by John Young http://www.wvwnews.net/downloads/audio/john_young/secession.mp3
Welcome to Western Voices, I’m John Young of European Americans United.
Unless you are a student of military strategy, you may not have heard of Basil Liddell Hart. Sir Liddell Hart was the British strategist who invented the Blitzkrieg employed so successfully by the Germans against his own country in World War II. He made an extensive study of the First and Second World Wars, and thoroughly debriefed the major military strategists involved on all sides. He has left those of us involved in struggles, even non-military struggles, a rich fount of practical theory and knowledge. As a recognized expert in strategy, he wrote introductions and analyses to such classics as Sun Tzu’s the Art of War; and wrote many books of his own, including “The Strategy of Indirect Approach” written in 1941. I came across this little book while attending a military college over 20 years ago; and the knowledge it imparted has been with me ever since. Today, I am going to share it with YOU.
Because a good measure of the effectiveness of certain approaches depends upon silence; while the effectiveness of other approaches depends upon drawing attention to what you are doing; you will not hear a great deal from us about strategic matters in the future. What needs to be revealed will be revealed; and what needs to be kept close will be kept close.
Our board has noticed that a portion of our demographic, though, seems a bit confused about “what we are up to.” That’s understandable because a smokescreen affects friend and foe alike. Today I am going to lift that smokescreen just a little for our friends in such a way that it will simultaneously work to the disadvantage of our foes. I will not, of course, explain exactly HOW this will work to the disadvantage of our foes. But, in exchange for this lifting of the smokescreen for our friends; there is something that we at EAU expect from you, especially from our members. We expect you to undertake the tasks that we will be assigning you in this pod-cast. This is important because if you fail to do so, the advantage will go to those who oppose our efforts.
That having been said, let’s talk about strategy a bit. The Strategy of Indirect Approach can be summarized as follows:
[u1. Direct attacks against an enemy firmly in position almost never work and should never be attempted.[/u
I have heard some folks who are otherwise sympathetic to our cause ask why we choose to do, or not do, certain things. A great deal of that, though by no means all, can be explained with reference to the fact that directly attacking a firmly ensconced enemy is doomed to failure. Imagine, for a moment, that airplanes and missiles haven’t been invented; your enemy consists of 20,000 troops in a fortified citadel on top of a hill with a clear field of fire for arrows all around; and your own forces consist of only 100 dedicated but clearly outnumbered people. Your objective is to take the citadel. How do you do it?
Well, I can tell you how NOT to do it. You do not send the commander of the citadel an engraved invitation stating that you will be knocking down his front door at precisely 4PM that afternoon; and then proceed to do just that. If you do, your 100 troops will be dead long before they even come close to the door.
You would be much better off if you kept the commander of the citadel ignorant of the fact that an enemy even existed; in which case the doors of the citadel would be left open, even if guarded. Your troops would don the regalia of the enemy, walk right through the open door, get jobs controlling the food and water supplies inside the citadel … and ultimately decapitate the enemy and take over command before most of the forces even knew what happened. That is, of course, exactly what happened to US — so the strategy works pretty well.
Now, imagine the slightly different scenario in which there are only 2,000 troops in the citadel, and you have 4,000 troops of your own. Even then, because the position of the defenders is fortified, a direct approach would quickly wipe out your forces. If we assume that your forces are valuable, you will not waste their lives by throwing them at the walls uselessly. In order for a direct attack to work against an enemy who is firmly in position, you would have to possess an overwhelming disparity of force in terms of either numbers or technology; such as what the United States brought against Iraq in 2003.
Finally, consider this third scenario, assuming technological parity. Your enemy has 20,000 troops. They are all in the town surrounding the citadel; and you bring a force of 40,000 troops directly at them with substantial direct warning and fanfare. What does the enemy do? He will bring the dispersed troops together into the citadel, concentrating his forces and becoming a much harder nut to crack. Rather than sounding trumpets and coming over the hill in force; it would have been far better to snag a few diffused enemy forces here or there in such a way that the enemy wouldn’t panic and pull all of his forces in tightly; and, again, use the fact that the door to the citadel was open to your advantage. (Also consider using your forces to deny the enemy access to the citadel.)
There are corollaries to all of these scenarios that tell us, also, what will work. Now let’s look at the second aspect of the strategy of indirect approach.
[u2. To defeat the enemy one must first upset his equilibrium, which is not accomplished by the main attack, but must be done before the main attack can succeed.[/u
Think a bit about the battle of Lexington and Concord. The British army, up to that point, was used in two fashions: to engage other regular armies using certain very common tactics, or to suppress rebellion among diffuse and largely unarmed occupants of the empire. The Battle of Lexington and Concord brought something new: armed property owners who would engage from hiding and from a distance outside the effective range of the British army’s weaponry.
Furthermore, the colonists used a tactic that was unknown in continental warfare of the day: they specifically targeted officers. This upset the enemy’s equilibrium. What would become the Revolutionary War was also fought outside the battlefield. Of the colonial populace of the day, about a third were loyal to Britain, a third wanted independence and another third didn’t care. Those who wanted independence engaged in a sweeping boycott both of British goods and the businesses of those known to be loyal to the British crown. Many of the herbal teas that we use to this day were developed during this time to keep the British government from benefiting from the tax on tea. Think about this, and how it relates to our push for self-sufficiency — if not among our people as a whole, at least among our activists.
Then, the colonists who desired independence actively harmed the biggest colonial supporters of the British by burning their homes, tarring and feathering them, and more. All of this upset the enemy’s equilibrium and gained the colonial militia and Continental Army advantages that they otherwise would have missed.
For us, this means that the techniques we use should be unexpected, fall in an area where the Enemy Within is not prepared, and tend to disperse rather than concentrate forces.
A good example would be announcing that two of our members were running for State Senate under standard party platforms. But what we would NOT announce is who those candidates were or who they were challenging. This is a tactic the Enemy Within cannot deal with gracefully. Most people who run for office with points of view similar to our own, do so publicly. Now, the enemy must disperse rather than concentrate efforts by carefully examining every new candidate for state Senate in every State. If nobody sticks out as obvious — and I assure you, they wouldn’t — the enemy will try a process of elimination to narrow down the field. Those remaining will receive visits from members of certain pressure groups to feel out their positions on various issues of importance to the ruling oligarchy.
Naturally, our candidates would be savvy enough to know this. So now the oligarchy is looking carefully at not only new candidates, but old friends to figure out who our members are. They will expend substantial resources, ultimately, in trying to make sure that no incumbent gets defeated unless it is by someone who has been thoroughly vetted. The time, drain on personnel and monetary costs would be enormous. And next election cycle, we’d run even more candidates for a variety of offices. Within just six years, a cloud of doubt and suspicion will surround not only candidates, but new public servants who managed to defeat incumbents and have become the new incumbents. The energy expended on surveillance and other spying will increase geometrically even though the Enemy Within can only increase its staff of trusted personnel linearly.
These are just some of the things we can learn from the strategy of indirect approach. Sir Liddell Hart stated the matter clearly:
“In strategy the longest way round is often the shortest way there; a direct approach to the object exhausts the attacker and hardens the resistance by compression, whereas an indirect approach loosens the defender’s hold by upsetting his balance.”
He also took unorthodox thinking about conflict another step further when describing the benefits of certain defensive postures:
“Defense is a psychological attack. . . . If … attack is met by attack, the aggressor government is enabled to consolidate its people by representing to them that they are fighting to defend their homes. Such misrepresentation becomes far more difficult to maintain if the attack is met by defense. This tends to weaken the will of the enemy people. . . . This state of mind, and loss of spirit, will develop all the sooner if the offensive campaign produces no results comparable to its cost.”(1)
Think about this, also, with respect to our recently-developed Home School curriculum. It is a purely defensive posture; and by virtue of being entirely defensive, it is extremely difficult to justify expending resources for its eradication. Moreover, as the curriculum is designed so that parents can use it to supplement public or private schooling; it can only be stopped through removal of the kids from the home — a quite radical approach that would take the mask off of our soft-totalitarian system and reveal it for the hard-totalitarian regime that it truly is. This would diminish its support among the people at large sufficiently that the very legitimacy of the governmental entities undertaking such questionable goals would be questioned. Adopting defensive postures forces the enemy to reveal its whole hand in order to strike. This creates an environment for our enemy similar to the dynamic silence applied against us for decades in that it brings warts under glaring public scrutiny.
All of the foregoing should lead you to see a couple of things. First, that the EAU leadership team takes a lot of factors into account that may not be obvious, but are nevertheless important. Second, that when we recommend a particular course of action, no matter how seemingly innocuous, you should strongly consider following our lead.
NOW — With all of this background, I wish to speak with you about something important. That “something” is secession. I have spoken of secession before; and how it proceeds in phases that culminate in physical secession. Many of the tactics we bring to you, be they home schooling, growing your own garden or joining the neighborhood watch are oriented toward the earlier non-physical stages of secession. But it is time to start laying the groundwork for physical secession as well.
I want to discuss three aspects of secession: the legal framework, why it is necessary, and the tasks I’d like some EAU members to undertake.
The first aspect of secession is the fact that it is Constitutionally sound, and gaining increased public acceptance as a method for dealing with a behemoth in Washington that is seen to be un-salvageable. The first person who gave a substantive rationale for secession was none other than Thomas Jefferson. In the wake of the blatantly unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts, Jefferson penned the http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent1798.htm; a document that should be required reading for every American. Jefferson’s rationale, as adopted by the Kentucky legislature, can be summarized that when the Federal government exceeds its specifically delegated Constitutional authority, a State is no longer bound to honor the federal compact and can ignore that authority, refuse to assist in enforcing that authority and even go its own way. The Kentucky Resolution of 1798 also established an important principle: namely, that the Federal government in its tripartite branches, was not the ultimate arbiter of the extent of its own authority:
“… whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”
The Kentucky resolution also stated the principle that the so-called “elastic clause” of the Constitution has definite limits:
“That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’ and ‘to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution, the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,’ goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their powers by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument…”
The bottom line is that the principle and idea of secession is on the most solid possible ideological footing. Moreover, in spite of the incessant propaganda that hasn’t ceased since the War Between the States, a recent Zogby poll commissioned by the Middlebury Institute indicates that secession is a lot more widely supported than is immediately evident.
This poll asked three questions. A stunning 44% of voting Americans agreed with the following statement: “I believe the United States’ system is broken and cannot be fixed by traditional two-party politics and elections.” Fully 22% of voting Americans agreed with this next statement: “I believe any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic.” Most encouragingly, an amazing 40% of voters between the ages of 18 and 24 agreed with the statement. Finally, 18% agreed with the following statement: “I would support a secessionist effort in my state.”
Remember what I said earlier — that only a third of Americans supported our secession from Britain. That’s all it takes. With 18% of voting Americans supporting such an effort in their state right now, and 44% believing that the United States is broken beyond repair; we are closer than you might think to a successful secession or series of secessions. And those numbers are even higher in certain states; especially those whose citizens are disproportionately taxed to finance a republic that has lost its moorings and become an empire ruled by oligarchy and corruption.
In tiny Vermont alone, where cows literally outnumber people, there are 65,000 supporters of a secessionist movement named the Second Vermont Republic.
The second aspect of secession is its necessity or, at least, its desirability. In a perfect world, I wouldn’t be delivering a pod-cast and you wouldn’t even be listening; because there would be nothing to discuss. Our government would have followed its appointed mission and the future and stability of our Folk would be assured.
But this is not a perfect world. Almost from the very beginning forces that put profit ahead of humanity set to work undermining the cultural underpinnings of this country. Shortly thereafter, Marxist intellectuals joined the fray. Before I was ever born our political system had become so corrupted that if Jefferson were to come back from the grave, he would have driven the legislators from the halls of our Congress in disgust. And now that situation is all the more consolidated.
In a perfect world, we would be able to say our piece without fear of persecution. In a perfect world, our enemies would not use the media to silence us instead of hear us. In a perfect world our message would be easily delivered to a waiting electorate who would then be swayed to make change. In other words, in a perfect world the 80% of Americans who want immigration shut down cold would have long since prevailed on that matter.
But we don’t live in a perfect world. If anything, we are witnessing the death spiral of the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. All any reasonable person has to do to confirm the impending doom of our nation in any meaningful sense is look at the Democratic and Republican nominees for President. Obama is a hard-core communist right out of the Trotsky mold. Completely separate from any issues pertaining to race, Barak Obama is an outright communist. The fact that a person with opinions such as the ones he holds could win the nomination of a major political party should tell you that the enemies of freedom have come incredibly close to achieving their objectives, that democracy has failed and been subverted, and that rescue through the electoral process would be extremely difficult at this stage of the game. Obama is an idealistic communist with his head in the clouds; but that won’t make the gulags any more pleasant.
John McCain isn’t much better. He’s a hands-on practical man — more like Lenin than Trotsky. Just like Lenin, he spouts a radical environmentalist theory of human differences that he puts into practice with socialist programs. Just like Lenin, he agrees with repealing our right to keep and bear arms. And on crucial issues like taxation and immigration his differences with Obama — to the extent they exist at all — can be seen only in regard to degree, rather than principle.
McCain is a practical communist with his feet firmly planted in the earth. The fact that a person so firmly entrenched in the left wing that he has accepted aid from George Soros for decades could win the nomination of the Republican party means that, ideologically, the Republican party is finally dead. It no longer offers any practical philosophical reason why its candidates are deserving of our votes.
I’ve heard some folks surmise that the cloud of an Obama presidency might have a silver lining in that it would finally wake some of our slumbering Folk from their television-induced stupor. Perhaps it would. But how many will it awaken? There are limits to the incompetence of a President, and this one will have many advisers — some of whom, like Madeleine Albright, sit on the board of directors of the international communist organization Socialist Internationale.
In addition, the federal government does its day-to-day work through a cadre of professional and life-long bureaucrats who will keep the lights on no matter how incompetent the administration.
So will things get bad enough, fast enough, for enough of our people that the election of someone like my colleague Frank Roman to the presidency would be possible? For the sake of our posterity, I certainly hope so. But — also for the sake of our posterity — I wouldn’t put all of our eggs in that basket.
Meanwhile, McCain has prostrated himself in front of AIPAC so many times and to such an extent that I really think he should be running to be the president of Israel rather than the United States. He has practically promised to take us to war with Iran — a country that poses no effective risk to the United States — on behalf of Israel. He is a major proponent of the neo-con strategy of “transforming the Middle East” by undermining and replacing the indigenous cultures of the region with systems that are more friendly to Israel and more open to corruption through international trade so that the governments of Southwest Asian countries would become like ours: no longer serving the interests of their people.
Make no mistake about it: McCain is in George Soros’ back pocket on a number of important issues. He is a a tireless worker for unaccountable global oligarchy and he unapologetically serves every interest BUT that of the American people. These facts about him can be discovered through major media sources, so the fact that voters in the Republican primary elected him as their presidential candidate does not bode well for America’s future.
Certainly, in the future, there will continue to be a well-armed entity that lays claim to govern a certain section of the North American landmass; but it will bear no resemblance to the government intended by our founding fathers; and the average American will live a life of servitude to a wide array of special ethnic, corporate and government interests. For some Americans, these chains will rest lightly and they will hardly be aware of their bondage. But for many of us, the chains will rub us raw.
It is certainly possible that the sea change we are now seeing among European-Americans will progress to the point that it will ultimately manifest in sweeping victories for explicitly pro-European-American candidates at all levels of government. Not only do we hope that happens, but we invest considerable time, effort and money in trying to make that vision a reality. I certainly hope that an Obama or McCain administration will finally smack people in the face hard enough that they shake off the manufactured consent of the media, schools and political talking heads and finally start thinking for themselves.
But we’re in a race against time. At current rates of immigration, and especially if an amnesty for illegal aliens is passed, we only have 12 more years as a clear ethnic majority at the voting booth. In practice, because so many of our people either believe themselves to have a self-interest in the status quo or are otherwise deluded; just being a numeric ethnic majority is insufficient to give electoral success on a national basis.
So we have to deal — not just with wishful thinking and possibilities — but the hard realities of the barriers we face in achieving our organizational objectives; and the likelihood of breaking those barriers before time runs out. Maybe we will, but maybe we won’t. If we are unable to meet those objectives nationally, we need to have a backup plan already in motion with more modest and more readily achievable aims. Secession is just such a plan because it is a lot easier to influence the residents of a single State, especially a small one, than the entire country. It is also easier, especially with the upcoming inevitable economic turmoil, to induce people who think like us to move to such states so that the entire force of all of the pro-European-American activists in the country can be concentrated in a small geographic area.
Similar efforts have been undertaken in the past. So far, few have borne fruit. A good example is the Free State Project. Even though the Free State Project has been underway for years, and even though 8,500 people have signed their pledge, fewer than 550 participants are currently in New Hampshire; over 300 of whom were already residents of the state.
Meanwhile, the forces of dissolution have imported tens of thousands of far left-wing activists from Connecticut, New York and Massachusetts who have had substantial success in moving New Hampshire from a formerly red state to a blue one. The Free State Project, although not technically a secessionist project, has so far failed to have the desired effect because it couldn’t bring people to the state — even people who had signed a solemn pledge.
There’s a reason for this, and it has nothing to do with philosophy. Think, for a moment, about the massive influx of illegal immigrants from South of the border. Why are they here? The easy answer is because life in their homeland has become so unpleasant and untenable that they have decided that undertaking a criminal enterprise in a foreign country where they can be arrested at any moment and don’t speak the language is preferable to remaining at home. In other words, they are coming to America for basic commodities such as food, shelter and health care — whether those are obtained through illegal work or through the welfare system.
Unscrupulous corporations are having NO difficulty in inducing foreigners to come across our border — illegally — by the MILLIONS. They have no difficulty because it is easy to persuade a person with a growling stomach to come and eat. It’s really that simple. The Free State Project is working on the opposite principle. People who already have not just jobs, but are sufficiently comfortable to be contemplating philosophy, are being attracted through appeal to ideas, philosophy, and abstract dreams. The fact that only about 3% of their participants actually made the move is not surprising. Why would someone leave a nice home, secure employment, beneficial family arrangements and a life of relative ease in order to relocate to an area where jobs are scarce, opportunity is uncertain, and the cost of living is high? Within this context, the fact that even 3% of Free State Project members managed to move is pretty impressive; so they deserve some credit. But not much, because their influence on pushing forward a pro-liberty agenda has been stymied thus far.
Rather than repeat the mistakes of past efforts and unrelated organizations; we are going to take a very different approach. This brings me to the third aspect of the topic of secession. Here, I’m going to lay out broadly what we will be doing, and then tell you where you can assist the first phase of that. Finally, I’ll explain the strategic benefits of this technique. Rather than expecting people with established jobs, homes and community ties to uproot themselves in favor of an uncertain future; we are going to time things a bit differently.
You may recall that one thing we are encouraging among our members is self-sufficiency. This includes not just gardening and home schooling; but starting small home-based businesses and utilizing our cooperative facilities to help gain an in-house client base. These aspects of self-sufficiency are key, because they make members increasingly mobile. That is, with less reliance on outside factors, members are presented with very little risk no matter where they move — especially with Internet-based small businesses. As you may also recall, our Statement of Ethics encourages our members, no matter their field of endeavor, to be the best in that field. I don’t care how bad an economy is, there is always room for someone with clearly superior skills; especially if that person is largely self-sufficient and so can work with a lower salary.
For those who haven’t started a home-based business yet, at the bottom of the written version of today’s pod-cast, you will find two sections of resource links. The first section contains links to work at home opportunities. One of these is the Federal Trade Commission website. If you type "work at home" into the search function, you will find numerous articles detailing both scams AND legitimate opportunities. Another link is to the "Women for Hire" website. While this site certainly caters to women, men could also benefit from perusing the "work at home" resources because there are very few jobs out there for which one sex is qualified and the other is not.
Establishing an occupation that allows you to work from home or starting a home business will help make you more mobile. Furthermore, such businesses are the acorns from which mighty oaks will grow. Think of it this way. It would be extremely difficult if not impossible to induce large corporate employers to take on hundreds or even thousands of new employees from out of state. But it would be relatively easy for an EAU member with a small barn and hayloft, a large supply of home-produced food and an established home business to take on another EAU member or even a family.
Using the seedling small-business model; it is entirely practical to provide an actual incentive for people who share our world view to move into a state marked for secession. Then, consider the fact that economic calamity is coming down the pike. It is inevitable. Not only does our nation face a disproportionate impact from Peak Oil, but the Federal Government’s inflationary Federal Reserve and income redistribution Ponzi schemes and borrowing from foreign governments to try to prop up an economy characterized by extraordinary wealth differentials will come home to roost. I’m not speaking about economics specifically today, except to the extent that it is relevant to our discussion on secession. The undeniable fact is that major economic consequences will be coming. If not this year, then in three or five.
A lot of our European-American folk will be out of work. Social welfare safety nets already stretched to the breaking point by illegals won’t be able to accommodate them. Homelessness among otherwise perfectly fine people will be on the rise. Just like the today’s illegal aliens who will accept jobs under slave labor conditions as an improvement over starvation in their home country — starving and homeless European-Americans who find themselves a despised and undesirable minority in most major cities of their own country will not only be ripe to embrace our philosophy of hope — but will have little or nothing to lose by accepting accommodations in an insulated hayloft in exchange for labor invested on the mini-farm and accepting certain advice regarding voting practices.
This approach will work for a state while the Free State Project’s approach hasn’t — because we are planning to use the flaws of the status quo and common aspects of human nature to our advantage. We are under no illusion that we’ll be able to convince a world-famous anesthesiologist to abandon his practice on a wing and a prayer. But we’ll certainly be able to bring an unemployed computer programmer, auto technician or secretary when such a move will bring about a betterment of their material conditions. This, too, is a race against time.
We need to select one or more states and get the infrastructure set up in advance to be ready to seize the opportunities we’ll be presented. Mainly, rather than concentrate on moving current members into those states, we’ll concentrate on recruiting new members in those states who own small businesses, small to medium farms, owner-operator truckers and so forth. Nevertheless, it makes sense for you to become as self-sufficient as possible so that you can weather the upcoming economic storms AND have the ability to move if you so desire. I have to tell you, right now, that once those states have been selected they probably won’t be revealed, because doing so will give our enemies a clearly defined point of focus that will concentrate their power and efforts. Instead, we will make every effort to diffuse that attention.
There are currently 18 active secessionist movements in the United States. They are becoming more organized all the time, and representatives of these organizations have been attending national conferences for the past couple of years. Leadership of EAU will be attending the next one in November. In a second set of resources at the bottom of the written version of this pod-cast you will find a list of secessionist organizations, including a link that will direct you to the secessionist organization nearest you. Your task is to get involved with whatever secessionist movements exist near you, and report back what you find. We want to know how well organized they are, how their leadership is structured, their general philosophy, successes up until this point, how compatible their worldview is with our own, and anything else you believe to be relevant.
Use the contact form on our organizational website to send your reports. It may be that we can make use of an existing organization, or we may have to form a few of our own. Please notice that I said a few. Now that you have your task, I want to return to the subject with which I started this pod-cast: strategy.
About 5% of the listeners to Western Voices come from IP addresses that are explicitly owned by various federal agencies, Marxist pressure groups and so forth. That’s just a fact of life. By the time you have heard this pod-cast, urgent messages will have been sent to all of the existing secessionist groups to watch out. But there’s more. Most of these secessionist groups are explicitly libertarian and explicitly reject any form of overt self-identification or group self-interest among European-Americans. This means two things.
First, most (though not all) will be unfriendly to our world view. Second, at the current time, most of these organizations are not currently subject to extensive efforts at surveillance and infiltration on the part of the forces of chaos. This means that you shouldn’t rush out and make inquiries of these groups immediately. Wait anywhere from two weeks to six months. When you DO make inquiries, avoid the subject of race altogether. If asked for your feelings about race, simply say that you believe people should be judged as individuals or something of that nature.
Now these largely libertarian-oriented groups will be faced with something they’ve never experienced before: active attempts on the part of special interests to not merely infiltrate them for informational purposes like we are doing — but to actively subvert, destroy and persecute them. They will find themselves tarred with the indiscriminate brush of being a potential racist front group. The organizations and individuals involved will thus be forced to make common cause with us against a common enemy; even if they fight for reasons that differ from ours.
This is most assuredly NOT our intention — for we wish no harm to innocents. It is just a side-effect of the compulsive control-freak nature of our enemies. Meanwhile, our enemy will divide its efforts among at least 18 active organizations plus a number of branches of those organizations. If they aren’t looking to harm those organizations, they will be looking for our members like sifting a haystack for needles.
In response to growing dissatisfaction with the federal government, more of these organizations will come into existence and some of them — though certainly not all — will be creations of EAU. Our enemies will invest personnel, effort, time and money trying to investigate these as well. All of this at a time when our law enforcement authorities know *as an absolute fact* that there are THOUSANDS of Al Queda sympathizers in the United States and if they take their eye off the ball for even a moment the federal government will fail at its legitimate task of keeping us safe from foreign aggression and compromise the legitimacy of its massive police-state surveillance infrastructure.
Because our tactics will create a geometric growth of organizations and personnel while the global corporatists and their minions will only be able to recruit trustworthy personnel arithmetically; they will ultimately be forced to make hard choices as to where to invest finite resources. We do not seek or intend that any harm or violence should be visited upon any human being of any race for any reason; and our goals and methods are legal, moral and healthy. Meanwhile, there are thousands of Al Queda sympathizers and other enemies who have been created through the projection of our corporate culture and military force all over the world.
We will have millions of illegal aliens in this country, many of whom will be focused upon a violent reconquista; and ethnic violence between the Hispanic and African-American communities is likely to explode. There will be record unemployment, trouble with China and Russia over Iran and the list goes on and on. If rational people are making the choices regarding where to invest resources — our efforts will be ignored. But if our efforts are NOT ignored, it will be at the expense of compromising the physical security of the country and its tax base. Concentrating efforts on peaceful secessionists will only confirm in the minds of people the fact that our government is beyond reform, and secession is a legitimate response to a government that has exceeded its authority.
I’ve covered a lot of ground today, because the topic of secession is inter-related and complex. And even with the ground I have covered, I have hardly scratched the surface of the various strategic considerations and practical implementations. But what I HAVE done is lifted the smoke screen a little so you can see what is in the works and at least a broad summary of how we intend to go about it. You also know what you need to do at some point over the next six months. But now that you know this, I want to talk to you a bit about the nation state before I finish today’s pod-cast.
The nation state is the only human creation that has ever proven itself capable of effectively using diplomacy and force to protect the interests of its people. That is NOT to say that a nation state must necessarily do so; because anyone familiar with history will recall the fact that the governments of our nations have seldom really served the interests of our Folk.
But a properly constituted government can do a very good job of doing so if given the right powers, the right restrictions of its powers, and a proper feedback loop to keep it under control and responsive to its original purpose. The federal government of the United States lost that feedback loop during the administration of Abraham Lincoln; and has been on a downward spiral of service to special interests ever since.
There are a lot of reasons for this: the corruptibility of humans, the ease with which people with an ambition for power can be manipulated, a false sense of superiority granted by the popularity contest we call an election, and so forth. But the single factor that makes all of these reasons into fatal flaws rather than controllable albeit inconvenient nuisances is scale.
Because the United States is so big, and because our Senators and Representatives each represent so many people; most of us don’t even know what town our Congressmen live in — and we certainly have never met them face to face. Instead, our Congressional representatives are far removed from the people they represent so that problems of corruption, a false sense of superiority and the ease of manipulation by special interests gets out of hand. This problem was already evident back in the 1840’s — and has become more entrenched ever since.
Long ago our federal government ceased any pretense of being our servant and asserts its illegitimate authority to be our master. There is an optimal size for units of self-government. Our founding fathers were aware of this fact; which is why they gave the federal government very limited powers and many restrictions while leaving everything that would practically affect the lives of ordinary citizens to the states. They understood the risks of an out-of-control federal government, and took every conceivable structural precaution to prevent it.
But they were also aware of the fact that human beings of bad-will — or even well-intentioned people with insufficient understanding — could ultimately cross those structural hurdles. It is for this reason that the ultimate check upon federal power was recognized and understood by Thomas Jefferson: secession. Secession brings power back to the people by putting governmental functions that affect the daily lives of citizens in the hands of next-door-neighbors.
It re-establishes a feedback loop that checks the potential destructive forces of corruption and special interests. It creates an environment friendly to liberty, where we can again have a government responsive to the needs of our Folk. But, most importantly, secession will allow us to exercise self-determination in exercising our MORAL RIGHT to preserve our genetics, our culture and our language from genocide through assimilation. In the year 1900, people of European ancestry constituted fully 30% of the world’s population. Now, we are at around 10% and falling fast. As a global minority, we are in immediate danger of genocide through assimilation.
While there are many ways to prevent this, establishing our own nation state dedicated to the preservation and progress of our people is one of the most important. And secession is one of the best ways to do so peacefully. As always, EAU will continue to engage the system to change the system by spearheading effective activism at local, state and national levels. But you can add secession to our plate as well. And when we add it to our plate, you should consider it to be on yours. If you are a member of EAU and not otherwise engaged in chapter or special projects, consider lending effort to this critical project. If you are NOT already a member, you should strongly consider joining in order to lend a hand.
These are crucial times for our people, and our actions today determine whether or not our people will even exist tomorrow. EAU, as an organization, has bright and capable leadership with solid and achievable short and long range goals that you can undertake for the benefit of yourself and your posterity. If you have been sitting on the fence, it’s time to jump off and join us in the pursuit of a glorious destiny for our people. This has been John Young with European Americans United. Thank you for joining me again today.
Footnotes
(1) S. Liddell Hart quoted in Time Magazine, 9 Oct 1939
Resources — Work from Home
http://www.ftc.gov/
Resources — Secessionist Movements, Organizations and Resources
http://www.secessionist.us/
http://middleburyinstitute.org/
http://secession.net/
http://middleburyinstitute.org/registrynorthamericanseparatists.html (Check here to find the secessionist organization closest to where you live.)