Secession begins at home

As the Austrian Economist Mises wrote in 1927: “The situation of having to belong to a state to which one does not wish to belong is no less onerous if it is the result of an election than if one must endure it as the consequence of a military conquest.”

I’m sure this sentiment is shared by many of you. Mises understood that mass democracy was no substitute for liberal society, but rather the enemy of it. Of course he was right: nearly 100 years later, we have been conquered and occupied by the state and its phony veneer of democratic elections. The federal government is now the putative ruler of nearly every aspect of life in America.

That’s why we’re here today entertaining the audacious idea of secession — an idea Mises elevated to a defining principle of classical liberalism.

It’s tempting, and entirely human, to close our eyes tight and resist radical change — to live in America’s past.

But to borrow a line from the novelist L.P. Hartley, “The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there.” The America we thought we knew is a mirage; a memory, a foreign country.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely why we should take secession seriously, both conceptually — as consistent with libertarianism — and as a real alternative for the future.

Does anyone really believe that a physically vast, multicultural, social democratic welfare state of 330 million people, with hugely diverse economic, social, and cultural interests, can be commanded from DC indefinitely without intense conflict and economic strife?

Does anyone really believe that we can unite under a state that endlessly divides us? Rich vs. poor, black vs. white, Hispanic vs. Anglo, men vs. women, old vs. young, secularists vs. Christians, gays vs. traditionalists, taxpayers vs. entitlement recipients, urban vs. rural, red state vs. blue state, and the political class vs. everybody?

Frankly it seems clear the federal government is hell-bent on Balkanizing America anyway. So why not seek out ways to split apart rationally and nonviolently? Why dismiss secession, the pragmatic alternative that’s staring us in the face?

Since most of us in the room are Americans, my focus today is on the political and cultural situation here at home. But the same principles of self-ownership, self-determination, and decentralization apply universally — whether we’re considering Texas independence or dozens of active breakaway movements in places like Venice, Catalonia, Scotland, and Belgium.

I truly believe secession movements represent the last best hope for reclaiming our birthright: the great classical liberal tradition and the civilization it made possible. In a world gone mad with state power, secession offers hope that truly liberal societies, organized around civil society and markets rather than central governments, can still exist.

Secession as a “Bottom-Up” Revolution….

“But how could this ever really happen?” you’re probably thinking.

Wouldn’t creating a viable secession movement in the US necessarily mean convincing a majority of Americans, or at least a majority of the electorate, to join a mass political campaign much like a presidential election?

I say no. Building a libertarian secession movement need not involve mass political organizing: in fact, national political movements that pander to the Left and Right may well be hopelessly naïve and wasteful of time and resources.

Instead, our focus should be on hyper-localized resistance to the federal government in the form of a “bottom-up” revolution, as Hans-Hermann Hoppe terms it.

Hoppe counsels us to use what little daylight the state affords us defensively: just as force is justified only in self-defense, the use of democratic means is justified only when used to achieve nondemocratic, libertarian, pro-private property ends.

In other words, a bottom-up revolution employs both persuasion and democratic mechanisms to secede at the individual, family, community, and local level — in a million ways that involve turning our backs on the central government rather than attempting to bend its will.

Secession, properly understood, means withdrawing consent and walking away from DC — not trying to capture it politically and “converting the King.”

Secession is Not a Political Movement!

Why is the road to secession not political, at least not at the national level? Frankly, any notion of a libertarian takeover of the political apparatus in DC is fantasy, and even if a political sea change did occur the army of 4.3 million federal employees is not simply going to disappear.

Convincing Americans to adopt a libertarian political system — even if such an oxymoron were possible — is a hopeless endeavor in our current culture.

Politics is a trailing indicator. Culture leads, politics follows. There cannot be a political sea change in America unless and until there is a philosophical, educational, and cultural sea change. Over the last 100 years progressives have overtaken education, media, fine arts, literature, and pop culture — and thus as a result they have overtaken politics. Not the other way around.

This is why our movement, the libertarian movement, must be a battle for hearts and minds. It must be an intellectual revolution of ideas, because right now bad ideas run the world. We can’t expect a libertarian political miracle to occur in an illibertarian society….

All of us, regardless of ideological bent and regardless of whether we know it or not, are married to a very violent, abusive spendthrift. It’s time, ladies and gentlemen, to get a divorce from DC.

This article is adapted from a talk presented at the Houston Mises Circle, January 24, 2015. – Mises Institute –

Diversity is a Disaster!

Diversity is a disaster. Why people cannot see this is a mystery. A country can ignore an unfortunate reality, but it cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring it. Why governments allow and even encourage immigration of incompatible populations is a greater mystery. Few things cause more misery, hatred, death, and destruction than does diversity. One may wish it were not so, but it is so.

Some examples of diversity: Chechens and Russians. Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants. Tamils and Sinhalese. French and Moslems. Dutch and Moslems. Swedes and Moslems. Germans and Moslems. Turks and Armenians. Whites and blacks in South African. Ugandans and Indians. Cambodians and Vietnamese. Blacks, whites, and browns in the United States. Jews and Germans. Jews and the rest almost everywhere. Hindus and Moslems. Sunnis and Shias. Turks and Kurds. Tutsis and Hutus. Moslems and Israelis in Palestine.

Note that most of these have caused horrendous bloodshed. Diversity doesn’t work, as a rule catastrophically. Why would any country deliberately seek more of it?

If you point this out, the responses are automatic. “I know some really nice Mexicans/blacks/Moslems etc.” Or “Most Catholics/Protestants/Hindus aren’t terrorists.” True, well, and good. And irrelevant. There were really nice Germans and Jews in the Third Reich. How much did that help?

As a species we do not like diversity, though we may think that we should. People want to be with others like themselves. Difference breeds suspicion, friction arises, and the depraved or disagreeable nature of the other group is blamed.

Distaste for diversity of almost any kind runs through societies. Liberals associate chiefly with liberals, conservatives with conservatives, military people with military people, the rich with the rich, the highly intelligent with the highly intelligent, the young with the young. We may tolerate others if the distinctions are not too great, or if we are not forced into excessive contact. For example, while the Chinese in America are superficially very different from Euro-Americans, they are quiet, courteous, law-abiding, and studious, so little antagonism occurs. But the potential is there, as when they greatly outperform whites academically.

Men of all groups object to marriage of their women to other groups. The women are somewhat less clannish, more willing to marry out-of-group. This can cause bloodshed.

The tendency to drift into antagonism goes far beyond the rational—which just makes it intractable. For example, tens of millions of Hispanics live in the US and clearly are going to stay. Would not American patriots (patriotism being another form of the pack instinct) want them to prove smart, industrious, and eventually good and prosperous citizens? No. If I suggest that Hispanics may not be as awful as hoped, I get furious email (all from men: this too is built-in) insisting that Latinos are, are, are irremediably stupid, criminal, shiftless, hopeless, shriek. That is, distaste for diversity outweighs self-interest….

By Fred Reed – Fred On Everything –

The War On Whites: Feds Undertaking Massive Push To Eradicate White Neighborhoods

By Donald Joy – ClashDaily.com –

U.S. Representative Mo Brooks(R-Ala) raised a lot of eyebrows last month when he described a “war on whites” being waged by those holding most of the power in our society.

Brooks is exactly right. All kinds of policies designed to decimate and marginalize people of European heritage are continuing unabated, even ramping up–especially where the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is concerned. Our government is putting in place ever-more heavy-handed programs to punish and prevent white people from engaging in freedom of association or gathering together, incidentally or otherwise, in communities.

Specifically, as reported in an article titled Team Obama Steps Up Racial Standards For Neighborhoods by Chris Stirewalt on the FOX News website, HUD has undertaken a massive push to usher in and enforce new regulations and racial tracking databases designed to move certain minorities into predominantly white areas, for no other reason than the so-called authorities see it as unfair that some areas are more heavily populated by whites–and that those areas are safer, with more and better amenities, services, schools, and so on…

Chris Stirewalt’s piece(on the FOX News website)describes the state-of-the-art software programs being deployed to compile information and special maps detailing the ethnic and racial composition of residential zones, and how a vast war chest of funds will be leveraged against state, local, and private entities who might not otherwise join in what resembles a military-style campaign to “affirmatively further” recruiting and moving non-whites into previously white residential areas.

Rather than merely use laws and regulations to punish anyone caught engaging in deliberate exclusion of minorities, as in the bureaucrats’ historic model, the new effort is oriented toward using the massive federal purse strings to threaten withholding of money for HUD grants in order to coerce local zoning boards, county commissions, and real estate licensing bureaus into helping eradicate white enclaves and to inject them with “diversity.”

Diversity, for those who haven’t realized it by now, is code for anti-white genocide. The definition of genocide, according to all authoritative dictionaries (specifically, Miriam-Webster’s here) includes “the systematic and deliberate destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.”

 
Continue Reading