A split United States?

reply to post by pikestaff

The site is not meant to be an exhaustive review of all wartime loans, only a succint review of recent history as it affects American foreign policy.
In fact, France and Great Britain are victims of this same scheme...at least, the common people are.

Originally posted by Dr Slim
reply to post by zaiger

 

zaiger, i never stated for one minute that george bush became president because he was the son of george bush snr, how stupid do you think i am?
i stated that in the early days of america, George WASHINGTON was offered to be king and then america would have had a monarchy.

I apoligize many people here refer to George bush as GW or "Jorge dubba-ya".
But no still George Washington was never given the offer to be king, it is myth that some people still carry forward to this day.

But it is still true if the united states stayed divided the Nazis would have eventually taken over and all the germans in california would be speaking spanish.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by zaiger]

I think in business communities Nation States ceased to exist many many years ago, if anything they seem more like theocracies than anything special or different compared to being just a "belief system" more or less created by humans. People of different backgrounds happened to evolve at different paces in territories around the world, most governments are by definition "territorial gangsters".

Check out Breakdown of Nations by Leopold Kohr

or

The Man in The High Castle by Philip K Dick

Now that would be an amazing film if it were made into a major production...Mr.Lucas and Mr. Speilberg where are you??

I don't think the Federal government would allow a split and they would destroy whatever state that seceded from the union.

The civil war proved that states don't have the right to leave the union, that the federal government reigns supreme.

Unification is usually obtained via a political figure with ambitions to obtain power and control over a large region.

In opposition to this idea is the philosophy that the individual has rights to determine their own destiny.

It cannot be ignored that we live in a social world. We owe certain things to each other, but the question exists: "How much do we retain for ourselves, and how much do we owe to the collective?"

I believe that the answer isn't an "either/or" situation.

We can work for our own welfare while working for the welfare of others at the same time.

There is a precise, careful distinction to be made:

Do we work for "the state" or do we work for "the general welfare"?

I believe there can be a situation where we simultaneously work for our own interests and the interests of us all.

The difference lies in recognizing whether or not the directive comes from the people as a whole... including all the voices, all the opinions, or whether the voice comes from a leadership, a government, a dictator...

We all want a father figure to help guide us to prosperity and safety. We must be careful that this childlike attitude does not carry with us to our adult life.

We are all capable of deciding... collectively, responsibly, for the benefit of ourselves and for the benefit of each other. Just be careful of who you're working for. Is it for a leader with far-reaching and selfish ambition? Or is it for the people, of which you are a member of.

Think.

well it was a conspiracy that ran its coarse a few months ago. Russian ex-KGB dude claims the USA will break up into 5 or 6 Regions ... and I find no flaw in his assessment. the rhetoric is drawing dividing lines. all states appear to be anti-Washington, and now they are turning against each other. AZ - CA as an example. I just feel we are pawns, ignorant ones at that.

reply to post by Anti-Evil


do you have a link to that so i can read it? maybe add a bit to my original post.