"So, yes, the secession movement could very well be a ploy to divide-and-rule after all. While at the same time it is also true that smaller more localized governments are far superior to protecting individual liberty."

Monday, November 26, 2012Is Secession Healthy Decentralization or Divide-and-Rule?

Eric Blair

If the centralization of power is one of the biggest threats to human freedom, wouldn't decentralization be considered the solution? Sounds reasonable, but some say decentralization, or secession, is a divide-and-conquer tactic by the elite. So which is it?

First, a bit of background for those unfamiliar with the ruling class' agenda. All researchers would agree that the "end game" for the ruling class is complete consolidation of power into a one-world government and a one-world currency. In other words, the goal of the elite is to control all nations from a single central office.

However, individual nations are beginning to realize that their participation in larger political and monetary unions has resulted in significantly less autonomy, and secession movements are popping up everywhere in the Western world.

Greece has been talking about leaving the European Union for over a year, and now the majority of British citizens are also in favor of seceding from the EU. Likewise, smaller territories are at the point of voting in referendums to separate from their nation states. Scottish citizens will be voting on an independence referendum to secede from the UK, while the state of Catalonia has a similar measure to separate from Spain.

In the United States, state secession petitions have been filed on the White House website for all 50 states, with several already surpassing the 25,000 signatures needed to demand a response from the Administration. Originally the U.S. was established as a federation of states, each with their own sovereignty. This was until the Civil War made clear that no state was free to leave the Union, at least not without a fight.

Recently, voters in two US states sought to flex their sovereign muscles by legalizing marijuana, which remains a violation of federal law. Even more telling of overt centralization of power, the U.N. says marijuana legalization can't happen at the state level in America because of its commitments to international drug treaties. This development has some wondering if it will teach proponents of big government the dangers involved with centralization of power.

Now on to the question at hand: Is the secession movement a healthy development toward decentralization of power, or a ploy to divide-and-rule once the whole is weakened?

Liberty icon Ron Paul calls secession an "American principle" and says it's the right of sovereign territories when they feel tyranny from the federal government can't be restrained through other methods. He correctly states that the U.S. came into being by essentially seceding from England, and also points to the decentralization of the former Soviet Union as positive results from secession.

Watch the video below for his analysis of the idea:



He recently wrote that a free society means your are free to leave:

In a free country, governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. When the people have very clearly withdrawn their consent for a law, the discussion should be over. If the Feds refuse to accept that and continue to run roughshod over the people, at what point do we acknowledge that that is not freedom anymore? At what point should the people dissolve the political bands which have connected them with an increasingly tyrannical and oppressive federal government? And if people or states are not free to leave the United States as a last resort, can they really think of themselves as free?
The underlying philosophy behind Paul's stance is that a bloated central government will naturally erode civil liberties, and the closer one gets to local control of issues, the easier it is to protect the rights of individuals. Thus, human freedom has a better chance to prosper under a smaller, more decentralized or localized system of governance.

The only problem, assuming the federal government would let states peacefully secede, is that you can't guarantee what type of government you'll have and who they'll be beholden to after it secedes. More on this in a moment....

It has long been known that one of the tactics used by the global elite to centralize their power is to divide a strong territory in order to conquer it under their flag. This 'order out of chaos' has been effectively used throughout history, most recently in the Arab Spring. Many researchers would also cite the breakup of the former USSR as an example of this strategy.

In other words, a strong Soviet Union, much like a strong United States, poses a threat to those who wish to control all nations with one central authority; therefore, they must be weakened or destroyed to bring about this New World Order.

In a recent article Secessionism and New World Order, noted historian and author Webster Tarpley calls secession a "crackpot" idea by the right wing who are duping people into "inevitable threat of anarchy, violence and civil war" which would usher in faster imperialism for the banking elite.

Tarpley writes:

What Ron Paul’s deluded followers do not seem to grasp is that secessionism, Balkanization, and the partition of large nations represent indispensable steps towards what they would call the New World Order. The New World Order aims at the destruction of the modern sovereign nation state and its replacement with a universal empire presided over by the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Trade Organization, Bank for International Settlements, and NATO ruling over a fragmented crazy quilt world map of petty, squabbling, impotent little microstates, ministates, rump states, and failed states, none of which would have enough power to oppose Exxon Mobil, J.P. Morgan Chase, Halliburton, or a medium-sized private military firm.

Ron Paul is totally on board for this kind of New World Order. He notoriously told the House of Representatives on March 13, 2001 that 'there is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency.' These three elements are in fact the guaranteed destruction of existing nations.

Zbigniew Brzezinski’s theory of such a world prescribes micro-states and mini-states as a means of guaranteeing 'dignity,' meaning a localist, parochialist, and particularist polity for every affinity group on the planet. George Soros supports 'partition studies' at think tanks and universities to facilitate the demise of the modern state. Among reactionaries, Bernard Lewis of the British Arab Bureau has long studied methods for dividing Pakistan into four parts, Iran into five parts, and Libya into three parts, as well as for carving Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran by creating an independent Kurdistan. Iraq is already divided into three parts as a result of US occupation. The US and British have cooperated to divide Sudan into two parts.

Modern imperialism thrives on partition and Balkanization. There was a good case to be made for keeping the USSR together, minus the Baltic and Tran Caucasus states, but the nomenklatura of all the union republics decided that secession was the best way of maintaining oligarchical privilege. This was also exactly what the Anglo-American imperialists demanded. The carving of Czechoslovakia into two parts soon followed. The breakup of Yugoslavia was promoted by NATO, which then proceeded to further detach Kosovo from Serbia, placing it under criminal rule. The British have long supported separatist movements in Spain, Italy, and many other countries, and these are being activated today.
Power will do anything to hold onto power including fighting their own citizens. And when there is a genuine rift movement, the powers-that-be will either co-opt it to steer or discredit it, or they'll break it by creating as much chaos as possible in order to appear to be saviors when the dust settles.

The eurozone is currently experiencing this exact scenario. As EU nations awaken to their lost sovereignty, Brussels is doing everything they can to hold the EU together, while at the same time welcoming a certain amount of chaos for two reasons: 1) To appear necessary to provide bailouts to ensure further enslavement to the banks, and 2) To create a central EU Treasury that can levy taxes directly on member nations.

Buried in this example is what is perhaps more important than seceding from a political union - seceding from monetary unions - because that's where the real power lies. Granted, the ECB (European Central Bank), the Federal Reserve, and the IMF have very little to do with things like marijuana laws. Yet, they have everything to do with determining tax-and-spend policies of supposedly autonomous democratic territories.

The truth of the House of Rothschild banking dynasty's infamous maxim -- "Give me control of a nation's currency and I care not who makes the laws" -- proves that monetary policy trumps any form of government.

Even though former colonies of America, Canada, and Australia technically won their political independence from the Crown, the royal money changers remain in control of their private central banks. Incidentally, these bankers also have control of most influential multinational corporations as well. You know, the ones that everyone complains "own" the US government.

This is clearly spelled out in the video below:



So it's not enough to declare independence and decentralize political control without addressing monetary sovereignty. Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, made this clear at Davos this year when he made fun of suffering eurozone nations by taunting 'At least we've our own currency'.

If states in the US were allowed to secede, but do not create a new monetary system for themselves, they will be no better off than Greece or Spain in the European Union. They will be forced into large debts payable to private bankers who will demand brutal tax-and-cut packages that destroy sovereignty worse than any political authority could force in a democracy.

Tarpley adds:

If Scotland secedes, it will keep the Queen of England as head of state, and will still be subject to the Commonwealth, the European Central Bank, the European Commission, the WTO, NATO, and the International Monetary Fund. Since this is so, what is the point?

Every rational attempt to lead humanity out of the current crisis involves fighting back against Wall Street, the City of London, the Bank for International Settlements, the IMF, NATO, and related institutions. Secessionism does nothing to curb these institutions, and instead abandons any ideological or agitational struggle against them. It helps the empire by weakening the nations. It ignores the fact, long recognized by US supporters of states’ rights, that smaller entities are easier for oligarchs to control than larger entities, because in larger entities the conflicting interests of oligarchical factions tend to cancel each other out, giving the people a greater chance.

Realizing that the global ruling class eventually wants a one-world currency through which they'll control everything through debt-based money they create from thin air, they'll have to weaken or destroy the current world reserve currency - the US Dollar - and the union that it derives its backing from.

So, yes, the secession movement could very well be a ploy to divide-and-rule after all. While at the same time it is also true that smaller more localized governments are far superior to protecting individual liberty.

Although the US Constitution sought to ensure liberty at the federal level, it failed to address the details of money creation and taxation. If a new nation state hopes to protect individual liberty and economic autonomy, they must, at the very least, have a Constitution-level founding document that clearly spells out monetary policy and the limits of taxation for the optimal benefit of citizens. Otherwise, decentralization seems like a waste of time.

Link:
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/11/is-secession-healthy-decentralization.html