Why is secession considered such an unspeakable thing by so many when it comes to peoples and nations when everyone – literally, everyone – practices it regularly in their own lives?
Who hasn’t left a bad job for a better one? Moved to another place? Parted from friends outgrown? Everyone has done at least one of these things. Many have done them all, more than once. Are they guilty of a moral wrong for having . . . seceded from situations that no longer suited? 
Should people remain in dead-end jobs, never try living in another place? Continue to hang out with people one no longer has much in common with? Stay married just for the sake of staying married?
Why?
Everyone knows why not.
Because the alternative – staying put – leads to unhappiness, which easily leads to resentment and anger, particularly if the unhappy party is told he must stay and that he will be forced to stay.
This is explosive.
It is why there is divorce. It is why there is secession. Or at least, why there ought to be.
This was understood at the time of the American revolution, which by the way was no such thing. Just as the subsequent struggle circa 1861-1865 was not a civil war, either. Both were in fact attempts to secede from political associations that no longer suited the party that sought to . . . secede.
The first was of course successful. The second, wasn’t.
It is interesting that both were framed as what they weren’t. It is interesting not merely etymologically but also psychologically. It being necessary to evade thought – and thereby, discussion – of the facts of the matter.
The American “revolution” and the American “civil war” were neither fought to establish radically different forms of government over the same group of people. What happened in France was a revolution. The monarchy was overthrown and replaced by a radical egalitarian system that sought to overthrow . . . everything. Even to the extent of the calendar, which was altered to something entirely new.
The American “revolution” was about separating – that is, seceding – from Great Britain. One people – Americans – from another (Britons). No effort was made by the Americans to turn Britons into Americans or get rid of the King and Parliament in Britain. If the King and Parliament had deigned to allow the peaceful secession of the American colonies, there would have been no war at all. The same might have happened in 1861, when the people and states of the Southern Confederacy expressed their desire to depart from the union – into which it had been understood all parties had agreed to enter and were free to depart from, if the arrangement ever became unwanted by any of the parties who agreed to it.
This latter is important because it marks a difference from the separation of the American colonies from the British Empire in that the American colonies had not previously been sovereign states who entered into a formal agreement with the Crown. But this was precisely the case as regards the American states that entered into an agreement with one another – i.e., ratified the Constitution. They did so as sovereign states and would never have done so had they suspected they were surrendering their sovereignty by doing so.
Lincoln – who was a revolutionary – denied this historical fact (viz, the prior almost-secession of several New England states during the War of 1812 and then again, over slavery, ironically enough, all of which were considered legitimate threats by everyone at the time). He maintained that the union was an ironclad and forever pact that, once agreed to, could never be dissolved for any reason.
Who wold agree to such a contract? Perhaps the more interesting question is who, exactly, did agree to it? Schoolchildren are taught that “We, the People” did. But this is palpably untrue. There is no “We, the People.” It is a piece of rhetoric without substance.
Some people agreed to it – and those people have been dead for 200 years. What sort of contract binds the great-great-great granchildren of the men who agreed to it? Contracts bind the parties that agree to be so bound – and no one else.
A man and a woman agree to marry one another. It is a specific contract made between two specific people, who make commitments to one another – the chief one being that they shall remain bound to one another until death do them part.
And yet, even this commitment – to which each of the parties formally and publicly avow their agreement – is not considered irrevocably and permanently binding. If the married couple find, after having tried hard to resolve them, that they cannot resolve serious differences and for that reason their remaining together in happiness is no longer possible, then separation is regarded by almost everyone as acceptable and even salutary.
That being preferable to forced unhappiness.
None of us, as Lysander Spooner pointed out even before the attempt of the Southern Confederacy to leave the union, ever committed to any contractual obligation with the federal government. It asserts dominion over us – as it does over the states. But does this assertion carry any legitimacy or is it merely something that is enforced? The question need not be answered as we all know what the answer is.
Yet why should it be so?
Human beings get along best when they aren’t forced to get along – or stay together. They are happiest when they are free to choose what suits – be it a job, a place to live or whom to marry.
Happy families, communities and nations arise from voluntary free association. They become unhappy – and less free – to the extent they are less voluntary. A point is reached when going our separate ways is preferable to unhappiness that leads to resentment that can flash to anger.
There is a word for this – and perhaps it is time to begin saying it aloud.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here. If that fails, email me at EPeters952@yahoo.com and I will send you a copy directly!
.
This story was reposed at the Missouri Free Press.
I would like to draw your attention to the fact of how incredibly stupid the vast majority of “patriots” are. Most so called “Patriots” are 110% wrong on many foundational principle of Liberty, and are more our enemies than not.
It seems that “Patriots” do not have the sense that “God gave a Goose” when it comes to recognizing the fact that a treaty can not supersede the US Constitution.
Patriots with their absolute refusal of learning the truth in this matter are going to literately get most of the people in this country killed deader than a hammer.
I can not address this insanity in the Patriot community without blowing off some steam so the profanity may not be proper here.
I do invite you to read my comments to a Hal Turner story put up today:
***BULLETIN *** FLASH – URGENT: W.H.O. Meeting in Secret to convert themselves to Enforceable Law under EXISTING Treaty; FORCED VACCINES, OUTLAW GUNS “Public Health Issue” – Hal Turner Radio
Look for my comments on this page. Currently near the top:
http://missourifreepress.com/2023/01/01/opinions-and-editorials-january-february-2023/
Brion McClanahan on secession in the 21st century. Worth the 35-minute time investment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnV0QefId0Q
The Elitists’ Communications Counterrevolution
The elitists believe they are entitled to wield power for the purpose of governing their inferiors (i.e., the rest of us). To facilitate this inversion of our free republic’s design, the elitists require the complicity of a significant amount of the citizenry who, through acquiescence, apathy, and/or dependency, are more than willing to submit to the elitists’ control over their lives, be it wholly or in part.
Thus, for the elitists, the communications revolution is an existential threat. The empowerment of sovereign citizens to self-govern and, be it singularly or collectively, increase their ability to control and curtail—i.e., to subordinate—the power of public and private sector elitists, had to be blocked through co-option and coercion; through a communications counterrevolution.
Fear is the key….Frightened elitists were able to project and impart their fear into their fellow citizens;
far too many frightened people voluntarily shed their rights …..Free speech is on the verge of being viewed not as a God-given right but a clear and present danger. A danger only the elitists could prevent through their life-saving censorship—er, “content moderation.”
The elitists’ communication counterrevolution proceeds apace—with the bitterly ironic collusion of Big Tech, which has betrayed its initial promise of providing and promoting personal empowerment and free speech—and with the support of much of the Left, which once championed free speech. Apparently, that was free speech only for themselves and those who aligned with their ideology.
In the end, though, it makes perfect, despicable sense: Big Government, Big Tech, and the Left are elitists in common cause to convince the public that the greatest threat to Our Democracy™ is your freedom.
Yet, this “democracy” is actually their oligarchy, the preservation of which is the elitists’ communications counterrevolution’s end game.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/elitists-communications-counterrevolution
Government is inherently evil, so the best government is no government.
It has been done, a town in Mexico got rid of all the government, police, etc., they formed committees and handled everything themselves….it worked really well, there was no more crime and they saved all the tax money they were paying the government.
The next best is a very small government, that has no money, or access to money, then it can’t afford to follow you around 24/7.
The worst government is the current government which are leftist/communist/nazis, with access to unlimited money, through taxes and borrowing from a corrupt central bank in your name….then they can spend tons of money following you around 24/7.
“The consolidation of the states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that proceeded it.” Gen. Robert E. Lee
Hi James,
Thanks for that quote, hadn’t heard it before. General Lee definitely nailed it describing our present situation.
“ Thanks for that quote, hadn’t heard it before.”
It was in a letter from from General Robert E Lee to Lord Acton.
If I recall correctly, Lord Acton coined the phrase “absolute power corrupts absolutely” to describe Lincolns imperialism.
Government spending in the United States was last recorded at 43.6 percent of GDP in 2021 ……it was only 6.55 percent of GDP in 1907
Dr. Marc Faber says these governments steal between 5% (honest governments) and 100% (crooked governments) of the money collected, borrowed.
El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele says….. “There’s plenty of money to go around if politicians didn’t steal it”
The same WEF that wants to force ethnic Russians to stay in Ukraine (so they can be shot n shelled?) wants to break up Russia (secession by force?). It gets very confusing doesn’t it?
The easiest way to live would be to abide the old saying “birds of a feather flock together” and leave it at that
Every morning for about 12 years every child in public school recites the “Pledge of Allegiance.” Maybe that’s a tacit agreement to the system.
RK,
Excepting the legal fact that until one is of legal age (18 in Missouri), they cannot be bound by contract, oral or written.
It’s interesting how the pledge, written by a socialist to be applicable not only to the U.S, contains reference to the political unit being “indivisible.” FWIW, the pledge recitation included an arm raised open palm salute from its inception until WWII, when such salute was deemed too similar to the one in use in Germany at the time. Go figure.
With the WEF’s declaration that the masses don’t have a right to even own their own car, what are the odds that they’ll also decree that the masses don’t have a right to own their own home?
John B,
They’ve already decided that people don’t even own their body, and the Psychopaths In Charge can inflict any and all kinds of damage to it, as they see fit. When they said “you will own NOTHING” they weren’t kidding.
John K,
That would certainly explain the (illegal) mandates for people to take an experimental mRNA injection that has already shown to be “Unsafe and Ineffective”. Also, the “My body, my choice” crowd suddenly weren’t that when it came to forcing adults and children to wear filthy face diapers or people who didn’t want to take a risk with the “vaccines”.
Yes, Eric, I’ve never understood it either- If one (Be that “one” an individual or a large group) is in an organization, and that organization no longer suits their needs or has become corrupt, strayed from it’s original purpose etc. then one simply ceases to associate with that organization.
But of course, we’ve been inculcated since childhood with the religion of state-worship, so many people never even give it a logical thought, they’re programmed to just deify the state, as if it is some self-existing autonomous moral entity to which all decent people must condescend. The inducing of a guilt trip.
Much like what many churches do. One of my nieces recently started reading the Bible, and now sees that what her church practices has no scriptural validity, and is indeed not remotely practicing the Christianity of the Bible- and yet she still struggles with feelings of guilt for no longer going to church…because the organization [the church] had long emphasized the ‘necessity of going to services’, and other parishioners from whom she still occasionally hears, who have also been inculcated with such, parrot that very same mantra- so even though the bloom is off the rose and what’;s behind the curtain has been exposed, old habits and ideas which have been drummed into us both individually and culturally are hard to fully free oneself from- and none but the truest seekers of truth, justice and liberty will usually even entertain the idea of questioning such entrenched institutions of society as a church or state; many will even feel quilty for not obeying a sign- such as one that says ‘speed limit 45 MPH’.
Such is what preserves the power of tyrants, miscreants and psychopaths- and is their ultimate goal, to have us all act like obedient children who never question, much less disobey their quasi-deity -not just out of fear for the consequences which may be imposed by them, but because we are so dumb and servile as to actually think it a moral transgression to dare to question much less disobey their self-appointed god-like status- as a society so inculcated is exponentially easier to control and maintain, as it is largely self-policing, and allows the psychos in charge to only have to worry about the challenges of the outliers and rebels who see through the curtain and or simply refuse to worship at that altar- i,e. people like us!
Nunzio,
Brought to you by mandatory public education.
Heh, yeah John- RK nailed it by referring to the Pledge Of Allegiance…before we’re even old enough to understand or think upon such concepts, we just have it mindlessly drilled into us as we hold our hand over our heart. Of legal age or not, it doesn’t matter because by the time we reach what the state defines as majority, we believe, and it has become a part of who and what we are.
“The aim of totalitarian education has never been to instill convictions but to destroy the capacity to form any.” Hannah Arendt
Nunzio,
Fortunately, for some of us, it has NOT become a part of who and what we are. It may have taken too many years, but I think I, and most here, have gotten over it.
When every time you turn over a rock, you find a diseased bug, you start looking for alternatives. And here we are.
Nice article Eric, it contains ideas of a subversive nature. Ideas which back in the day public school history classes used to teach. Like you’ve said before “You’ve had to much to think.”
If we were allowed to separate, it would quickly become clear for the whole world to see: The prosperity, unleashed by the engines of freedom, would in short order win the hearts and minds of most. The dirty drabs who write this anti-life narrative would be left to rule over a smoldering ruin of dysfunction and dystopia. The gospel pf bondage is dead, the narrative engineers just haven’t received the news.
“It’s the state’s assumption of authority, to kill you if you disobey. Harkening back to monarchs who were ordained by God. Or so they said.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed
In the United States of America
“Consent of the governed” is a phrase found in the United States Declaration of Independence.
Using thinking similar to that of John Locke, the founders of the United States believed in a state built upon the consent of “free and equal” citizens; a state otherwise conceived would lack legitimacy and rational-legal authority. This was expressed, among other places, in the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence (emphasis added):[5]
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
—————–
BUT THEY CHEAT AT VOTING, STEAL ELECTIONS, LIE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED, COVER UP VOTE TAMPERING AND PROSECUTE THOSE WHO WERE PROTESTING THEIR BEHAVIOR. So by what right does the state now claim they can rule over us? What magical words can they say now and claim authority?
To tamper with even one vote is a felony. How many democrats have been charged with felony times many millions?
And another thing, if your nation is founded on the principle of the consent of the governed, then what right does the state via the CIA have going around overthrowing democratically elected governments?
Yukon,
It is the nature of all government to become saturated with socio/psychopaths, regardless of how well intentioned they were to begin with. Sane people are not receptive to the assumption of authority to kill you if you disobey.
As is playing out in Ukraine, self determination, by plebiscite, the very foundation of “democracy” is being summarily rejected because the results were not “acceptable”. So they aren’t “valid”.
I have been saying this for over 30 years but have yet to get one person to agree:
Abe Lincoln was, by far, the worst US president. He was not the worst president because he opposed slavery. H was the work President because he forced 700,000 Americans to kill each other over the issue of slavery. In fact, every other nation in the world ended slavery without a civil war like ours.
One nation, Haiti, did have a slave rebellion, but for the White Haitians that was to throw out the French, while for the Black population, it was to end slavery. Around 75,000 white French people died during the Haitian Revolution, a dramatic contrast to the more than 350,000 Black people who were killed.
Lincoln also arbitrarily imprisoned political opponents in the media, and exiled to a Confederate state, one Democrat US Congressman from Ohio: A believer in states’ rights, low tariffs, and slavery, Clement Vallandigham was an ardent Democrat.
If up to me, Lincoln’s face would be blasted off Mount Rushmore.
‘If up to me, Lincoln’s face would be blasted off Mount Rushmore.’ — Richard Greene
Wonder whether .50 caliber ammo, aimed from the side, could blow the phucker’s nose off.
Might be worth a stay in Club Fed to demolish this satanic monument.
Richard,
As the Lincoln quote in Eric’s article proves, the conflict was NOT over slavery, but over tariffs in the southern ports, or rather the lack thereof. In fact, most of Yankeedom was all for the South departing, until they realized the loss of revenue from tariffs and the loss of business in the Northern ports to the free ports in the South. In other words, taxes. Your 700k dead figure is more than deaths in all other American wars combined. And introduced the omnipotent ubiquitous central government that we all suffer, and has only grown worse with time.
What the Brits did easily disposed of slavery. Buy the slaves and set them free.
The conflict was mainly over slavery
That was the main difference between Republicans and Democrats at the time
The tariffs myth is a conservative myth.
“Abe Lincoln was, by far, the worst US president. He was the work President because he forced 700,000 Americans to kill each other over the issue of slavery. In fact, every other nation in the world ended slavery without a civil war like ours.”
Exactly. Which is why those who like to use force consider him one of the greatest presidents. A “great” president uses force and a bad (a weak) president is libertarian, one who seeks voluntary cooperation. In fact, in Amerikan politics, a president is not even considered worth his salt until he orders the army to go invade some nation.
Yukon,
Which brings to mind Calvin Coolidge, arguably the by far BEST POTUS. In 1920 there was a recession that was worse than the 1929 collapse. What did Coolidge do? Nothing. And it was over in less than a year. Ushering in a decade of unprecedented prosperity, which the Fed disposed of in 1929.
US CXivil War:
700,000 Americans killed each other, out of a 30,800,00 US population, or 1.8%,
to end slavery, as every other nation in the world ended slavery without a civil war.
Barely any of the dead American men ever owned slaves.
Hi Richard, I disagree. Lincoln did not force Americans to kill each other over slavery.
The Southern states may have decreed they were protecting slavery upon their departure from the Union, but Lincoln made clear he would not touch slavery so long as the Southern states did not leave the Union.
Ending slavery at the federal level was not an issue until 3 years into the war when Lincoln found political advantage to change position. Until then, slavery was an issue within each state.
Alexis de Tocqueville, the French observer, noted of America that “The prejudice of the race appears to be stronger in the states which have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those states where servitude has never been known.”
“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races….” — Abraham Lincoln, “Comment on the Dred Scott Decision”, June 26, 1857
There was no moral war to end slavery on behalf of black people. Lincoln wanted black folks abolished from the United States.
“Ending slavery at the federal level was not an issue until 3 years into the war”
That’s BS
Most professional historians agree that slavery and the status of African Americans were at the heart of the crisis that plunged the U.S. into a civil war from 1861 to 1865.
The Civil War in the United States began in 1861, after decades of simmering tensions between northern and southern states over slavery, states’ rights and westward expansion. The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 caused seven southern states to secede and form the Confederate States of America; four more states soon joined them.
The primary catalyst for secession was slavery, especially Southern political leaders’ resistance to attempts by Northern antislavery political forces to block the expansion of slavery into the western territories.
The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states.
Top Causes of the Civil War.
Economic and social differences between the North and the South.
States versus federal rights.
The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.
Growth of the Abolition Movement.
Dred Scott Decision.
The election of Abraham Lincoln.
abraham lincoln (small letters deserved) is the greatest mass murderer in the history of this nation. that this mass murderer is hailed as a ‘savior’ is not surprising in latter day America become amerika. after all, he converted a former association of free states into a group of slave states in the grip of the center, the dream of every collectivist.
he is every totalitarian’s political mate.
Indeed, beau –
Lincoln set the precedent for every tyranny that followed, by imposing the ultimate tyranny – viz, that you are not free to go.
Lincoln’s total destruction of the Militias of the several States after the war, tell us all that we need to know.
Today “patriots’ fail to recognize that the lack of state Militias are the root cause of a hell of lot of this current tyranny.
Joe,
But there are State militias, though not as many as there should be, nor as large and well organized. They are all castigated as “racist” though, because the Psychopaths In Charge fear them so much.
We are not even supposed to have a standing army, much less a Military Industrial Complex that has, along with the Medical Industrial Complex, taken over the nation.
Article one section 10:
“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage,
keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or
Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War,
“unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
Which is exactly what’s going on at the southern border. Those States are well within their rights to deploy their militia, and shoot anyone who tries to cross that border, since FedGov refuses to do anything about it. If they had a militia to deploy.
John Kable said:
“…. Joe,
But there are State militias,…”
Yes I am aware that is said, but I have been a member of the State Sanctioned Missouri 4/8 out of Springfield MO for years.
Now listen closely: There are no state militates.
What ever the hell these things are they are not the militia.
I suspect the most “State Militias” are a dialectic set up the the CIA.
The MO militia size is a absolute joke With a population of 6 million we should have at least
2 million people in the State Militia. Want to guess how many were at the last State wide training that I attended? Perhaps 100 men.
The people in the Missouri State Militia have no f’ing clue as to what the Militias even is.
Many think that they are the “little helpers” for the 2 standing armies (the military and the police)
Most all of the men in the Missouri militia are in such piss poor shape that Betsy Ross or Martha Washington, could have taken on a dozen of them at a time.
The Missouri Militia has dangerously poor training in tactics and strategy. No thought at all is given to logistics which is even more important.
The Missouri Militia has very few weapons of war, protected by the 2nd amendment and that the “Militia Clause” in the Constitution says that the Federal Government has to provide to the State Militias.
FWIW I could give a damn about the demonization of the concept of the Militia.
I see mind control fear tactics and the sheep don’t because they are willfully ignorant in mass mind control techniques.
Even if you are familiar with the concept of the Militia John, I highly suggest that you take a look at both of Mark Passio’s talks on the topic:
http://missourifreepress.com/2020/07/19/mark-passio-the-true-meaning-and-purpose-of-the-2nd-amendment/
God Bless
“Why is secession considered such an unspeakable thing. . .?” Excellent question Eric!
To be more direct & simplified let’s rephrase: why is secession not permitted? Answer: because the party which remains loses bigly. . .and rightly so. And that’s precisely why those who remain refuse to let go. For them seperation is unthinkable. That’s the last thing they want.
Look, this isn’t complicated and there’s no need to apologize when wishing to seperate from some unpleasant entity or gang. And that’s especially so when a band of people (sometimes referred to as thieves) steal from or has an unfair & immoral economic advantage over another group.
Let’s consider a good example. Okay, lemme think. . .hmmm. Oh yes, here’s one. Consider the host-parasite relationship. Who benefits & who loses when they go their seperate ways? The parasite is dependent on the host and relies on him for subsistence. He’s not going to like it when the host bids him farewell. And that’s why those with a vested interest in the system will never let go. Never. These people are like drug addicts, once hooked they can’t stop. And good luck trying to make them.
Sharyl Attkisson, one of the few REAL journalists out there today, has a piece up about the “January 6th protesters”… Despite endless claims by Big Media and others that what happened in DC on January 6th, 2021 was an INSURRECTION,
NOT ONE of the nearly 1,000 people who were arrested was charged with INSURRECTION…..
http://www.sharylattkisson.com/2023/01/2-yrs-after-jan-6-1000-arrested-no-one-charged-with-insurrection/
None of the J6 protestors were armed
Few entered the Capitol
Very few did any damage inside the Capitol
Few if any wanted to remove the current President, Trump, who was President for a few more weeks. They disrupted Congress for a few hours. That’s it.
Richard,
What they DID do is scare the hell out of the Democrat congress, by bringing the protest to their door. Suddenly it wasn’t something going on somewhere else. What did they do? They put up fences and barricades to prevent a repeat performance. The threat of the French revolution brought to their door. Let them eat cake, and off with their heads.
Silicon Valley Algorithm Manipulation Is The Only Thing Keeping Mainstream Media Alive
If not for these deliberate acts of sabotage and manipulation by Silicon Valley megacorporations, the mainstream media which have deceived us into war after war and which manufacture consent for an oppressive status quo would have been replaced by independent media years ago. These tech giants are the life support system of corporate media propaganda.
https://thefreedomarticles.com/algorithm-manipulation-silicon-valley-keeps-mainstream-media-alive/
‘Despite endless claims by Big Media and others that what happened in DC on January 6th, 2021 was an INSURRECTION …’ — John B
Want to see something closer to an insurrection, check out the MASSIVE crowds in Brasilia, trashing the Planalto Palace and the supreme court.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/bolsonaro-supporters-storm-brazil-national-congress-breach-presidential-palace-top-court
They had to wait till Jan 8th to run this fake op or it would’ve been too obvious. Watch for the socialist guy to enact emergency measures against the “terrists.” Then arrest and trial of B. if they repatriate him, which is likely being that, last I heard, he was in Miami. Brazil is being run or stage managed from Langley it seems. Like Hollywood, where these things probably originate, they can’t think of anything original.
Mark Stein wrote in How the States Got Their Shapes (2008) about the geographic logic behind the creation of new states after the original thirteen.
Mississippi and Alabama are nearly equal in size, as are Arizona and New Mexico. Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and North Dakota are all three degrees of latitude in height. Colorado, Wyoming and Montana are all four degrees in height. Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Wyoming, and the Dakotas are all about 7 degrees of longitude in width. And so forth.
In other words, state borders were drawn to balance their geographic size, without regard to population (and with a couple of huge exceptions, Texas and California).
Ryan McMaken of Mises Institute picked up this theme in an article titled ‘State Borders Are Obsolete.’ He goes farther, to note that in many states, state Senate districts were based on geographic areas, not population, just like the US Senate — intentionally giving rural areas a veto over policies favored by urbanites with the majority of population.
https://mises.org/wire/borders-between-us-states-are-obsolete
Then McMaken rocked my world with a fact I never knew:
“This system was swept away in 1964 by the Warren Court (in Reynolds v. Sims), when it ruled that state legislatures must be apportioned in line with a one-man-one-vote principle, i.e. roughly the same size in terms of population. This turned state senates into merely smaller versions of each state’s house of representatives. (The US Senate’s two-per-state scheme survived only because the chamber’s make-up is explicitly stated in the US constitution.)”
https://mises.org/wire/borders-between-us-states-are-obsolete
Unbelievable: the very structure of the US Congress, with the Senate based on equal count, not equal population, was arbitrarily forbidden to the once-sovereign states, producing the horrors unfolding in rural California, Oregon and Washington.
Reynolds and Sims must be overturned, either by the hacks in blacks themselves, or by sovereign states simply defying the illegitimate fedgov ‘courts’ and reconstituting their legislatures as they damned well see fit.
Email sent to Ryan McMaken of Mises:
Thank you for your Jan 5 essay on obsolete state borders. Somehow I had entirely missed the significance of the 1964 Reynolds v Sims case.
If the 30-member state senate in Arizona (where I live) were elected as two members from each of the 15 counties, it would be about two-thirds (rather than half) conservative. And giant Maricopa County, with 60% of the legislators now, would see its dominance and neglect of rural interests ended.
Any chance that Mises Institute would research and publish the history of non-majoritarian state senates?
These historical precedents would be extremely useful in attempts to nullify Reynolds v Sims and restore state sovereignty over state electoral districts.
This will become an increasingly important topic.
As Spooner asked, how can people long dead, bind those not born to a political situation? They can’t. Even if they could, the idea that no one can change their minds brings the question of why do we have elections if mind changing is not allowed.
Why was it ok for the north to secede (Jefferson wished them well) but not the south & not anyone today? Not for reasons history, theory, or logic; but because puritans desire to control everyone.
The modern puritans are the “progressives”. Non “progressives” do not seek to control abortion in CA or gun rights in Mass., but the same can’t be said about the opposite.
There are areas in other states besides my home state of Oregon who wish to secede and join a neighboring state, as, like certain areas of Oregon, certain areas of other states are RULED by a fringe minority. Judging by recent elections, the majority of counties in Oregon are “red”, but ONE county, Multnomah (which just happens to be where Portland is located), ALWAYS seems to determine the direction of the entire state. As a result, we’ll have a new Queen who could be worse than former Queen Kate Brown…..Tina Kotek pledged to be a “Governor for all Oregonians”, but I suspect that pledge will be as short lived as Joe Biden’s pledge to be a “President for all Americans”.
https://mises.org/wire/borders-between-us-states-are-obsolete
WEF Declares People Have No Right To Own Their Own Cars: ‘You Can Walk or Share’
https://newspunch.com/wef-declares-people-have-no-right-to-own-their-own-cars-you-can-walk-or-share/?fbclid=IwAR3AUQS1uyl8OpzxBh-vx8iMo79Dsh0Jx6QxzKtCtLphUl-gzcU0gmfCKeU
WEF Declares People Have No Right To Own Their Own Cars: ‘You Can Walk or Share’
Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum has declared that people have no right to own their own car and can instead “walk or share.
Thousands of private jets fly into Davos each year for the WEF’s annual summit, but according to Klaus Schwab ordinary people should not own their own car.
The global elites in Geneva, Switzerland, are now instructing their Young Global Leaders embedded in governments around the world that far too many people own private vehicles and they must be priced out of the market with massive gas price hikes.
And it’s not just cars.
The end of private ownership is essential, according to the WEF, and can be applied to everything from cars to private homes and even city-wide design principles.
gas price increases….
from a poster at zh…….
Bill Gates announces the next pandemic date: 2025 it will be called (SEERS)
2023-2025
Step 1. 21% interest rates (Depression)
Step 2. scam-demic
Step 3. lockdown…….then takeover by WHO
Actually interest rates will continue to rise above 7% then the Volcker moment will come skyrocket interest rates to 21%
These banks and the government plan on stealing everything once the rates climb past 7%
Gasoline will hit $5.00 then on to $10.00….attack car driving…..
The 2024 election more fraud stacked deck ……then Bill Gates/WHO, lockdown will come after 2024.
>The end of private ownership is essential, according to the WEF, and can be applied to everything from cars to private homes
Since the average citizen’s main source of wealth is his/her own domicile, denying him/her the ability to own his/own home amounts to denying him/her the ability to accumulate wealth.
Serf city, here we come.
This Is How the Fed Will Seize Your Money in 2023: Gerald Celente
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bLkIquA6HQ
“But does this assertion carry any legitimacy or is it merely something that is enforced?”
Of course it is not legitimate. It’s the state’s assumption of authority, to kill you if you disobey. Harkening back to monarchs who were ordained by God. Or so they said. As Eric says, we all have parted company with a variety of people, and/or organizations, when remaining tied to them was obviously no longer to our advantage, nor compatible with our beliefs. Well boy howdy, does the FedGov not easily qualify for such departure?