PostHeaderIcon Texit, Vexit, & Hexit

The upcoming “Brexit” referendum in the UK, is essentially an European secessionist movement. As is the fundamental right of a free people, the citizens of a disgruntled sovereign state, are deciding whether to throw off the yoke of a remote out-of-control central government. While there may very well have once been good reasons for joining the trade association known at the time as the Common Market, mission creep has since morphed it into the Leviathan now known as the EU, which has become more of an oppressive liability, than an asset to Great Britain.

Since the most common target of the secessionist musings in the US is the Republic of Texas, it would seem a natural to coin the portmanteau ‘Texit,’ yet a quick search of the term, yielded no such reference. Perhaps we should change that. 🙂

Meanwhile, I stumbled across an article the other day, with the implausible title, “How Bernie Sanders can still become president.” I only bothered to follow the link out of curiosity. It turned out to be an interesting and informative piece, well worth pondering:

Bernie Sanders will not become president of the United States. But he could still become president of Vermont if the Green Mountain State secedes.

It’s not such a far-fetched notion. Vermont was an independent republic from 1777 to 1791, and despite signing the Constitution, Vermont reserved its right to leave the union. New York, Rhode Island and Virginia explicitly did so.

Hmm… I had forgotten that talk of secession has been as common in New England, as it is in Texas in recent years. Let’s add ‘Vexit to a growing list of neologisms.

One nation, divisible

In researching “Free Dakota,” my novel about secession, I discovered that in the early 1800s, talk of secession was more common among the New England states than among the southern states. Few people questioned a state’s right to secede.

That detail was new and interesting to me.

It is the Pledge of Allegiance that claims the United States is an indivisible nation. And, of course, the Pledge of Allegiance is not a founding document. It was written in 1892 and popularized by the American Legion and other groups in the 20th century.

For its part, the Declaration of Independence clearly recognizes the right to form a new government when “it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another.”

All true. He follows with the Constitutional argument, where some find the 14th Amendment prevents secession; but to my mind the Declaration of Independence trumps any other government document, including the Constitution and its Amendments.

Two new nations

The emotional desire for stability in union is understandable, but it comes at a high price. What if there are irreconcilable differences? Everyone wants a marriage to last until “death do us part” but wedding vows are no longer sacred in that way. Why should things be different with states? As with amicable divorce, peaceful secession is possible and would not be unprecedented. In the Velvet Divorce of 1993, for example, Czechoslovakia peacefully divided into the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic.

If only there were empty land claimed by no nation. Who would object to a bunch of malcontents from Vermont moving there and starting their own republic? But the world is no longer such a place. There are no new lands to be discovered, no places to plant new flags and try new ideas. That is why Vermont should look to its neighbor, New Hampshire.

That is profound. Our ancestors were often political malcontents, who repeatedly fled oppression to new ungoverned frontiers, where a man could breathe free. How many of us would happily abandon the tyranny we suffer, rather than fight it; but we have run out of frontiers.

After discussing New Hampshire’s Free State Project, he mentions another organization I was unaware of:

Secession is exactly what an offshoot of the Free State Project, called the Foundation for New Hampshire Independence, has in mind. Perhaps because secession is a dirty word with ugly associations, the foundation prefers to speak in terms of independence. But make no mistake about it: they are planning for New Hampshire to leave the United States.

OK, let’s add ‘Hexit’ to the list, because it would be cumbersome trying to pronounce ‘Nhexit.’ In any case, the Foundation for New Hampshire Independence could certainly use a shorter handle that still isn’t ‘secession.” 🙂

A kinder alternative

Secession could be the answer for progressives too. Plenty of people are saying they will move to Canada if Trump is elected, but maybe they should just move to Vermont. As Thomas H. Naylor, the originator of the Second Vermont Republic, says, “Vermont provides a kinder, gentler, more communitarian alternative to a nation obsessed with money, power, size, speed, greed and fear of terrorism.”

At the high point of its polling, only 13 percent of residents supported the Second Vermont Republic’s aim of secession, but a strong majority support the democratic socialist ideals of the movement as embodied in Senator Sanders.

Wow, even 13% seems significant to me. I wonder what it is in Texas?

It is highly unlikely that Vermont or New Hampshire will secede any time soon. But if they did, we would have two new nations existing side by side in North America, one a democratic socialist republic and the other a libertarian republic. People would have a genuine choice. The only problem is Bernie Sanders may not live long enough to see it happen and become the first president of Vermont. And for that matter, Ron Paul may not live long enough to become president of New Hampshire.

LOL… Ron Paul would probably prefer to be the President of his home state of Texas. Personally, I would choose Texas too; but the idea of all three of them, and perhaps others, colluding to start breaking up our own out-of-control Leviathan, from different underlying ideological perspectives, is certainly intriguing. 😉 â—„Daveâ–º

25 Responses to “Texit, Vexit, & Hexit”

  • Nice title and good post.

    Lincoln is the one who broke These United States. Seven had already seceded when he took office. The Civil War wasn’t a police action to enforce slavery laws, it was an invasion of a foreign nation to bring it back into the power structure. I don’t believe Obama or the rest of the power structure would let anyone secede today either.

    When wondering what is going to happen in any given political situation that is supposedly decided by the people, I like to go down the list of most powerful entities and ask what they want. Top of the list is banks, which I figure have a vote about equivalent to 20% of the populace. I bet they hate this idea. Unless you see strong support for Brexit, I don’t think we even have to go down the list.\

    As for new frontiers, if I were Elon Musk, I’d be well on my way to hollowing out a large asteroid by now. We really need to get back to a system where borders are more fluid. Countries shouldn’t go bankrupt, they should be bought by those with a surplus of success. They shouldn’t collapse in civil war, they should side with a preferably neighboring nation more to their liking and see the border change. As much as there is a big fear of corporations out there, I’d still rather see them in power than nations with a monopoly on force and noncompete treaties.

    • Thanks, Steel. I am quite sure that the power structure would wish to fight secession again. I am not so sure, however, that they could get the increasingly disgruntled sheeple, to sign up for another bloody civil war over the question. As thin as the US military already is, it would probably require the return of the draft, to attempt to conquer and occupy a country the size of Texas. The smart play, would be for the newly independent republics not to even bother to coalesce into a new mutual defense confederation, or try to field a formal military. Answer any attempt by the US to subjugate and occupy them with a classic insurgency, as suggested in my Gun Collecting essay. If determined third world insurgents, in places like Vietnam, Afghanistan, and all over the Middle East can wear down US resolve until they wearily retreat and go home, so could we.

      The banks wouldn’t like it at all. The specter of gold-backed Texas pesos, and/or silver-backed Yankee dollars, eventually collapsing their worthless fiat Federal Reserve Notes, would give them nightmares. Still, how many divisions of mercenaries could the Fed or Goldman Sachs field, with worthless paychecks that couldn’t be spent in the local economy?

      Apparently the polls on Brexit have widened, to a 10 point lead in favor of the “Leave” position. Reading the internals in article, indicates that it at least will be very close. It is probably time to consider the impact on our own economy, which such a global financial earthquake would pose.

      Instead of realigning borders or corporate rulers, consider allowing failed states to collapse into simple laissez faire stateless societies. We don’t need rulers at all; why do we put up with them? 😉 â—„Daveâ–º

      • Funny how that works as long as you are in a state that has failed because it is a hell hole. If you live somewhere nice, that’s what’s known as a power vacuum. I agree that an enlightened people have no need of rules or rulers, but when your neighbors are warlords, hanging on to your autonomy becomes difficult. The same is true when you live in paradise and endless hordes of of the huddled masses come in and overburden the resources. Without the agreement of most of your surrounding people, attaining anarchy is hard, otherwise we’d have it now.

  • Hi Guys interesting article. Why well worth commenting on in depth seem to crop up when I have company clamoring for bacon and eggs … escapes me.

    So this will be short until they leave.

    Just my opinions:
    1. The no new frontier is the biggest problem I see. The world is over populated. I see no fix for that.

    2. The ethical/moral system is almost nonexistent. That CAN NOT be fixed over night. Honestly I do not see how splitting anything can work without that.

    How do these things get fixed first or do they need to be?

    Subject change but sort of in the mix:
    A number of years back someone on a forum asked my opinion on a paper/study done in the mid 60’s. I do not remember all of the details right now but since I never throw anything away I will have to search my vast library of data saved to disk.

    A group of noted scholars was brought together (maybe 10 to 12) can not remember. They were given a task on what would happen to society if there was no threat to peace. As I recall this research went on for several years (do not remember how many now). At the end of the study they determined without struggle and adversity society did not work well at all.

    So tossing a bit of adversity (or lot like brink of war) into the mix was necessary.

    They were sworn to keep this quiet but as time went on they broke ranks and the report was published. As one can imagine it hit the fan and they guy who published recanted that this was simply a simulation and nothing serious.

    I did quite a bit of research back then on this project.
    The outcome was apparently what they wanted to keep quiet.

    Just food for thought … I will look for this document/report which was rather long maybe 10 pages or so as I recall.

    I imagine this group would find it interesting because there appear to be NO SHALLOW THINKERS here 🙂

    • I think you are referring to “The Report from Iron Mountain,” CT. It was a brilliant satirical spoof of government sponsored Think-Tank studies, published as a quite believable literary hoax back in 1967. It has periodically spawned new spates of apoplexy among conspiracy theorists ever since. I fell for it myself during the NWO conspiracies, back around the time of Waco, before we had the internet to do proper research.

      The irony is that it doesn’t really matter whether the original premises were fact or fiction, they are eminently debatable. It almost reads like a plot for the trajectory of Western society, for the past 50 years, so it is understandable that it keeps reappearing. If you guys would like to kick it around, I’ll make a new post to set up the debate. 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º

      • That is the one Dave thank you for saving me some search time … lol

        I must read it again because for some reason it made sense to me. Even though I saw it was suppose to be a hoax.

        Perhaps if I read it again after these 8 years or so I will remember why … 🙂

        • Oh, do read it again, CT. I did so again last night, just for fun. It is extremely well done, with a lot of impenetrable jargon and incomprehensible academic word salad, just like reading a real government report. Here is an example from one of the references:

          Since they represent an examination of too small a percentage of the eventual options, in terms of “multiple mating,” the subsystem we developed for this application. But an example will indicate how one of the most frequently recurring correlation problems–chronological phasing–was brought to light in this way. One of the first combinations tested showed remarkably high coefficients of compatibility, on a post hoc static basis, but no variations of timing, using a thirty-year transition module, permitted even marginal synchronization. The combination was thus disqualified. This would not rule out the possible adequacy of combinations using modifications of the same factors, however, since minor variations in a proposed final condition may have disproportionate effects on phasing.

          Huh? If you can read that only once and actually comprehend it, you are a better reader than me. 😉

          When you read it this time, try to do so with a skeptical mindset. Then, instead of allowing yourself to become utterly dismayed at the state’s plans for enslaving we the sheeple, you might find yourself appreciative of the skill of the satirists that composed it. 😀

          After you have reread it, I’ll provide the link to the 20-year-old article by one of its creators, which eventually convinced me that it was indeed a hoax. 😉 â—„Daveâ–º

        • Huh? If you can read that only once and actually comprehend it, you are a better reader than me.

          I am still at HUH? after the 2nd reading of that paragraph Dave.

          Gee whiz I must be loosing it in my advanced years I do not remember the first time around being that confusing … though I did go through it a couple of times.

          I spend a good part of yesterday searching for that file. I thought for sure it would be on my big desktop that has 5 large hard drives. NOPE not there either.

          So much for backing up your back up system. I must have moved that data off onto a portable drive when I built that last machine. Oh my gosh I will never find it. Nothing on that desktop dated before 2010.

          Back to the report.
          I do not recall the name Leonard C. Lewin, anything about Does or a Library of Congress file number.

          What I read as I recall was a booklet of a report that appeared to be first person not an interview. But since I have yet to find my copy I can not even be sure of that.

          I do remember there was not much written about the report other than perhaps a page or 2 about it being a spoof on the net. That material did not appear to be very convincing. I do remember part of that was suppose to be from the writer of the original report saying it was a hoax.

          Since it was written in the midst of the LBJ era no doubt I chocked it off as part of his clandestine (cover up) regime. Someone being forced to keep quiet or else.

          I still can not shake off my immediate feeling that he (Johnson) was involved in the Kennedy assassination. It does not seem to matter how much after the fact research and reporting has been done … I am stuck on my own scenario of this makes no sense at all.

          Daddy always said I was a hard head.
          Clearly he was right 😉

          • I am still at HUH? after the 2nd reading of that paragraph

            I expected as much. A well-tossed word salad! 😀

            I do not remember the first time around being that confusing …

            Conformation bias. The first time you read it, you believed it was a real study, expected to find such obscure jargon in it, and had no real interest in deciphering arcane processes described in footnotes.

            I do not recall the name Leonard C. Lewin, anything about Does or a Library of Congress file number.

            I believe the link I provided to be an OCR scanned copy of the original 1967 published book. The supposed interview, in the “Background information,” was to set up the premise that this was a real, somewhat clandestine, government study, which would help sell books. The Wikipedia article gives a good synopsis of some of the subsequent incarnations, one of which you probably encountered.

            I do remember there was not much written about the report other than perhaps a page or 2 about it being a spoof on the net.

            Try a new search… discussion of it has increased exponentially since then. 😀

            I still can not shake off my immediate feeling that he (Johnson) was involved in the Kennedy assassination.

            LOL… That was also my conclusion at the time, and I have never even bothered to try to convince myself otherwise. Our simpatico minds continue to reveal themselves, CT, even when contained in hard heads. 😉 â—„Daveâ–º

        • Oh by the way … yes I would like to see if the 20 year old copy was what I viewed Dave.

          Thanks 🙂

        • Try a new search… discussion of it has increased exponentially since then.

          Yes I did run a search and saw many articles but none of them appeared to be what I first saw.

          It has been my experience the more time that passes the more convoluted and less reliable information becomes. Unfortunately it appears one person will post something and 50 others simply copy and paste it elsewhere.

          My gripe is the waste of time reading the same thing over and over.
          I ran into that situation on the search this time for the Iron Mountain data. I finally narrowed my search to only 2009 and before because as I recall someone pointed me to that info on a forum right after Obama was elected the first time around.

          I can not tell you how annoying I find knowing I have something and don’t know where it is today. What can one expect of a data hoarder I suppose?

          Next I will look at the last link you provided but I have to tell you now I am like a person who heard a tune and is now looping it in my brain. Where is my copy I need to find it … lol 🙂

          • Have you thought about optical disks? That long ago, you might have archived it on a data CD or DVD. I even still have a box of a couple dozen 100mb Iomega Zip disks, and a portable Zip drive for them, which contain archives I will unlikely ever review again. Remember those? 😀 â—„Daveâ–º

        • I read the material on the last link you provided Dave.
          No longer necessary to find that useless file.
          It was made crystal clear it was made as a satire. 😉
          End of loopy loop … LOL

          • There you go again, CT. You get another A+. This time for demonstrating that you have an open mind, which can be readily changed, when new data suggests it prudent to do so. 😀

            Say, have you ever taken a Meyers-Briggs temperament sorter type personality test? In dating/mating games, some search for a soul mate. Others, prefer a playmate. Still others, want a help mate. As an INTP, I was always seeking a simpatico mind mate. I sure hope whoever claims your heart, won’t mind too much, if I covet your gorgeous mind. 😉 â—„Daveâ–º

        • I even still have a box of a couple dozen 100mb Iomega Zip disks, and a portable Zip drive for them, which contain archives I will unlikely ever review again. Remember those?

          Yes indeed I do remember all of that.
          Actually I was fairly good at moving data from everything onto hard drives. Then I moved most of the stuff I had on those hard drives onto portable drives when they got up to about 500 MB each. The latest computer I put together has 4 – 1 TB and 1 – 2 TB drives. My objective was to put all of my data on that computer. I got bored with that process and the rest is sitting in a box of about 4 externals. I have that system hooked up to an apple 23″ and a Sony 23″ (monitors) in my office. Was thinking of rebuilding and adding another monitor (I was heavy into photoshop at one time) when I decided to hook one of my laptops to my 46″ HD TV. Now I can click back and forth from the computer to the TV whenever I get bored with one or the other.

          So my computer and TV are on pretty much all day long. Even though I am not using either one of them as I do what must be done around the house and in the garden.

          Just saw yesterday a new unopened stack of DVD now useless even though my desktop has a dual drive for CD/DVD and even a floppy. LOL gotta have all avenues available right?

          The nice thing about having the ability to build your own system. I guess my mother would have classified me as a hardware nut. She was the programmer which was Greek to me even though I went through and passed one of the beginning classes she taught in Denver. I was not a fan of Cobol.

          When HTML came along that was easy for me and since I needed it to do websites I learned it and then CSS. For a long time I did not use a software program for design because they were just not that good. Then along came Coffeecup then Artisteer. My go to now is Artisteer which is drag and drop and kicks out fairly clean code. I only know that because I had to learn to code myself … lol … so needless to say when there is a problem I know how to fix it.

          The artist part of me made the internet a fun playground and the vast fast data available is intriguing. With Youtube and the talent available there one can learn almost everything from other creative individuals.

          What a fun time to live for an inquiring mind 😉

        • Say, have you ever taken a Meyers-Briggs temperament sorter type personality test?

          No I have not ever heard of that test until now. I did look it up as well as the term INTP.

          Interesting … it did make clear how and why we think alike on many things. The gorgeous mind part? … I always considered my mind a lot out of sync with the norm. Which was always fine with me because who wants to be “the norm” anyway?

          So thank you for the wonderful compliment 🙂

          • You are quite welcome and deserving, CT. 😉

            I am positive that you would enjoy, “Different Drummers.” You might also appreciate my 3-year-old post and its comments here, “Please Understand Me.” Then, take Keirsey’s quick online test, and please let me know the results.

            If the subject interests you, his updated book, “Please Understand Me II” is well worth the read. At least download the free sample, which contains the first two chapters. They are a great primer about the history and basics of Jungian personality typing, before getting into the deeper analysis of the 16 types.

            When I had my electronics business in Hawaii, I required all 16 of my employees to read the original version of that book, take the included test, and share the results with the rest of us, so we could better understand how our minds tended to function. Then, instead of being frustrated by our personality differences, we learned to laugh at our unavoidable, sometimes disagreeable, proclivities, and act as a cohesive team. Good stuff… 😀 â—„Daveâ–º

        • Dave I will certainly take a look at these when I can. I just got news of another unexpected family member death. Three is suppose to be the end of a cycle (hopefully that is true).

          My brother and I were saying if this goes on much longer there will be none of us (who are the glue) will be here to hold things together for our family group.

          I do appreciate the little tips you have sent my way … just my opinion but knowledge is the only thing I believe we take with us. 😉

      • Hey Dave,

        I finally got around to the test I am a (ISTJ)

        I scanned it quickly (time constraints still) and it is fairly accurate. However over the years I have learned that because I am well equipped to get things done fast … others tend to expect me to take up the slack. I have put a stop to that. Since my common sense logic in solving problems is fairly quick I have also left personal solutions for others up to them. Others do not learn if they do not ferret out the path for themselves.

        It hit the nail squarely on the head when it said to get on my bad side lie to me. Giving me a lame excuse for bad behavior is a killer for my friendship. People who know me “know better” if they value the relationship.

        It is simple and I am left with few but great friends who all get along and each can be whatever they choose as long as no one treads on anyone elses toes.

        I call it as near “FRIENDSHIP UTOPIA

  • “Scholars” to me, are people who have proven to a greater extent than their peers that they can exist perfectly within the current system, coddled by it and training another generation to regurgitate what they’ve been indoctrinated with. They aren’t who I would turn to to invent, or even postulate on a different system.

    I would turn to video game designers to simulate different societies. Without a populace bent on gaming the system, you don’t have realistic problems to solve.

    My guess is that with current humanity and limited space, a world without adversity is a laughable concept. I can’t even stop arguing with myself much less anyone else.

  • Well, I’ll be damned… It looks like Lord Monckton beat me to it by a few days! â—„Daveâ–º

Leave a Reply

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Internal Links