A thought for a day…or a whole lifetime

Bill Buppert has been running his blog ZeroGov for quite a few years. As he says:

  • Yes, I comment on modern and ancient politics but I am affiliated with no formal political Party, not even the Libertarian Party. I will continue to prattle on about politics until our ability to do so is suspended which I actually anticipate in the future.
  • Cross examination is the engine of truth and I accept all reasoned barbs and arrows.  This site challenges so many assumptions and things people take for granted that it can at times be overwhelming so please let’s advance together in a civil discourse. Here’s his T Shirt his Daughter designed:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Buy it here.    While you can that is.

Bill’s “challenge” is the advocacy, and the challenge in changing in thinking regarding, we all being in one way or another, slaves to “The State”. Its difficult to avoid its tyranny 100%. But at least as Abbey Hoffman said, “freedom begins between the ears.” Indeed it does. Well so to Secession from The State begins there. The Challenge, reason being truth, as Bill contends along with a great and renown list of scientists, scholars, and philosophers, and a few great statesmen, there is no such thing as limited government. Government is a force of power. Period. The word Government even says it.

The challenge again: That man is more than capable of governing his own life. That just because some desire to live by chains of slavery gently laid upon themselves by their own hand in supplication for a free treat like a trained seal, is not any justification for forcing the same on you who is desires of being free, live an unfettered life as you see fit. Among a raft of trespasses and extortions, meddling and intrusions included. Thank you, but your blog author here is quite capable of living every second every day without “my” government messing where it fucking doesn’t belong and robbing me of my wealth, thank you very little.

As Bill said, and its a Dandy of a quote from a recent post of his, Vote Harder! Your Masters Approve By Bill Buppert, (Epic. Maybe Bill hasn’t noticed, but that defines TINVOWOOT quite well):

“Secession is the only vote that counts in history.” -B. Buppert

Funny how that sums up a lot of shit going down lately.

I made Bill a bit of agitprop in honor of his indomitable spirit and vivacious great critical thinking style. I think his brain is smarter than his mouth most of the time, thats the mark of genius, but Ol’ Bill comes up with some good ones. Thats a serious hats off to Bill. The idea of Secession is so challenging in this world of raw naked power over everything, its hard to come up with epic bits of thinking which convey so much in so few words.

secession-is-the-only-vote-that-counts-in-history

It would take pages, volumes to fill with the ideas of true rightful Liberty. Suffice that intro to plant the seeds, the precepts of life without government.

Here is another example of Buppert thinking:

Now before you go any further with your thoughts, consider this; In all of human history, without exception, has any form of government succeeded without resorting to force or coercion of any form? Most have been unmitigated disasters. Whole cultures, entire peoples, gone, wiped out, genocided, expelled, pogrommed, murdered, from their homes, villages, tribes and tribal lands, their way of life. Because of The State.

There are no exceptions to this.

But one.

It had barely begun. It was working. Great minds created this. Brave courageous people. They came together in a place called Philadelphia, to iron out some details. What they had going was called a compact. It was based on a theory. A confederation of multiple small intimate geographically tiny, Nation States. Don’t let the States in Nation States fool you, they where created on precepts and premises for the purposes of avoiding the pitfalls and defects of the large State, Kingdom, potentate, empire what have you.

It is impossible now to say how they actually faired during the time they functioned as self determining little countries of Freemen. But they did one thing. A thing which happened again about 50 years later, it is called Abolition, or in our vernacular today, Secession. Secession from “The State” was the act. An unholy act of Anarchy in action. Such a horrible monstrous thing, the very idea as to be an act of insanity. Of crazed demented people, who thought they could live, exists, have a life without a central power eating out their existence.

Such a thing. Preposterous!!!

Both occurrences, the power elite of a State of power, stopped this act of abolishing State power within its confines of its borders. One was a burgeoning State power, not even “born” yet, but the actors and their motives surely existed. They had a plan. A great conspiracy. Something that sounded like one thing but in reality was another. One guy in particular said it smelled like a rat. Others, took decades to sign on, because they had suspicions something was fishy with this new State hawked as one thing, but had indications it was a set-up. The second occurrence was a Nation State, once again, which waged a total war of aggression, of genocide, an act of malice and forethought intended to hurt, upon the seceding confederation of these unique intimate little self determining free Nation States. Who by the way, had every right, every legitimacy to do this thing called secession from tyranny…of The State.

Even today, we look at Catalonia, Scotland, Brexit, Italxit, Grecxit, we see individuals in grass roots movement, who all desire to secede from the power of The State.

And still to this day, this Abolition is painted with the brush of insanity. A crazy wacked out idea fit only for the insane or delusional.

Well…Yeah they would say that. Yet like all things of this nature, the political elites are consistent if not precise in their ways, they use the time honored tactic of any self respecting dicktator or potentate, they project exactly what they are guilty of, or guilty of making their subjects believe in they are not, but others are, who they wish to control or eliminate. Of course Abolition is an abhorrent idea. Anarchy has been given a bad rap.

Who are the crazy ones. What exactly here is the crazy idea?

seccession-a-crazy-idea-seceding-from-the-tyranny-of-the-state-is-a-crazy-idea

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is it really a crazy idea to want to escape from the tyranny here in the West all of us dirt people, us Deplorable’s and Bitter Clingers, we are desirous of eliminating, to be free of the ceaseless meddling in every facet of the sphere of our affairs by The State?

How can it even be crazy if its never been given a proper opportunity to prove itself out or fail? It works on small individual and tribal scale. And quite well too. Sizing it up to the theoretical limits of human nature and its tendencies which effect the size of a nation state is a critical element. Baron de Montesquieu had some pretty good thinking on this.

I think it is crazy, because it is the single most dangerous existential threat to abolition of The State which exists. Once secession catches on, as we see before our eyes, no expense or effort is spared in bushwhacking the will of the people. Only have to see what is going on with May and here betrayals and dissimulations of Brexit.

I leave you with the thought in the Agitprop posted above, and quote from The History of The 2nd Amendment below:

…As discussed earlier, one of the disputes between the Federalists and Antifederalists related to the relative strength that ought to be given to the central government. Prior to adoption of the Constitution, the country was ruled by the Articles of Confederation.[186] These articles preserved the autonomy of the individual states and provided little power to the central government.[187] The proposed Constitution altered this balance in favor of the central government. The proposed change provoked substantial discourse.[188] In recent times, the Antifederalists have been called states’ rights proponents as a consequence of their position that the proposed Constitution provided too much power to the central government, with too few checks, at the expense of the states.[189]

This label–states’ rights proponents–is inaccurate and misleading. Federalists and Antifederalists feared governmental tyranny by all governments–state and federal. The framers of the Constitution, particularly the Antifederalists, were not attempting to preserve states’ rights. They were attempting to preserve the people’s rights by maintaining local autonomy in the form of the various state governments.

The Antifederalists relied extensively on the works of Baron de (p.1033)Montesquieu to support the proposition that the geographic size of an area strongly influenced its form of government.[190]Montesquieu had written democracy could survive only in a small-sized state, small enough to permit the actual participation of the people in government and small enough so that each citizen understands that promoting the public good directly promotes the individual.[191] A middle-sized territory, as Montesquieu terms it, would inevitably become a monarchy; to an extensive territory, a despotic form of government was best adapted. In large republics, the public good is sacrificed to a multiplicity of views and the citizens do not perceive the nexus between promoting the public good and their individual welfare.

According to Montesquieu, a middle-sized territory would tend to become a monarchy because ambitious persons who do not perceive the public good as beneficial to them seek grandeur by imposing their will on others. One person eventually prevails and assumes the role as prince. The monarchy then exists through a system of honor established by giving perks and titles. If the territory is too large, one person cannot command sufficient allegiance on honor of enough of the populace to control the territory. Ruling a large territory requires more than a system of titles and perks. Order can be maintained only by immediate, passive obedience to the rules; passive obedience can be achieved only by an instilling fear. The multiplicity of views, the dissents, are stifled by fear. According to Montesquieu, rule by fear, despotism, was a logical incident of the government of a large territory. Montesquieu’s theory continued that while a small republic could internally maintain its republican character, it would be destroyed by foreign forces.[192] The dilemma could be resolved only by a confederate republic, a form of government in which small states become individual members of an association which is able to provide security for the whole body.[193]

The Antifederalists used Montesquieu’s well-known works to argue for a less powerful central government and more autonomy for the individual states, a government which would more closely resemble the Articles of Confederation model and Montesquieu’s confederate republic rather than that proposed by the Constitution. Antifederalist publications confirm that preserving the autonomy of the states was a means to the end of protecting the people’s rights, not an end (p.1034)in itself. In arguing against the new Constitution, the Pennsylvania Minority framed the question–“Is it probable that the dissolution of the state governments, and the establishment of one consolidated empire would be eligible in its nature, and satisfactory to the people in its administration?”[194]

The answer– “I think not, as … so extensive a territory could not be governed, connected and preserved, but by the supremacy of despotic power.”[195]

 

 

Merry Christmas

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s