Patriots and Tyrants

Robert E. Lee was the foremost general of the Confederate forces in their desperate war for independence from northern tyranny, which sought to illegally subdue them by armed might after they had chosen to separate themselves from the central government in Washington DC. His words, quoted above, are a clear indication of his character and his motives. In a time when Abraham Lincoln is often (wrongfully) regarded as a heroic figure, and the Southern secession is (equally incorrectly) viewed as evil and treasonous, we should take some time to explore Lee's reasons for supporting Virginia in its secession and opposing Lincoln in his war of conquest.

General Lee, an educated man, knew very well the shape of history— and he tried his best to fight in the name of his sovereign state, Virginia; defending it against the despotic ambitions of Lincoln and his centralist ilk. The victory of the northern aggressors, in their war against the southern states that peacefully and lawfully seceded, remains a great tragedy. That war destroyed the last bastions of honour and aristocracy in North America, thus sealing the fate of the United States. Rather than saving the Union, Abraham Lincoln and his butchers destroyed it, and put a centralist colossus in its place. This was their plan from the outset, and fighting that depraved ambition was the South's foremost reason to secede in the first place. (Anyone who claims that it was primarily about slavery is either wholly ignorant or wholly evil.)

Everything Lee predicted has come true, and the United States are fated to perish— at least in their current form. Observe that I write "their form", because the states ought to be referred to in the plural. But nowadays, we all too often hear "the United States is" rather than "the United States are". That, too, is the legacy of northern aggression and centralism. And it is exactly that unitary, centralist moloch that will ultimately perish. One may hope that one day, there will again be sovereign and voluntarily united states, once more capable of bringing something worthwhile into this world.

Until that day comes, we should do our best to remember the courage and honour of general Lee, in a world where uneducated scoundrels are tearing down the statues that were once put up the memorialise him and his fellow heroes of independence.

Californian secession? Great! But let's re-draw some borders first...

So. The California secession movement starts gathering petition signatures. I think this is an awesome idea. Not because I think it'll be good for California. No. California will turn into a socialist shithole, that can no longer feed on the rest of the union. But it will be GREAT for the USA. Without California's electoral votes, there will never be another Democratic president.

Regardless of such considerations, I will simply state that I generally defend the right of secession simply because I support the principle of it. With that in mind, I must observe that when right-wing activists quite recently suggested that Texas should secede (during Obama's administration), they were called traitors and racists.

A typical case of the left-wing "it's okay when we do it!"-mentality, then. But never mind that. Let them go ahead. Let them secede. So much the better for the rest of the USA. But before we start cheering for the secession of California, I think it's wise to reconsider the whole idea of the so-called "left coast". After all, it's not like all of California is left-wing. No; it's the coastal strip and the southern portion of the state. The northeastern part is solidly Republican. The left-wing part is just far more densely populated, so they force the entire state to always go Democratic. Considered in that way... California should be split up before any vote regarding secession takes place.

In the same way, sparsely populated Nevada is almost always forced to go left-wing, just because densely populated Las Vegas always goes that way. And the northeastern states of Washington and Oregon are also pulled to the left by their coastal cities, while the rural hinterland always votes Republican.

I propose the following, for the consideration of my American friends: that the borders of these four states are radically re-drawn, to create a Democrat-dominated "California" and "Oregon", and a Republican-dominated "Nevada" and "Washington". The two left-wing states should then be given the option to secede (or to join Canada and Mexico, respectively).

Even if the Democratic states stay with the union, this will at least free the Republican parts of the current states from Democratic overlordship, turning four Democratic states into two Democratic and two Republican states.

The map would look a bit as pictured here, with the Democratic states in shades of pink, and the Republican states in shades of yellow. I have based the border on multiple electoral maps, after figuring out which regions generally vote Democratic, and which regions generally vote Republican. I admit it's just a crude concept formulation, but it gets the idea across.

Kurds, Turks and the importance of secession

It is my conviction that any sensible freedom-loving individual ought to be, by definition, a proponent of secession in all circumstances. Indeed, many classical liberals and libertarians of note have argued as much. I find it astaunding that there are self-styled 'libertarians' and 'classical liberals' who are opposed to secession in some or all cases. Something that just recently struck my as truly bizarre is the reaction of some people in egards to Turkish government aggression towards Kurdish secessionists. That is to say: there are people involved in the liberty movement with such a weak grasp of basic economic concepts and such a shocking lack of historical perspective that they will happily side with the imperialist Turkish regime when it comes to the Kurdish struggle for independence... "because the PKK is communist!"

Maybe an elementary lesson in history would benefit them. One might consider, for instance, that if Turkey had let the Kurds go on their merry way to indepence long ago, the communist revolutionary nonsense would never have had any appeal to the Kurds at all. Beyond that, it's a simple fact that the Kurds (who have no ethnic or linguistic relation to the Turks) don't want to be a part of Turkey. Even if they want to be communist (and I wouldn't advise it), it's still their own damn business. Turkey has occupied Kurdish land for far too long, and putting an end to that immoral occupation is simply a matter of respecting the fundamental right to self-determination.

This whole mess is the fault of Turkish imperialism in the first place. Personally, I remain convinced that at the end of World War One, both the Kurdish areas in the east of Anatolia and the Greek areas in the west ought to have been freed from Turkish rule. Instead, the Turks were allowed to continue to oppress the Kurdish people, and even to expell the Hellenes from Anatolia (where they had lived for thousands of years, long before the invading Turkish hordes ever stirred from their barbarian tents in East Asia). Civilised people ought to condemn these mistakes of history, as well as the sorry situation that has emerged as their result. Civilised people ought to support a free Kurdistan, and perhaps—just perhaps—they ought to give some consideration to the question wether the world would not be better off if 'Istanbul' would still be known as 'Constantinople'.

History clearly condemns the Turkish state, and puts the Kurds in the right. Yet even if one ignores all this, the secession of the Kurdish regions of Anatolia would still be a very good idea. Secession is always desirable, because it always improves the situation. This has been explained perfectly by professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who should perhaps be considered the greatest living thinker within the liberty movement. Writes Hoppe:

Forced integration invariably creates tension, hatred and conflict. In conflict voluntary separation leads to harmony and peace. Through secession hegemonic domestic relations are replaced by contractual – mutually beneficial – foreign relations. Rather than promoting a downward leveling of cultures, as under forced integration, secession stimulates a cooperative process of cultural selection and advancement.

That is to say: as long as the Turkish regime (or any regime) forcibly keeps the Kurdish people (or any unwilling people) enchained within the confines of its imperialist state, that state will suffer from internal strife. This benefits absolutely no-one, and as the conflict escales, it will actually demand a very high toll; in lives, in freedoms, and (if one is heartless and does not care for life or liberty) in wealth. Constantly fighting an internal war costs a lot. By allowing the unwilling people to secede, relations can be normalised, costs can be avoided, and profitable trade relations can be established.

Perhaps more importantly, the simple act of secession also creates a seconds polity, which automatically competes with its neighbours. It is a funamental truth of economics that competition drives down prices and drives up quality. Hoppe explains what this has historically meant in a European context:

Contrary to the political orthodoxy of the contemporary Eurocrats, precisely the fact that Europe posessed a highly decentralised power structure of countless independent political units explains the origin of capitalism – the expansion of market participation and of economic growth – in the Western world. It is not by accident that freedom and prosperity first flourished under conditions of extreme political decentralisation: in the northern Italian city states, in southern Germany, and in the secessionist Low Countries. 

It is assumed that larger political units – and ultimately a single world government – imply wider markets and hence increased wealth. However, this is untrue. The larger the territories the lower a government’s incentive to continue its domestic liberalism will be because people will lose the possibility of voting with their feet. 

Hence, the argument that the Kurds should not be allowed to secede because they are "communist" is essentially ludicrous. Secession itself will ultimately benefit all involved parties, and if secession becomes standard practice, the vastly increased 'competition of nations' will make communism itself impossible to maintain. Communist statelets will simply be unable to compete.

Finally, the reasoning that secession of "communists" should be prevented because this would trap non-communist Kurds within a communist state is inconsistent and illogical. Anyone who only supports the secession of any region when freedom in that region will increase as a result (and refuses to endorse secession when freedom in the seceding region will decline) is not thinking logically.

Let us consider state A, consisting of provinces B and C. now imagine that B is very freedom-loving, whereas C is very collectivist and totalitarian. they both influence the politics and culture of A, which ends of rather moderate. Now imagine someone supporting the secession of B, because this will lead B to enjoy greater freedom... but opposing the secession of C, because this will cause C to become less free.

This makes no sense. If B secedes and becomes more free, A consists only of C, and becomes less free... which is the exact result of C's own secession! And if C secedes and becomes less free, A consists only of B and becomes more free... the same result as in the case of B's secession!

We are drawn to the inevitable conclusion that almost all secessions will result in either the seceding territory becoming more free and the remnant becoming less so... or the exact reverse. Yet in any case, as Hoppe has explained, secession ultimately increases competition between states and thus aids liberty everywhere. Therefore, secession, regardless of the ideology of the secessionists, is a good thing and ought to be supported by freedom-loving individuals. In the words of Hoppe:

Throughout the entire period of European and, indeed, global unification we have witnessed a steady and dramatic growth of government power, taxation and regulatory expropriation. In the light of social and economic theory and history a very strong case can be made for secession.

A very strong case indeed. One might go so far as to call it irrefutable. Therefore, the Kurds ought to be supported in their struggle for independence. And if the communist Kurds currently living in Turkey form one Kurdish state, and the non-communist Kurds in northern Iraq and syria form a separate state of their own... so much the better! The more competing territories, the greater everyone's share of freedom will ultimately be. In the past, this has worked wonders for Europe. The same applies to the Middle East. Let several Kurdish states emerge! A Yazidi state; a Druze state; an Assyrian state; an Aramaic state; a Lebanese Greek state; a Circassian state... etc. etc.

One may go on forever, splitting the large, artificial states of the present day into smaller and smaller autonomous communities. One may go on forever, but first one must commence. An independent Kurdistan would be an excellent start.


The Facebook thread discussing this article may be found here.

The future of Europe

Yesterday, I published an article discussing the many problems of the EU, which have until now gone unsolved due to the unwillingness of the Europhiles to accept that their utopian dreams are simply impossible. Arrogance has poisoned the European project beyond any hope of rescue, and it seems that arrogance will in the end destroy the EU altogether.

The question is now: how do we get rid of the bad, while preserving the good? Cooperation and good relations between the many states of Europe are by no means a bad thing. How can we preserve those elements, while dismantling the European bureacracy and the undemocratic power of Brussels? Well, if you think about it, it’s not that difficult. The only thing missing to achieve a peaceful and relatively painless end to the EU is the political will to go about it.

That’s certainly a problem, because the Eurocrats in charge are dead set on creating a centralized political union. I explained yesterday how their efforts are inherently counterproductive, serving only to sow futher animosity between the nations of Europe. If they continue to force their utopia on all of us, they even risk sparking off a civil war. That catastrophe must be avoided at all costs.

So how? What’s the alternative? That question is imperative, because Europhiles will repeat again and again that we need the EU, and that to dismantle it would be tantamount to economic suicide. What we need to do is prove them wrong, so everyone can see that there is a viable alternative to Eurofederalism. To that end, I’ve written this article: a proposal for dismantling the European Union in a peaceful and orderly manner. Because we can prevent the disastrous future currently awaiting Europe, and we can lay the ground work for a far better future for us all.

When will the Europhiles learn their lesson?

Countless citizens of EU-member states are asking themselves “Where are we going?”, and with good reason. The European Union is tearing itself apart through bad policy and undemocratic efforts at forced centralization of power. It is entirely unclear where this road will lead the many nations of Europe, but the notion that all of them will eventually end up in the same place is becoming increasingly unlikely. An outcome long held unthinkable – the break-up of the EU – is steadily becoming inevitable.

The Europhiles in Brussels and across the EU will hear nothing of it. Just as they have done for decades, they dismiss the notion of the EU being split up as nothing more than small-minded chauvinism. It is easy, however, to portray your opponents as small-minded. It is much harder to actually prove them wrong. In this case, it might not be possible at all: the Eurosceptics have been proven right time and again since the start of the global financial crisis.

In fact, it turns out that the “small-minded chauvinists” have, in fact, for years and years been the most forward-thinking people in Europe. It was the Eurosceptics who forsaw that expansion of the “European family” (as Europhiles lovingly call it) was going too fast: many new member states were simply not yet ready. The cultural and economic mindsets of Northern, Southern and Eastern Europe were insufficiently aligned to accommodate a grand unification project.

These warnings were ignored, but it turns out they should have been heeded instead. Similarly, the Eurosceptics warned that the institutions of the Union were not democratic enough, and that there was not (yet) enough popular support for the EU among the peoples of Europe. Again, they cautioned, more time was needed. But no – the Europhiles pushed for more centralization, at the expense of national sovereignty and popular democracy. The EU thus became a project of the elite, disliked by the people at large.

The grand misconception of the Europhiles was that they would be able to shape Europe as they wanted: that they could force their utopian ideal on the people without any resistance at all, and everyone would come to love their creation as much as they did. Simply put: the Europhiles behaved like a bunch of arrogant tossers. As a result, they – and everyone else in Europe – are now faced with the results of their hubris. Many countries weren’t ready for a monetary union, and precicely due to that single currency, their economic woes are also ravaging the countries that were ready. The people have come to hate the EU, rather than love it.