Messengers Bearing `Gifts`

Back in the early 1970’s, we were very proud of our conservationist governor, Tom McCall, who was known for officially encouraging people to “visit Oregon again and again”, but „for heaven's sake, don't come here to live!“ We also loved the Oregon greeting cards that praised the natural beauties of our state, with its affordable housing, clean rivers, and lush green forests, but pointed out, at the same time, that all the greenery was a result of the constant rain.  “Oregonians don’t tan in the summertime, they rust!” was a catch greeting card phrase we all knew, and repeated often, to the sun-addicted Californians considering moving north.   It rains 267 days of the year! we’d warn them.  “You can't lie in the sun!  You can’t wear sandals!  You’ll have to buy an umbrella, but if you use it, Oregonians will make fun of you for being a wimp!”  The arguments worked for awhile, but the economic crisis forced many Californians to eventually move north, where the houses were cheaper and the jobs more plentiful.  As time went on, the housing prices increased, more than most Oregonians could afford, and the unemployment rate along with them.   And then, some Oregonians began exploring the possibilities for secession.  Wasn’t there a way to preserve the Oregon way of life, reverse the negative trends, protect the natural resources and the environment? After all, the reigning legal document, the Constitution of Oregon, says nothing that would forbid secession from the United States.  Will there soon be a Nation of Oregon, or an Independent Republic of Oregon?  Some are betting on it. 

The Texans are on the bandwagon as well.    One of the websites dedicated to its secession (www.texassecede.org) argues that Texas also has this right, based on the Texas Constitution (1876):  "When a government has ceased to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people, from whom its legitimate powers are derived...[it is] the inherent and inalienable right of the people to...abolish such government, and create another in its stead..."   It appears that Texans have, according to this document, a legal right to secede and form their own state, and, in a recent poll, 40% of the population actually supported succession. 
 
But what would the U.S. Federal Government do in such a case?  It has often intervened in state issues, most recently new immigration laws in Arizona, deemed “unconstitutional” by the Obama administration.  Would it support secession of an American state if the majority voted in favor, or would it fight to preserve the unity and indissolubility of the United States of America?  Who decides if the government has “ceased to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people? The states, the government, or, perhaps, the international community? What would be the reaction from the U.S. if Russia, say, were to support Texas secession on the grounds that Texan rights were being violated on a large scale basis, and sent in Russian troops to impose the act of secession, lobbied (successfully) in the United Nations for official recognition of the new “country”, and provided and paid for legal experts in international courts of law to argue that the secession was legal? 
 
Critics of the ICJ’s recent decision, symbolic but legally non binding, that Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence was legal, argue that this is exactly what happened here, except that the sponsor was the United States, not Russia, and the state was Kosovo, not Texas or Oregon.  So can we now expect a spate of unilateral declarations throughout the world, some supported by Russia, and others by the United States, both of whom have the clout to impose their geopolitical agenda on others?  Or China, perhaps, the Asian economic giant.  It might wish in the future to support secession demands of Mandarin minorities in Japan.  In Europe alone there are scores of unresolved independence claims, from the Basques to the Catalonians, the Welsh, the Irish, Cyprus, and so forth.  And even though the European Union is not a “nation” yet, and never will be if history is a judge, it already has its “secessionists”, many of them in Britain alone.  The UK Independence Party seeks Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union, and the Democracy Movement favors maintaining the British pound and stopping the “European Superstate”.  The Free Britain Site, also warns of the dangers to Britain from the EU and opposes strongly the abolishment of the pound, while The Magna Carta Society promotes the rights and freedoms of British subjects, assured for all time by the Magna Carta, and argues that all EU Law is illegal in Britain.
 
The arguments of all the secessionist groups are sound, in their way.  And if one oppressed group (but by whose definition?) deserves the right to secede, to go its own way, why should the identical desires of another be thwarted?  Where to draw the line?  And who draws it?  We all know by now that these are not acts of principle, or justice, or equity, or humanity, by the “great powers” (who alone have the force to implement them) in order to “promote democracy” or “respect for human and individual rights”, but that they are undertaken in support of the financial and political interests of these same powers.  All arguments to the contrary are utter nonsense, and we should not be taken in by them.  What is important to keep in mind is the final result of mass atomization and whose purposes it serves.  Does independence strengthen a distinct ethnic group’s traditions, culture, interests, linguistic identity, sense of unity, historical continuity?   If the answer is yes, then secession or independence is probably a good thing.  If it weakens such identity, then it probably is not, because a nation that is atomized and has lost its pride, its sense of purpose, and its common goals and identity, is more susceptible to outside interference and exploitation by the globalist forces and their omnipresent “fifth columnists”.  So when the powerholders offer a “gift” of independence, it is always a good idea to examine the fancy wrapping before opening it.