Sunday, September 30, 2012

Restoring an Agrarian Society in the South

Restoring an Agrarian Society in the South
Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: Footnotes in the original are omitted.]

    “Agrarianism” is defined in I'll Take My Stand as follows:

    Opposed to the industrial society is the agrarian, which does not stand in particular need of definition. An agrarian society is hardly one that has no use at all for industries, professional vocations, for scholars and artists and for the life of the cities. Technically, perhaps, an agrarian society is one in which agriculture is the leading vocation, whether for wealth, for pleasure, or prestige — a form of labor that is pursued with intelligence and leisure, and that becomes the model to which the other forms approach as well as they may.
     In “The Pillars of Agrarianism” Frank Owsley complements this definition by writing, “. . . agriculture was the leading vocation . . . the agrarian population and the people of the agricultural market towns must dominate the social, cultural, economy, and political life of the state and give tone to it.” He adds that “subsistence farming must be the first objective of every man who controls a farm or plantation. The land must first support the people who till it; then it must support their stock.”

    In “Happy Farmers” John Ransom defines agrarianism as “. . . old-fashioned farming; or the combination of subsistence farming of the first place with a money farming of the second place. . . . Agrarianism is a kind of amphibianism: the farmer, wonderful creature, is capable of sustaining his life in either or both of two different economic elements. It should be both, but in a certain order; his private or subsistence economy first, and his social or money economy second. . . . The technique of subsistence on good land, with inexpensive tools [means] . . . to raise the great bulk of the foods for the family . . . to do plain carpentering to the extent at least of repairs, to paint and whitewash, . . . to feed all the animals, as well as persons, from the land, to fertilize the land by the periodic use of grass crops.”

    Owsley identifies the principal enemy of agrarianism as “. . . a system which allows a relatively few men to control most of the nation’s wealth and to regiment virtually the whole population under their anonymous holding companies and corporations. . . .” He states a major objective as the restoration of property and the abolishment of the proletariat. “The more widespread is the ownership of property, the more happily and secure will be the people and the nation.”

    Both Owsley and Ransom advocate a free market, free trade economy, which would place agriculture on par with industry. (In this essay industry or industrialism includes manufacturing, commerce, and finance.) They identify the economic problems of America during the Great Depression (when they wrote) as caused in large part by trade restrictions, such as protective tariffs and import quotas. The trade restrictions gave the industrialist a protected market in which to sell his products at a higher price than he could in a free market. Trade restrictions reduced the price of agricultural products because the agriculturist could not trade his products for foreign manufactured goods. They identified part of the problem as the concentration of economic power into the hands of a few. Thus, they advocated the widespread ownership of property. Agricultural goods should have priority over manufactured goods. The tax system needed revising — especially property and land taxes. Although both saw a need for government intervention, they sought to keep it minimal, mostly at providing assistance to people to resettle on the land. Otherwise, farmers would become welfare wards. (Unfortunately turning farmers into welfare wards has come to past in the United States. Just suggesting a reduction in farm subsidies, raises a protest across the country in opposition just as suggesting a reduction in social security or any other welfare program.) Neither believed in nor advocated egalitarianism. Each person was to stand or fall on his own merit, abilities, and resources. Both outlined a program, which differed in some details, to bring about a revival of an agrarian economy in the South. Parts of their programs are still of value. Parts are dated and would be counter productive if implemented today.

    Much has changed in the South since the agrarians wrote their essays in the early 1930s. The most obvious change has been the industrialization of the South. Many details offered by the agrarians 60 years ago to bring about an agrarian society and concomitant agrarian economic system are now out of date and would be difficult, even impossible, to implement without resorting to authoritarian government. However, the underlying principles are still valid. The essence of agrarianism can still be achieved in the twenty-first century South.

    The essences of agrarianism are individualism, self-reliance, and self-sufficiency. Agrarianism stresses the importance of the family, the community, and social activity, especially religion. It requires decentralized ownership of property, both land and industry, and a decentralized political economy. Its economy is a free market, free trade economy with widespread ownership of property. Its political system is decentralized republicanism of concurrent majorities as opposed to a democratic, oligarchic, or autocratic political system. It social system is one of free association with respect for the various races of mankind and a desire to preserve them. Economic, political, and social egalitarianism is an abhorrence because it is unnatural. Hierarchies and authority are recognized and respected. However, they are not touted or protected by law. They are tempered because of the independents of subordinates. Agrarianism brings about leisure time to reflect and invest in the “finer things of life,” such as religion, the arts, philosophy, and craftsmanship. It creates time for community services both secular and religious and both social and political. (Politics becomes an avocation or social duty rather than a profession.) Sports, recreation, and vacationing, though important, are not the objects of leisure under agrarianism. Agrarianism stresses the high culture of the classics and folk culture of the people while it shuns the mass culture of democratizing television. It preserves traditions and heritage. It provides a feeling of belonging and a place, people, and past. Agrarianism stresses the spiritual over the material while recognizing the necessity and importance of the material.

    To bring about an agrarian economy, which is an economy based on the essential principles of agrarianism, a three-part program is needed. The first part addresses the ownership of land, agriculture, and a program of returning people to the land. The second part addresses industrialism and the ownership of industry. The third part addresses the bureaucratic regulatory state. These programs should be implemented simultaneously along with programs to rectify the political and social systems to achieve an agrarian society.

    A program is needed to address land ownership, agriculture, and returning people to the land.

    Land in the South should be owned by the inhabitants of the South and preferably by inhabitants of the State in which the land is located. Land ownership by corporations and other associations, except churches, should be restricted to those organized in a Southern State and preferably to those organized within that State. Land owned by corporations and other associations should be limited to the minimal amount of land needed for factory and office buildings and concomitant parking, settling ponds, and buffer zone, but not to exceed some specified maximum amount, say 100 acres. Land ownership by persons residing outside the South who are not citizens of a Southern State should be prohibited. Likewise with associations, those organized outside the South should be prohibited from owning land in the South.

    Ownership of land by government is in desperate need of restriction. The federal government should own no land. Whatever land it may need it should obtain by short to medium term leases, leases of no more than about seven years. State and local government should be restricted to owning no more than about 5 percent, which should include easements, of the land within their jurisdiction. They should own no land outside their jurisdiction.

    Land that is not owned by a citizen and that has not been used for a number of years should be required to be auctioned to citizens who do not own land. Land that escheats to the State should be auctioned to citizens who do not own land.

    The right of the heir apparent should be protected to assure that the land remains in the family. (The heir apparent is the person who would naturally and legally inherit the property where there is no will, e.g., the eldest son.) A modified system of primogeniture is suggested. The heir apparent is defined by law and cannot be deprived of his inheritance in the land, especially the homestead, without his consent. Furthermore, the land should not be sold or title otherwise transferred without the consent of the heir apparent. Such laws would tend to protect and preserve the land and homestead within the family from generation to generation.

    To protect the land and homestead further, it should be made somewhat inalienable. Any land owned by a citizen could not be taken to satisfy a debt, civil suit, or tax lien. (The only time a court could alienate the land of a citizen would be when the citizen has been convicted of a felony, mala in se but not mala prohibita, and the land or money obtained from selling it is needed to pay restitution to the victim of the crime.) To prevent banks and other loan companies from refusing to lend to homesteaders, discrimination based on the ownership of the land should be prohibited. Such acts would achieve the agrarian goal of making land unmortgageable.

    Besides these land reform programs, a program is needed to assist and encourage people to return to the land to become homesteaders. (A homesteader may take several forms. He may be a classic farmer described by the agrarians who is first a subsistence farmer and second a commercial farmer. He may be the type often found in the South today who owns a few acres up to occasionally several hundred acres and who raises much of his food on his land but who earns his money primarily with an off-farm job. Two subcategories of this type of farmer are the farmers who supplement their farm income with an off-farm job and the farmers who supplement their off-farm income by farming. Such a program would assist persons, primarily family units, in acquiring land and settling it. The principal form of aid would be in loans for the land (say up to 90 percent), dwelling (say up to no more than 50 percent of median price of a house in that area to encourage the homesteader to do as much work in building his own house as he is capable), and a small amount for initial living expenses, equipment, and supplies. Such a loan would be repayable within say 20 years. Rather than paying a compound interest rate as common on most loans, the borrower would pay say 10 percent more than the amount of the loan and some uniform minimal amount no matter the size of the loan. These fees rather than tax moneys would pay for all the salaries, overhead, administrative and other costs connected with these loans. No person should be eligible for more than one loan during his lifetime. Only citizens of the State where the loan is granted should be eligible for the loan. To ensure that the loan is used for homesteading purposes, the borrower should be required to raise a minimal amount of his food, say two-thirds or three-fourths, to provide his own water and sewage systems rather than connecting into community or public systems, and perhaps meet other requirements. Failure to meet these requirements could result in eviction. Title of the land would not pass to the borrower until the loan is repaid in full along with the accompanying fees. If the borrower died before he repaid the loan, the loan and land would pass to his heirs. If the borrower were evicted before he completely repaid the loan, he should continue to be obliged to finish paying the loan. Funding for this program would come from a very small land and property tax. After some years a trust fund should be built up, and this tax could be ended. Members of the board overseeing this program should guarantee any loans that are irredeemably uncollectible by paying off the loans with their own money. Such a program should greatly aid people who want to become homesteaders but who lack the necessary means.

    The agricultural policies of the States (the federal government should not really have any except a foreign trade policy directed toward removing trade barriers) should be revised. They should emphasize homesteading and subsistence farming over commercial farming — the complete opposite of today’s policies.

    A parallel program to the program of returning people to the land is a program to expand the ownership of industrial capital. This program would be another loan program. Loans would be made available to citizens of that State to buy shares of corporations organized in that State when they meet certain conditions. Examples of these conditions are (1) when the citizen registers his first marriage, (2) when the birth of a child is recorded (Both the parents and the child would receive loans.), (3) When a mother remains home with her minor children for the first five years of their lives, (4) when a citizen reaches certain ages, e.g., 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100, (5) when a citizen owns a homestead for a minimal amount of time, and (6) as a reward when a citizen performs certain outstanding services. The loans would be repaid from the stock dividends. Most dividends would be used to repay the loan while a small part would go to the shareholder. The shareholder could not sell his shares until the loan has been repaid although he could trade them for shares in other companies. The shareholder’s blood kin would inherit these shares as he may choose. The funds for lending would come primarily from a small corporation tax. After a significant trust fund has been built, this tax could be ended. This program would go along way toward spreading the ownership of industrial capital without resorting to some socialistic scheme.

    The corporate structure itself should also be revised. Corporations should be organized so that both immediate and ultimate control rests with the owners and not with those who are merely managers. The stockholders, not the board of directors, should nominate and elect the board of directors and principal executive officers. The entire net income of a mature corporation (a corporation that has effective access to market sources of capital funds for new capital formation) during or immediately after the close of each financial period should be paid out in dividends to its shareholders (except perhaps a small percentage retained as working capital and contingent reserves) unless the shareholders vote in each financial period that part should be retained for expansion or debt retirement.

    Cooperatives and mutualities (companies owned, managed, and operated by the workers) should be encouraged and developed. Perhaps a program modeled after that for assisting people to form homesteads could be developed to assist people to form mutualities.

    The third and most difficult program needed to bring about an agrarian economy and an agrarian society is a complete overhaul of the bureaucratic state. What is needed is the complete elimination of many, probably most, governmental programs and a drastic reduction in others. Very few new programs would be needed. (Only a few areas of reform are discussed here and then only in general terms. To discuss all of the reforms needed, even in general terms, would require several books.)

    Perhaps the most important reform needed is true tax reform — meaning tax reduction instead of the Washington definition of disguised tax increases. The federal and State constitutions should strictly limit taxes as to type, amount, and use.

    The federal government should levy only two types of taxes. The first would be a tax levied by the federal government on the States in proportion to their population and the value of all real property therein. The other tax would be an export and import tariff. Such a tariff should be uniform, that is, the same rate is paid on every type of good imported regardless of origin without exception. Import tariffs should be limited to 5 percent. Export tariffs should be limited to 2 percent on manufactured goods and to 5 percent on raw goods except agricultural products, which should not be taxed.

    State and local taxes are also in dire need of reform and reduction. The income tax should be eliminated. The sales tax should be eliminated or at least reduced to less than 1 percent.

    From a strictly agrarian point of view, the tax in most need of reform is the property and land tax. The property tax should only be used to pay for those governmental services that are directly related to protecting property, e.g., for fire protection and for part of the police and defense. The property tax should not be used for those governmental activities that do not relate to the protection of property, e.g., parks and recreation (user fees should be used), sewage and water (again user fees should be used), welfare programs (they should be eliminated, but if they are not, participation in such programs should be voluntary and only the participants in such programs should pay for it), and public schools (they should be abandon, but if not, then they should be supported solely by voluntary gifts and a poll tax levied on the students actually attending public schools). Government should pay taxes on the land that it owns. Any government or company that has an easement across another’s land should pay the taxes on the part on which it has the easement. For tax purposes land should be appraised based on how it is being used rather than based on its best use. (An exception would be vacant land in, not adjacent to, built up commercial or industrial areas of towns and cities. Such land probably should be appraised as commercial or industrial land.) Such reform is necessary to make the land and property tax compatible with an agrarian society.

    Inheritance and estate taxes should be abolished so that the homestead, family owned farms and businesses, and the family capital can be passed on to the next generation.

    Rather than supporting government by general taxes that have no relation with the services received, taxes that have some relation with the services received should be the primary source of governmental revenue. Thus, a poll tax would become a major source of revenue. It should be used to pay for a good part of the police, defense, and general operation of government. (Another important aspect of the poll tax is that in a republic every citizen benefits, at least in theory, the same and equally from governmental activity; therefore, every citizen ought to contribute the same and equally to support the government. Also, if the poll tax is a principal source of governmental revenue, it will serve to keep government small, and by that, liberty great, because it is a direct, obvious tax that affects everyone the same. To believe that the populous would tolerate paying a high rate of such an obvious tax where everyone pays the same is absurd.) User fees (fees paid by the user of a service where the user has the option of using or not using the service without any penalty beyond not receiving the service, such as using a park) and service fees (fees paid by the user of a service where the user does not have the option of not using the service without a penalty beyond forgoing the service, such as registering a deed or transferring a deed) should be used to pay for most governmental services — especially the user fee. Such tax reform would go along way to facilitating agrarianism.

    Government should be denied the power of eminent domain. Denying government this power should protect the homesteader from bureaucratic agencies that want to take his land without paying a fair market price for it. (A fair market price is the price at which an exchange takes place. That a homesteader refuses to sell at the price offered is proof in itself that a fair market price has not been reached. The buyer must also pay for intangibles.)

    Licensing and permitting requirements should be abolished. Building codes, if retained, should be modified to encourage innovation and to facilitate rather than discourage the homesteader building his own dwelling and buildings.

    Zoning and land use restrictions should be abolished. If they are retained, they should allow farming and livestock rearing in every district. They should allow multiple uses of property and more than one principal building, i.e., several homes and businesses and homes on the same lot or plat.

    Environmental laws should not be used, as they are often used, to war against the landowner, farmer, and homesteader. Environmental laws are important and necessary, but those currently on the books go way beyond what is needed and desirable. They should be completely rewritten. They should be written from the point of view of protecting life and property from trespass, vandalism, battery, and, in severe cases, manslaughter. They should be modeled after these laws. They should not be used as they now are to take land without buying it or to control land use and development.

    The current monetary and banking system should be dramatically changed. A decentralized free banking system should replace the current centralized banking system and its legal tender notes. The governmentally prescribed legal tender monetary system should be replaced by a free market monetary system where the market instead of politics determines what will be used as money — be it gold, tobacco, debt (which is what is currently used for money), or bank notes. Then inflation and economic contractions (panics, depressions, and recessions) would be mild and shot-lived and generally localized.

    To facilitate the creation and maintenance of an agrarian economy and society, changes are needed in the political system and social system. Although a detail discussion of these changes is beyond the scope of this essay, they can be generally outlined. The present egalitarian democratic political system with its concentration of power in the central government needs to be abandoned and replaced by republicanism of concurrent majority where church and family are the state’s coequals. Each State acting in its own independent capacity as a state (body politic) should be the final judge of the acts of the federal and local governments as it has created both as its agents and should be able to veto any act of either that it judges to be contrary to law. (Each local government probably should be given enough home rule by its State’s constitution to veto acts of the States that it judges to usurp its proper authority.) Likewise the church and family, being the state’s coequals, could veto acts of the State or its agents when in their independent opinion the State or its agents usurp that which belongs to the church or family. Another needed political reform is to weight voting and representation in favor of homesteaders, agriculturists, property owners, and taxpayers.

    In the realm of social reform, the current egalitarian social system of integrational genocide should be abandon. A system that respects and protects the various races of mankind should replace it. Adopting a system of separation as advocated by Lincoln and Jefferson can only obtain such preservation and protection.

    Family and church should become the focal point of the social system. These political and social reforms are essential to achieving and maintaining an agrarian society.

    The Southern States have no hope of becoming an agrarian society if they remain colonies of the United States. For more than a century, the doctrine of industrialism has guided the controlling regime of the United States. Mercantilism and commercialism with emphasis on finance now guide the regime. Industrialism seeks egalitarianism through a proletariat democracy with its deadening dehumanizing mass culture. It seeks to destroy all true individuality by amalgamating all into the oneness of an egalitarian integrated society stripped of all morality. It seeks a political economy of democratic fascism where a democratic government controls all and a democratic state is all and minorities (dissenters from the democratic order) are prosecuted (usually covertly rather than overtly — it is less messy and noticeable that way). Under this regime agrarians will continue to be hunted down and destroyed, for agrarianism is the antithesis of industrialism and of all that this regime represents.

    Mercantilism and commercialism differ little from industrialism with respect to agrarianism. The major difference is that mercantilism and commercialism seek a plutocratic controlled democracy instead of a proletariat controlled democracy. Both want an amalgamated egalitarian society except the plutocrats do not amalgamate with the mass whom they intend to rule. Other than that they differ little from each other. Both are the eternal enemy of agrarianism.

    The only hope that the South has of once again becoming an agrarian society lies in becoming a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States. Such Southern independence would not only bring hope to Southern agrarians, but it would bring hope to agrarians throughout the world.

Copyright © 1991, 2010 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on the South. 

Thursday, September 20, 2012

A Call to Action: Recapturing the South

A Call to Action: Recapturing the South
Thomas Allen

    The war that Southern nationalist wage against Yankeedom and its New South sycophants is ethical first and foremost. It is a war between good and evil, between God and Satan. It must be fought principally on ethical grounds.

    The enemies of the South have no guiding principles except pragmatic relativism. They lust for wealth and power. They seek self aggrandizement. Satan is their father. They are morally bankrupt.

    The doctrines of the enemies of the South are false. Its enemies look to man to perfect man. The state is seen as the savior of man, and man is saved through education (indoctrination). Individuals are not responsible for their acts. The state is to replace the family. Its enemies lead by envy. They advocate a one-world government in the name of peace, prosperity, freedom, equality, or democracy. They are the thought police of political correctness. Above all they seek to concentrate and consolidate all power into their hands. One is hard pressed to find any of their doctrines that is not contrary to the Bible.

    Any program to rescue the South from the death grip of Yankeedom must be built upon a Scriptural foundation. Southern nationalists need scripturally sound ethical, social, economic, and political programs. They cannot merely oppose the destructive programs of Yankeedom. Southern nationalists must offer replacements for the programs of the enemies of the South. (This does not mean that they must propose replacing one governmental program with another. Most of the time it means replacing a governmental program with the church, family, or voluntary private organizations.)

    Southern nationalists need to recognize that they are engaged in a war that far transcends liberating the Southern States from the oppression of Yankeedom. They are engaged in a war between Christ and Satan. If they be of Christ, they have already won. If not, they have already lost.

    Southern nationalists need to acquire knowledge about the enemies of the South. They need to acquire knowledge about history, free market economics, federalism, republicanism, free society, the Holy Scriptures, and other subjects that are necessary to develop a free society in a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States. However, the acquisition of knowledge cannot be the end. If one stops with the acquisition of knowledge, he has accomplished nothing — except perhaps depressing himself with hopelessness. Southern nationalists need to transmit their information to others. They need to act upon their knowledge and also persuade others to act accordingly. Knowledge in and of itself liberates no one. It relieves no one of responsibility. In fact the opposite is true. It makes one more responsible.

    Southern nationalists need to understand that their enemies worship power. Their enemies are experts at capturing, retaining, and using power. Such is their way of life.

    Southern nationalists need to realize that the enemies of the South are not omnipotent. They are not all that smart. One need only witness the caliber of men serving as presidents, governors, Congressmen, and state legislators. One need only observe the financial problems of the multinational banks and many multinational corporations. Academicians and liberal theologians are not that “swift” either. Nearly all are ethically bankrupt and morally corrupt.

    Southern nationalists need to concentrate their efforts on removing people’s confidence in the false ideas of their Yankee sanctioned scalawag and carpetbag rulers before they attempt to replace them. Otherwise, all they will achieve is replacing one set of evil rulers with an even more vile set (replacing Establishment President Bush with an Establishment President Clinton or Establishment President Bush with an Establishment President Obama).

    Southern nationalists need to work to throw the rascals out once a sufficient number of people lose confidence in them. Removing the enemies of the South from positions of influence and power (both in and out of government) is paramount. It is more important than informing people of the ineptness, immorality, corruptness, and vileness of the enemy. In fact only enough knowledge has to be transmitted to move a sufficient number of people to act to remove the oppressors.

    Southern nationalists should not place their hopes on replacing the enemies of the South in one or two general elections. They need a grass-root movement. They need a bottom-up rather than a top-down movement. They need to capture local governments and then State governments. They need to work continuously and steadily to replace the enemy. Not only must Southern nationalists work to replace the enemies of the South who are in government, they must work to replace them in all other aspects of society — business, religion, academia, media, etc.

    Southern nationalists need to initially concentrate their efforts on capturing county and city governments. These governments can be captured easier and cheaper than others. They can use these positions to gain experience in governing and to say “no” to the numerous programs in which government is involved that are not the proper functions of government.

    Southern nationalists can next work to capture their State governments. They should not waste any resources in trying to capture any positions in the federal government, for this is the government of the empire from which they seek to secede. (This does not mean that they should ignore the federal government. To the contrary, they need vigilantly to watch the federal government and to oppose and resist its despotism.)

    Southern nationalists need to build up their organizations. They do so by praying, studying, recruiting, confronting, collecting intelligence, monitoring government and schools, building mailing lists, building local support, and cooperating. They should pray, for without God’s succor, they will fail. They should study, individually by reading and meditating on useful books and articles and collectively in discussion groups and meetings. They should recruit. Preferably they should recruit stable people who are in a leadership position or will assume a leadership position some day, who study and get involved, who donate time and money, and who are a credit to the Kingdom of God. They should avoid recruiting burned out conservatives, the apathetic, those who take but do not give, compromisers, disturbers, the confused, advocators of violence, etc. They should confront those who seek to destroy the South. They should create intelligence files from newspapers, magazine and Internet articles and other sources. Monitoring local and State government meetings and informing others of anti-Southern or pro-Southern action taken at these meetings should be part of their program. Likewise, they should monitor public school books and curricula. Local supporters and potential supporters should be identified for each issue of importance. A mailing list, which could be an e-mail list, should be built for each issue. They should unite and cooperate with each other. Thus, they build their organizations.

    Southern nationalists need to remove their children from public schools and place them in a good private school, preferably a Christian school, or teach them at home. To leave them in public school is to give them to the enemy. (Southern nationalists should not seek to reform public schools. They should seek to abolish them because education is not a proper function of government, and to trust education to government is too dangerous. Education is a proper function of the family supported by the church.) Southern nationalists have gained nothing if their posterity is lost to the enemy.

    Southern nationalists need to attend a Bible believing church and be fed the Word of God. They need to read, recite, and mediate on the imprecatory Psalms, i.e., the Psalms that call on God to punish or destroy His enemies. These Psalms are 73, 83, 94, and 105. They may even have to educate their pastors on various issues. However, Southern nationalists need to be aware that most pastors do not believe that Christians are able to reverse the world’s decline into a Satanic cesspool. The pastors of most Bible believing churches believe that the world will become worse and worse, that man will become more and more evil, and that there is not much Christians can do about this decline until Christ returns and ends history.

    Southern nationalists need to become self-discipline and learn to commit themselves for the long term. They must acquire organizational skills. If at all possible, they must acquire a computer and learn to use it. They must develop personal communication skills, both oral and written. They must become politically aware, which means reading and understanding many political news sources. They must learn techniques need for political actions. They must become involved in local politics.

    Southern nationalists should join, support, and become active in organizations that seek to save the South and the Southern way of life.

    Southern nationalists should never appease the enemy. Appeasement is a waste of resources and detrimental to the cause, for the enemy can never be appeased without the death of the Southern nationalist. Southern nationalists should avoid compromise unless they are sure that they will gain more than they will lose. But under no circumstances should Southern nationalists ever compromise their fundamental principles. (The enemy has little problem with compromise because he has no real principles to compromise.)

    Southern nationalists should be open and honest as Jesus was. They should avoid deceit, deception, duplicity, secrecy, and other conspiratorial tactics, for these are the tactics of their enemy. By the tactics that they use, Southern nationalists distinguish themselves from the enemies of the South.

    Southern nationalists need to develop a scripturally ethical program. They must resist further attacks on the South. They must educate themselves. They must obtain dominion. They need to have the organization, program, vision, expertise, and ethics to fill the void that will be left when the enemies of the South collapse. They need the moral courage to act when the time comes. In short they need an abiding faith in Christ.

    Southern nationalists need to prepare for a long-term struggle, perhaps several decades, although victory could come as rapidly as the collapse of the Soviet Empire. In the interim they must continue to pressure the enemies of the South until they completely collapse. In the interim they must be prepared to fill and must fill every void left by the enemy in every aspect of society wherever the void occurs. The enemies of the South must not be allowed to fill any void. Southern nationalists must press the enemy until all have fled the South.

    Above all Southern nationalists need to cooperate with one another. They need to accommodate their differences where it is not a question of fundamental principles. No single individual has all these skills, and even if he did, he would not have the time, to do all the things outlined above, which is why it is important that Southern nationalists unite and cooperate. They should always present a united front against the enemies of the South.

    By following this program, and with God’s aid, Southern nationalists will be able to liberate the South from her oppressors. One day Southerners will live free in a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States where they will be governed by Christian principles, where family, church, and state will be co-equal governments, and where civil government will be a limited republican government.

Copyright © 1993, 2010 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on the South. 

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Secession or Reform

Secession or Reform
Thomas Allen

    A major debate among Southerners who love liberty and who realize that liberty is all but dead under the present system is whether their lost liberty can best be regained by reforming the present union or seceding from it. The following describes the various positions Southerners take on this question and the effectiveness and economy of secession over reform.

    If Southerners wish to regain their lost liberties and retard the erosion of their culture and heritage, they have but two choices. They can reform the present government of the United States, or they can secede.

    If they bother to think about the loss of their liberty at all, most people would shy away from secession.  Instead they would prefer to reform the present government of the United States.  They erroneously perceive this as being easier and less radical.  They fool themselves into believing that reform can be achieved without violence and bloodshed.  Most of them have the idea — a false idea — that secession would lead to civil war.  But is secession really more difficult, more radical, or more violent than reform? 

    Those who think that a decadent despotic democracy can be reformed deceive themselves.  Despots do not willingly yield their power. Democratic despotism is much worse.  At least with an autocrat, assassination may lessen the tyranny.  But how does one assassinate the majority? Civil war! 

    The reformers face almost insurmountable obstacles.  The United States have degenerated to the point of no return in the life of a democracy.  The people have learned how to vote themselves booty from the public treasury.  They are federal-handout junkies who are addicted to (perceived) “free” money.  If the United Statue remain intact, nothing short of Divine intervention, conquest by a foreign power, or civil war will prevent the United States from completing their evolution into an autocratic presidency or judicial oligarchy within the next generation or two. 

    The reformers may occasionally win on an issue.  But they lose more often than they win, and their victories are usually short-lived. Their only hope is to replace, i. e., overthrow, the rulers, the government.  This means civil war — more violent and bloodier than any successful secession movement.  If the reformers lose, the result is even greater tyranny. 

    Secession may also lead to war although war in this case is not as certain as it is in the case of the reformers. A successful war of secession would be less destructive and violent than the civil war of the reformers.  If the secession movement fails, the result would be about the same as if the reformers were to lose their civil war — ever more tyranny.

    A secession movement has one major advantage over a political reform movement.  The secessionists do not seek to overthrow any government.  They do not seek to rule the others.  The secessionists seek only to prevent the others from ruling them. 

    The reform movement suffers the disadvantage of having to overthrow a government.  The reformers seek not just to prevent the others from ruling them but also to rule the others.  

    Paradoxically, secession can be achieved more easily and with less violence than reform, especially during the latter parts of the democratic despotic stage. Apparently, the degenerative effects of democracy and despotism destroys the will to resist almost anything that does not directly interfere with the grants of special privileges that the politically powerful special interest groups have and “free” money from the public treasury.  By the time the oligarchic or autocratic stage is fully realized, change almost always requires bloodshed.  The time to strike for independence is now! 

    The reformers set out to abolish the grants of special privileges and “free” money from the public treasury and, therefore, run into stiff resistance.  The secessionists set out to abolish these only in a limited geographical area. Therefore, resistance is limited. The secessionists face much less resistance than do the reformers and, thus, have a much better chance of success. 

    Secessionist do face one problem that the reformers face. That is to persuade enough people in the equity of their cause so that they have an adequate base for the movement to succeed.  However, by operating in a limited geographical area, the secessionist does not have to convert as many people. The reformers need converts all across the country. Also, to proselyte people within a limited geographical area with similar culture, heritage, religion, philosophy, etc. is easier than to proselyte a population as diverse as that of all the United States. 

    There is another paradox of the reform movement.  Not only do reform movements usually lead to more tyranny when they fail, they usually lead to more tyranny when successful.  Secession movements do not suffer this paradox. When they succeed, the result is usually more freedom.  When they fail, the result is usually more tyranny. 

    Secessionists do tend to be more radical than reformers. Secession is not for conservatives since it requires breaking free from the established order. However, when liberty is on the deathbed, radical action is often demanded. 

    Reformers seek to pass a few laws, to repeal a few laws, or to attach an amendment or two to the constitution.  They fail to realize that the government of the United States is no longer a government of law.  It is, like all democracies, a government of men.  The constitution is now a meaningless piece of ancient paper.  The reformers must destroy the institutions that they seek to preserve and reform if their reforms are to have a chance to live. This is yet another paradox the reformers must face. 

    The secessionists are not concerned with preserving or destroying political institutions.  Of necessity they must form a new government and new political institutions.  Their constitution and government may be radically different from the present constitution and government of the United States.  (They should because obviously the present constitution is a failure in that it does not have enough chains to bind the government of the United States.)  However, their constitution and government will have what the present constitution and government of the United States no longer have.  They will be possessed by the spirit of the founding fathers.  Now that is radical! 

    The reformers are doomed to failure. They face only despair, defeat, violence and more tyranny. Reform offers the South little hope. Liberty can only be found in secession.
    Now is the time for Southerners to regain their liberties through secession.  Democracy in the United States has degenerated to the point where independence can be achieved with little or no bloodshed.  Independence must be achieved before the judicial oligarchy or autocratic presidency is firmly established.  If this opportunity is lost, independence can then only be achieved by a long bloody conflict.
    Contending for the Southern mind are the advocates of the status quo, which is nothing more than fascism American style, i.e., democratic fascism; the false reformers, who agree with the advocates of the status quo in principle but disagree with them on emphasis; the false secessionists, who seek an authoritarian or soviet state where they shall rule; the apathetic, who could care less about what happens, or if he cares, he does not care enough to act; and the true reformers and true secessionists, both of whom seek liberty but disagree on the approach to use in achieving this goal.

    The apathetic is the largest group. The apathetic generally flow with the current no matter where the current takes him. If forced to choose, he usually chooses the status quo because that is the course of least resistance.

    The advocates of the status quo support the present system, which is democratic fascism. (Under fascism most property remains privately own at least in name. However, the government controls the property and tells the owner what he may and may not do with his property. The government controls the economy by granting special privileges and subsidies to its favorites at the expense of the politically weak. In social matters, the government attempts to establish social equality by regimenting the population into an homogenized oneness.) The governments of the United States, States, and most of the counties and cities are controlled by the advocates of the status quo.

    There are two types of reformers: false reformers and true reformers. False reformers believe in the welfare state. Their argument with the advocates of the status quo is over emphasis, not over philosophy. Most establishment conservatives, such as Reagan, Will, and Buckley, are false reformers, if they are reformers at all, as are all liberal and socialist reformers. (If one hears a conservative who says that government should help the truly needy, who talks about improving public education [government schools] instead of abandoning it, who favors granting special economic privileges to certain classes, such as farm subsidies and protective tariffs, or who advocate foreign intervention and militarism, he should beware, for most likely he is listening to a false reformer.) False reformers should really be considered a subset of the advocates of the status quo. On the other hand, true reformers believe that the primary purpose of government is to protect life and property. Government should be minimal. They advocate returning to the basic principles upon which the United States were founded. Among the true reformers are libertarians for the most part, most John Birchers, many of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party, and most of the other so-called right-wing extremist. (The various Nazi and fascist groups and perhaps some Klan groups should really be considered part of the radical left, for that is where their philosophical kindred is.) False reformers are more numerous than true reformers. Almost all reform programs that have been implemented have come from the false reformers. Few, if any, of the programs of the true reformers have ever been implemented.

    Like reformers there are two types of secessionists: true secessionists and false secessionists. Like false reformers, the disagreement that false secessionists have with the advocates of the status quo is not so much one of philosophy as it is one of who rules, who decides what statist programs are to be implemented, and who implements them. False secessionist believe that they are locked out of the present system, and, therefore, they seek to secede from it and establish a new country with a new government where they will be the gerents. Obviously, all left-wing secessionists are false secessionists. Unfortunately, so are many right-wing secessionists. On the other hand, true secessionists like true reformers desire to regain the basic principles upon which the United States were founded. Their basic disagreement with the true reformers is that they believe as George Washington believed in 1776 that the system cannot be reformed in the direction of liberty. The only hope for freedom lies in secession. True secessionists desire liberty while false secessionist desire to rule.

    In summary, Southerners tend to fall into one of these groups: the apathetic, advocates of the status quo, false reformers, true reformers, false secessionists, and true secessionists.

    Southerners who love liberty tend to belong to one of two categories: those who believe that the system can be reformed and those who believe that the system cannot be reformed. The latter are secessionists and the former are reformers. The best hope that Southerners have to regain their lost liberties is through secession not reform. If history is any predictor of the future, reform is almost certain to fail.

As difficult as the task is for the secessionists to achieve their goals, it is much more so for the reformers. The secessionists need only to persuade a significant number of people in one region of the rightfulness of their cause. The reformers must persuade a significant number of people throughout the entire country.

    The secessionists may have to resort to physical conflict in order to achieve their goals. However, war for the secessionists is not nearly as certain as it is for the reformers. The holders of power fight less diligently to retain their colonies than they do to retain their power base. (For example, the War for Texas Independence was less bloody than most Mexican civil wars in which the reformers tried to oust the rulers.) The secessionists seek only to remove themselves from the power base. The reformers seek to overthrow and replace the power base. Hence, the entrenched holders of power will, for self preservation if for no other reason, fight the reformers, who seek to replace them, more tenaciously than they will fight the secessionists, who seek only to withdraw from them.

    Throughout the history of America, secession has been much more effective than reform at achieving liberty whereas reform has been much more effective than secession at achieving oppression. There are numerous examples to substantiate this statement. The British colonists gained back the liberties that they had lost and more when they successfully seceded from Great Britain. Just as the Mexicans lived freer after seceding from Spain in 1821 so did the Texans live freer after seceding from the United States of Mexico in 1836. If Southerners had succeed in their secession, they would not have suffered the despotism that they have suffered in the present union. The people of a seceding country have nearly always lived freer than they did before they seceded or would have if they had not seceded. And they continued to live a freer life until they went down the road of reform as did Mexico.

    On the other hand, reform has almost always resulted in oppression. The abolitionist reformers have brought about the War Between the States, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Ku Klux Klan, and the present day “civil rights” movement and laws. (Most reform movements in the United States since the 1830s have descended or spun off from the New England abolitionists.) The temperance reformers have brought prohibition, anti-drug laws, and anti-smoking laws. The populist reformers have brought the income tax, many of the alphabet federal agencies whose job is to intervene in the economy and thwart economic progress, and the abandonment of the gold standard and concomitant inflation. The economic reformers have brought the New Deal, the welfare state, and the economic chaos that has become the norm. The cosmopolitan reformers have brought World War I, World War II, and the United Nations. The educational reformers have brought an educational system that indoctrinates and socializes children rather than educates them, thus producing the worse educational system in the Western world and one that ranks behind some third world countries. The political reformers have concentrated nearly all political power in Washington and have diluted the electorate until only the mediocre, who are more easily controlled by the power brokers than are the natural aristocrats (people like Washington, Henry, Randolph, Macon, Calhoun, Stevens, Lee, and Forrest), can be elected to office. The conservative reformers have brought about the largest budget and federal deficit in history, tax reform that increases taxes without simplification, the largest agricultural welfare program perhaps in civilized history, and a host of other programs that makes them indistinguishable from liberal reformers. Throughout the history of the United States the trend for reform has been towards despotism. There have been few, if any, significant reform in the direction of liberty.

    Secession is a much more effective, economical, surer, quicker, and peaceful way of achieving liberty than reform. The time has come for reformed minded Southerners to abandon their chimera of reform. The time has come for all Southerners who love liberty to join together and work for a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States. Only then will the South be freed from the domination of Yankeedom. Only then can liberty be achieved and preserved.

    Secession also has the advantage over reform in that by establishing an independent country, the identity, culture, heritage, etc. of the seceding people are better and more easily protected and preserved. Identifiable political borders aid appreciably in the identity of a people. For example, the Bretons have no independent country or readily identifiable political borders. (Their province was divided into several departments during the French Revolution.) They live under French rule. To most outsiders, they are considered French although they have a different language, history, and culture. On the other hand, Danes do not suffer this identity problem. The Danes have their own country, Denmark, with its identifiable political borders where they can preserve their own language, culture, and way of life,

    Secession offers the only chance for the South to ever be free. Reform is a dead end road to nowhere. Secession is the thoroughfare to life and liberty.

    In conclusion Southerners tend to belong to one of several groups. The majority are indifferent. Of the remainder most prefer the status quo, which is traveling the road to despotism. Of those who love liberty, some see reform as the solution and others see secession as the solution. History shows that liberty can be more easily gain through secession than reform.

Postscript: For progression towards liberty, secession is part of the natural order whereas reform is contrary to the natural order. One does not reform Satan’s kingdom into Chris’s kingdom; one secedes from Satan’s kingdom into Christ’s kingdom.
Copyright © 1983, 1987 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on the South.