← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · JoseyWales
Thread ID: 19498 | Posts: 19 | Started: 2005-08-08
2005-08-08 12:09 | User Profile
check out the video. 7-way break-up ? [url]http://www.2kgames.com/shatteredunion/[/url]
see the video here [url]http://www.2kgames.com/shatteredunion/movies.html[/url]
2005-08-08 15:53 | User Profile
this looks fun.
2005-08-08 16:12 | User Profile
More violence in order to train the draftee to be how to kill. :thumbd:
2005-08-08 16:33 | User Profile
Break It Up, America! (Why secession is the answer) Source: Lew Rockwell.com URL Source: [url]http://www.lewrockwell.com[/url] Published: Jul 13, 2004 Author: J.D. Tuccille
Break It Up, America!
by J.D. Tuccille
Break it up! That's the schoolyard cry when kids tangle and things get out of hand. But as America's polarized political factions get down and increasingly dirty, some people want to break up not the fight, but the country folks are fighting over.
Boston College's Paul Lewis, a professor of English, caused a ruckus in September of 2003 when he, tongue in cheek, opined in the Toronto Globe and Mail that states which supported Al Gore in 2000 should secede and join Canada. "Citizens of the new Canadian provinces would enjoy basic entitlements and benefits unheard of in the U.S., including: universal health care; good and affordable colleges and universities; good mass transit in major cities..."
Harboring more-modest goals, former economics professor Thomas Naylor wins respectful media coverage for his campaign to withdraw Vermont from the United States. On the Second Vermont Republic website, Naylor calls for a nation based on "[d]irect democracy, sustainability, economic solidarity, quality education, wellness, nonviolence..."
Far across the political spectrum, Cory Burnell's Christian Exodus organization "is coordinating the move of thousands of Christians to South Carolina for the express purpose of re-establishing Godly, constitutional government," according to the Knight-Ridder news service.
Christian Exodus draws inspiration, though not ideology, from the Free State Project, a much-publicized group that is resettling thousands of libertarians in New Hampshire. In the essay that launched the project, founder Jason Sorens wrote of concentrating individualists with the goal of "reducing government to the minimal functions of protecting life, liberty and property." The project isn't overtly secessionist, but it reserves the tactic as a last resort.
And why shouldn't secession be a political tactic?
The US government, born of secession from Britain, bases its legitimacy on the "consent of the governed." It's clear that Americans are a fractious people and they consent to be governed in very different, and mutually exclusive, ways. Cory Burnell's theocratic vision runs afoul of Paul Lewis's desire for equal rights for gay and lesbians. Thomas Naylor's bicycle-riding communitarians butt heads with Jason Sorens's live-and-let-live libertarian allies. Would it be so terrible if Lewis, Naylor, Burnell and Sorens got to live as they pleased with like-minded people? They would probably be happier to be governed according to their own values, and they might even get along better with one another if freed from each other's conflicting ideologies.
True, the idea that people with different preferences might be better off negotiating an amicable political divorce doesn't square with fifth-grade Social Studies lessons about democracy. Generations of students have been taught that 51% of the population has the divine right to treat the other 49% like the losers in a playground game of kickball ââ¬â and the losers should suck it up. But as Enrico Spolaore, professor of economics at Brown University, and Alberto Alesina, professor of economics at Harvard University, write in their 2003 book, The Size of Nations, "as countries become larger, diversity of preferences, culture, language etc. of their population increases. As heterogeneity increases, then, more and more individuals or regions will be less satisfied by the central government policies."
Mini-states don't just make their citizens happier; they can be prosperous, Spolaore and Alesina say, if they embrace free trade.
Which brings us back to the obvious fact that many Americans conceive of hell as a world in which they must abide by the values of some of their countrymen.
This wouldn't matter if the US still took federalism seriously. Then, constrained by constitutional protections for individual rights, states could continue to experiment with different systems within the same country. Spolaore and Alesina "emphasize how decentralization can, up to a point, substitute for secessions" and cite traditional US federalism as a model for keeping different types of people happy by distributing decision-making power to states, localities and individuals.
That's fine and dandy, but in modern America the political action is increasingly concentrated in Washington, D.C. As Professor Norman Barry, a political scientist at Britain's University of Buckingham who writes extensively on federalism around the world, observes, "America is no help. Its Constitution clearly delineates (under the Tenth Amendment) the respective roles for the federal government and the states but that has not held." The whims of a few hundred members of Congress become the law of the land for liberals, conservatives, communitarians, libertarians, Christian fundamentalists and everybody else.
In a nation of hundreds of millions of citizens, isn't it inevitable that the Lewises, Naylors, Burnells and Sorenses, along with uncounted others, "will be less satisfied by the central government policies"?
For now, America's secessionists remain on the fringes. But if federal politicos insist on one-size-fits-all policies for a diverse population, it's only a matter of time before people in the mainstream contemplate the benefits to be had if they decide to "break it up." July 13, 2004
JD Tuccille [send him mail] is an Arizona-based writer and political analyst.
2005-08-08 16:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]More violence in order to train the draftee to be how to kill. :thumbd:[/QUOTE]
How about trying to see this as yet another sign of balkanization ? Could a video game with the themes like this (if the technology was available then) even been thought of in 1940 or 1950 ?
2005-08-08 16:51 | User Profile
J.W.: How about trying to see this as yet another sign of balkanization
Several of the Balkan states were geo-political countries comprised of culturally, socially, religiously, ethnically different people, which were only held together by the "one-size-fits-all" communist regimes. The ONLY thing that kept them on the map was a police state. Is that what you want in Amerika? I think not.
When all men are equal, no men will be free. Break it up.
2005-08-08 17:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=CWRWinger]J.W.: How about trying to see this as yet another sign of balkanization
Several of the Balkan states were geo-political countries comprised of culturally, socially, religiously, ethnically different people, which were only held together by the "one-size-fits-all" communist regimes. The ONLY thing that kept them on the map was a police state. Is that what you want in Amerika? I think not.
When all men are equal, no men will be free. Break it up.[/QUOTE]
No, dont get me wrong, Im saying that we are many times more balkanized today than we were just a few decades ago, thanks to immigration. And like the balkans, all that really holds us together is fiat currency and the fed bayonet. The trouble that is brewing now is potentially many more times as nasty and could make the last war between the states look like a minor disagreement between neighbors.
Deo Vindice
2005-08-08 17:53 | User Profile
And like the balkans, all that really holds us together is fiat currency and the fed bayonet.
It is apparent the USA Fed'ral gov't is allowing the breakup of the South West. It's as if the NWO elites have agreed in principle to giving the S.W. back to Mexico.
So be it. It's the Feds who are deliberately allowing illegal immigration. I will not miss California.
The South is the most unique part of the USA. It is ethnically, religiously and politically different from any other part. The South is a natural for a nation of like minded Constitutionalists and is the last hope for such a nation as the origianl founders wanted it.
2005-08-09 01:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=CWRWinger] It is apparent the USA Fed'ral gov't is allowing the breakup of the South West. It's as if the NWO elites have agreed in principle to giving the S.W. back to Mexico.
No, I doubt even the most pointy-headed neocons on the potomac have those intentions. Its more about shekels and greenbacks, the consequences are the problems of serfs like us. That is until it spins out control.
So be it. It's the Feds who are deliberately allowing illegal immigration. I will not miss California. [/QUOTE]
Its deliberate alright, again follow the money.
2005-08-09 11:00 | User Profile
J.W.: No, I doubt even the most pointy-headed neocons on the potomac have those intentions.
The NWO elites want a borderless trade zone in North America. The sovreignty of the several states and America as a nation mean nothing to them.
IMO, surmising from what I have read, they will allow Mexican rule of American territory. In Mexico, the schools show students a map of Mexico which includes much of the South West. They already consider Southern California to be a part of Mexico.
2005-08-09 13:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=CWRWinger]
The NWO elites want a borderless trade zone in North America. The sovreignty of the several states and America as a nation mean nothing to them.
Yes, with CAFTA and with the coming FTAA, thats what they are pushing for.
IMO, surmising from what I have read, they will allow Mexican rule of American territory. In Mexico, the schools show students a map of Mexico which includes much of the South West. They already consider Southern California to be a part of Mexico.[/QUOTE]
It most likely WILL be spanics ruling in several states, but not as some seperate entity (aztlan). Fedgovinc wont allow that I dont think. It might however become fact in everything but official recognition.
My point is the gvt is not seeking to make the southwest populated by mexicans on purpose, even i stop there. Its more a matter of consequence. The greed of cheap labor and self-hatred of white liberals via affirmative action, diversity etc, has had its results and its still rolling in on top of us. The globalist bankers on the potomac and in new york, want wealth, and they will sell the rest of us down the river to get it.
2005-08-09 13:41 | User Profile
J.W.: "...and they will sell the rest of us down the river to get it."
True. And I will add, they have gone a bridge too far. IMO, the breaking point is near.
2005-08-09 14:03 | User Profile
I guarantee, if borders don't mean anything to Presidente Jorge Bush, borders do mean something to Presidente Fox. He wants his border to include the South West.
I agree with Hoskins. Land is the ultimate prize of tyrants.
IMO, America lost her sovereignty and property rights a long time ago. Maybe Mexico has purchased the South West from the international bankers and wants to take possession. Fox does get very irrate about any impedance of the flow of his ethnic rejects into the South West.
This is just a thought. No documentation to back it up.
2005-08-09 15:42 | User Profile
A really cool game would be an online game where blacks and other minohties could fight it out against whites :starwars:
Technology has arrived to act it out in the cyberspace. In fact, the usual FPS games are getting stale with their pc scenarios. Spice it up with race wars and Falluja pacifying.
2005-08-10 03:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]A really cool game would be an online game where blacks and other minohties could fight it out against whites :starwars:
Technology has arrived to act it out in the cyberspace. In fact, the usual FPS games are getting stale with their pc scenarios. Spice it up with race wars and Falluja pacifying.[/QUOTE]
I suppose you have seen this ? [url]http://www.resistance.com/ethniccleansing/catalog.htm[/url]
2005-08-10 03:48 | User Profile
It's pretty old. I suppose creating a "mod" for an existing game would be the easiest way to stay up-to-date to the latest graphics and AI. But I am talking about something more sinister than simple FPS: something more immersive and customized.
2005-08-10 04:00 | User Profile
JoseyWales,
I always thought that game looked fun.
[QUOTE=JoseyWales]I suppose you have seen this ? [url]http://www.resistance.com/ethniccleansing/catalog.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
2005-08-10 04:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=CWRWinger]The South is the most unique part of the USA. It is ethnically, religiously and politically different from any other part. The South is a natural for a nation of like minded Constitutionalists and is the last hope for such a nation as the origianl founders wanted it.[/QUOTE]
I'm inclined to agree, but a victoriously independent South shouldn't stop there; it should move in a northwesterly direction in order to liberate as much American territory as possible, i.e. the Great Plains, the Rocky Mountain states, and the Pacific Northwest. When Dixie stretches from the Florida Straits to Puget Sound (thus carving up Diversica into Diversica and West Diversica, much like the previous, and failed, Pakistan and East Pakistan), we can determine whether trying to tackle the enemy heartland in places like New York and Los Angeles is likely to be worth the resources it would cost.
2005-08-10 04:57 | User Profile
Kevin,
I'm with you. To hell with simply stopping at the Mason-Dixion line. I want the whole damn thing.