NASC Name Reservation

Dear NAmerican Secessionist (and the curious):

Please note that "North American Secessionist Congress" as name for pending corporate entity, has been officially reserved with the Ohio Secretary of State. In part, the certificate states:

"It is hereby certified that the Secretary of State of Ohio has custody of the business records for NORTH AMERICAN SECESSIONIST CONGRESS and, that said business records show the filing and recording of: NAME RESERVATION."

NASC Steering Committee member, Harold Thomas, did the leg work on this one and hats are off to him. Yesterday, Jenna Orkin over at the FTW Blog gave us a very good plug; international hits to the NASC Forum were up considerably.

For those who are not yet familiar with the proposed NASC, one of several aims is to gather already-committed secessionists, Peak Oil advocates, States' Rights advocates and disenchanted Greens under a common secessionist roof. The common denominator for these three demographics, to one degree or another, is a shared acknowledgement and comprehension of secession. Furthermore, the NAmerican secessionist movement will finally have elected representation via an Executive that functions within the incorporated and legal parameters of a Constitution and Bylaws as determined and ratified by the membership. For anyone who has not yet, to view the forum please visit North American Secessionist Congress, October 2010.

Thanks for your attention,

Sebastian Ronin
Chair, NASC Steering Committee

Whither Secession in Vermont

Fox News continues its secessionist flirtations with an interview by Glenn Beck of Thomas Naylor, co-founder of The Second Vermont Republic.

Mr. Naylor reiterates the 12 percent support for secession in Vermont translating into 60,000 registered voters. There is a large chasm to leap between the endorsement of an idea and its support. Sam Young, the acknowledged secessionist gubernatorial candidate in Vermont during the '08 elections drew 0.8 percent (2,466 votes).

There is a glaring disconnect here. Questions to be asked are: Why does the disconnect exist? How can it be resolved?

Part of the problem may lie in the fact that, as of yet, there is no real secessionist political platform and policies that can be offered to the voting public. Waiting for Republicrats to seize the secessionist initiative is self-defeating. As such, the creation of a secessionist party, as proposed by the Green Mountain Brigade in Vermont, may prove the way to go. The SVR is on record as opposing such a development. Such a party would translate into a concrete alternative for the electorate to entertain. Via such a political vehicle, the 12 percent, if it actually exists, may step out from the shadows knowing that its support would actually translate into true State legislative representation.

If the 12 percent support really does exist then the paper revolutionaries in Vermont owe it to those citizens to organize politically around their support, as opposed to leaving them dangling in the wind. With a first-across-the-line voting system, parliamentary representation, and multiple parties (at the State level) to not crunch the numbers and to not enter the electoral fray in a wisely-targeted electoral district with a distinctive secessionist party brings Tallyrand to mind: “It is worse than a crime, it is a mistake.” The same electoral dynamics apply for a couple of Southern states and especially for Texas. For the latter, we have had that discussion in this space before.

This particular revolution will not be a re-enactment of a sixties love-in. Each geographical jurisdiction carries the responsibility to safeguard and promote its own and unique autonomy. Vermont’s business is Vermont’s business. However, until such time as the secessionist struggle goes political then it is all just make-believe. As we have known all along, some will get it right, some will get it wrong, and some won’t get it at all.

As for the interview itself, the same applies here as to last week’s WSJ article, Divided We Stand. NAmerican secessionists will have to tweak their media savvy. It always helps to know who is playing whom…and to whose advantage.

The stakes are growing in leaps and bounds.

Divided We Stand: Addendum

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

My original take on the article was: Why this? Why now? And why via the WSJ? My most concrete thought is directly related to Post-Peak Oil collapse, i.e. with a financially bankrupt federal state, the public is being prepped on the federal state having to bail out, ergo my entire notion of secession-by-default. This particular take on secession makes me a bit of a freak even within the secessionist community. With all due respect to my States' Rights colleagues, the clamp-down on individual freedoms is a symptom of a greater cause. The cause, the social driver of socio-political devolution is the entry onto the depletion slope of Post-Peak Oil and the shattering of social institutions that will accompany this historical collapse and transition.


As pointed out by Chris Hedges in The American Empire Is Bankrupt:
It is the first formal step by our major trading partners to replace the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. If they succeed, the dollar will dramatically plummet in value, the cost of imports, including oil, will skyrocket, interest rates will climb and jobs will hemorrhage at a rate that will make the last few months look like boom times. State and federal services will be reduced or shut down for lack of funds. The United States will begin to resemble the Weimar Republic or Zimbabwe. Obama, endowed by many with the qualities of a savior, will suddenly look pitiful, inept and weak. And the rage that has kindled a handful of shootings and hate crimes in the past few weeks will engulf vast segments of a disenfranchised and bewildered working and middle class. The people of this class will demand vengeance, radical change, order and moral renewal, which an array of proto-fascists, from the Christian right to the goons who disseminate hate talk on Fox News, will assure the country they will impose.

It would seem that it was no accident that the WSJ article appeared when it did and where it did. As a complimentary article to the Hedges article, see:
De-Dollarization: Dismantling America’s Financial-Military Empire, by Prof. Michael Hudson.
Over the course of the coming years secessionists will need to be wary as to who is setting the agenda and to who is establishing the filters through which information is sifted. We cannot and must not allow the secessionist movement to be framed by our adversaries. To do so would merely render us as useful idiots, obedient lap dogs unwittingly serving a greater, globalist agenda. One need simply look at the example of how the Green movement has been co-opted for such purpose.

That secessionist organizations will be infiltrated by COINTELPRO's should come as no surprise. If the movement is legitimate, this is par for the course. To borrow from previous historical examples, the challenge will be to flush out the infiltrators and turn them! We will need to be wary of who is playing whom and to whose advantage. Who is the dog, who is the tail, and who is wagging whom?

Only a legitimate, continental secessionist organization with an Executive elected by the constiuency that it purports to represent can, rightly or wrongly, assume such responsibilities.

The Secessionist Convergence Triad

One of the most profound statements to come out of the 2007 Second North American Secessionist Convention held in Chattanooga, as reported by Bill Poovey, was that the movement represented the unlikely partnering of "the far left and far right of American politics coming together." The statement went largely unnoticed; however, it is the philosophical core of the proposed North American Secessionist Congress.

Of the many political illusions that are currently being shattered by the decline of industrial civilization (the collapse of the American Empire is a sub-collapse), two of the most important are the shattering of the two-party system and the shattering of the political notions of “left” and “right.” The symbolic emperor literally wears no clothes!

The political notions of “left” and “right” are in process of being denuded; they still hold significant sway in the public consciousness. Until such time as the two hemispheres converge and, in the process shatter pre-existing molds, the dynamic of far left and far right coming together retains its hold in the public psyche.

It has been proposed that the three political demographics encompassing the secessionist convergence triad are the States’ Rights movement, the Peak Oil movement, and disenchanted Greens. Each demographic recognizes, to one extent or another, the common denominator of secession.

The States’ Rights movement flirts with secession, up to and including the insertion of secession trigger clauses in resolutions. The Peak Oil movement acknowledges institutional collapse and devolution, while still weakly maintaining that such institutional collapse, i.e. secession, does not apply to the social institution of the large industrial nation state. Disenchanted Greens acknowledge the primacy of bioregional, secessionist politics in the face of bastardized federal parties. Within each demographic there reside minority cadres who will perceive the secessionist common denominator and political logic as put forward by the proposed North American Secessionist Congress.

For sake of argument, the convergence may roughly constitute the following breakdown: States’ Rights advocates (political right, 50% of convergence total); Peak Oilers (political left, 30% of convergence total); disenchanted Greens (political left, 20% of convergence total).

So there we have the unlikely partnering of "the far left and far right of American politics coming together." The historical condition always dictates what can and cannot be done. The trick is to perceive the condition for what it is, without resorting to subjective and jingoistic security blankets, and act accordingly.

North American Secessionist Congress, Update

It has been decided to bump the inaugural meeting of the North American Secessionist Congress from October, 2009 to October, 2010. As Steering Committee member Harold Thomas of The Ohio Republic put it, “Secessionism isn’t ready, we’re not ready, and the world isn’t ready.”

Towards this end, a forum/network has been started for the North American Secessionist Congress. Please consider becoming a member of the forum so that we can entertain as much input as possible to pull this thing off in 2010.

Retreat is never surrender. It is merely a tactical necessity at times. The trudge continues.

Secession Is In Our Future

Over the short course of one year the notion of NAmerican secession has snow-balled into the public's political consciousness. The course and media trajectories are roughly the following: last summer's Zogby Poll that revealed support for the right (as opposed to support for secession) of states to secede to be 20%; the comic relief, yet valuable media dividends of Sarah Palin's secessionist ties; the pronouncements of America's geographical decline by the Russian analyst, Igor Panarin; in general, the flourishing of the States' Rights movement complimented by, in particular, the secessionist trigger written into New Hampshire's HCR 0006; Texas Gov. Rick Perry's flirtation with secession, and; corporate media coverage ranging from the Los Angeles Times to the Wall Street Journal.

The most recent established institution to endorse the notion of secession is the Ludwig von Mises Institute with the publication of Secession Is In Our Future. This article offers a concise overview of the legality of secession ranging from the inalienable right of secession, to international law of secession, to U.S. law of secession. It is a good read for all those federalists whose immediate, knee-jerk response to secession is that it is illegal.

Unfortunately, the von Mises article displays two shortcomings that are common to most U.S.A.-centric analyses of secession.

The first of these shortcomings is the focus on individual state secession as opposed to more regional perspectives and perceptions. Granted, secession can only proceed via the legislative authority of one state at a time. However, this does not preclude the incorporation of regional alliances and federations towards the establishment of new, autonomous nations upon the geographical dimensions of North America. As a guide to how these regional breakdowns may evolve, please see How would the U.S.A. fragment? by Phil Gyford.

The second shortcoming is a major philosophical and political blind spot. It is the analysis of secession as a socio-political driver as opposed to secession being a consequence and symptom of greater, underlying dynamics and phenomena. It cannot be stated enough that secession will be a consequence of ecological and financial collapse, in particular, the descent onto a Post-Peak Oil reality.

As the physical infrastructure collapses, so too will the institutional infrastructure. The dynamic of secession is not reversed, as far too many secessionists mistakenly believe. Yes, it will be imperative to retain the social principles of "freedom and liberty" (i.e. States' Rights movement), but in a world of increasing scarcities and hardships this will prove to be a daunting challenge, yet one that must be pursued. It is quite possible that a social contract encompassing social responsibilities will influence and mold our current understanding of what is meant by "freedom and liberty."

For further reading on secession and Post-Peak Oil, please see Post-Peak Oil and NAmerican Regional Secession.

Gov. Rick Perry and Secessionist Realpolitik I

By now most of the fallout released by Texas Gov. Rick Perry at last week's Austin Tea Party has settled. The reference is, of course, related to Gov. Perry's going beyond the endorsement of Texas States' Rights onto the slippery, uncharted and dangerous political slope of secession.

The liberal media quickly trotted out its attack poodles in the form of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. Aside from the now lame and questionable interpretations of the American Civil War and Lincoln's merits as a freedom fighter, one has to assume that secession would be bad for General Electric's bottom line as an arms merchant. On the conservative side, much finger pointing went in the direction of Fox News and Glenn Beck's 9/12 Project for the ultra-jingoistic primping of the Tea Bag protests. Both "left" and "right" media missed the mark, as was pointed out by Alex Jones. However, not even the writers at Inforwars picked up on the realpolitik motives behind Gov. Perry's sudden attachment to the secession of Texas from the Union.

Gov. Perry is locked in a bitter fight for the Republican Primary gubernatorial nomination with Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in March, 2010. Reports have it that the two do not particularly like each other and that the gloves are already coming off for what will likely be nasty campaigns. Furthermore, as reported by Richard Murray (also here), Sen. Hutchison currently holds about a 10 point spread. Gov. Perry has just less than a year to play catch up and then some. The challenge for the incumbent becomes from where and how to make up the difference. It is at this point that Gov. Perry's newly-found embracement of secession comes into play.

A name that has not yet been mentioned in any of the blog action or by the corporate media around Gov. Perry's secessionist pronouncements is that of Larry Kilgore. Mr. Kilgore is a dedicated Texas secessionist who has six attempts at public office under his belt. In 2006, he gained 8 percent of the vote in the GOP Primary for Governor. His most recent electoral effort was the 2008 primary challenge for the Republican Senate nomination, during which he received 225,897 votes! Lastly, Mr. Kilgore has announced his intent to let his name stand for the 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary. The sheen on Gov. Perry's newly-discovered secessionist empathy takes on a whole new tone.

Sen. Hutchison's demographic backing comes from the more moderate, professional and urban wing of Texas Republicans. Gov. Perry's support, on the other hand, is based on hard-right conservatives who are strongly pro-life, opposed to gay rights, hostile to teaching evolution in the public schools, and tough on immigration. It is the very demographic that delivered for Mr. Kilgore, with his platform of Biblical Law for an independent Texas, 225,897 votes during the 2008 Republican Senate primary.

One now gains an altogether different (and more clear?) picture of Gov. Perry's secessionist motives: he's out to grab Mr. Kilgore's support to fend off the challenge from Sen. Hutchison. Unless Mr. Kilgore finds a way to defend both his position and support, with a secessionist slant, then he very well faces insurmountable odds to fend off an incumbent Governor from staging a well-financed and aggressive raid into his electoral base.

Richard Murray (link above) throws further light on the numbers up for grabs for both Gov. Perry and Mr. Kilgore:

• for the last four Republican gunernatorial primaries, the average turn-out has been 691,000 (2006 turn-out was 665,616)
• for the last four Republican gunernatorial general elections, the average primary vote was 30.4% of the general election turn-out (2006 general election turn-out was 1,716,792)
• odds are that of the 13 million registered voters in Texas who can vote in the Republican Primary next year, less than a million will actually cast ballots
• the very selective GOP primary voters from 1994 – 2006 have been disproportionately hard-right conservatives

And there you have it. There is a strong probability of voter cross-over between Republican Senate and Gubernatorial primary turn-outs, i.e. hard-right conservatives. As such, if one stacks up Mr. Kilgore's 2008 Senate primary support of 225,897 votes against the 2006 Gubernatorial primary turn-out of 665,616 we see how crucial and decisive Mr. Kilgore's past support stands to be in 2010.

Sen. Hutchison needs a high turn-out primary that attracts moderate urban voters. Gov. Perry needs a low turn-out in March 2010 where the born-again Christian vote wields power. Mr. Kilgore needs to clarify who the real secessionist candidate is to prevent his support from draining over to Gov. Perry.

For Sen. Hutchison, going after Mr. Kilgore's grass-roots, Republican support is not an option. For Gov. Perry, tapping into some, most or all of Mr. Kilgore's support could be the difference between political life and death. If the Governor has his eyes on the Presidency in 2012, then he will first have to overcome the 2010 hurdle. The stakes here are serious and they are huge. Mr. Kilgore stands to be a giant slayer in more ways than one and in ways that are not yet even visible on most political radar.

(Note: In a follow-up post I shall deal with Gov. Rick Perry and Secessionist Realpolitik II. This was touched on by the Infowars report on Gov. Perry's questionable secessionist beliefs, but was not followed to conclusion, i.e. Gov. Perry's ties, as a Bilderberger, to a globalist New World Order and the related dismantling of nation-states as part of the globalist agenda.)

Secessionist Growing Pains

Yesterday I received a forwarded email from Harold Thomas of The Ohio Republic. The subject matter was an email that he received from Kirkpatrick Sale of The Middlebury Institute. In the email, Mr. Sale seems to wax eloquently about the good work being done by The Tenth Amendment Center on his, i.e. the NAmerican secessionist movement, behalf:

"STATE SOVEREIGNTY MOVEMENT UPDATE

"The following article from the Christian Science Monitor gives an update on the state sovereignty movement of the last few months. (I have also attached it.) A good website, Tenthamendmentcenter.com, has agreed to monitor the movement's progress. (emphasis mine)

"It's not secession, of course, but it has the seeds of that. Worth following.

"Kirkpatrick Sale, Director, Middlebury Institute,
MiddleburyInstitute.org"

It is quite conceivable that less incendiary fabrications have warranted a shot across the bow via a letter on lawyer's letterhead demanding two things: to cease and desist, and to offer a public retraction and apology.

Mr. Sale's statement would seem to infer three crucial things: 1./ that there is a direct relationship between The Middlebury Institute, a representative body of the NAmerican secessionist movement, and The Tenth Amendment Center; 2./ that The Tenth Amendment Center is working to his guidance, and; 3./ that the inferred relationship has The Tenth Amendment Center occupying the junior position.

That such a seemingly brazen misrepresentation should come from someone who fancies himself "The Leader" of a one-man think tank is neither here nor there. What is of political and diplomatic importance is that Mr. Sale's statement denigrates the work of someone like Harold Thomas who, for the last three months has been walking a fine line between his own secessionist sentiments and working diligently, while keeping the two issues separate, on behalf of the Ohio States' Rights movement.

As has already been pointed out by Harold on his blog is that Mr. Sale is just a tad Johnny-Come-Lately. The same out-of-sync grasp of events was witnessed in an email I received from Mr. Sale last week.

In the email Mr. Sale raises concerns about the efforts underway to launch The North American Secessionist Congress (NASC) this coming October in Columbus, OH. As his concerns reflect on the NAmerican secessionist movement in whole, the movement deserves the courtesy to know what those concerns are. Mr. Sale's email is as follows:

"I don't have any clear idea of what you are planning for October, or why, and you might have consuloted (sic) me before embarking on this, but I would ask you to consider changing the name of the meeting, for it will clearly not be a Congress, as were my three events, as that means official delegates from independent organizations (as the members of the Philadelphia Congresses in 1770s). 'Convention' would fit your bill.

"BTW, there was never any congress slated for Texas. It was a possible site if I determined there was enough secessionist action going on to merit another gathering of delegates; I haven't so far."

Mr. Sale's feigning of ignorance as to what is being planned for October is a bit of a stretch. Prior to last November's Third North American Secessionist Convention, I had hoped to place a motion on the agenda for the creation of the NASC. To this end, again prior to the Convention and as a first-time Convention delegate, I asked Mr. Sale if he would broker an introduction to a seconder for the motion. He declined. Furthermore, I asked him if he would consider allowing his name to stand as the NASC inaugural Chair, should the motion make it to the floor and pass. There was no response to this question, ergo a negative. As the motion was built into a PowerPoint presentation and, as the A/V equipment that was promised me was not delivered and, as the meeting was not conducted conducive to presenting a motion (Mr. Sale held the "Chair"), the motion was not presented. Not only did Mr. Sale show indifference to the idea of an NASC, but via his conduct he was actually hostile towards it. Since that time, Mr. Sale fails to understand (or purports to not understand) the several posts on my blogs beginning with NAmerican Secessionist Movement Asleep-At-The-Wheel dated January 9, 2009. (Email records for all of the above available on request.)

Whom I choose to approach and work with is my prerogative. I was not aware that it was necessary to pander to Mr. Sale's approval and endorsement as to what I choose to "embark" on. I have asked for support within the secessionist community towards the building of the NASC and slowly that support has and is materializing. Trust is not a freebie; it must be earned. A Steering Committee is in place. I work with whom I share a certain degree of synergy, political affiliation and common vision. This is not exactly rocket science.

By claiming that "his" three events constituted a Congress, Mr. Sale would seem to be treating the truth somewhat cavalierly. As a matter of fact, The Middlebury Institute has gone out of its way to bill its events as conventions. What else, pray tell, could they be? There is no executive, no officers, no due parliamentary process as per Roberts' Rules, a unilateral rubber-stamping of the "declarations" without full delegate input, etc. In short, a legal, incorporated entity that represents the North American secessionist movement does not exist. However, there is a one-man think tank with a mandate of "the study of separatism, secession, and self-determination" that purports to do all of the above. To now claim that The Middlebury Institute has the rights to the notion of a secessionist Congress, after having out rightly rejected that very notion at the Third North American Secessionist Convention, could seemingly be seen to border on political panic and intellectual theft.

Ditto above re Mr. Sale's claim that the proposed inaugural meeting of the NASC would fit the bill of "convention." It would seem that he is now desperately clutching at straws. We get to make our own beds, and then we get to sleep in them.

Lastly, for any delegate at the Third North American Secessionist Convention who had the ears with which to hear, it was firmly decided that the Fourth Convention (since cancelled by Mr. Sale) would be held in Texas. It was not a "possible site" and certainly was it not a possible site dependent on Mr. Sale's "determination." Or maybe it was. Who can actually determine these things within an organizational vacuum wherein accountability constitutes a nebulous after-thought?

The overabundant use of first-person directives by Mr. Sale merely highlights the obvious: there is no Congress, there is no organization, there is no coordination, there is no plan, there is no executive, there is no democratic process, there is no reaching out to the public, there is no accountability, and there is no responsibility. The efforts being made by the NASC Steering Committee towards the launch of the NASC are efforts to fill this dangerous and self-defeating void. Mr. Sale may find it difficult to believe, but this effort is for the eventual benefit of not only him, but for the benefit of all secessionists, myself included, who are currently floundering around in a sea of directionless futility, yet are convinced that NAmerican secession will be the political wave of the future within several short years. These are crucial times that warrant crucial decisions and responsibilities. That the consequences of the latter for the NAmerican secessionist movement will likewise be crucial should be self-evident. It is beyond any one individual.

(NASC Steering Committee Update: The Committee currently sits at three members. Several invitations-to-sit have been refused. Invitations pending are to representatives of Texas, the West Coast and Quebec. We hope to top off the Committee at five members.)

NAmerican Secession Gains Traction in the Peak Oil Community

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

Peak Oil Liberals

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

If the average person on the street is stopped and questioned as to from where stems his/her sense of nationalism, one might well be informed that it is a genetic pre-condition. That is, of course, nonsense. Nationalism is learnt behaviour, it is Pavlovian conditioning to the max.

Until such time as the disintegration of the industrial nation-state (in our case, the United States and Canada) is legitimately incorporated into the Peak Oil dialogue, then the Peak Oil movement remains a political skeleton, a sham and hoax, of what it could and must be.

You can't have it both ways. Massive and cheap energy flow-through over the last 150 years, with the guidance of capital, created the industrial nation-state. The lack and negation of same translates into the demise of said nation-state. To keep heads stuck in the sand around this eventuality merely chases the best of intentions into the herd of denial, but with oh such radical and progressive differentiations.

The Rock Gets Set to Rock the Secessionist Boat

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

By "this" Senator Baker was referring to a capped equalization formula that Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams insists will cost the province $1.5-billion worth of federal cash in the next three years. The capped formula is contained within the Federal Government's bail-out budget. Also on the hit list is Quebec which is purported to be short roughly $1 billion of transfer payments.

That provincial jurisdictions that are not altogether friendly towards the Conservative Government are the ones that are getting hit with the budget would seem to be self-evident. Premier Williams was the architect of the "Anything But Conservative" campaign during the recent federal election, and Quebec Premier Jean Charest turned on the Conservatives during the election over proposed cuts to the arts community.

The nature of federal-provincial feuds is about to change drastically. The case of Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec are prime examples. The former is politically expendable, as are the Maritime provinces, because they carry no political clout in the federal system, i.e. 32 seats out of 308. The latter is owned by the Bloc Quebecois and no federal party of whatever political stripe is about to alter that.

The nature of federal-provincial feuds that is about to change needs to be seen within the greater context of the global financial meltdown and the related entry onto the Post-Peak Oil descent curve. Federal financial largess towards the provinces is a thing of the past. The federal coffer is running on empty and will continue to do so. The Canadian financial, political and geographical hinterland is best off awakening to this fact.

Via the secessionist shot across the bow taken by Senator Baker, one can only predict that the sleepy and politically corrupt Maritime provinces will be stirred to at least awaken, if not to immediate action. When the Maritimes finally get around to taking some kind of action the proposed Novacadia Independence Party should be reasonably cobbled together to field several candidates to advocate the inevitable secession of the Maritime provinces.

Post-Script: On March 6, 2009, the defender of the national fabric (along with the CBC) weighed in on the issue. In an editorial titled "Intolerable in a national party" The Globe opined:

"Mr. Baker belongs to the caucus of a national party that hopes to soon form a government. His status within that party, as a senator and former cabinet minister, gives him a platform. When he uses it to effectively advocate the formation of a nationalist - and possibly separatist - movement in his home province, he behaves so recklessly that fellow Liberals should be tripping
over each other to distance themselves, not making apologies on his behalf."

Someone is nervous.

HCR 6 Disappears and Igor Panarin Reappears

In a stunning vote in the New Hampshire House to-day, the States' Rights Bill HCR 6, was defeated by a vote of 216-150. The Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers declared that the House Members voted "in violation of their oath of office."

This one is not over by a long shot. Rep. Dan Itse and his co-sponsors of HCR 6 are to be congratulated...and saluted. Has the House vote inadvertently handed Rep. Itse the State's Governorship during the next gubernatorials? I guess we all get to stay tuned on that one.

Thanks go out to Harold Thomas at The Ohio Republic, not only for being so on top of this story, but also for the very important work he is doing in the States' Right community, especially rounding up support for Ohio's bid.

On another note to-day, Igor Panarin, the Russian analyst who is becoming somewhat of a secessionist poster boy, was back in the news, this time via an AP story that was picked up by both MSNBC and Fox News, Russian analyst: U.S. will collapse next year. Canada's National Newswatch linked to the Fox article.

Mr. Panarin and his hypothesis for U.S. implosion first broke last November and then the story was picked up by the WSJ on December 29. What is popping my antennae is the "legs" that the story is being given by the corporate media. First the WSJ and now MSNBC. Makes one wonder, yes?

As a commenter pointed out over at ClubOrlov, the word "collapse" is more and more creeping into the mainstream media, e.g. The collapse of manufacturing in The Economist...along with the notion of Peak Oil.

The Secessionist Mycelium: Introduction

(Note: As of March 1, 2009 this blog will run in tandem with the WordPress blog Novacadia Alliance. Posts, links, etc. from the latter are in process of being brought over from WordPress, ergo "Under Construction").

Having attended the Third North American Secessionist Convention in Manchester, NH this past November, three things became very clear:

1. Delegate coordination and support, and media coverage of the secessionist movement were drastically weak and counter-productive relative to the pending conditions of empire collapse;
2. Events were quickly far out-stripping and out-distancing the philosophical positioning of the movement and its ability to be representative of those events;
3. The existing organizational structure to effectively coordinate the NAmerican secessionist movement was terribly lacking and, by virtue of a haphazard organizational initiative, was sadly undemocratic.

None of these observations is meant in any way to denigrate from the work invested by individuals and secessionist organizations over the past three years to kick-start the NAmerican secessionist dialogue. At any given time, we do what we can with the resources at-hand. However, there comes a time at the early stages of the life-cycle of any organization and/or movement when it is necessary to claw one's way up to the next level. That time has arrived.

As a sub-item of the first point above, i.e. lack of delegate coordination and support, it was also apparent that the secessionist movement was not well-represented by two major demographics: Peak Oilers and disillusioned, bioregional Greens, to both of which secession is practically an automatic fit.

Two other events have come into play since the Third North American Secessionist Convention. The first is, of course, the wild-fire flourishing of the States' Rights movement in the United States. The second event is the assertive, secessionist re-positioning of both the federal Bloc Quebecois and the provincial Parti Quebecois in Canada.

Taking the above conditions into consideration and after initial dialogue with other secessionists, it has been decided to bring into play a Steering Committee to pull together the inaugural meeting of the North American Secessionist Congress in Columbus, OH on October 16-18, 2009. The status of this proposed historic event is still "tentative." However, work is underway by the Steering Committee to firstly solidify its own legitimacy and then to probe for and determine support for holding the Columbus meeting.

Please check in every now and then to see how things are going as we prepare to trudge towards Columbus.

See also: NAmerican Secessionist Movement Asleep-At-The-Wheel