DiLorenzo: Be Patriotic – Become A Secessionist

bonnieblue
H/t to DumpDC for this current article from Thomas DiLorenzo.

Go back and read this previously-cited Walter Williams article as well.

Then tell me how a few million (at near-hallucinatory most) freedom lovers in North America have a chance at reversing the appetites and addictions of the tyrant Elites and their locust minions.

Separation — political/social/physical, by any means necessary at any level achievable — from the madness is the most rational path forward.

Remember your Einstein:

Problems cannot be solved by thinking within the framework in which the problems were created.

Resist.

22 responses to “DiLorenzo: Be Patriotic – Become A Secessionist

  1. Amen! I haven’t seen where it is written that joining the United States is a one way trip. The “country” as it is today is lost to those of us who value liberty, freedom and personal responsibility. That said, although I espouse and support secession for states of that mind, I don’t think we’ll get there. This “system” will crash (most likely) or grind to a halt before we can accomplish that feat through (or against) the system.

    No matter, once this power dive ends, some of us will remain to put together a new Constitutional Republic in the image of what we had and lost, hopefully incorporating those lessons.

  2. There is no reversing this destructive tidal wave of malignant, malevolent, willful stupidity. Values, attitudes, and morals that would have been shunned in 1980 are now celebrated as ideals to embrace by far too many.

    No, the best that can be achieved – absent divine intervention – is to channel the wave away from you and onto those who have wrought it.

    Secession seems at best a personal affair – I’m not seeing any states – repeat – any states – where the legislature, judiciary or executive branch have resisted leviathan. Why would one hitch their lives/fortune/sacred honor to a corrupt state? 3000 tyrants near vs one 3000 miles away comes to mind..

    Perhaps some believe they will be able to reform their state gov – by voting in “the right people”. Lessee, hasn’t worked on leviathan, or state gov – how about the county level? No? City? Village? HOA?

    As ALL government is coercion backed by violence it is impossible to have a just, peaceful civilization with any level or form of government.

    itor

  3. Agreed. History in hindsight is always nonlinear and full of desperate moves and Hail Marys. Why should we expect the path before us to be a sure thing? The rational path here is obvious, even if it’s desperate. At least we have that going for us. Coach says: embrace our inner Einstein. He’s absolutely right. But I can think of three reasons why none of the good “outside the framework” solutions will be openly discussed here, and only one of them is the obvious reason. The second is that many of the solutions would require secrecy to work. The third is that all “outside the framework” solutions are instant targets for derision. That’s gonna make it hard. I honestly think that our problem isn’t a lack of solutions. There are some pretty good crazy-ass solutions out there that nobody can talk about. The problem is, we can’t talk about ‘em. How do we fix that?

    • alan w. mullenax

      Show up at III Congress?

      • Good point, Chief. I’m gonna try to be there.

      • The problem Alan, as I hope you’re beginning to realize, is that, “more of the same, but with different people,” just ain’t gonna cut it. Besides the practical evidence of the last 5,000 years at least, we’ve also got the logic that it might bring us more of the same, but with different people.

        Something like 3 or 4 recent home games, the Detroit Lions (with a lead) made the decision to try and “not lose,” versus playing like a winner. And like the Lions of the past 50 years, they lost every one.

        How much do you have invested? Do you really wanna gamble on getting more of the same, but with different people? Idealist or not, I’d like to think you and I are worth more than that. I know I am; what’s your judgment of yourself?

        How many really, really wrong things have you done in your private life? How could some other person, or group of people, possibly do a better job of running YOU? And even if they could, what’s the diff? It STILL wouldn’t be them doing it; we all just pretend that it is.

        You’re a man of the mind—find an error in itor’s comment.

        • Well, Jim, that’s one hell of a lot of words to respond with to just five from Alan…….

          Whole lotta construin’ and assumin’ goin’ on.

          This “everyone’s just an individual” stuff, however obviously and simplistically ‘true’ it may be, is just not The One Big Answer To Everything Wrong you wish it to be. People need other people. No one person can be completely self sufficient. Relationships and societies will be formed. Norms of behavior are required. Rules will be instituted. Interests will align, groups will be formed and will compete, just as individuals do.

          That is not the result of lies told by elites, or of stupidity or ignorance on the part of the participants, it is the direct result of human nature (imperfect, and generally incapable of Vulcan-like emotionless rationality) and the relationships and behaviors necessary for survival, both of the individual and the group.

          Very, very few humans have ever evolved to the point of absolute liberation into a state transcending all preconceptions/illusions/falsehoods wherein all things are made whole and and clear, free from desire and all the “sins which flesh is heir to.” I’m pretty sure that epistemology, which must rely on words and their meaning(s), does not arrive at that state, unless by default: the realization of the futility of trying to corral “Truth” or “Fact” within the illusion of the net of words. Who’s definitions does one use?

          You want everyone to go ’round acting selfishly and selflessly all at the same time. Not possible. Either sage, as described above, or the rest of us humans with all the flaws. As you said, remove all ego and the page is blank.

          I admire your dedication, insight and intellect, Jim, and your great ability to express ideas at once simple and complex. I just think you can’t get there from… there. I really appreciate the ‘logic checking’ you provide though. A real service around here, or anywhere. Pointing out the flaws better than I ever could because often I fail to notice them! Thanks for that. I suppose you’re now going to offer me some of the same, though this time I’m probably not buying any.

          All the best.

          • Hey, you used a few words yourself! You wrote…

            “People need other people. No one person can be completely self sufficient. Relationships and societies will be formed. Norms of behavior are required. Rules will be instituted. Interests will align, groups will be formed and will compete, just as individuals do.”

            You keep bringing this up, as if someone’s saying otherwise. But nobody is, least of all me. If I were, I wouldn’t write here or anywhere else, would I? Do you suppose I think I could build a computer from scratch? Or a telephone, or a car? IOW this is some straw man you’ve devised in order to avoid the fundamental point, which you accurately summarize…

            “This ‘everyone’s just an individual’ stuff, however obviously and simplistically ‘true’ it may be,”

            See? Like so many others, you acknowledge the point–it’s obviously and simplistically true, you say–and then you move on as if it were false. Notice that you even put “true” in scare quotes, as if “true” were something other than true. Well it’s not—it’s TRUE!

            That’s what I’m saying and that’s ALL I’m saying. I want cars and telephones and computers too, you know. You don’t WANT to admit the truth of it. You do because you’re a rational man, but you don’t because of various other facts that flow from it. So you instead charge…

            “is just not The One Big Answer To Everything Wrong you wish it to be.”

            Uh, no. It doesn’t build computers and it doesn’t make for a nice society, not on its own anyway. IOW this is just the straw man, built in order to evade what you readily admit is the “truth.” You don’t mind admitting the truth, at least with scare quotes, but you do mind accepting the conclusions that flow from it.

            All I’m saying, not to you but to people generally, is “Stop it already!” Stop taking what you know to be the truth and fighting it with wild imaginations that you “figure” will lead us down the flowery path to everlasting greatness. That’s WRONG because falsities NEVER lead to goodness.

            I’ve got the logic of it and I’ve got the evidence. Hell, our cups runneth over with evidence. What more is there?

            There’s enough “figuring” going on in Washington and the State Capitols and Town Halls, and we KNOW what it’s doing to our society. You don’t deny it, but you’re busy resisting the FUNDAMENTAL FACT which is behind all the failure.

            I’m just saying all that is unnecessary. Contrary to what’s been beaten into us for thousands of years, it’s NOT BAD that we’re individuals of volition and it’s especially not bad that we’re worth everything we do and achieve.

            I KNOW you and I have the same goals. I’m just offering that we might get there–quicker and better–by beginning with the TRUTH, that’s all.

            I have no claim on you, and I know that you know you have none on me. We both want the same thing…that we each have a Merry Christmas and that peace and good will can break out across the world.

            It sounds trite, but you gotta start somewhere. I say, “Begin at the beginning” and start with identifying the nature of our own selves. When people start to understand that this IS the GOOD, then and only then will they build what needs to be built.

            That’s my plan; feel free to share yours!

            • There really is no arguing against this individualism stuff.
              I mean, each is just that.
              Now, people can drag other stuff into the fray if they wish but it has nothing to do with the subject, at all.

              Yes, I can join with others.
              Yes, I can hire someone to do a task I cannot do myself.
              Yes, it is helpful to others around at times.

              But, it is ME, the individual that makes that choice.
              NOT some group, or some leader, or any of that nonsense.
              Until people get their head around that axiom fully they are just spinning their wheels and wasting my time, and I don’t appreciate it.

              Everything, EVERYTHING starts with the individual, and EVERYTHING else is subordinate.

              Look around you, you see what the opposite has sown.

  4. Here is Itor’s error: across the eons of human history, there have indeed been governments that were way more, and way less Evil than others. What we have now is Way Evil and getting worse, and can in fact be changed for the better. But only via the ultimate currency: life itself.

    • and can in fact be changed for the better.
      =================

      No.
      The very idea of gov’t is a violation of humanity.
      All people in favor of gov’t need to be eradicated.
      Only then can freedom flourish.

  5. That’s a little cryptic for me, SP. Could you just pull a line out of his comment, say “That’s false,” and explain why?

    I’m gonna guess you’d pick his first paragraph and say, “But it can get better.” I suppose that I can’t disprove that, especially in the long run, but during our lifetimes–which do matter, our concern for our progeny notwithstanding–it’s seems well past whatever “tipping point” there might’ve been. Do you disagree?

  6. OK, I’ll bite. Itor says: “As ALL government is coercion backed by violence it is impossible to have a just, peaceful civilization with any level or form of government.”

    But the counter-example is that while there are some examples of decent peaceful civilizations that had governments of various types over the eons of human civilization (say Switzerland for the last 100 years is pretty decent), there aren’t too many examples of non-governments in any area the earth for any period of time.

    The classic modern example given is Somalia. There is no central government, but there are lots of warlords. This is kind of how a lot of Africa has broken down.

    So what is the model? The only ones I can think of are Science Fiction authors like L. Neil Smith and Heinlein. I’m not saying nothing new can be tried, it should be, by all means. But somehow I think it’s still going to be a government of some sort, not an Anarchy.

    • ” But somehow I think it’s still going to be a government of some sort…”

      Okay, that’s not crazy at all. But never mind the predictions; tell me whether or not YOU need one. And whatever your answer, why or why not?

    • “…there aren’t too many examples of non-governments in any area the earth for any period of time.”
      ===========================

      You should spend some quality time thinking about what you just wrote.

      No gov’t lives on my property.

      Anarchy is the way most people live their lives everyday.

      “Individualism, it starts with you.”
      –gs, 2012

  7. Sorry Jackson, but the null set is not any sort of counter-example. No doubt Henry Ford heard the same thing.

    “The classic modern example given is Somalia.”

    Classic in its obfuscation, maybe. Somalia is populated by Somalians, not Americans. Or, if you prefer, how come the argument never works the other way? “The USSR is the classic example of a society with a government.” Did I just prove that all governments are as bad as the USSR? If not, then how come the same logic works with a forsaken country like Somalia?

  8. If everyone had the intellectual faculties and moral fiber of Smith and Heinlein, it’d be easy. That’s the problem. It takes a very high order of intellect and a determined sense of decency to achieve anything like what the anarchists say they want.

    “Free them all, let God sort them out,” will end about like the corollary.

    • Pshaw…now we really disagree! You can have all the intellect. Give me a good cook, dishwasher and server, and I’ll have a fine restaurant in about an hour. Or a great welder, who can fabricate whatever the mind imagines.

      Besides, you know darn well who got us into this mess…the intellectuals!

      • Now you’re being obtuse.

        “You can have all the intellect.”

        I don’t make that claim and would resent the accusation that I’m an intellectual, neither do I deny my own intelligence and, surely, you do not denounce the intellect so evident in your own writing.

        Being intelligent is what I meant, not being an intellectual. Surely you do know the difference, especially since I was siting the likes of Heinlein. To be perfectly clear, it takes intelligence to comprehend the very ideas of ultimate personal responsibility and liberty, and it takes personal integrity, character, morality or however you wish to define it to live accordingly. That is why Liberty and its operational attributes are so rare, even in a nation founded upon those very principles, and why it is such a tough sell after years of pandering to human weakness, and the concerted effort to destroy those qualities necessary for a free society. That ‘Americans’ have succumbed to the sirens’ song I offer as proof of the fallibility of human nature.

        “Give me a good cook, dishwasher and server, and I’ll have a fine restaurant in about an hour.”

        And who will run the joint? You, because it’s your idea and you, presumably, have the intellect to organize and manage it, not the cook. Ditto the welder, who will likely fabricate what an engineer designs…”whatever the mind (intellect) can imagine.”

        Intellectuals are those in love with the sound of their own voice and convinced that they know things others do not. Philosophers are particularly fond of their own views, incomprehensible though they be to mere mortals, and however unrelated to reality, even especially because of this. (I exempt you, Jim, from this charge since you sincerely try to simply explain what you believe for honest and well intentioned reasons. And what you offer has real value and appeal to reason and reality.) The same is true for most academics not in the pure sciences. The common folks are easily led by appeal to authority and bamboozled by bullshit, excuse me, high flown jargon, convoluted logic, rigged evidence and tortured conclusions drawn from the wishful thinking or agendas of the “experts.”

        So, yes… to Hell with self styled “intellectuals,” but not the intellect itself.

        • Yeah, I know and I’m sure you know what I was saying. I’m not sold on this, though…

          “To be perfectly clear, it takes intelligence to comprehend the very ideas of ultimate personal responsibility and liberty,”

          I wonder, and I also wonder whether that comprehension is even necessary. Naturally anything conceptual takes a mind, or intelligence, but I’m inclined to think our natural state is one of personal responsibility and liberty. I mean, if it weren’t for the BS that we’re taught, what in the world would ever cause us to think otherwise? No other organism works for its own destruction, or to be how it isn’t; the very notion is oxymoronic. Only our ability to counterfactually conceptualize, and then act on those ideas, allows such a perverted thing to happen.

          And I wouldn’t be so quick to make an exception for me. Well, except that I’m right of course. Hahaha…and humble too!

          • “And I wouldn’t be so quick to make an exception for me.”

            No true sage would know himself to be such.

            “I mean, if it weren’t for the BS that we’re taught, what in the world would ever cause us to think otherwise?”

            Our puny stature relative to the Vast Unknown.

            “No other organism works for its own destruction, or to be how it isn’t; the very notion is oxymoronic.”

            No other organism is sentient. No other mind, that we know of, is so creative or flexible. To be sentient is to be aware of death, the finite nature of existence. All of these cause all the creative and destructive possibilities of the human mind. We don’t need to be told lies… we make them up as we go along. Without the potential for magnificent symphonies their would be no rap or punk rock.

            • “We don’t need to be told lies… we make them up as we go along.”

              Hmm…I’m very, VERY skeptical of that. Left alone, what would be the impetus?

              Admittedly, I view the brain as fundamentally an identifying organ, at least the abstracting parts of it. What are you offering as an alternative, even bringing Divinity into it? Sin is a bad choice, not a dishonest or faulty identification, right?

              Absent dysfunction, can our eyes see something that isn’t there?