Divided We Stand: Addendum

It would seem that the secessionist community has gone ga-ga over the WSJ exposure, Divided We Stand, by Paul Starobin. In predictable, politically short-sighted fashion, little concern has been shown to what might lie beneath the surface, i.e. things are never as they seem.

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.

Advertisements

Michael C. Ruppert’s New Book, Release Date May 1, 2009

Available now!

Available now!

This post will be kept front-and-center for a while simply by keeping the post date current. This is an extremely important publication and, with any luck, will go beyond Crossing The Rubicon. Please remember to scroll beyond this post to check in on new posts.

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.

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.

NAmerican Secession Gains Traction in the Peak Oil Community

Many thanks go out to Clifford Wirth for featuring, as a guest post, my paper, Post-Peak Oil and NAmerican Regional Secession. See Cliff’s blog Surviving Peak Oil: Planning, Preparation, and Relocation. The paper can also be found in here with a search.

Peak Oil Liberals

It would seem that as things currently stand, the leading “radical” voices in the Peak Oil community, e.g. Kunstler, Heinlein, Ruppert, Savinar, Orlov, still cannot bring themselves to the conclusion that the institutional breakdown they recognize and advocate includes the social institution of the industrial nation-state. There is a serious philosophical, ideological, political, and I would say, U.S.A.-centric, blind-spot at work here. The most ludicrous fringe of this philosophical non-position is, of course, that Papa Obama will fix all and mom, apple pie and baseball will be painlessly back on the agenda before we know it. Such pedestrian finger-painting is even evident amongst secessionists who have not yet worked through the paradox and political schizophrenia of attempting to be a “patriotic secessionist.”

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.

The Rock Gets Set to Rock the Secessionist Boat

This story could end up getting sub-titled The Rock vs. The ROC (Rest of Canada). Liberal Senator George Baker has thrown a very unanticipated curve into the usually staid proceedings of Canadian politics by declaring yesterday during a radio interview that, “People (of Newfoundland and Labrador) will soon be advocating, you know, that we can’t remain in the Confederation in which we’re discriminated against and not respected for the great contribution that we make. I believe that day is coming for sure if this keeps up.” Senator predicts Newfoundland separatist party The conservative National Post was quick to weigh in to-day, dishing out a not altogether surprising slap on the wrist with the article, Is The Rock eyeing sovereignty role?

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 largesse 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.

  • Calendar

    • December 2017
      M T W T F S S
      « Aug    
       123
      45678910
      11121314151617
      18192021222324
      25262728293031
  • Search