A Parting of the Ways: Moving Forward to Freedom
by
William Buppert
by William Buppert
"I
cannot teach you violence, as I do not myself believe in it. I can
only teach you not to bow your heads before any one even at the
cost of your life."
~
Mahatma Gandhi
I often get
mail from readers inquiring on what to do to advance the cause of
secession in their respective locales. So I’d like to discuss a
few ideas on how it has worked in the past and how it may work in
the future. I would first dispose of the canard that it is traitorous
or unpatriotic to consider this. Do you suppose our rulers in DC
abide by the rule of law, see the Constitution (I prefer the DI)
as a bedrock document and seek to respect the real diversity in
America (not the silly race, class & gender motif)? That diversity
is the vast gulf in tolerance for levels of government as opposed
to governance. Government is the command and control apparatus to
manipulate people through coercion and violence. The distinction
is that governance can occur in a minarchist or stateless realm
because it runs the gamut from forms of external control to the
personal controls of one’s own nature and relationship in society.
Positive self-governance is the ability not only to do right by
yourself but use your self-interest to serve others e.g., a business
or voluntary work in a community and do them no harm. You have to
ask whether your own philosophical ideas emanate from law or party;
from conviction or the desire to get ahead at other people’s expense.
You have to pry out the deeper recesses of who you are to divine
what your motivations are in your community. If you conclude that
in order for you to get ahead in life, you must use the vicious
power of government to achieve this, secession may not fit you.
The new regime in town will see that your needs are answered…for
a while. Until they run out of money or create a state so suffocating
that 1984
looks like a resort lifestyle.
The first
task is to educate yourself on the ideas that would inspire such
radical measures as secession. From whence does your conviction
come? In a previous
essay, I recommended a number of books on the subject. I would
also add Thomas Naylor’s thin tome, Secession,
as a great primer on the whole notion. There are a rather small
number of books that deal directly with the secession issue. Yet,
if we look at the vast number of books published since 1750 which
deal with the precursors and history of both the First (1775–83)
and Second (1860–65) American Revolutions the books start to increase
tremendously which tangentially or directly deal with the notion.
Simply the
words Declaration
of Independence seem rather descriptive now, don’t they?
To wit:
We, therefore,
the representatives of the United States of America, in General
Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world
for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the
authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish
and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought
to be free and independent states; that they are absolved
from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political
connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and
ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent
states, they have full power to levey war, conclude peace, contract
alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things
which independent states may of right do. And for the support
of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of
Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives,
our fortunes and our sacred honor.
We were not
asking for a Declaration of Dependence wishing to increase the size
and weight of the British yoke, we were putting a petition to the
world that we would no longer be shackled like draft animals to
a system of government that had become overbearing, tyrannical and
cruel in the violence it visited on men who wished to be at the
helm of their own destinies.
The Constitution
was then penned and approved but it left plenty to be desired in
a Founding document. Those who actively engage in Constitution worship
may want to turn away from the remainder of this paragraph. The
Constitutional Convention was a political coup held in secret behind
closed doors. The delegates were sent to amend
the Articles of Confederation, not abolish them. The resulting document
so terrified the Anti-Federalists that they immediately pressed
for the Bill of Rights to put the brakes on what they perceived
to be a pernicious concentration of power in the central government.
Patrick Henry at the time referred to the Federalists as Consolidationists
who wished to turn the states into mere administrative departments
of the central government. Alexander Hamilton had managed to consign
liberty and freedom to the dustbin of history as soon as the ink
was drying on the new documents. So a careful consideration of secession
should not be restricted to the primary and secondary source documents
for the Constitution but all the literature and actions which took
place prior to and after its adoption.
I have mentioned
before that a mastery of the logic and rhetoric of the Anti-Federalists
is powerful medicine in the coming conflicts. They speak eloquently
to the decentralist and devolutionist impulses. I especially enjoy
the acid-tongued Brutus.
So how does
the American central government feel about secession? They like
it as long as it is happening to other nations. The US State Department
is now the champion of a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine
and the American government was not shy about the applause it offered
the fifteen states that calved from the moribund USSR a generation
ago or calls to free Tibet from Chinese occupation but the American
state is not at all thrilled at the prospect of its own partition
and break-up in the near future. Yet the US State Department has
not shied from its positions on other states’ right to secede:
"The
Secretary and other members of the Administration have expressed
concern to Chinese officials that the anti-secession law may be
counterproductive"…
Imagine if
the Soviet Union had collapsed in 198991 and these united
States insisted that all fifteen of the states that fell away from
and seceded from the USSR had to stay or else. Yet the American
government insists that Kosovo secede from Yugoslavia proper protected
under NATO’s skirts but South Ossetia better not secede from the
American-Israeli satellite of Russian Georgia.
Thomas Franck,
one of the five international law experts asked by the Canadian
government to consider certain issues regarding a hypothesized secession
of Quebec, wrote that:
"It
cannot seriously be argued today that international law prohibits
secession. It cannot seriously be denied that international law
permits secession. There is a privilege of secession recognized
in international law and the law imposes no duty on any people
not to secede. While international law does not foreclose on the
possibility of secession, it does provide a framework within which
certain secessions are favored or disfavored, depending on the
facts. The key is to assess whether or not Kosovo meets the criteria
for the legal privilege of secession."
A privilege
granted by whom? So it appears our rulers are quite conflicted when
it comes to the recognition of secession on the world stage. We
need to leverage this schizophrenia.
Remember the
golden rule when it comes to successful resistance, rebellion and
secession: grievances are exploited whether real or perceived. Every
state in the increasingly reluctant Union has their own respective
beefs with the central government ranging from taxation to the environment
to energy policy. In your state or region, the key to successful
monkey-wrenching of the system is to start small and witness to
friends, family and neighbors of the injustices and inequities you
feel the denizens of Mordor are doing to you and yours where you
live. For the Austrians among you, witty explanations of the evils
of central planning and the ills of government interference in the
economy through taxation and regulation will yield great benefits
for the right audience. It is your job to awaken folks from their
collectivist fever-dreams.
Taxes too
high? US Forest Circus wolf
reintroduction programs reducing your elk populations? Local
timber industry destroyed due to the EPA? Agricultural subsidies
destroying farm yields and family farms through perverse pricing
schemes? Helium
reserves for WWI dirigibles? Insolvency of the Socialist Security
System? The list for agitation and substantive reasons to divorce
the DC Mob are too numerous to list and I leave it to your imagination.
The point is that the nurturing of grievances is an important step
in shaping and influencing the way people think in your community.
Essentially, no one knows more about your neighborhood and environs
than you and the potentates in DC are in this case the ultimate
know-nothings. Leverage this cognitive dissonance to your advantage.
Think about
the Gandhian-style non-compliance which occurred at Jarbridge,
NV in 2000 when a Federal agency tried to ply their mischief.
It apparently got to where Federal employees were denied victuals
and lodging in local towns. Good old-fashioned shaming and shunning.
By the way,
writing letters to your Feral (sic) Congress-critters to beg for
the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Bill of Rights (among others)
to be recognized is a waste of time. They will not yield the benefits
they reap as rulers in their nests in DC. Something happens when
they are there for more than a year and you will never get the smell
out. They will ignore you or worse. Ignore them.
If you see
fit to organize local Committees of Correspondence
and Safety
as our First American Revolutionary forebears did, modern communication
techniques and sousveillance
will make it very interesting indeed.
Local action
is required for local results. I share with Lew Rockwell an increasing
skepticism of any political action having a meritorious result in
the causes of freedom and liberty but you must take your own counsel.
Isn’t secession
the ultimate vote in a supposed democracy?
"They
can jail us. They can shoot us. They can even conscript us. They
can use us as cannon fodder in the sod. But But we have a weapon
more powerful than any in the whole arsenal of their British Empire
and that weapon is our refusal. Our refusal to bow to any order
but our own, any institution but our own.
Our friends
in the Royal Irish Constabulary would like to shut me up. Oh yes,
jail me again, shoot me, who knows? And I'd like you to send them
a message. If they shut me up, who'll take my place?"
~
Michael Collins
May
16, 2009
William
Buppert [send him mail]
and his homeschooled family live in the high desert in the American
Southwest.
Copyright
© 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
William
Buppert Archives
|