Secession Is In Our Future

Over the short course of one year the notion of NAmerican secession has snow-balled into the public's political consciousness. The course and media trajectories are roughly the following: last summer's Zogby Poll that revealed support for the right (as opposed to support for secession) of states to secede to be 20%; the comic relief, yet valuable media dividends of Sarah Palin's secessionist ties; the pronouncements of America's geographical decline by the Russian analyst, Igor Panarin; in general, the flourishing of the States' Rights movement complimented by, in particular, the secessionist trigger written into New Hampshire's HCR 0006; Texas Gov. Rick Perry's flirtation with secession, and; corporate media coverage ranging from the Los Angeles Times to the Wall Street Journal.

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.

Gov. Rick Perry and Secessionist Realpolitik I

By now most of the fallout released by Texas Gov. Rick Perry at last week's Austin Tea Party has settled. The reference is, of course, related to Gov. Perry's going beyond the endorsement of Texas States' Rights onto the slippery, uncharted and dangerous political slope of 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

And there you have it. There is a strong probability of voter cross-over between Republican Senate and Gubernatorial primary turn-outs, i.e. hard-right conservatives. As such, if one stacks up Mr. Kilgore's 2008 Senate primary support of 225,897 votes against the 2006 Gubernatorial primary turn-out of 665,616 we see how crucial and decisive Mr. Kilgore's past support stands to be in 2010.

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.)

Secessionist Growing Pains

Yesterday I received a forwarded email from Harold Thomas of The Ohio Republic. The subject matter was an email that he received from Kirkpatrick Sale of The Middlebury Institute. In the email, Mr. Sale seems to wax eloquently about the good work being done by The Tenth Amendment Center on his, i.e. the NAmerican secessionist movement, behalf:

"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,
MiddleburyInstitute.org"

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.)

G20 Summit: Post-Peak Oil Blind Spot and Deception

It is always a challenge to blow through the "noise" to arrive at the "information." The risk of over-simplification runs parallel to the effort. However, there is a principle that is worthy of pursuit: in simplicity there may shine a kernel of truth. Of all that has been written and said about the G20 Summit, what is the underlying premise for action amongst the world's leading industrial powers? We need look no further than the Summit's official communiqué.

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.