Tag: Brexit

Can Economic Crashes Lead Toward Independence? – Follow the Money, Politicians Do

Catalonia Independence Movement

Without a doubt, the current overarching panic has been framed to be that of COVID-19. From all angles, those opportunists are hoping that this crisis can assist them in burying some past or paving the way to some glorious future. Whether it is the unsustainable debt, the banking sector, the pharma sector or even those that deal in welfare (to both corporations (GOP) or individuals (Dems)), everyone it seems are bent on not wasting this crisis.

The very last thing on these people’s mind is that of personal liberties or the free market. To them it is the desire of command and control that consume their soul. Real men (when I use this word I use it the same way our Creator would, meaning men and women), men of character, principled humans who are both compassionate for others and yet principled in not attempting to fix other’s lives or circumstances. Help is afforded when both the opportunity presents itself and the help aligns with what is on the giver’s heart, because surely, Jesus did not heal everyone in the crowds, only those that were on His Father’s heart.

So here we are again where a divided nation is fighting both the effects of a virus as well as the proper method to achieve that. Authoritarians (even the ones that were libertarian just weeks ago) want the government to mandate nothing less than house arrest and martial law all across this land. Libertarian leaning people think the people themselves can figure this out on their own, since only they know their specific and unique circumstance. They might be a city dweller with a network of like minded people that CAN achieve social distancing while also bartering for what may be needed in the weeks to come, OR they might live on a farm or ranch that is miles from their neighbor who can also be in their network for critical supplies.

Montana “social distancing”

What comes to mind then, out of an article penned as Brexit was achieved, is that this is not too different than what face the American people in 1860. Yes there were those who felt righteous enough to demand that others free their slaves immediately, and yet if anyone knew how prepared these slaves were for freedom, it was probably their owners and others on the plantation or farm. While slavery was in fact winding down, there were people willing to demand their agenda no matter the cost, even if it was 700,000 dead soldiers and economically ruined regions of the country that would not recover for a century.

The American leader that most people black and white still rally around today as a man of principled freedom and equality for all is Abraham Lincoln. At times, if you read his very words you have to wonder when in fact he had his heart on the fate of the black slaves and IF his version of “the union” which he was so fond of keeping intact was the best for the marriage that existed between the north and south.

John Marquardt from the Abbeville Institute only a week ago penned an article that is rich in unpacking what really happened 150 years ago as well as the economic factor that was at the root of almost all the BAD decisions by politicians along the way. Lets work our way through some critical quotes and see where this leads:

1775:

… thirteen of its major colonies, with a cry of “no taxation without representation,” declared their independence, seceded from the British Empire and joined together to form the United States of America. Faced with the loss of a vast source of the revenue needed to fill coffers drained by its seemingly endless wars with France, Great Britain opted to wage war on its own colonies.

1860:

… seven of the States in the new American nation felt that the weight of long economic oppression by the Federal government was more than they should be forced to bear and opted to secede from the Unites States to form their own more perfect union . . . and once again the action brought forth a war in which the central government attacked its own citizens to prevent their departure.

At this point I think it is helpful to see Lincoln’s own thought processes and see how they changed through the years (an inevitable characteristic of being a politician as there is nothing off the table morally when a crisis is at hand):

1848:

.. when Lincoln was a U. S. congressman from Illinois, he gave a speech in the House of Representatives in which he stated “any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.”

1858:

“neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave States, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists.”

Lincoln said that he did not understand the Declaration of Independence “to mean that all men were created equal in all respects,” and added that he was not in favor of “making voters or jurors of Negros nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people.” He then went on to say that “there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

Lincoln was not a huge fan of the blacks it is very apparent, but his core philosophy that he never gave up was that the blacks were never to be allowed to migrate north and take away jobs from whites, which would cause economic upheaval. One has to come to terms that back in 1860, it was conceivable that the northern regions were more racist than southern regions who interacted with blacks on a daily basis:

The North feared that slave labor would compete unfairly with its own low-wage, largely immigrant labor force which, unlike slaves, could be willfully hired and fired as needed and did not require food, housing, clothing or even rudimentary medical attention.

It is at this point that John paints the real economic condition of the United States in 1860. Have you ever been taught this in schools as part of a CSI to understand what businessmen around the country thought about seven states leaving the Union? I doubt it, so here it goes, consider it COVID-19 home schooling:

In regard to the true economic cause behind the War, just as it was with Great Britain’s case in 1776, the gaping hole that would be formed in the Federal revenue served as the actual rationale for the Union to wage war on the departed Southern States. In 1860, there were more than thirty-one million people in the thirty-three States and ten Territories, with only a third of these, including almost four million slaves, living in the South. According to the U. S. Federal Abstract for 1860, the total Federal expenditures for that year amounted to some sixty-three million dollars, with over eighteen million of this being used mainly to finance railways, canals and other civil projects in the North. On the other hand, Federal revenues at that time amounted to a little over fifty-six million dollars. As there was then no corporate or personal income tax and revenue from domestic sources, such as the sale of public land, amounted to less than three million dollars, the remaining fifty-three million dollars were provided by what was termed “ad valorem taxes,” in other words, the tariff on foreign goods imported by the United States. The basic problem with this, however, was that as much as three-quarters of that revenue was collected in Southern ports, which meant that there would be a loss of up to forty million dollars in Federal revenue if the Southern States left the Union. Added to this was the fact that well over half of America’s four hundred million dollars in exports in 1860 were agricultural products from the South, mainly cotton, rice and tobacco.

You can see the predicament that Lincoln had when he was inaugurated in early March 1861. You can also see what the British view was back in 1775 and why they did what they did.

Now project yourself forward in time and try to understand what the so-called united States of America faces in 2020.

  • Will the economic crisis cause everyone to stick together and pay the $25T in debts over the next hundred years OR will regions of the US be allowed to go their separate ways?
  • Would anyone in the federal government be willing to let ANY state go in peace?

These are the questions one must answer themselves, along with, what is the moral path forward? Personally I think that bankruptcy is the only moral path forward, but as I was told in the US Navy, ‘opinions are like *ssholes, everyone has one’.

Ok then, let us look to see how Lincoln (Trump-like?) evolved as President:

04MAR1861:

Lincoln stated that he would “hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the (Federal) government, and collect the duties and imposts . . . but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using force against, or among the people anywhere.”

.. [then] stating he had “no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Pretty clear that economics forced his hand to propose the absurd notion that tariffs would still be collected in the seven states that LEFT the union while he had no real heart change on the fate of the black slaves.

Early April 1861 before Ft. Sumter:

Virginia, which still remained in the Union, commissioned a three-man delegation headed by John Baldwin, a pro-Unionist and former judge of the State Supreme Court of Appeals, to meet with Lincoln at the White House in an effort to negotiate a peaceful settlement. During their meeting, the president was reported as saying privately to Baldwin “but what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery (i.e., the Confederates)? Am I to let them go on and open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry with their ten-percent tariff? What, then, would become of my tariff if I do that, what would become of my revenue? I might as well shut up housekeeping at once.”

By early April, Lincoln and his cabinet, the majority of the New Englanders as well as the farmers in the West (now called the Midwest) all saw clearly the economic ramifications of having just 7 states leave the union. Like today, the panic and gross exaggeration seemed to consume people and they were all looking to the US government to do something, ANYTHING!

Lincoln’s Cabinet

It is well documented that Lincoln’s plan to send troop transports to Charleston harbor where his Union garrison had broke a gentleman’s agreement on Christmas 1860 and moved from Ft. Moultrie to Ft. Sumter was to have the South Carolina cannon to fire the first shot (not unlike FDR’s efforts to have Japan do the same at Pearl Harbor, or Bush II’s efforts to have 9/11 be allowed) so he could be “justified” in his next action:

Lincoln’s call to the Union for seventy-five thousand volunteers to suppress what he termed the “rebellion” of the Southern States. Lincoln’s call not only led to the secession of Virginia, but Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee as well, and brought about a war that made casualties of five percent of America’s population, devastated a third of the nation’s States and left deep wounds in the American psyche that to this day have not yet completely healed.

Lincoln, a lawyer, never addresses the seceded states from this point forward, but relied on George Washington’s legislation created during the Whiskey Rebellion to “legally” put down the southern “insurrection” as if it was an unorganized scene of violence that had to be safely extinguished for the safety of the masses.

Keep this in mind for 2020, just sayin’.

By 1862, it was obvious what had happened:

A comparison between the conflicts of 1776 and 1861 was also made in a “London Times” article of November 7, 1861, in which it was said of the War Between the States that the “contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces.”

In a letter written in March of 1862, Dickens stated “I take the facts of the American quarrel to stand thus; slavery has in reality nothing on earth to do with it . . . but the North having gradually got to itself the making of the laws and the settlement of the tariffs, and having taxed the South most abominably for its own advantage, began to see, as the country grew, that unless it advocated the laying down of a geographical line beyond which slavery should not extend, the South would necessarily recover it’s old political power, and be able to help itself a little in the adjustment of the commercial affairs.”

So whatever became of Lincoln’s transition toward loving the black slave? Well, we do know that Lincoln was surrounded by a culture that he was totally in alignment up to the so-called Civil War:

… pertaining to racial discrimination, Dickens said “Every reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro, and until it was convenient to make a pretense that sympathy with him was the cause of the War, it hated the Abolitionists and derided them up hill and down dale.”

When the war went poorly and Lincoln was doubtful to his re-election and the possibility of an externally arranged peace conference, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation which sounded good but did not actually free one slave (and later admitted that this was a “war measure”). One can see that even this act was not from his heart as can be revealed by the following quotes:

“Send them to Liberia, to their own native land.” ~ Lincoln, speaking in favor of ethnic cleansing all blacks from the United States.

“I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I favor colonization.” ~ Lincoln, in a message to Congress, December 1, 1862, supporting deportation of all blacks from America.

“They had better be set to digging their subsistence out of the ground.” ~ Lincoln in a War Department memo, April 16, 1863

 

After securing a 2nd term as president he continued to meet with northern Black leaders about his plan to export blacks to the Caribbean or back to Africa after the war. For those black slaves that remained:

“Root, hog, or die” ~ Lincoln’s suggestion to illiterate and propertyless ex-slaves unprepared for freedom, Feb. 3, 1865.

So here you see that war and economics changes everything and allows politicians to make decisions that in peacetime or prosperity would have been prevented, one way or another.

It seems that today, most Americans have given in to their lot as tax slaves happy for just enough freedom for them to claim they live in the land of the free and are able to worship the flag and eat the occasional apple pie. To a majority of Americans, they know little of their history that would help them to see the red flags all around them as freedom and liberty evaporate in this once free land (mainly in 1783-1878).

May a new generation and a new remnant of Americans see though the infectious nature of government and decide for the future that they will take responsibility for themselves, their livelihood and the education of the next generation and never trust any government again.

I can dream can’t I?  One day at a time everyone, one day at a time, however, it is good and well to dream and hope for a better tomorrow where the lessons of this crisis are well learned!

Peace out.

-SF1

2020: We Can See Clearly Now

Yes, thanks to a “slight” miscalculation on the part of the US Empire, I think many people will wake up to the fact of what has been coming down for 40 years in the Middle East.

Before this era, there was little terrorism while there were a couple of world wars. Which do you prefer? Personally, I prefer none, not for me mind you, but for my kids and my grand-kids I prefer peace.

The “slight” miscalculation is highlighted in this article that rightly makes prominent what most of MSM (no surprise there) and most people are missing:

The US did not plan to kill the vice commander of the Iraqi Hashd al-Shaabi brigade Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes when it assassinated Iranian Brigadier General Qassem Soleimani on Thursday at 11:00 PM local time at Baghdad airport. Usually, when Soleimani was arriving in Baghdad, security commander Abu Zeinab al-Lami, a deputy officer to al Muhandes, would have welcomed him. This time, al-Lami was outside Iraq and al-Muhandes replaced him. The US plan was to assassinate an Iranian General on Iraqi soil, not to kill a high-ranking Iraqi officer. By killing al-Muhandes, the US violated its treaty obligation to respect the sovereignty of Iraq and to limit its activity to training and offering intelligence to fight the “Islamic State”, ISIS. It has also violated its commitment to refrain from overflying Iraq without permission of the Iraqi authorities.

As the article states, the US and Iraq are both embarrassed by this turn of events that unmasks the US Empire’s true intentions, on behalf of Israel. This has coalesced most of the various militias in the region (except ISIS of course, sponsored by US, Israel and Saudi Arabia) and has now linked former enemies Iraq and Iran to have common ground. It will be interesting the uptake of this outside the region as Russia and China, along with Syria find each others as friends with a common enemy, especially with all the trade sanctions and tariffs that the US has instigated. I am thinking too that the European “coalition” days are numbered as what nation in Europe will side with the US Empire at this point?

So is the US Empire at the 1775 point of the British Empire? An unmasked  and revealed belligerent imperialist force for bad verses American Exceptionalism, a Global Force for Good. Time will tell.

I am pretty sure that with Brexit, and with Trump’s blunder on Iraqi soil, we will all see much clearer in 2020. As more and more people distrust huge government, distrust its partner in crime, the media, there will be all sorts of things that can be revealed in this new year.

One thing I do want to draw attention to is the difference in character between the typical US politician and the man (i.e. labeled a bad guy by Trump) that was murdered after a non-private commercial flight from Damascus, Syria to Baghdad, Iraq:

Soleimani’s handwritten will: “My wife, I have chosen my burial place in the cemetery of the Martyrs of Kerman, Mahmoud knows it. I want my gravestone to be simple. Just write ‘Soldier Qassem Soleimani’ no more titles and phrases.”

Quite the difference, no?

Interesting days to come .. enjoy each day and the blessings that God the Creator has blessed us with in the midst of “wars and rumors of wars” – Jesus in Matthew 24:6.

Hug your kids, your grand-kids and good friends!

I can see clearly now the rain is gone
I can see all obstacles in my way
Gone are the dark clouds that had me blind
It’s gonna be a bright (bright)
Bright (bright) sunshiny day
It’s gonna be a bright (bright)
Bright (bright) sunshiny day

Oh, yes I can make it now the pain is gone
All of the bad feelings have disappeared
Here is that rainbow I’ve been praying for
It’s gonna be a bright (bright)
Bright (bright) sunshiny day

(Ooh…) Look all around, there’s nothing but blue skies
Look straight ahead, there’s nothing but blue skies

-SF1

US Civil War #2? No, Civil War #1 was Not a Civil War

I am a detail person. I love properly defined words. Governments and their historians twist words to favor their own agenda. This is why the secession of 7 and then 11 united States AND the resulting conflict for four horrible years is labeled a “civil” war.

What is hilarious is that Lincoln, knowing that secession was legal since he considered it during and even ten years after the Mexican-American War when he said:

No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent. – Abraham Lincoln, Peoria, Ill., Oct. 16, 1854

So when seven states, each, like an abused spouse, decided to cancel the voluntary contract she had entered into and go her own way, Lincoln decided to call this an “insurrection”.

Evidence is to the contrary however, as people today compare what happened in 1860 after Lincoln’s election:

Yes, there is a civil war looming in the United States. But it will not look like the orderly pattern of descent which characterized the conflict of 1861-65. It will appear more like the Yugoslavia break-up, or the Russian and Chinese civil wars of the 20th Century. – By Gregory R. Copley – Aug 19, 2017

The secession of whole states via legal means was the American patriots of the time effort to make the whole thing “above board”, “by the book” and “in accordance with the laws of the land”. We now know that Lincoln at the outset was not going to let that happen without a fight. It took the first month that he was in office to whip up the worst fears of life for the remaining 27 united States without the Deep South states. Economically, it looked real bad as the Northern economy and Western (Midwest) farmers would potentially lose their closest customers who in FEB1861 voted to become a relative “free trade zone” compared to the US’s 20%+ average tariff rate by setting tariffs at approximately at 13% on average.

A close inspection of Lincoln’s inaugural address (04MAR1861), two days after the US Congress passed a tariff increase (which the Republicans wanted and was in their platform) shows that ..

1. –  if you can believe Lincoln’s words, he was not going to do anything about slavery:

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

2. – Lincoln’s primary interest lay in collecting duties at all southern ports, as the US general government wanted and needed this revenue stream:

.. there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.

Lincoln contended that divorce was not an option. Of course he “saw” the nation as a singular, and that union was paramount. However, in history we have seen peaceful secession work many times. Lincoln, who once thought and said that governing requires consent of the governed, changed his mind.

Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them.

Properly conceived, the United States in 1861 was actually like polygamy, in that 34 spouses were involved, and 7 wanted to leave this arrangement:

This was NOT the 7 spouses wanting to rule over the WHOLE harem! That would be the true definition of civil war, where the winner gets EVERYTHING!

So in hindsight, the American Revolution was in fact 13 spouses wanting to rule their own households, so basically 13 civil wars as in each colony there was a mix of Tory/Loyalist and Whig/Rebel tendencies plus those that didn’t really care and just wanted peace at all cost.

The American Civil War was not really a civil war as after Lincoln called up 75,000 volunteer troops from the remaining 27 states, 4 of those said no way (Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina and Virginia) as each of these had already voted once to stay in the union and now voted to leave.

This brings us to 2019. Are we facing a civil war? Again, I contend that most decent people want to be left alone. Most decent people don’t mind if the east coast from DC to MA and the west coast from CA to WA just leave (or stay and the rest of the states leave). Again, Gregory R. Copley shares:

It may, in other words, be short-lived simply because the uprising will probably not be based upon the decisions of constituent states (which, in the US Civil War, created a break-away confederacy), acting within their own perception of a legal process. It is more probable that the 21st Century event would contage as a gradual breakdown of law and order.

I tend to agree with this synopsis as the states are no longer entities with any autonomy, but are puppets of the federal government these days, a direct result of the union forcing the marriage covenant to be permanent.

Many will point to Trump or Brexit as the start of this so-called Civil War 2.0, but like most wars, their roots go back years if not generations:

It is significant that the gathering crisis in the United States was not precipitated by the November 7, 2016, election of Pres. Donald Trump, and neither was the growing polarization of the United Kingdom’s society caused by the Brexit vote of 2016. In both instances, the election of Mr Trump and the decision by UK voters for Britain to exit the European Union were late reactions — perhaps too late — by the regional populations of both countries to what they perceived as the destruction of their nation-states by “urban super-oligarchies”.

The last-ditch reactions by those who voted in the US for Donald Trump and those who voted in the UK for Brexit were against an urban-based globalism which has been building for some seven decades, with the deliberate or accidental intent of destroying nations and nationalism.

I contend that the roots of this go much further back than seven decades, but back to the very end of Amerexit, when the thirteen colonies each received acknowledgement in the 1783 Treaty of Paris that the British Empire would let them go in peace, finally. In the post war era, those former patriots would once again turn on the people to assemble a central government that would “protect” them, at a cost when in fact it was a guerilla war that actually freed the colonies from the British grip.

The myth abounded that formal confederation was necessary to win the war, although the war would be virtually won by the time confederation was finally achieved. The war was fought and won by the states informally but effectively united in a Continental Congress; fundamental decisions, such as independence, had to be ratified by every state. There was no particular need for the formal trappings and permanent investing of a centralized government, even for victory in war. Ironically, the radicals were reluctantly pulled into an arrangement which they believed would wither away at the end of the war, and thereby helped to forge an instrument which would be riveted upon the people only in time of peace, an instrument that proved to be a halfway house to that archenemy of the radical cause, the Constitution of the United States. – Murray Rothbard in ‘Conceived in Liberty Vol IV p.243

It is both sick and sad that even radical patriots turned back to central government as the safe way forward. Allowing the smaller states to work in a loose confederation would have provided a true “land of the free” much more than our tyrannical US Empire has allowed us domestically.

As the fictional Benjamin Martin said at the close of the movie The Patriot (2000)

“With the war ending .. I take measure of what we have lost. And what we have won.”

What was won was colonial-centric liberty and freedom from British Empire oppression, what was soon lost was that very same thing. Squandered, politics has a way of doing that every time.

-SF1

2020: When Divorce Renders Peace

As a child of a “broken home” back when it was much less common, in the late 1960s, I was routinely asked by my new friends about my parents. When I mentioned that they were divorced, my new friends would say “sorry”. I would say “don’t be sorry, it is actually better this way”. You see, for over five years before the separation (divorce was final after X months of separation in those days I guess) I lived in a very NON peaceful environment. While the arguing did not always happen in front of me, it did happen at night when they thought I was sleeping. I am sure others had it much worse as the frustration led to physical abuse of the kids in the home, but after years of hearing crying, shouting, the whole range of emotion, I felt very much at peace in the separation year and beyond. These two people in my life, that gave me life, when together could not find a peaceful path forward.

Now think about what is called the “united” States of America (USA). Can anyone find peace today as politics, narratives, intrusive government (and government linked) spying on every aspect of our lives flourish? Those that pull the levers love to pit us against each other and emphasize our differences and cause us to focus on each other instead of the root of the issue that has cause discord, violence and lack of trust 360 degrees.

In an article by the Abbeville Institute, a very astute writer renders a fairly short piece that should give everyone pause in what is going on. Maybe there is a path forward that includes a lot more peace than we experience today. However, this will take some critical thinking and a bit of pushing aside old narratives that we have always believed to be true. This thought consideration involves the S-word, you know, the one that most believe is the dagger to the heart of this republic as we have been taught in both public and many non-public schools. That word is secession.

Lately, this word has gotten more air time from the same people that months ago (when Obama was President) would scoff at such an idea, but with Trump in office, they all now are thinking about this . Even California has had interest in this road forward.

Below I will quote some prime examples of GOOD secession that has brought decades of peace as well as some wisdom from those who helped design our republic:

in 1991, 15 states peacefully seceded from the Soviet Union and the world applauded

How was this divorce not good? You tell me. The collectivism of the old Soviet Union had ruined families, finances, the environment and involved so many levels of corruption that the whole things was going bankrupt. (Sound familiar?)

Says Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Joseph Priestley in January of 1804, “Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the Western confederacy will be as much our children and descendents as those of the Eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this: and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty and the desire to promote the Western interests as zealously as the Eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.”

Was Jefferson wrong? Actually, there were many in the North about this time were also considering secession, especially around the War of 1812. Research the Hartford Convention held in Hartford, CT from 1814-1815.

1796 Election – showing real split between New England and the South

In Canada, Quebec nearly seceded in 1995, Scottish secession was narrowly defeated in 2014, Catalonian secession was voted on in 2017 and Brexit (the secession of England from the European Union) continues to be an important topic of discussion.

I do believe that people are figuring out that bigger is not necessarily better. The USA, being trillions in debt having spent almost $6T on the war on terror alone since 2001 (not including money not accounted for by the Pentagon or the CIA’s black budget). The path forward, together, arguing about finances is never good for a family!

– Thomas Paine

“For over 2000 years, most governmental bodies were not much larger than the Athens city state. But since the French Revolution, governments have adopted attitudes of ‘monster states’.” The thought was that in America, new states or even city states – like Cantons in Switzerland – would be carved out of secession from older states.

While this is not an exact recipe for peace, and can merely reset the clock that ticks toward another world war, it is something that “could” bless this land. As this author stated earlier in this article:

Driving the 10+ hour trip to Dallas on Friday, opting to traverse the backroads through small towns, passing through the already somewhat seceded communities of native Americans in Oklahoma, and witnessing the flavor of life scattered throughout the hills and plains of the Midwest, I couldn’t help but be thoughtfully impressed by the diversity of people that I encountered. Men, women, old, young. Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, Native American. Many areas could readily be seen as being predominantly Christian, with signs proclaiming the sanctity of life, or where one’s eternal destination might lay. But on the flip side in other more “progressive” urban areas, I could also see the glaring evidence of an unfortunate and obvious animosity between those who clearly don’t share the same views as their more conservative neighbors.

Amen. In the last few weeks, I too had the privileged of driving some distances through urban, suburban and rural areas and found the diversity of economics and core principles extremely significant. Also, over the past decade plus I have commuted regularly in an area of the Midwest to see two to three sides of most states. Whether it is Chicago or southern IL, Detroit and the UP of MI, or even Atlanta and rural GA, there remains a significant difference of vision, mission and values that seem to be increasingly incompatible in almost every region of the USA.

Key to going down this path I believe is to learn from history, foreign as well as domestic. Those in power today will not relinquish that power quickly or easily and revolution has rarely produced a freer people as a result.

 

We know what happens when seven states exit LEGALLY.  Do you think the same (or worse) collective government would allow any place inside the US borders to leave, peacefully?

At the end of the day, one has to hope for a better future for our kids and grand-kids while at the same time to be grounded in the reality that without some divine intervention, this whole thing could end real bad, especially if those who are desperate enough opt for the nuclear option.

Conclusions? Yeah, no. If you have faith, pray, dialog. If you don’t have faith, try it and see if in the quite you can hear Hope in the middle of this storm. Beyond this, prepare as your gut guides you, for you, your family and for your community. Be vigilant, do your research and always question the narrative that is being forced on us all. Maybe, just maybe, a peaceful secession can be had. History tells us that we will always have wars and rumors of wars, but we can read about times of peace that flood in for a season and blesses a people can happen as well. Pray.

 

-SF1

When Emotional Fear Drives Decision-making (Brexit, Secession, Separation, Divorce)

Over and over I have seen in my brief (60 trips around the sun) life when emotional and sometimes irrational fear grips leaders, a people group or even a spouse. Yes, from macro to micro, relationships of nations, to regions, to states, to communities and even to marriages there is fear of the future.

Some of this fear is good, some of it is bad. The fact the fear does dominate our thinking as humans is that we are unsure about tomorrow. That is a healthy fear, that we do not have everything in our control. The bad fear is when it gets blown out of proportion and we make decisions on the worst possible scenario. This is the type of fear (economic and political) that I see in this article from Zero Hedge called: “An Unparalleled Economic & Political Crisis”: Brexit Optimism Collapses As Ministers Fear “Historic Catastrophe” on the evaporating Brexit optimism:

“I have near zero optimism because I think it is going to be very messy,” warned one UK minister, speaking to Bloomberg on condition of anonymity. The prospects of getting an agreement are slim, the minister said. “If we crash out without a deal, it’s going to be a historic catastrophe.”

When this level of fear grips anyone, the likelihood of a peaceful and logical solution is increasingly unlikely. It takes two parties to agree on a union, and two parties to behave well as one or both desire to dissolve the union.

I do believe, that many times it is the abused partner that can have the most balanced approach to the process of dissolution in that they have seen this coming for a long time and are ready to state their terms for the exit.

Reflecting back in history, one has to say that the path communist USSR took to split into all those republic peacefully says volumes about the abuse that happened during the rigid communist era. Not only in the political realm, but also in terms of religion (communists were bent on atheism) and society in general.

Reflecting back in history, one has to say the path the republic USA took to split into two republics shows the opposite path, whereas the southern seven states (the abused) desired to exit peacefully, the balance of the states, especially the northern and western (Midwest), feared for the future that awaited them without those seven states. Those regions feared economic uncertainties and the government feared the loss of revenue first and foremost. Between the month where Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861 toward April, even the newspapers shifted from the assumption that those seven states would exit soon to that of economic panic. In their minds, without the “customers” in those states AND the fact that they wanted to be a free-trade zone with minimum tariffs scared the heck out of people and politicians (especially the new party called Republicans that just took control of the US government and doubled the tariff as they did).

The Brexit effort is similar as once the people’s will was displayed, the political fear escalated which sets the stage for a potentially bad deal no matter what path is taken. The nation of England had wedded itself into the EU to the degree that separation will cause pain, however, the long term future is much brighter. One can only hope that common sense and level heads prevail, that real leadership emerges and leads this people towards a better future. Who knows, may this success could be a model for the USA to try this secession/exit thing one more time, and maybe instead of splitting in two (which is long overdue), possibly splitting into six nations might be optimal as a first step. While it still depends on statism, my hope is that more freedom may emerge as not all these entities remain on the Marxist track the whole of the US is currently on.

SF1