap with Post-Peak Oil and NAmerican Regional Secession.
Then again, you can go back to doing exactly what you were doing.
Gerald Celente, the widely-recognized Director of The Trends Research Institute, has issued a Code Red to his subscribers in the aftermath of the Obama inauguration. Steve Quayle issues the following warning: "The 'artificially manipulated' spot price (of gold) is designed to keep the little guys out of the Market and fixated on the Controlled movements to keep you from seeing the Big Picture. At some point in the next 60 days major financial shock waves will make acquiring physical Gold and Silver at any where near these prices extremely difficult. The price of Gold is being touted by the major players behind the scenes as rising to 3-4 times their current level when the manipulation stops." The American Chronicle reports that the revolution in Mexico has begun. And on it goes, as you know from your own research and internet connections.
I ask of you to not only look at the image above (that's easy), but to pull in a couple of other senses: smell it...taste it...perceive it with your third eye and with your intuition.
And now I ask you to tack several months, a year, two years onto the image and your perception of it while sitting somewhere in what is still the relative comfort of NAmerica. Do the institutional fault lines waver in your imagination? Does the imaginary construct of the "nation state" retain its threads of legitimacy? Does the political validity of the NAmerican secessionist movement caught asleep-at-the-wheel warrant consideration and re-evaluation? Catch my drift?
The GPC is now down to 5% national support (likely closer to 3%-4%), carrying a choking debt-load, and straddled with a leader, Elizabeth May, who seems to be as unpopular within the party as she is with the general public. This is not a good mix...for the GPC, that is. It is a great mix for ex-Greens who await the final collapse of this centralist, nanny-state, run-of-the-mill, liberal, establishment party.
The entry onto the depletion slope of a Post-Peak Oil world makes the GPC policy proposals somewhat redundant. They constitute a lie. The GPC is still pitching, through rose-coloured lenses, the prospect of a smooth transition to a Green economy/world. Such position is either a combination of vanity and delusion or crass political opportunism, neither of which is acceptable.
The GPC is a tired, old dinosaur. The wisest thing for tuned-in Greens to do would be to withdraw financial and philosophical support, let the party crawl away and die a reasonably quiet death. A bioreginal, back-to-basics, eco-political direction is available, in some cases as close as autonomous provincial Green parties. Let the Central Canadian, urban hand-wringers, social workers and delusional feminists who control the GPC dangle on the rope for which they have so stringently clamoured. In this day and age, all myopic fools deserve a just destiny.
The GPC's adherence to IMF, OECD and G20 guidelines in the Stimulus Package is disquieting. With a UN party girl like Liz May at the helm, such overtures seem to be the norm. Her political simplicity, coupled with the party's affiliation to a Global Charter, merely positions the GPC to be an unwitting Bilderberg patsy.
With the recently announced news of Ms. May's move to New Glasgow from Ottawa, the GPC may as well strike a leadership search committee. This move has as much to do with schmoozing the Liberal base in Central Nova in order to prime the pump for that nomination as it has to do with anything else. The guess is ventured that Ms. May has her sights on the Environment Ministry in an Ignatieff government. Outside of tweaking from Dion to Ignatieff, this guess has not been altered in two years. If Ignatieff proves to be as much a Green dolt as was Dion remains to be seen.
A 25-year era of liberal Green political posturing has passed with no results. There will be no Green nirvana "stewarded" in by enlightened, touchy-feely, matriarchal principles. A new generation of Post-Peak Oil warriors and amazons waits in the wings.
It's over. It's finished. Let it go.
I've been kicking around a post between my ears re the above contradiction, i.e. Kunstler speaking out against secession as a guest speaker to a secessionist convention. The organizers could have vetted the speech, thus neutralizing Kunstler's anti-secessionist sentiment. I can assure you that Kunstler's site generates more hits than the SVR's.
It is just one more PR misfortune. Of course, Kunstler is entitled to his opinion re secession. But the Vermont convention was a political event, and speakers are, as a rule, vetted accordingly. If Kunstler was brought in as a marketing hook to fill the Vermont Legislature's chairs with university students, then fine. But the trade-off seems to have back-fired.
Let us not forget that Kunstler's invitation to address the Vermont conference must be seen within the context of his seemingly strong secessionist empathy as written in The Long Emergency: "It would be reasonable to wonder whether the United States will continue to exist as a unified entity, and what kind of strife the Long Emergency could ignite region by region."
If Kunstler blind-sided the secessionist movement only he and the organizers of the convention know. That would have been his prerogative, although a questionable prerogative. If he did indeed blind-side the movement, then it can be scratched up to just one more lesson on the political and PR learning curves. It stands to reason that at a secessionist event the very topic under discussion will not get dumped on nor marginalized by a keynote speaker. A political utterance is qualitiatively more loaded than the comfort of liberal proselytizing on a stump of safe hypotheses and increased book sales.
It looks like I've just written the post that I've had in mind.
NAmericans have never experienced the degree of social upheaval and transformation that hovers on the horizon. We are barely able to imagine it, let alone prepare for it. Allow me to repeat myself once more: within a global scope and context, the economic meltdown will make the thirties look like a stroll through the park and the die-off will make the Black Death look like a nose bleed. On a historical time scale, it is all only a heart beat away. That it should be camouflaged by the media-packaged Obama trinket of mass democracy and false hope is only fitting. How else could it possibly be?
To aid the savvy hand-wringers, I would like to offer a quote from Joe Stalin. It seems to be appropriate: "The death of one soldier is a tragedy; the death of one million soldiers is a statistic." This is the objective perspective as opposed to the subjective twaddle that resides between most ears. The trick is to be a decent and courageous human being, not a statistic.
Re Post-Peak Oil preparation, if there is some action you can take towards crafting your survival, then do it. Fight where you stand, not necessarily "against" anyone or anything, but for yourself. There is only one place to start and that is at the beginning, in the here and the now. Otherwise, one is left shitting in one hand and wishing in the other, waiting to see which piles up first.
However one may understand and relate to a God of their understanding, may God's speed be with us all. We will need it.
The dots to be connected here are so evident that they barely warrant comment. For anyone needing to catch up in a hurry, a good place to brush up on North American Union 101 is here and here.
The real point of this post is to highlight, once more, the degree to which the NAmerican Secessionist Movement (NASM) is disconnected, not only from its own political mandate, but from the political psyche of the NAmerican public. For further context on this claim, please see last week's post, NAmerican Secessionist Movement Asleep-At-the-Wheel.
On any given day we are confronted with events pointing towards the collapse of industrial civilization, entry onto the depletion slope of a Post-Peak Oil world, financial and economic meltdown, the initiative for North American Union, etc., etc. This happens to be the meta-context for the philosophical justification of the NASM. Yet, as has already been stated, as a political movement the NASM is incapable of issuing public commentary on the above events because no medium for doing so, such as a proposed North American Secessionist Congress, exists. The world in general, and North America in particular, sit on the cusp of an historical crisis of unforeseen proportions, yet the NASM is hand-cuffed from offering official and legitimate executive commentary by its own short-sighted choosing.
Without strategy, the option for identifying and implementing tactics does not exist. By virtue of its self-imposed non-voice and invisibility during these times of crisis, the NASM runs the real risk of joining NAmerican Green parties inside a toothless vacuum of myopic navel-gazing and political posturing. Ground can always be recovered; time never can be.
With friends like us, who needs adversaries?