Sunday, November 18, 2012

Anarcho-Feudalism as Practical Model of National-Anarchism


This article is included in the recently released National-Anarchism: Theory and Practice, edited by Troy Southgate and available from Black Front Press. 

By Craig FitzGerald and Jamie O’Hara

The unification of National-Anarchist theory and practice will take as many shapes as there are tribes. The very nature of this philosophical school requires a wide range of cultural values, methods of organization, economic systems, industrial aspirations, social institutions, and more. National-Anarchism is reminiscent of the natural environment, and its diverse communities are like the myriad life forms on our planet. This being the case, to speak of National-Anarchism in purely practical terms is to be either extremely general or extremely personal. However, it is useful for both National-Anarchist discourse and application to explore various ideas for putting principle into action. Anarcho-feudalism represents one possibility of National-Anarchist organization.

The historical concept of feudalism is not without controversy. Many modern scholars question both the usefulness and the accuracy of the term.# This is partially because feudal systems in different areas had divergent social and political structures, and therefore do not fit perfectly in the same category. But despite the many ways in which feudalism varied from one locality to another, certain characteristics of the term are consistent enough to merit its use, especially with some qualification.

The attachment of the anarchist prefix is the ultimate qualifier of the word “feudalism;” it immediately implies that any coercive or oppressive aspects of traditional feudal society are rejected. The components that remain include the centrality of the land and agrarian pursuits, mutual militia-style protection, and the institution of allegiances that elevate social relationships to familial status.
In spite of feudalism’s reputation as an exploitative and strictly stratified society, it possesses several traits that make it compatible with anarchist theory. First, it is important to distinguish feudalism from seigneurialism, with which it is commonly confused. A feudal arrangement is a voluntary contractual agreement between parties. Unlike seigneurialism, a system whose authoritarian hierarchies subjugate a peasant class, feudalism is a mutual understanding among sovereign peers.# It is a free exchange of resources and services: land, labor, food, and the promise of physical protection. In addition to these practical necessities, feudalism cultivated the social values of honor, loyalty, mutual respect, and cooperation. These virtues help create principled and resilient communities. Human relationships constitute the basis of tribal organization; the deeper the bonds among people, the stronger the community.

READ MORE

WAYNE STURGEON INTERVIEWS CRAIG FITZGERALD ON NATIONAL ANARCHISM

This interview is included in the recently released National-Anarchism: Ideas and Concepts, edited by Troy Southgate and available from Black Front Press.

1)            Please could you introduce yourself, your background, and how you define national anarchism?

I am a native New Yorker, agrarian separatist homesteader, and spokesman for the National Anarchist Tribal Alliance NY. I was raised around the patriot/militia movement and since my early teenage years I have been involved with a wide array of radical political groups and causes from anarchist groups to populist American nationalist and anti-Zionist circles. More recently but previous to the founding of NATA in 2010, I mainly focused my attention on attempting to build bridges between the radical and anti statist “left” and “right” (with limited success). I have worked with the 2008 Ron Paul campaign, WeAreChangeNYC, Young Americans for Liberty, End the Fed, the John Birch Society (JBS), and been involved with the Constitution and Libertarian parties.

I believe NA to be the purest hyphenated anarchism in the greater anarchist milieu.  Anarchism in general can never be a one-size-fits-all label meaning the same thing to everyone; the philosophy’s very nature requires heterogeneity.  Unlike the dogmatic, utopian, universal egalitarianism of many anarchists, NA is a realistic and pragmatic approach to the differences in opinion amongst anarchists.  I believe that NA has the potential to be a large umbrella under which numerous groups could identify.  It can philosophically unite diverse hyphenated anarchists with one another, and with other anti-statist groups.  This is because the nature and essence of NA is that each community has every right to self-determination, whether it manifests as a planned communist economy, a laissez-faire free market, a religious or racial separatist enclave, an environmentalist eco-tribe, or anything else.  The people/community make up the nation, not the state.  The About NATA-NYdocument further explains my views on NA.

2)            Does national anarchism always have to promote or be associated with racial separatism?

Absolutely not.  NATA-NY has written our position on this issue in our Note on Racial Separatism.  The first paragraph of that statement is pasted below.

Neither the National Anarchist philosophy nor the National Anarchist Tribal Alliance - New York (NATA-NY) is inherently racially separatist. As true Anarchists who believe in the principles of liberty, free association, decentralization, community autonomy, local/individual sovereignty, self determination and mutual aid, we reject any and all coercive measures to homogenize our rich and independent cultures and peoples. NATA-NY concurs that every ethnicity has the right to exist and maintain its people/nation without intervention from outside forces.

3)            I understand you lived with the Zapatista peoples for a while, what was this experience like and how does it inform your current activism etc?

In the U.S., most manifestations of local autonomy are fading into historical memory.  The Zapatistas proved to me that not only is this model possible in today’s globalized world, but it still exists.  Visiting the Zapatista zones in Chiapas reinforced our feelings of anti-statist nationalism and rejuvenated our commitment to the traditional American notions of individual and community sovereignty. 

My experience with the Zapatistas informs my current activism in several ways.  The primary influence they had on me revolves around the importance of land.  For the Zapatistas, their being indigenous is of crucial importance, and they feel strongly tied to the land, echoing Emiliano Zapatista’s original motto, “the land belongs to those who work it.” Farming—something I am currently doing—is what connects people to the land they live on.  Despite the fact that the Zapatistas are indigenous Mayan groups (Tzotzil, Tetzal, Chol, etc.), I identify as an indigenous American and New Yorker—partially because I was born here, but also because working the land is an essential aspect of being indigenous.  Overall, the Zapatista communities reaffirmed my own awareness of the need for self reliance.

4)            What do you think of the current Occupy movement? 

Despite a strong “leftist” influence, the current Occupy movement and all its offshoots have a lot of potential.  I don’t think that mass demonstrations are effective, but I think the ability to form resilient communities and temporary and permanent autonomous zones exists.  If the Occupy movement created parallel/independent local economies, currencies, trade unions, support networks, and social welfare/healthcare programs, it would be able to counter the statist bureaucracies of the global empire, and it would be a lot more effective than camping in parks. NATA-NY has taken advantage of the anarchistic and decentralized atmosphere of OWS to help promote the NA philosophy with great success, despite those who see NA as crypto fascism, as well as moves by some to create a OWS central leadership.

5)            I wonder as well what you think of the 911 Truth movement and We Are Change and people like Alex Jones? 

I questioned the official 9/11 story the day of September 11, 2001. By 2004, after extensive research on the subject, my wife and I were handing out leaflets listing unanswered questions and anomalies surrounding the attacks on the WTC and pentagon, which mounting evidence shows was partly inflicted by the U.S. government itself, and partly an Israeli Mossad operation.  I personally have never liked referring to it as the “9/11 truth” movement because this implies that its proponents have all the answers about what happened that day, and leaves out all the other examples of state sponsored/false flag terrorism (e.g.  Attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, OKC bombing, and the 7/7 bombings in London, just to name a few).  I first attended a WeAreChange (WACNYC) event in 2007 and by the next year was an active member of the NYC chapter.  I still have a limited role in that group since moving out of the city.  Love or hate him, Alex Jones’ huge audience gives him the potential to unify a diverse range of anti-statist groups and individuals.

6)            Do you think any common ground can be found amongst national anarchist circles and the current libertarian, agorist, anarcho-capitalist movement?

Yes.  Anarchists invented the word libertarian; they are one in the same.  As I have said, national anarchism’s fundamental respect for any autonomous community, regardless of its values or basis of association, gives it the potential to function as an organizational umbrella for a wide range of anti-statist, decentralist, libertarian, and secessionist groups.  My wife and I recently wrote an essay claiming that agorism is the most compatible economic model with anarchism in general.  We believe that all hyphenated anarchists need to embrace agorism in order to provide a viable alternative to the state and its corporate partners.  We also critique free market anarchists’ use of the term anarcho-capitalist.  You can read the article here.

7)            What are your thoughts concerning the Tea Party movement (TPM), the Militia scene and people like Ron Paul? do you think national anarchism can attract people involved in radical conservative circles? 

I was involved (like many in WACNYC, JBS, YAL and other libertarian and conservative groups) with the tea party in its infancy when it was a populist tax/IRS/federal reserve protest. By 2009, domination of the originally grassroots TPM by the GOP, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck was solidifying and becoming self evident. Like the Occupy movement, I saw great potential in the TPM, and despite the efforts of Republican Party loyalists to centralize the movement, some local tea party groups have remained independent. I wish there could have been more cross pollination between Occupy and the tea party. My family and I are active participants and proponents of the community Militia and local self defense. I personally respect Dr. Paul immensely. Although I was active in his 2008 campaign and remain a supporter, I am disappointed he doesn’t run with one of the third parties and in general I am totally disillusioned with electoral politics other than maybe on the most local level. NA has attracted and will continue to attract folks from radical conservative circles. The fact that more and more radical conservatives, libertarians and constitutionalists are using terms like minarchist, voluntaryist, autarchist, agorist, and anarcho capitalist is proof that anarchist thinking is becoming more prevalent in these circles.  NA is naturally attractive to those advocating traditional American values such as individual liberty, local sovereignty, secession, and freedom of association.

8)            Can you explain what you mean by the term Anarcho-Feudualism

Anarcho-feudalism is a model of organization that is centered on owning and working land. Essentially it’s a type of voluntary mutualist manorialism.  It has several things in common with the traditional conception of feudalism, but it is less hierarchical and more horizontally organized.  It is definitely not oppressive or supportive of serfdom, which is associated with traditional feudalism.  Rather, its primary feudalist characteristics are the dependence on property (land), the agricultural focus, and the loyalty and allegiance between landowners and workers.

Historical feudalism was a system in which vassals worked for and paid homage to lords, and lords provided land use and protection to vassals.  An examination of the etymology of certain feudalistic words can reveal the mutual nature of the vassal-lord relationship.  The word “liege,” for example, was used by lords and vassals to refer to one another.  The Online Etymology Dictionary lists one definition: "a vassal sworn to the service and support of a lord, who in turn is obliged to protect him."  This is a mutual relationship.  The significance to anarchism becomes deeper when one realizes that “liege” comes from German, French, English, Friscian, and Dutch words for “free” and/or “flexible.”  It also shares a root with “allegiance,” or the loyalty to one another that is undoubtedly necessary in an anarcho-feudalist setup.  All parties freely enter into a voluntary contract in which they are all both “vassals” and “lords”; this dual nature of vassal and lord reflects the concept of the Anarch, whose task is to balance out freedom and responsibility.

Under anarcho-feudalism every member freely holds and works the land, and all are involved with providing defense and protection for the land’s residents.  The “lords” work in the fields just as the “vassals” fight invaders and oppressors (and vice versa).  Everyone collaborates on equal ground, with the only hierarchies being natural ones that arise out of the normal differences in people’s knowledge, skills, charisma, and abilities (meritocracy).  People are considered leaders if they are able to move the tribe (or individuals within it) successfully towards mutual goals.  The respect for tribal elders and the original property holders (those who made the anarcho-feudalist land trust possible) is always encouraged and recognized.  New prospects do not have the clout that full-fledged members do.  They enter into one of two arrangements: either they work for the land trust as temporary volunteers and then move on, or they agree to a voluntary contract in which their labor and efforts are analogous to “paying their dues” and they eventually become members with full rights, obligations and benefits.  That change in status occurs after rites of passage and oaths and contracts of allegiance are taken.

I am currently in the slow process of working out the kinks and setting up a cooperative land trust that would adhere to this model.  The Anarcho-Feudalist motto is Sovereign Yeomen Against Tyranny and Serfdom!

9)            I understand you are a Freemason? How do you reconcile this with anarchism etc?

I am a 32nd degree Freemason. I see Freemasonry as very compatible with anarchism; for one, the craft is a voluntary association that encourages free thought, individual sovereignty, and the democratic decision making process. The hierarchy in freemasonry is wholly symbolic, with merit and understanding as the basis for “advancement”. Part of the reason I sought initiation was the fact that the majority of modern revolutionaries have been Freemasons, including anarchists like Proudhon and Bakunin. Political radicals throughout history have taken advantage of the secrecy, autonomy, free association, mutual aid, and democratic governance of the lodge to further their revolutionary ambitions.

10)          What are your current projects and where can one find out more about national anarchism in america? 

I am currently homesteading with my wife and members of NATA in the Adirondack Mountains of New York state, we are cooperatively working out the kinks in our land trust/anarcho feudalist project. Some members at the end of the month will be protesting this year’s Bilderberg conference, and we are planning a large rally at the United Nations later this year to protest the erosion of American sovereignty by  globalization, Zionism, and the Chinese economic takeover of the United States

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Vermont activists receive FBI visit

 From: PrivacySOS

On July 26, 2012 at 1pm activists near Burlington, VT received a knock at the door of their home from two FBI agents. The agents asked to speak with a member of the household who wasn't present. The person who answered the door, organizer and self-identified anarchist Jo Robin, a pseudonym, asked the agents why they were looking for her roommate. While they initially declined to tell her, they ultimately said that they wanted to ask him questions about the Northeast Governors' Conference, to take place in Burlington over the July 28th weekend.
Organizers from the northeast United States and Quebec have planned a convergence to coincide with the binational governors' meeting, the BTV Convergence. Members of the FBI-targeted house near Burlington have been actively involved in planning the convergence, including Jo Robin.
"I think it's highly inappropriate for the FBI to visit my home to ask my roommate about his political activity," said Robin. "That kind of intimidation intends to chill political speech. It isn't appropriate and I want the federal government to know that we are not intimidated."
It's not the first time Robin has been approached by law enforcement to inquire about her First Amendment protected political activity. While organizing in New York City she was repeatedly, informally interrogated by plainclothes NYPD officers about her protected speech and association. On more than one occasion, members of the NYPD legal office called Robin out by her legal name in public. An NYU and Fordham University study released this week says that Robin is far from alone, reporting "evidence that police made violent late-night raids on peaceful encampments, obstructed independent legal monitors and [were] opaque about [their] policies."

Today's FBI visit to the activist house near Burlington in advance of the governors' conference follows a week of FBI raids on houses affiliated with anarchists in the northwest United States.
Also this week, journalist and green activist Will Potter released documents showing that the FBI "is creating reports and maintaining files about the writing, interviews, and lectures of journalists who are critical of the government’s repression of political activists," including his own writing, which agents called "compelling and well written."

Remember: if the FBI asks to speak with you, you do not have to talk to them, no matter what they say. The best thing you can do is take the agent's card and say your lawyer will contact them. Say nothing else, because lying to a federal agent can get you in very serious trouble, and they'll figure out a way to make it look like you lied. Watch the clip below to see how that works. Don't get caught in their vice; don't speak to them without your lawyer present. Ever.

Check out video: 

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

We Are All Terrorists!!




In the July issue of American Free Press, Pat Shannan reports on a recent Homeland Security study that claims to identify domestic terrorists.  The AFP article is reposted below, but above Shannan's writing are three direct quotes from the DHS-funded, University of Maryland-conducted report "Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States."  These three short selections from the over thirty page dossier are of particular relevance to national anarchists; respectively, they each describe the terrorist nature of the "extreme right-wing," "extreme left-wing," and "ethno-nationalist/separatist" groups.  Read the full report on the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Reponses to Terrorism's website. -NATA-NY


"Extreme Right-Wing: groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national "way of life" is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent (for some the threat is from a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group), and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism. Groups may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty."

"Extreme Left-Wing: groups that want to bring about change through violent revolution rather than through established political processes. This category also includes secular left-wing groups that rely heavily on terrorism to overthrow the capitalist system and either establish "a dictatorship of the proletariat" (Marxist-Leninists) or, much more rarely, a decentralized, non-hierarchical political system (anarchists)."

"Ethno-Nationalist/Separatist: regionally concentrated groups with a history of organized political autonomy with their own state, traditional ruler, or regional government, who are committed to gaining or regaining political independence through any means and who have supported political movements for autonomy at some time since 1945."


Are You A Terrorist?

DHS says pro-lifers, gun owners, preppers, freedom activists are all a threat
By Pat Shannan
American Free Press

A new study funded by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) depicts Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing terrorists.” The $12M report, entitled “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States,” was produced by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland.

According to this report, the new “terrorists” in this country are the Americans who love liberty, hate unconstitutional government edicts and fear the bureaucrats running Washington, D.C.

Not unlike the 2009 Missouri Information Analysis that labeled as potential terrorists Ron Paul supporters, libertarians and anyone displaying pro-freedom bumper stickers or storing food or gold or silver, the DHS report will almost certainly get national distribution to law enforcement agencies at every level.

Second Amendment advocates are at the top of this “terrorist” list, but a mere “pro-life” bumper sticker might be enough to make one suspect in the eyes of a dumbed-down cop who forgot his oath.

Consider the dilemma of law-abiding Robert Baillio of Shreveport, La., a licensed-to-carry weapon owner, who was pulled over for having two pro-gun bumper stickers on the back of his truck. In Louisiana, a gun owner does not need a license to keep a weapon in one’s vehicle. The cop never asked for Baillio’s drivers license, registration or proof of insurance. He only wanted to know if he had a gun, where it was and if he was a member of any pro-gun organization. Baillio answered all the questions honestly but promptly had his weapon confiscated anyway. When Baillio asked the officer if everyone he pulls over gets the same treatment, the officer said “No” and pointed to the stickers on his truck.

The DHS report displays another Orwellian reversal of thought by saying, “Extreme right-wing groups want to bring about change through violent revolution rather than through established political processes.”

Then it defined its anti-right wing stand: “The extreme far right is composed of groups that believe one’s personal and/or national way of life is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations or survivalism.”

Sunday, July 15, 2012

Anarchist People of Color to Gather in New Orleans



Friday, July 13, 2012

By GERREN KEITH GAYNOR

New York Amsterdam News


Beginning this week, a group of Black anarchists will gather to strategize alternative solutions to what they say are oppressive constructs that plague people of color. The Anarchist People of Color (APOC), an enigmatic group of subversives, will be hosting “The APOCalypse,” a national convergence that will be a social incubator for those concerned with a range of societal and economic issues.

APOC is a group created to address race, anti-authoritarianism and the political struggle of people of color within the context of anarchism. The group, which insists it is not an organization of any kind, does not believe in any form of dominance and questions the role of governance in the lives of Americans, specifically Black Americans. The group held its first national conference in 2003 on the campus of Wayne State University in Detroit.

APOC adamantly contends for a simple structure of horizontal order, meaning it has no leader. Instead, the group argues, they work consensually to address the needs they believe are neglected by government and political organizations.

The convergence, which takes place in New Orleans from July 12-15, has been coordinated by a group of APOC members who have met over the years. The cadre of zealots assert that while the focus will be through the prism of anarchist people of color, any and all people of color, anarchists or not, are welcome to attend and engage in the event’s open dialogue on topics relating to racialization, capitalism, justice and solidarity.

“If you have an interest in changing the way people interact with each other, if you feel like the system in this country is not working in your favor, perhaps you might want to have a different kind of conversation,” said APOC representative Mayaba Liebenthal about nonanarchists who may be intrigued by or even skeptical of the group’s mission. “This is a space to do it and be open to other ideas.”

Liebenthal said that despite an African-American president in office, people of color remain suppressed by government and capitalism, among other things. It is for this reason, Liebenthal said, that members do not discuss elections nor did she reveal whether they, as a group, engage in voting for elected officials.

In fact, much about the group remains a mystery, something that seems to be done on purpose.

Instead of discussing politics, APOC members will gather to discuss alternatives to such things as the current justice system, which Liebenthal denigrates for its many cases of police brutality, and state government, which they are concerned may lead to dictatorship.

Liebenthal, however, said that a main focus of the convergence will be the healing of people of color from modern-day oppression.

APOC coordinators expect about 200 people to attend this week’s convergence. In New York, Liebenthal said, coordinators are rallying caravans to drive to New Orleans.

Liebenthal said she hopes the “space” will not only facilitate healthy and legitimate dialogue, but bring about sustainable ways to keep their mission alive.

“People enter into movements and then they get stressed out, get hurt and leave,” Liebenthal said. “That’s a question of longevity. If we want to fight all of these systems, we can’t just get hotheaded in our 20s and then phase out in our 30s.”


For more information about the APOC convergence in New Orleans, visit http://www.apocconvergence.info/.

 

support SEEDSnAMMO


Wednesday, July 4, 2012

10 Movements to Secede from the United States

By Lauren Davis

From io9.com




This week, the United States celebrates its independence from Great Britain. But throughout the nation's history there have been plenty of people who have sought their independence from the US, not in it. Some of these rebellions against the US have been mere publicity stunts, while others genuinely threatened to tear the country apart. Still others continue to this day, their members insisting that secession is their naturally given right.

Dozens of secessionist movements, self-governing communities, and micronations have existed in the United States. The Middlebury Institute, a secessionist think tank, keeps a list of currently active movements within the US. These ten have particularly interesting histories:





Second Vermont Republic: Several US states have active secession movements: Hawaii, Montana, and Texas (as Rick Perry has reminded us), just to name a few. But the Second Vermont Republic considers itself "perhaps the foremost active secessionist organization in the country" (according to Slate) and was on Time magazine's list of "Top 10 Aspiring Nations." This "nonviolent citizens' network and think tank" seeks not only to secede from the United States, but also to support the dissolution of "meganations" like the US, Russia, and China. Looking to create an independent nation modeled on countries like Austria, Finland, Sweden, and Switzerland, the Second Vermont Republic is anti-war and subscribes to principles like political power sharing, economic solidarity, and sustainability. In 2005, the group held an independence convention in Montpelier, which was reported as the first such convention since North Carolina's secession in 1861. During that convention, the SVR passed the following resolution, "Be it resolved that the state of Vermont peacefully and democratically free itself from the United States of America and return to its natural status as an independent republic as it was between January 15, 1777 and March 4, 1791." In 2010, nine Vermonters ran for state political office — including for governor and lieutenant governor — on a secessionist platform. The gubernatorial and lieutenant gubernatorial candidates, however, received only 0.8 percent and 4.7 percent of the vote respectively.

Alaskan Independence Party: Alaska's independence movement definitely gives Vermont's a run for its money. With 15,255 registered members, the Alaskan Independence Party is the third largest political party in Alaska (Todd Palin was a registered member until 2002). Although Alaskan independence certainly isn't the only item on the AIP's platform (the party takes a heavily libertarian stance on issues), one of its governing beliefs is that the 1958 vote for statehood was illegal because voters were not presented with the entire range of available options — remain a territory, become an independent country, become a US commonwealth, or become a state. They make no secret of their disdain for the United States, however, stating on the party website, "considering the moral, educational, and economic decay of the U.S., Alaskans' [sic] who hold themselves to a higher standard might very well decide to at least maintain an arm's length distance from a country in decline." In 2006, AIP members sought to get a secession initiative on the ballot, but the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that any attempt to secede would be unconstitutional, thereby blocking the initiative.

The Conch Republic: Some secession movements are serious business while others are a bit more tongue-in-cheek. The secession of the Florida Keys' Conch Republic — which lasted one minute — definitely falls into the latter category. In 1982, the US Border Patrol set up a road block and inspection point between Key West and the Florida mainland, meaning that US citizen were being stopped and searched for narcotics and illegal immigrants while driving within their own state. (It didn't help tourism much, either.) After the city of Key West failed to get an injunction against the roadblock, Mayor Dennis Wardlow, as an act of protest, declared himself prime minister of the new Conch Republic, which then declared war on the US. The war's sole casualty was a piece of stale Cuban bread, which Wardlow broke over the head of a man in a US naval uniform. Afterward, Wardlow immediately surrendered to the man and applied for $1 billion in foreign aid. Despite being short-lived, the Conch Republic has become a source of tourism for the Florida Keys. Visitors to the Keys can apply for a Conch Republic passport, purchase Conch Republic dollars, and partake in the independence celebrations each April. The republic also has a particularly excellent motto: "We Seceded Where Others Failed."

The Conch Republic isn't the only secessionist movement to jokingly attempt the Mouse that Roared strategy. In the early 1970s, the Forgottonia movement planned to declare the secession of 14 counties in western Illinois and similarly collect foreign aid after declaring war on the US and then surrendering. The idea was to bring attention to the impoverished region. (You can read more about Forgottonia on the Journal Star.) The city of Winneconne, Wisconsin, threatened to secede and form the Sovereign State of Winneconne after being left off the official Wisconsin road map. During a secret committee meeting, they resolved to declare the village president James Coughlin king (or rather "King Kong") and annex nearby territories, starting with Oshkosh. Similar tactics have also been tried by Minnesota's "Republic of Kinney" and Missouri's "McDonald Territory."



Republic of Lakotah: Technically, members of the Republic of Lakotah movement don't consider themselves secessionists because they consider themselves part of an independent sovereignty that never belonged to the United States. Proponents of this movement wish to form a Native American homeland within the borders of the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie, which would encompass more than 77,000 square miles in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Montana. Headed by Native American activist Russell Means, the Lakota Freedom Delegation traveled to Washington, DC, in 2007 and "withdrew from the constitutionally mandated treaties to become a free and independent country." In response, the Bureau for Indian Affairs noted that the the Lakotah Freedom Delegation is not a representative elected body (although when Means ran for the presidency of the Oglala Sioux Tribe in 2008, he received 1,918 votes to the victor's 2,277). The Republic has requested recognition from foreign nations to no avail. In 2010, the group plans to reiterate its position to the United States government, demanding that the US withdraw from its (quite sizable) territory.

Essex Junto: Decades before the Southern Confederacy considered separating from the Union, New England Federalists were contemplating a secession of their own. The Essex Junto, a group of politicians, lawyers, and tradesmen that originated in Essex County, Massachusetts, was a powerful force within the Federalist Party. Discontent with the growing power of the Jeffersonian Democrats and fearing the diminished influence of the North after the Louisiana Purchase, many of the group's members began to contemplate a Northern secession from the Southern states. Timothy Pickering, who had served as the third US Secretary of State under George Washington and John Adams, was a driving figure of this secessionist movement, envisioning a Northern republic comprised of New England, New York, New Jersey, and Canada. Members of the Essex Junto even approached Alexander Hamilton about heading such a secessionist state, but he was horrified by the plan, feeling it antithetical to his own Federalist notions. Pickering ultimately threw his political weight behind Aaron Burr in 1804, hoping that if Burr was elected governor of New York, that state could lead a secession movement. Burr lost the election by 7,000 votes after Hamilton campaigned heavily against him. Hamilton reportedly agreed to attend a secessionist meeting to be held the following autumn (some writers suppose with the intention of talking his fellow Federalists out of the idea), but the meeting was canceled after Burr killed Hamilton in their famous duel.

The Essex Junto would be associated with another secessionist movement during the War of 1812. In 1813, John Lowell Jr. published a pamphlet advocating the secession of the original 13 states from the rest of the Union (so less of a secession and more of an ejection of the western states), and Federalist newspapers in New England supported the plan. When New England Federalists held the Hartford Convention in 1814-1815, many around the country feared they meant to put such a plan in motion. But by this time, most of the Essex Junto's remaining members opposed secession and radical secessionists were excluded from the convention, and secession was not among the final proposals. Aaron Burr, however, would go on to lead a conspiracy to conquer Union and Mexican lands, a plot that would lead to his trial for treason and the end of his political career.




The Republic of Cascadia: After Lewis and Clark explored the American Northwest, Thomas Jefferson envisioned the formation of a Republic of the Pacific by American settlers, a republic that would be independent from, but economically linked with, his eastern Union. Today, there are some in the Pacific Northwest who would see Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia (along with perhaps Idaho, western Montana, and Northern California) united as an independent Republic of Cascadia. Although it hasn't claimed any independence from the US or Canada, the Cascadian Independence Project seeks a gradual transition self-regulation for the Pacific Northwest, asserting that the region is better equipped to govern itself than distant governments in Ottawa and Washington, DC.

The goal of the Cascadian Independence Project is to raise awareness of the idea of Cascadia, to increase bioregional independence within our communities socially, politically, economically and environmentally. and to further democratic governing priniciples, civil liberties, digital privacy, human rights and regional sustainability in a respectful and peaceful manner.

A Cascadia-esque nation exists in Ernest Callenbach utopian novel Ecotopia, although the titular nation doesn't include British Columbia.
The Great Republic of Rough and Ready: Accounts vary on why the California mining town of Rough and Ready seceded from and then rejoined the Union, but for three months, starting in April in 1850, it held itself out as an independent settlement. The accepted version of the story seems to be that the miners, most of whom had come out from Wisconsin to try their luck digging for gold, were displeased with the Union taxes on their spoils — especially given that the Union wasn't doing much to uphold law and order in the town — and seceded in protest. Somewhere around Independence Day, the tiny nation dissolved. Some say that the residents were disappointed that wouldn't be able to participate in the July 4th festivities, but others claim that the real reason is that Nevada City refused to sell liquor to "foreigners." Whatever the reason, Rough and Ready has two celebrations of regional pride each summer: Independence Day on July 4th and Secession Day on the last Sunday in June.

Christian Exodus: When it was founded in 2003, the Christian Exodus movement called for a mass migration of Christians to South Carolina with the intention of created a self-governing Christian sovereignty within the state. The original plan was for members of the movement to flood the offices of local government, passing and enforcing Biblically rooted laws in defiance of Supreme Court rulings. Cory Burnell, the group's founder, told the Los Angeles Times in 2005, "If necessary we will secede from the union." Burnell believed at the time that South Carolina would be an optimal state from which to launch a secession from the US. Since then, however, the group has stepped back from its mission for political secession in the face of potential government opposition, stating on its website, "We have learned, however; that the chains of our slavery and dependence upon godless government have more of a hold on us than can be broken by simply moving to another State." Instead, the Christian Exodus movement now places its emphasis on "personal secession" from American culture, much like other groups that opt out of the mainstream culture, "with the ultimate goal of forming an independent Christian nation that will survive after the decline and fall of the financially and morally bankrupt American empire."




Northwest Angle: Minnesota's Northwest Angle, population 119, is a bit unusual in that some of its residents once threatened secession largely due to its geography. Thanks to a mistake made during negotiations of the 1783 Treaty of Paris, the area is the only region outside of Alaska to sit north of 49th parallel, where it borders Manitoba and Ontario. In order to reach the rest of Minnesota by car, Northwest Anglers have to pass through Canada. In 1998, Canada had imposed burdensome rules on border crossings, and Ontario forbade US fisherman from keeping any gamefish caught in Ontario waters unless they were staying at a Canadian lodge. Frustrated by the lack of support from the US, the Northwest Angle threatened to secede from the US and join Manitoba. US Representative Collin Peterson introduced a bill to amend the US Constitution to allow the secession to go forward (under US law, it's illegal to secede from the US). The stunt worked, and the Northwest Angle received more favorable fishing rights, and today, they simply report their border crossings by videophone at an unmanned booth.

Confederate States of America: This is the big one, the movement that immediately comes to mind when you think of an American secession. The secession of the eleven states of the Confederacy from the United States of America triggered the start of the Civil War. Events that occurred during the Civil War also led to the Texas v. White case, in which the Supreme Court officially held that a state cannot unilaterally secede from the United States. But the Confederacy wasn't the only potential secessionist movement at the time; several sources report that Southern Confederates tried to drum up an insurrection in some of the Northern states, in the hopes that a Northwestern Confederacy made up of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois and, Iowa. (Lost States has a map of the proposed three-nation America.) And the Confederacy was not immune to secession attempts itself. In some regions, such as Alabama's so-called "Republic of Winston," opposition to the Confederacy was so profound that legends cropped up that the regions themselves seceded into their own tiny nations. More poignantly, 26 counties in eastern Tennessee petitioned the Tennessee state legislature to approve their bid for secession; Nashville rejected their petition and Confederate troops were sent to the area to prevent a secession, proving that even the seceding entities don't like to be seceded from.



Further reading:

8 Secessionist Movements in American History [mental_floss]

Wildest Secession Movements in The United States [Neatorama]

How Is America Going To End? [Slate]

Declarations of Independence: Encyclopedia of American Autonomous And Secessionist Movements, by James L. Erwin

List of Current North American Secessionist Movements [The Middlebury Institute]

Sunday, June 24, 2012

Digging up Gov. Clinton



by Peter Lamborn Wilson

Recently waves of neo-conservative historical revisionism have been washing over us in New York, exalting as true patriots such Founding-Father figures as Alexander Hamilton, and his reactionary clique of bankers and would-be aristocrats. A conspicuous silence seems to have fallen over the real New York Revolutionaries, however. No fat new biographies and no big museum shows are being launched to puff the memory of genuine radicals like George Clinton.
Who?
George Clinton, Revolutionary hero and first Governor of New York (elected seven times between 1777 and 1800), bravely defended the Revolutionary Hudson Valley against the Brits and won General Washington’s undying admiration, gratitude, and friendship. Clinton hailed from Ulster County, and the Hudson Valley region never deserted him; he carried it in every one of his seven re-elections.
Governor Clinton was a genuine fire-snorting radical democrat. No “reluctant revolutionary,” he never gave up his adherence to the party of Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Sam Adams, Tom Paine, and the Sons of Liberty.
Henry David Thoreau later summed up this American tradition by praising “that government which governs least”—or preferably “not at all”—over all forms of despotism and centralized power. The founding documents of this tradition were the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. For its time the Articles of Confederation was undoubtedly the most radical constitution of any government in history. It seriously attempted to realize the goals of the Declaration—life, liberty, pursuit of happiness—as law. Each of the thirteen states remained independent. They federated together in a “league of friendship” (probably based in part on the Constitution of the Iroquois Six Nations) for defense and trade, but gave away no rights to the “continental” government: no right to tax or to keep a standing army, for example.
The reluctant revolutionaries, the rich, the self-proclaimed aristocrats such as Hamilton, Jay, Morris, and the big New York patrons and their ilk in other states all hated the Articles and accused it of leveling and anarchic tendencies, inefficiency, mob rule, and worst of all—flagrant “democracy.”
Richard Henry Lee of Virginia was probably the most distinguished radical president of the United States under the Articles. The presidents were limited to a one-year term, and no member of Congress was allowed to serve more than three years in six. Their salaries were paid by the states and they were “revocable delegates,” not “representatives” in the modern sense. In other words, this was not a republic, but a true democracy.
Radical democrats like Clinton realized that the Articles needed some amendment, and New York gladly sent delegates to the 1787 Convention called in Philadelphia to consider such changes. But when the New Yorkers arrived and discovered that the Convention intended to junk the Articles altogether and write a new Constitution, two of our delegates withdrew in disgust, claiming that the convention was “illegal.” And so it was. Technically speaking, the U.S. Constitution was to be a coup d’etat.
Right-wing conspirators like Alex Hamilton (the third NY delegate) now pre-empted the popular label “Federalist” for themselves, although in fact they despised real federation and wanted a “national” or powerful central government. These self-proclaimed “Federalists” had most of the money and controlled most of the press.
The democrats, the true federalists, became known paradoxically as “Anti-Federalists.” (In New York they called themselves Federal Republicans, but the name never caught on outside the state.) The Anti-Feds had little money or media access, but counted on mustering the poor, the mechanics and farmers, the honest revolutionaries—the People—to their just cause.
And in fact, in New York, the majority of voters were fiercely Anti-Federalist. While Clinton held office the aristo’s could do nothing except in New York City, which they partially controlled. Ulster County was the most Anti-Federalist of all counties, in part because it lacked big patronships and consisted mostly of small independent “yeoman” farms, the agrarian backbone of the radical revolution. And in part, of course, out of love and loyalty to George Clinton, local hero.
During the period of debate over the Constitution, the Federalists had all the advantages of wealth, education, ownership of the press, and superiority of eloquence. (In high school today we study the Federalist Papers, while the Anti-Federalist Papers are ignored and forgotten.) The true democrats were put on the defensive, out-maneuvered politically by the rightists, blamed for Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts, and depicted as dangerous rebels. Once in power the right passed the Alien and Sedition Act, the “homeland security bill” of its day, to censor and suppress their ideological enemies on the left.
The old standard biography of Clinton is called His Excellency George Clinton, Critic of the Constitution (E.W. Spaulding, 1938) because his opposition to that counter-revolutionary document was the high point of his career as revolutionary governor. The true democrats like Clinton, Sam Adams, and R.H. Lee are mostly suppressed and ignored by neo-conservative historians, or even slandered and libeled. Even in New York, Clinton is scarcely remembered as an ultra-radical. And yet, under the pen name “Cato” he attacked the Hamiltonian cabal as crypto monarchists. (Hamilton responded under the pen name “Caesar!”) Clinton as governor attempted to steer the state legislature along a path of militant resistance to centralism and authoritarianism—i.e., to the Constitution.
It was a losing battle, however. Hamilton pulled off a brilliant coup in the NY legislature. As state after state ratified the new Constitution, by 1789 the NY democrats were faced with the choice of capitulation or open revolt. New York tried to insist on amendments and attempted to reserve the right of secession.
It’s a little-known but curious fact that New York, along with Virginia and Rhode Island, actually did reserve the right to secede. These claims were made in the Ordinances to the Acts by which they ratified the Constitution and acceded to the new United States of America. New York declared that “the powers of government and may be reassumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness.” These ordinances have never been rescinded, not even after the Civil War, and are presumably still valid.
But the Clintonians were finally defeated. The Revolution was truly ended now, and the Declaration of Independence reduced to a shibboleth. The Bill of Rights restored some measure of democracy. It was largely the work of R.H. Lee, not of Thomas Jefferson, who was off swanning around Paris at the time.
Most Clintonians now became radical Jeffersonians and pro-French Revolutionists. Clinton’s daughter married Citizen Genet. But Clinton distrusted Jefferson as a flighty aristocrat. In effect, Clinton was a better Jeffersonian than Jefferson.
Clinton’s enthusiasm began to wane. He was getting old. He served again as Governor and finally for two terms as Vice President of the United States. But bit by bit, he gave up the militant fight for the principles of 1776. Nearly dead, he roused himself for one last gesture, and used his VP’s deciding vote as president of the Senate to defeat the National Bank. (Unfortunately, the Bank eventually won this war, but that’s another story.) Shortly afterwards, in 1812, Clinton died in office and was buried in D.C.
Clinton was no plaster saint. He not only drank a lot, he also speculated in land—like absolutely everyone with any money in 18th century America, including T. Jefferson and even T. Paine. In a sense, bereft of its ideals, the Revolution sometimes looks to the historian like a gigantic real estate scam.
Clinton hated Ethan Allen, sad to say, and tried to prevent Vermont from breaking off from New York in 1777. He wasn’t very popular with the Iroquois, either—although Joseph Brant, the Mohawk Freemason, liked and trusted him. Clinton’s brave but amateurish defense of the Hudson Valley during the Revolution was so inept it almost failed completely. But it didn’t. He was no great intellectual, and the seven Cato Letters are not well written. But for his era Clinton was a towering figure of revolutionary purity.
Would it be too silly to call him a prophet as well? In fact the U.S. government under the Constitution turned out to be just what he and the other democratic rads predicted. Americans nowadays have good reason to know it. The patriotic rhetoric of the obscenely rich and powerful has never sounded so hollow as now. A regime founded in 1789 on counter-revolutionary reaction has finally reduced the word “democracy” to a synonym for the “Free Market Values” of greed and U.S. hegemony. America has lost its old reputation as “land of the free.”
The recent disintegration of the USSR, Yugoslavia, and the “United Kingdom” (Scotland and a part of Ireland independent, Wales on the road to devolution) has inspired many Americans with the idea of secession from the American Empire. In the next few years they foresee depression, ruin, neo-fascist tyranny, militarism, and convulsive break-up overtaking our unfortunate land. But the dissipation of the USSR was attained without much violence. Scotland freed itself without bloodshed. It could happen here.
If “Cato” Clinton were alive today there’s no doubt where his sympathies would be engaged. He’d be Populist-Progressive, intensely Green, mildly socialist, anti-Globalist, and extremely disgusted with the Money Interests and would-be aristocrats and imperialists of Washington D.C. He’d be FOR SECESSION. And he’d make a splendidly charismatic figurehead for such a movement.
Maybe we should dig him up—again. (See photo and caption.)
Despite its “conservative” reputation, the State of New York has produced some of the most revolutionary upheavals in U.S. history: the Anti-Rent War of 1845. (The latter was considered significant enough to rate a footnote to the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels in 1848.)
Today’s New York radicals and secessionists might at least consider a pilgrimage to the tomb of George Clinton (in Kingston’s Old Dutch Graveyard)—to meditate on our “lost history” of freedom.

Forced Sterilization in the US

from Al-Jazeera
June 24, 2012
Watch the video here

Tens of thousands were forcibly sterilised throughout the 20th century across the US as they were deemed "feeble minded" and "inappropriate candidates" for reproduction.

"More than 30 states who had laws like this and did sterilise people ... only seven of them have stepped up and even recognised that they did it, made some kind of apology or at least said that what they did was wrong."   - Paul Lombardo, a bioethics and legal scholar

In 1927, the Supreme Court upheld state statutes permitting compulsory sterilisation in the Buck versus Bell decision.

The Supreme Court ruling, which Nazis at the Nuremberg trials cited in their defence, has never been expressly overturned.

In it, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind .... Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

The so-called science of eugenics first emerged in Britain in the mid-19th century, as an offshoot of Darwinism.

It was embraced in the US, and by the beginning of the 20th century, many of the nation's prominent figures were avowed eugenicists.
"By 1960's ... it was a sham ... this [forced sterlisation] was going on in case after case and social workers were bullying these people into these operations and it's a monster hiding in plain sight .... They are sterlising the very story, this programme, they're telling people we are saving these people from 'parenthood'.... nobody knew just how aggressive the social workers were."   - John Railey, co-author of Against Their Will - a special investigative report into North Carolina's sterlisation programme

Their stated goal was to improve the health of the country by increasing births and immigration amongst what they called the "fit" and decreasing births and immigration amongst the "unfit".

Eugenic principles were widely included in academic work, and in federal, state and local laws. And research into eugenics was conducted in America, long before it was undertaken in Nazi Germany.

These enquiries were funded by some of America's wealthiest families, the Carnegies, the Harrimans, the Kelloggs and the Rockefellars.

Most US states abanonded the practice after World War II, amidst revulsion at the Nazi programme of eugenics.

North Carolina, however, ramped up its use of forced sterilisation, where more than 7,500 were sterilised.

However, the state did halt its program in 1974. And last year, it finally began taking steps to compensate those targeted. But on Thursday, the state's senate rejected the plan, arguing it was too expensive.

Elaine Riddick was one of those forcibly sterilised in North Carolina, when she was a young girl. Both she and her attorney, Willie Gary say they are disappointed with the senate's decision, but vow to continue the fight for reparation.

"I was a victim of rape, and as a result of the rape I became pregnant, had my son, went into the hospital and I was sterlisied. They sterilised me without my knowledge or consent," said Riddick. "My grandmother was coerced into signing for me to become sterlised but she didn't understand what sterlisation was at that time. All she knew, I believe is that her food supplements were being threatened ... if she did not consent."

So what were the origins of forced sterilisation and how widespread was its use across the United States?

To discuss this, joining Inside Story Americas, with presenter Shihab Rattansi, are guests: Steven Selden, the author of Inheriting Shame: The Story of Eugenics and Racism in America; Paul Lombardo, a bioethics and legal scholar; and John Railey, co-author of an investigative series titled Against Their Will - a special investigative report into North Carolina's sterilisation program.

"We all agree with the fact that an apology is certainly appropriate. But I don't think that makes us any more sorry because we attach a dollar figure to it."   -Chris Carney, Republican state senator, after North Carolina's senate blocked the measure to compensate victims of forced sterilisation

------------------

Support NATA-NY and get the EUGENICS = GENOCIDE design seen above at SEEDSnAMMO

A Common Dispute with Left Anarchists

from The Daily Anarchist Wendy McElroy
June 5, 2012


One of the most common disputes I have with left anarchists is whether 19th century individualist anarchists were really socialists. On the surface, it is not absurd to argue that such proto-libertarians as Benjamin Tucker are best classified within the socialist tradition rather than the libertarian one. They generally accepted the labor theory of value and, so, rejected stock trappings of capitalism. For example, Tucker, William Greene, Ezra Heywood and Josiah Warren considered the charging of interest on money to be an act of usury or theft.

Moreover, the individualist anarchists sometimes referred to themselves as “socialists” and flirted with organizations such as the International Working People’s Association (IWPA). In 1881, when a moribund IWPA revived in London, Tucker enthused, “To this momentous event, which marks an epoch in the progress of the great labor movement…, in the present issue, devotes a large portion of her space.” (Published by Tucker, (1881-1908)was the most influential libertarian periodical of its day.)

I maintain that the identification of individualist anarchists as socialists rests on a confusion regarding the definition and use of the terms “socialist” and “libertarian.”

The umbrella term “socialism” covers several different approaches to the core belief in a social ownership of the means of production and a co-operative management of society. A strong dividing line between the various types of socialism is how they view the role of the state in achieving those goals. The socialism with which individualist anarchists identified held no role whatsoever for the state. What drew many of them was the idea of social co-operation. Josiah Warren – arguably the world’s first individualist anarchist – was deeply involved in voluntary and socialistic utopian communities such as New Harmony because he believed in the social principle of co-operation. Warren became disillusioned, however, by New Harmony’s demand for the relinquishment of individualism; for example, in the demand for communal meals and disdain for privacy. In response, Warren evolved a principle known as “The Sovereignty of the Individual” or self-ownership that he believed had to underlie all social co-operation.

As late 19th century socialism in America became increasingly statist, individual anarchists increasingly put distance between themselves and it. In a speech that subsequently became his most famous essay “State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree, and Wherein They Differ,” Tucker stated, “The two principles…are AUTHORITY and LIBERTY, and the names of the two schools of Socialistic thought…are, respectively, State Socialism and Anarchism.” (Capitalization in the original.)

Other individualist anarchists rejected the term “socialist” altogether with some occasionally applying the label “libertarian” to themselves. Why the outright rejection? In his book, William B. Greene commented, “In socialism, there is but one master, which is the state; but the state is not a living person, capable of suffering and happiness. Socialism benefits none but demagogues, and is, emphatically, the organization of universal misery…socialism gives us but one class, a class of slaves.”

Here, then, is the first basic schism between socialism and individualist anarchism. The former increasingly embraced the state while the latter continued to repudiate it. Individualists also began to reject the surrender of sovereignty that seemed to be demanded even by non-statist socialism.

Another key and irresolvable difference: the individuals advocated private property and believed social co-operation had to be based upon its recognition. The towering figure Moses Harman, for example, answered whether he was a Communist with the words, “We have never advocated the abolition of private property. We have always maintained that the development of the highest and truest individualism in human character requires the possession and therefore the existence of personal property.” Confusingly, in the same quote Harman speaks well of “Mutualism” and “Co-operative Communism” – terms that were used differently in the 19th century than now.

In short, the individualist anarchists rejected the state, demanded respect for individual rights and advocated private property. The thread of ideology that bound them to socialists was their belief in the labor theory of value. This economic theory conditions the value of a good or service upon the labor used to produce it. The rightful owner of that value or property is seen to be the laborer who produced it.

And, so, it is necessary to analyze the individualist-anarchist approach to issues involving the labor theory of value.

Most 19 century American individualist anarchists rejected profit from capital, particularly in three forms: interest on money, the charging of rent, and profit in exchange. All of these were called “usury.” If their main political goal can be stated as “the abolition of the state,” then it is no exaggeration to say that their main economic goal was “the abolition of the money monopoly.” And by this term — “money monopoly” — they referred to three different but interrelated forms of monopoly: banking, interest, and the issuance of currency.

Focusing on the one issue of currency provides a fair sense of how most individualist anarchists approached “usury” in general. They believed that the solution to currency usury was the free market; they believed that the right to issue private currency would destroy the money monopoly and this alone could bring about the destruction of the state. The money monopoly was considered to be the means by which the banks sustained themselves and robbed the average man of economic opportunities. Through the act of incorporating, bankers became immune from personal obligations: they acquired the legal advantage of being able to contract while avoiding the responsibility for doing so. This was not only a money-raking scam that bankers ran on the public, it also denied credit to the working people by setting up prohibitive interest rates or criteria for acquiring credit.

Again, the remedy for this form of state-capitalism was the free market and privatization of currency.

The key question at this point becomes, “what if the issuer of private currency decides to charge interest on its use?” What if a private issuer engaged in usury? Would that practice be forcibly prohibited?

The answer to this question is what separated advocates of the labor theory of value who were socialists from those who were libertarian. The socialists would have banned such a practice. By contrast, the individualist anarchists answered, “If a lender can find someone foolish enough to voluntarily enter into such a contract, then the contracting parties must be left to their folly.” The right of contract — “society by contract” — was the higher law. The only remedies individualist anarchists would have pursued against those who charged or paid interest were education, peaceful protest and the establishment of parallel currencies that offered what they thought was a better deal. Individualist anarchists gave primacy to the free market and the right of contract — this is what made them libertarians rather than socialists.

As long as the default position of individualist anarchism was the primacy of contracts — and it always was — then the free market would have inexorably established the practice of charging interest as it has through history, with or without the state.

Were individualist anarchists actually socialists? The answer is most definitely “no.”

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Freedom Now Maybe: The New Secessionism

By Peter Lamborn Wilson, 2005


Last November, right after the Election, I attended an odd event in Middlebury, Vermont—a two-day conference devoted to the question of whether Vermont should consider seceding from the USA and declaring itself the “Second Vermont Republic.”

The first Vermont Republic lasted from 1777 to 1791, during which time it recognized neither Britain nor the USA as sovereign. Thanks to Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Rangers the state has an old and still-lively sense of itself as unique and independent-minded, if not downright cranky.

The keynote speeches delivered at Middlebury by SVR founder Prof. Thomas Naylor and activist/historian Kirkpatrick Sale made it clear that any Vermont independence movement would be radical, Green, Populist non-violent and typically “Vermont-socialist.” (The Bread & Puppet Theater is already interested.) SVR’s underlying philosophy is derived from the “Small Is Beautiful” school of Leopold Kohr (his The Breakdown of Nations is the bible), “Buddhist economist” E.F. Schumacher, the UK-based Fourth World Movement, and ultimately from the minarchism of Thoreau and the American tradition of “unterrified Jeffersonians,” extreme democrats and even anarchists.

All this may be considered odd enough. But what really struck me as strange was the mood of the conference. Everyone there was cheerful, optimistic and pugnacious. Everywhere else in America that weekend leftists, liberals and libertarians were plunged in gloom. But in Middlebury the triumph of Bushite Pre-Millenialist idiocy was taken as a sign that the US Empire is about to disintegrate.

The conference voted unanimously to support the aims of the Second Vermont Republic. Delegates stomped and cheered. One woman, whose son was in Iraq with the National Guard, proclaimed herself ready to die for this new cause if necessary. Suddenly it felt kind of like 1968 again. Were all these people crazy?

Four More Years.

You know what I’m talking about already but let me spell it out. Imagine: Four more years of Neo-Con Jihadist slope-browed pseudo-Zionist McImperialism; four more years of stomping on Iraq and Afghanistan and possibly Iran, Syria and North Korea; of deficit spending and debt both national and individual; of ludicrous Red/Blue culture war; of inflation and unemployment; erosion of civil liberties; no tree left behind; more tax breaks for the rich and the corporations; blah blah blah; and to top it off, “JEB IN ’08!”—and another Four More Years.

Some of my friends are moving to Canada where they can join grayhaired draft-dodgers of the Vietnam era and suffer the bitterness of exile along with the compensations of socialized health care and quasi-legal pot. No one dares to dream of staying on and overthrowing the Empire. Not even us grayhaired really believe in The Revolution anymore. But the piffle of tepid reformism (the “left wing” of Skull’n’Bones, so to speak) makes many of us reel with nausea and depression, or anyway terminal boredom. What’s to be done?

Barely anything remains of the alternative economy and society of the ‘60s and ‘70s. Most of the food co-ops are gone, as well as most of the back-to-the-land communes, and the free schools. Low-rent bohemian enclaves have been yupped up, college campuses have grown quiet and dull (except for binge drinking), labor unions have been smashed or corrupted. The “peace movement” can mobilize millions in minutes but mysteriously nothing happens—war goes right ahead on schedule. The only force holding back environmental armageddon sometimes appears to consist of a handful of brave doomed eco-saboteurs. Leftist organization in the US takes place mostly in cyberspace, where nothing happens except more blahblahblah.

Third parties always end up as mere exercises in futilitarianism, hobby groups for the disgruntled, paper tigers sucking up all dissident energy and turning it into a politics of failure. As far as the Democrats—oh please, I can’t.

If not Canada or Holland or something, then what? Do we have to accept some sacred organic link between the landmass called Turtle Island and the regime called the “USA”? Let’s say we happen to love our land and our language, that we want to stay here. Yet somehow we also want to escape from the sleazy guilt feelings involved with citizenship in the Empire of Stupid Greed. Does this make us schizophrenic?

If a single person is possessed by two antagonistic personalities (call them Red and Blue), the usual solution would be a term in the bughouse. But if a whole state has a split personality, it can actually split. Part of it can secede.

Naturally the government is going to tell you this is a crazy notion, and treasonous as well. The Constitution is our holy founding document and can never be revoked. Too bad you were born too late to sign the Social Contract, but that’s how it is. The Civil War decided it once and for all. Thou shalt not secede.

This argument, delivered with a gun to the head, is persuasive and even conclusive. The US government is not going to allow itself to devolve. Only Indians are permitted to have “independent” reservations and only certain genes carry the right to tribal recognition (in other words race still defines political status in US law). If you don’t like it here go back to Russia…uh… or Sweden, or maybe some rogue nation in the Axis of Evil. What are you, a terrorist?

But wait.

Who would have dared to predict in (let’s say) 1984 that the Soviet Empire was about to break up into dozens of independent little countries?

Or—to take an even more astonishing example—who could’ve foreseen that Scotland (a part of Great Britain since 1707) would succeed in achieving independence again after 300 years? (It’s hard to get information on this, but I gather that the miracle was achieved by a strange coalition of Labour and Scots Nationalists.)

In any case devolution of the USSR and UK would not have occurred without prior economic collapse. A rich empire will tend to cohere, a bankrupt one to Decline and even Fall. With hindsight we can see this clearly. But foresight is always skewed by appearances. The US is believed to be the super-wealthy hegemon of the Global Market and land of total affluence, and so we see it that way.

But is it?

What about the deficit spending, that insane waste of war, that deep debt? America actually produces very little except weapons, data and entertainment—no shoes, no umbrellas, no pencils. Globalism demands that whole countries be proletarianized for the benefit of other countries that can then be called bourgeois or ruling-class. But what if Globalism itself has been derailed by US greed and revanchism? What if Europe gets so fed up with the US that it begins to elect leftoid governments that refuse to serve our interests? What if China went “off the dollar” and on to the Euro? What about a major depression in America? Would that make secession look more “realistic” and less crazy?

Under these conditions (…four more years…) the question of legality might become relevant. Is it in fact legal to secede? The SVR says yes, at least in theory. The Civil War did not decide the issue. In 1789 the Constitution looked like a very bad deal to the true revolutionaries and Jeffersonians, then called “Anti-Federalists.” These radicals liked the Articles of Confederation (based on the Iroquois Confederation, according to many historians) which recognized the thirteen states as independent entities. They made many of the same arguments as the Small-Is-Beautiful school—for instance, that only in small autonomous regions can practical direct democracy work fairly and efficiently.

But the Anti-Federalists were out-maneuvered by Alexander Hamilton and the big bankers. Eventually all the states acceded and ratified. However in three states the protocols of ratification included a guarantee of the right to secede—Virginia, Rhode Island and New York. These protocols have never been rescinded or even challenged in law. By the logic of the Constitution itself, a right that belongs to one state must belong to all. Ergo: secession is legal, q.e.d.

Tell it to the judge, you might say. Or quoting the German fascist legal philosopher Karl Schmidt: law is made by power, not reason or precedent. But if the US Empire loses its power to define law, then secession may become “legal” de facto in the act of secession. Civil war may not be necessary—again, see the case of Scotland, or Estonia. “Devolution” happens.

Although the result of secession would be a new state, many anarchists and anti-authoritarians have supported it as a tactic, a good first step toward small-region autonomy. During the Civil War the American anarchist Lysander Spooner shocked people by supporting both abolition of slavery and the right of secession. Proudhon believed in secession and anarcho-federation. Emma Goldman supported the secession of Catalonia from fascist Spain. Nestor Makno fought for a free Ukraine; and so on. In fact secession has a potential appeal across a wide spectrum of political creeds, since anyone can hope to gain power (or at least a voice) in a new small state.

If you don’t care for Vermont-style secession there are plenty of other movements afoot. Capital-L Libertarians (“Republicans who smoke dope,” as Robert Anton Wilson calls them) have organized the New Hampshire Project, hoping to live free or die. Texas has an old and rather wacky independence movement (I once met their “Ambassador to the Court of St. James” in Dublin after he’d been evicted from his London “embassy” for unpaid rent).

Hawaii has a sovereignty movement based on the old native monarchy, overthrown by US forces in 1893; and there are many other tribal separatist causes. Black nationalists and separatists have their visions of utopia. Alaska has a group, and in Maine a “militia” with secessionist ideals has been founded by novelist Caroline Chute (The Beans of Egypt). In New York City, the secessionists want to secede from New York State as well as the USA. And in the process they plan to have some fun.

Being urban cynics unlike the sincere Vermonters, the NYC secessionists don’t necessarily expect to succeed. But the City has always dreamed of independence—a tradition no doubt dating back at least to Dutch resentment of the Brits, and farmers’ hatred of feudal landlords. We New Yorkers (I speak here for at least a dozen people) simply feel that folks with no power have nothing to fear from the “politics of the very worst.” If the Empire’s going to implode, let it. At least we’ll be ready with some sort of Plan B.

In the meantime we expect a bit of political adventure, and some good parties. Maybe eventually the other kind of party, too. A good motto for us would be Fats Waller’s famous saying: “One never knows—do one?”

Sunday, May 27, 2012

A Mass Action against Genetically Modified Wheat

Take the Flour Back

May 27, 2012

taketheflourback.org


European activists link up to draw the line against GM


The following statement has just been released from the crowd of around 400 people at Rothamsted Park this afternoon (27th May).

More than 400 growers, bakers and families from across England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, France and Belgium marched against the return of open air GM field testing today. Take the Flour Back linked arms with their European counterparts, notably France’s Volunteer Reapersand walked calmly towards the site, before being stopped by police lines.

Kate Bell from Take the Flour Back stated that “In the past, kids, grannies, and everyone in between has decontaminated GM trial sites together. Here at the beginning of a new resistance to this obsolete technology, we see GM hidden behind a fortress. We wanted to do the responsible thing and remove the threat of GM contamination, sadly it wasn’t possible to do that effectively today. However, we stand arm in arm with farmers and growers from around the world, who are prepared to risk their freedom to stop the imposition of GM crops.”

People enjoyed a GM free picnic whilst listening to a range of speakers opposing the trial, including Graciela Romero, International Programmes Director of UK development charity War on Want. Lawrence Woodward, previously Director of Elm Farm Organic Research Centre, former head of standards at the Soil Association, and now involved in Citizens concerned about GM. Plus several British farmers including Peter Lundgren, a conventional wheat farmer from Lincolnshire.

Gathuru Mburu, co-ordinator of the African Biodiversity Network, spoke on the global fight for control of our food supply.

Mburu explained that:

“Experimenting with staple crops is a serious threat to food security. Our resilience comes from diversity, not the monocultures of GM. Beneath the rhetoric that GM is the key to feeding a hungry world, there is a very different story – a story of control and profit. The fact is that we need a diversity of genetic traits in food crops in order to survive worsening climates. Above all, people need to have control over their seeds”

This statement is released amongst growing calls for the scientists to demonstrate sensitivity to public concern by harvesting the crop before pollination, removing any risk of contamination with non-GM plants.

Listen to our debate with Rothamsted on BBC Radio 5 Live (starts 27 minutes in).

Did you watch the debate on Newsnight? Join in online on twitter using the #newsnight hashtag.

If you are coming to Take the flour back, please read a list of things to bring, important information on nearby non-GM research trials at Rothamsted, and the legal briefing. Transport is being organised from various parts of the country.

Statements of support:
Statement from African Biodiversity Network and Gaia Foundation
Statement from Bees Action Network
Statement from Joanna Blythman
Statement from Community Food Growers’ Network
Statement from Faucheurs Volontaires
Statement from Friends of the Bees
Statement from GMO-free Poland, the International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside, EKOLAND, and other anti-GMO campaigners in Poland
Statement from Richard Higgins
Statement from Karnataka Farmers’ Association (KRRS)
Statement from Movement for National Land and Agrarian Reform (MONLAR), Sri Lanka
Statement from Dr. Vandana Shiva, Navdanya
Statement from Rising Tide

The position of other campaigns on this issue:
Statement from Real Bread Campaign
Stop the open-air release of GM Wheat that contains genes ‘most similar to that of a cow’

Rothamsted have planted a new GM wheat trial designed to repel aphids. It contains genes for antibiotic-resistance and an artificial gene ‘most similar to a cow’.

Wheat is wind-pollinated. In Canada similar experiments have leaked into the food-chain costing farmers millions in lost exports. There is no market for GM wheat anywhere in the world.

This experiment is tax-payer funded, but Rothamsted hope to sell any patent it generates to an agro-chemical company. La Via Campesina, the world’s largest organisation of peasant farmers, believe GM is increasing world hunger. They have called for support resisting GM crops, and the control over agriculture that biotech gives to corporations.

‘Take the Flour Back’ will be a nice day out in the country, with picnics, music from Seize the Day and a decontamination. It’s for anyone who feels able to publically help remove this threat and those who want to show their support for them.

Meet Rothamsted Park, Harpenden, Herts (30 mins from London by train) 12 noon on 27th May. At 1.30pm we’ll take a 20 minute stroll on public footpaths to the trial site.

Take the Flour Back is a grassroots network of individuals. It has no membership and no mandated representatives, but if you are press seeking a comment we will happily put in you touch with someone who will be attending.