Archive for May, 2009

Six Years of SVR

EVENTS

October 11, 2003 – SVR holds first statewide meeting at Bread & Puppet Theater in Glover, VT.

June 19, 2004 – parade in downtown Montpelier with Bread & Puppet followed by State House rally attended by 350 people. Vermont declares independence.

November 5-7, 2004 – SVR and the Fourth World sponsor an international conference on “After the Fall of America, Then What?” The Middlebury Institute is launched.

January 15, 2005 – SVR celebrates Vermont Independence Day at the Langdon Street Café in Montpelier.

March 4, 2005 – SVR holds a memorial service to commemorate the day in 1791 when Vermont joined the Union.

April 22, 2005 – Award-winning journal Vermont Commons is launched.

April 2005- Vermont Legislature adopts resolution naming January as Vermont History and Independence month.

June 3-5, 2005 – SVR officially represented at the fifteenth national Congress of the Parti Québécois in Quebec City.

October 28, 2005 – SVR holds first statewide convention on secession in the U.S. since 1861. The event takes place in the House Chamber of the State House and is attended by 300 people.

April 27, 2006 – SVR holds Legislative briefing in State House.

August 2006 – SVR transitions into a think tank and citizens’ network.

November 3-5, 2006 – Middlebury Institute holds First North American Secessionist Convention in Burlington, VT. The convention attracts delegates from 16 secessionist organizations in 18 states.

April 12, 2007 – UVM Center for Rural Studies releases results of its annual “Vermonter Poll” showing that thirteen percent of eligible voters in Vermont support secession, up from eight percent a year earlier.

June 3, 2007 – Associated Press releases a piece entitled “In Vermont, Nascent Secession Movement Gains Traction.” Article is run worldwide by hundreds of newspapers, websites, radio stations, and TV stations.

June 4-5, 2007 – SVR founder Thomas H. Naylor is interviewed by Fox News three separate times including The O’Reilly Factor.

October 3-4, 2007 – Second North American Secessionist Convention takes place in Chattanooga, TN. Representatives from thirty states attend. It too receives worldwide media attention.

January 14-15, 2008 – North-South Secession Summit takes place in Charlotte, Vermont in conjunction with SVR’s Vermont Independence Day celebration in Montpelier.

November 7, 2008 – Second Statewide Convention on Vermont Independence in the House Chamber of the State House in Montpelier. Green Mountain Brigade is launched.

November 14-16, 2008 – Third North American Secession Convention in Manchester, NH.

May 1-3, 2009 – Vermont Commons Retreat – “Dreaming Vermont’s Destiny.”

MEDIA ATTENTION

StateTimes-Argus, Rutland Herald, Burlington Free Press, Seven Days, Brattleboro Reformer, Vermont Life, Channel 3 News, Channel 5 News, Vermont Public Television, VPR.

NationalThe New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Christian Science Monitor, The New Yorker, Utne, Ode, American Conservative, Orion, Chronicles, Boston Globe, Salon.com, Good, CounterPunch, Slate.com, The Nation, Fox News, NPR, NECN, CNN, and dozens of radio stations worldwide.

InternationalLe Devoir (Canada), Montreal Gazette, Der Tagesspiegel (Berlin), La Van Guardia (Spain), El Mundo (Spain), Le Courrier (Switzerland), CBC Radio (Canada), Radio Canada, BBC Radio (UK), TV GLOBO (Brazil), and Russia Today.

WEBSITES

www.vermontrepublic.org
www.vtcommons.org
www.freevermont.net
www.greenmountainbrigade.org
www.middleburyinstitute.org

VERMONT COMMONS – named Award-Winning Journal

FREE VERMONT – Grass Roots and Town Meetings

GREEN MOUNTAIN BRIGADE – Grass Roots

MIDDLEBURY INSTITUTE – National and International Outreach

History of the Second Vermont Republic

Nearly three years before I moved to Vermont, on October 9, 1990, the Bennington Banner published my article entitled “Should the U.S. Be Downsized?” Four years later in Challenge (Nov.-Dec. 1994) I wrote “The time has come both for the individual states and the federal government to begin planning the rational downsizing of America.” Continuing I suggested that Vermont might lead the way by helping “save our nation from the debilitating effects of big government and big business” and by “providing an independent role model for the other states to follow.”

In 1997 William H. Willimon and I published Downsizing the U.S.A., which not only called for Vermont independence, but the peaceful dissolution of the American Empire. We argued that the U.S. government had become too big, too centralized, too powerful, too undemocratic, too militaristic, too imperialistic, too materialistic, and too unresponsive to the needs of individual citizens and small communities. However, since we were in the midst of the greatest economic boom in history, few Americans were interested in downsizing anything. The name of the game was “up, up, and away.” Only bigger and faster were thought to be better.

A year or so later I joined an organization called the New England Confederation whose objective was to have New England split away from the United States and establish itself as an independent nation-state. Unfortunately, the Confederation turned out to be mostly an Internet website rather than a real political organization. However, its website survived several years after the demise of the Confederation itself under the leadership of Bristol, Vermont resident Michael Patno.

For the most part, before September 11, 2001, my call for Vermont independence and the dissolution of the Empire fell on deaf ears. It was as though I were speaking to an audience of one, namely myself. But a year or so after 9/11 that gradually began to change. On March 4, 2003, two weeks before the second war with Iraq began, Michael Patno and I met for lunch in Burlington to discuss the possibility of organizing a serious, nonviolent independence movement in Vermont opposed to the tyranny of the U.S. government, Corporate America, and globalization and committed to the return of Vermont to its status as an independent republic as it was between 1777 and 1791. The following day I spoke at an anti-war rally at Johnson State College and decided to test-market the idea of an independent Vermont.

Basically my pitch to the students was, “If you want to prevent future wars in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq, we have no choice but to break up the United States into smaller regions, and that process should begin with Vermont declaring its independence from the United States.” They were stunned, but they got it. Their positive response literally provided the energy for Michael Patno and I to launch the Second Vermont Republic.

Ten days after the bombing began in Baghdad on March 19, 2003, we held the first of four monthly meetings at the Village Cup in Jericho to discuss how such a movement might evolve. These meetings were attended by only a handful of people. Early on we decided not to become a political party but rather a civic club. The name “Second Vermont Republic” was proposed by Jeffersonville high school student Walker Brook and registered with the Secretary of State on June 19, 2003.

Over lunch in the backyard of the Bread & Puppet Theater Museum in Glover, Vermont on July 18, 2003, the puppeteers, under the leadership of Peter Schumann, agreed to cooperate with the Second Vermont Republic to promote Vermont independence. Since the outset, the Lake Parker Country Store in West Glover has been a focal point of SVR activity.

In conjunction with the release of my book The Vermont Manifesto on October 11, 2003, the first statewide meeting of the Second Vermont Republic was held in the New Building of Bread & Puppet Theater in Glover. The daylong meeting was attended by around fifty people. Wes Hamilton served as facilitator.

About the idea of Vermont independence, Ambassador George F. Kennan said, “I see nothing fanciful, and nothing towards the realization of which the efforts of enlightened people might not be usefully directed.” Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith added, “I must assure you of my pleasure in, and approval of, your views of the Second Vermont Republic.” “From the standpoint of puppeteers and their subversive papier-mâché, the Second Vermont Republic sounds like a very good idea to fight the megalomania of the globalizers,” echoed Peter Schumann.

On November 16, 2003, the Times-Argus published the first major article on the Second Vermont Republic. This was followed by Jay Walljasper’s piece in Utne on the Vermont independence movement. Chicago based economist and SVR member David Hale proposed in The Burlington Free Press on January 6, 2004 that Vermont should secede from the United States and join the British Commonwealth.

On January 4, 2004, SVR’s website www.vermontrepublic.org came on stream with Sam Young of West Glover as webmaster. In 2005 the website received an average of 3,000 unique visitors per month. It was substantially revised by Rob Williams in July 2006. Since August 2007 it has been managed by NEK Information Associates based in Glover, Vt.

Throughout the spring of 2004, we held monthly planning meetings at the Institute of Social Ecology in Plainfield. Then on June 19th SVR and Bread & Puppet Theater held a parade in downtown Montpelier which originated in front of the Firehouse and proceeded six blocks to the steps of the State House. Nearly 350 people attended the rally which followed in front of the State House. It included a performance by Bread & Puppet, live music, and a dozen or so speakers calling for Vermont independence. John Remington Graham, author of A Constitutional History of Secession, was the keynote speaker. The rally ended with the reading of the Vermont Declaration of Independence. Copies of the new 32-page, glossy Journal of Vermont Independence edited by David White were also distributed. Nearly a year later, this journal evolved into Vermont Commons.

Two events which took place in November of 2004 put the Second Vermont Republic on the map, so to speak – statewide, nationally, and internationally. They were the November 2nd re-election of George W. Bush and a conference sponsored by SVR in Middlebury, Vermont three days after the election.

On November 5-7 forty people from eleven states and England attended a conference at the Middlebury Inn co-sponsored by SVR and the Fourth World of Wessex, England entitled “After the Fall of America, Then What?” The Fourth World, which published The Fourth World Review, a periodical inspired by Leopold Kohr and Fritz Schumacher, was committed to small nations, small communities, small farms, small shops, the human scale, and the inalienable sovereignty of the human spirit. Speakers included Kirkpatrick Sale, Donald Livingston, Rober Allio, Frank Bryan, and Thomas H. Naylor.

The underlying premise of the conference was that the United States had become unsustainable, ungovernable, and unfixable. If that were indeed the case, then do we go down with the Titanic or seek other alternatives? Among the options discussed at Middlebury were denial, compliance, and political reform, proven to be deadends; revolution, rebellion, and implosion, equally problematic; and decentralization, devolution, and peaceful dissolution. The conference also included a mock town meeting open to the public with guest appearances by Ethan Allen (Jim Hogue) and Thomas Jefferson (Gus Jaccaci).

At the close of the meeting over half of the delegates including Kirkpatrick Sale, Donald Livingston, and Thomas H. Naylor signed The Middlebury Declaration which called for the creation of a movement that would “place secession on the national agenda, encourage secessionist organizations, develop communication among existing and future secessionist groups, and create a body of scholarship to examine and promote the ideas and principles of secessionism.” The Middlebury Institute headed by SVR member Kirkpatrick Sale is now engaged in the pursuit of these goals.

The combined effect of Bush’s re-election and the Middlebury Conference resulted in a significant increase in SVR’s membership, over 5,000 unique visits to our website in November, and an enormous amount of state, national, and international media attention. The Quebec newspaper Le Devoir published a front-page article on the conference.

As a follow-up to the Middlebury Conference, SVR held several meetings in Montpelier at the Langdon Street Café, a worker-owned collective which supports creative dialogue, sustainability, local products, and community. Such a meeting was held on January 15, 2005 to commemorate the day in 1777 when Vermont declared its independence and became a separate republic for fourteen years. Ethan Allen (Jim Hogue) again made a guest appearance. One of the aims of the meeting was to promote the Vermont Independence Day Resolution being considered by the Vermont Legislature. During the previous September SVR members Linda and John Whitney launched a statewide campaign calling for the Legislature to make January 15, 1777 Vermont Independence Day.

The resolution endorsed by Senator Jim Jeffords, Burlington Mayor Peter Clavelle, Lt. Governor Brian Dubie, and most members of the Vermont House and Senate was approved in an amended form in April. By then it had become a resolution naming January as Vermont history and independence month.

Then on March 4, 2005, a memorial service was held at the Langdon Street Café led by Rev. Ben Matchstick of Bread & Puppet Theater and General Ethan Allen (Jim Hogue) commemorating the day in 1791 when Vermont joined the Union. The service included a reading from Ecclesiastes with Chopin’s “Funeral March” playing in the background. A funeral procession with a New Orleans-style funeral band carried the flag-draped coffin containing the deceased First Vermont Republic to the State House where it was placed at the foot of the statue of Ethan Allen. The funeral received extensive statewide media coverage.

In April 2005 publisher Ian Baldwin, editor Rowan Jacobsen, and webmaster Dr. Rob Williams introduced an exciting print and online forum for exploring the idea of Vermont independence called Vermont Commons. The print version is a twenty-four-page bi-monthly newspaper distributed to paid subscribers and 200 venues through Vermont. Contributors to Vermont Commons have included Wendell Berry, Peter Clavelle, Kirkpatrick Sale, Bill McKibben, and James Howard Kunstler. Utne Magazine named Vermont Commons the “Best New Publication in 2005.” Rob Williams is now editor and publisher of Vermont Commons.

Thomas H. Naylor and Jim Hogue, who speaks French, participated in the fifteenth national Congress of the Parti Québécois in Quebec City on June 3-5 at the invitation of Vice Premiere Marie Malavoy. The invitation to the PQ Congress represented a form of political recognition of the Second Vermont Republic by a major political party in a neighboring country.

In 2005 SVR supporters participated in Fourth of July parades in Barton, Cabot, and Warren. The politically radical, funky, grassroots, seat-of-the-pants Warren parade attracts as many as 20,000 people each year to the Mad River Valley. The parade, whose homemade floats are held together by duct tape and baling twine, has no marching bands, only bands that march. It combines New England Americana with vintage Vermont culture and the residual effects of 1960s hippie culture. In the 2006 Warren parade, SVR had its own float. The Warren parade has become an annual event in which to promote Vermont independence.

To celebrate the signing of the Vermont Constitution in 1777, SVR held a mock town meeting on the Constitution House lawn in Windsor, Vermont on July 9, 2005. The meeting was led by Ben Matchstick and Rick Foley. Participants received their own personal Vermont passport. SVR appeared at this event again in 2006, which was covered by the Los Angeles Times.

On October 28, 2005, SVR held the first statewide convention on secession in the United States since North Carolina voted to secede from the Union on May 20, 1861. The daylong event took place in the House Chamber of the State House in Montpelier. Only in Vermont would such a meeting be possible.

Over 300 people heard keynote speaker James Howard Kunstler, author of The Long Emergency, warn that “the end of the cheap fossil fuel era will lead to the most serious challenge to our collective identity, economy, culture, and security since the Civil War.” He further warned that “turbulence will be the rule” and that “all bets will be off for politics, economics, and social cohesion.” Continuing he said, “the Federal government will be impotent and ineffectual – just as they were after Hurricane Katrina.”

He predicted that (1) American life will become intensely and profoundly local, (2) We will have to grow a lot more of our food in the regions where we live, and (3) We are going to have to reconstruct local economies, local networks of interdependency. He also took note of the fact that Vermont is uniquely situated to meet the challenge of the cheap oil endgame because of its small towns, small businesses, small farms, and strong sense of community.

The objectives of the convention were twofold. First, to raise the level of awareness of Vermonters of the feasibility of independence as a viable alternative to a nation which has lost its moral authority and is unsustainable. Second, to provide an example and a process for other states and nations which may be seriously considering separatism, secession, independence, and similar devolutionary strategies.

Other convention speakers included Kirkpatrick Sale, author of Human Scale; Professor Frank Bryan, University of Vermont; J. Kevin Graffagnino, Executive Director, Vermont Historical Society; G. Roderick Lawrence, CEO, Stevenson Kellogg (Toronto); (Rev.) Ben T. Matchstick; and General Ethan Allen (aka Jim Hogue). The meeting began after General Allen arrived at the State House on a black stallion named “Duke.”

Two resolutions were approved by the convention delegates in the concluding session. One called for Vermont to return to its status as an independent republic as it had between January 15, 1777 and March 4, 1791. The other called for the Second Vermont Republic to seek membership in the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization.

The convention attracted extensive statewide and national media attention. It was covered by Burlington Free Press, Times Argus, Brattleboro Reformer, Seven Days, Vermont Guardian, Associated Press (state/national), Channel 3 News, WDEV, Vermont Public Radio, Christian Science Monitor, American Conservative, Boston Globe, and the Alex Jones Show. The SVR website received nearly 10,000 unique visits during October. The meeting was attended by a major gubernatorial candidate and several legislators.

During the spring of 2006 SVR launched a campaign to promote Vermont sovereignty. The “Vermont Sovereignty Declaration” calls for the State of Vermont to reaffirm (1) its right of sovereignty, (2) its right to nullify acts of the central government deemed to be unconstitutional, (3) its right to secede from the Union, and (4) its right to call a statewide convention of the People to decide whether or not it remains in the Union.

On April 27, 2006, SVR held a legislative briefing on Vermont independence in the State House in Montpelier for legislators. The meeting was well attended and a lively discussion ensued.

In August 2006 SVR ceased being a membership organization and evolved into a think tank and citizens’ network.

On November 3-5, 2006 the Middlebury Institute hosted the first North American Convention on Secession in Burlington, Vermont. Delegates from eighteen states attended including representatives from Texas, Alaska, Louisiana, Hawaii, California, New Hampshire, and Tennessee to mention only a few. Kirkpatrick Sale was the keynote speaker.

In April 2007 the Center for Rural Studies of the University of Vermont released the results of its annual “Vermonter Poll” showing that thirteen percent of the eligible voters in Vermont support secession, up from eight percent a year earlier. An astonishing 74.3 percent of Vermont voters expressed the view that the U.S. government had lost its moral authority. A year later that percentage had jumped to 77.1.

On June 3, 2007 the Associated Press released a piece entitled “In Vermont, Nascent Secession Movement Gains Traction.” The article was picked up worldwide by hundreds of newspapers, websites, radio stations, and TV stations. As a result SVR founder Thomas H. Naylor was interviewed by Fox News three times within two days including an appearance on The O’Reilly Factor. The SVR website received over 25,000 unique visits that month.

On October 3-4, 2007, the Second North American Secessionist Convention took place in Chattanooga, TN. The convention attracted delegates representing secessionist organizations in 36 states. The convention received worldwide media attention as a result of an AP story which described the meeting as bringing “the far left and the far right of American politics together.”

On November 7, 2008 SVR sponsored the Second Statewide Convention on Vermont Independence in the House Chamber of the State House in Montpelier. The convention took the form of an all-day forum, circus, and medicine show entitled “The Vermont Village Green: Alternative to Empire.” It consisted of a potpourri of radical music, art, theater, circus, conversation, politics, and community aimed at fomenting a Genteel Revolution against the American Empire. Participants included trends forecaster Gerald Celente, New Mexico writer Chellis Glendinning, Alaskan Independence Party leader Lynette Clark, Bread & Puppet Theater, folk musician Pete Sutherland, peak oil writer James Howard Kunstler, Rural Vermont leader Amy Shollenberger, UVM student Tyler Wilkinson-Ray, and Kirby businessman Dennis Steele. A new grass roots Vermont independence group was launched by Mr. Steele.

The following week the Third North American Secessionist Convention took place in Manchester, New Hampshire on November 14-15.

Led by Rick Foley and Ron Miller, Vermont Commons sponsored a retreat at Goddard College on May 1-3, 2009 to contemplate what a free and independent Vermont might look like. “Dreaming Vermont’s Destiny” was the theme of the three-day retreat attended by nearly 50 people.

Thomas H. Naylor
May 15, 2009

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Second Vermont Republic?

The Second Vermont Republic is a nonviolent citizens’ network and think tank committed to the return of Vermont to its rightful status as an independent republic as it once was between 1777 and 1791 and more broadly to the dissolution of the Union.

What is the primary objective of the movement?

Independence. To extricate Vermont peacefully, legally, and democratically from the United States as soon as possible.

Does that mean secession?

Yes.

Why does Vermont want to secede?

First, the United States suffers from imperial overstretch and has become unsustainable politically, economically, agriculturally, socially, culturally, and environmentally. Second, Vermont finds it increasingly difficult to protect itself from the debilitating effects of big business, big agriculture, big markets, and big government, who want all of us to be the same-just like they are. Third, the United States government has lost its moral authority because it is owned, operated, and controlled by Wall Street and Corporate America. Fourth, American foreign policy, which is based on the doctrine of full spectrum dominance, is immoral, illegal, unconstitutional, and in violation of the United Nations charter. Fifth, as long as Vermont remains in the Union its citizens face curtailed civil liberties, the risk of terrorist attack, and the risk of the conscription of its youth. Sixth, our government supports multitrillion dollar budget deficits, endless Wall Street bailouts, corporate greed and fraud, environmental degradation, dependence on imported oil, and a culture of deceit.

But isn’t secession unconstitutional?

Absolutely not. “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government,” said Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. Just as a group has a right to form, so too does it have a right to disband, to subdivide itself, or withdraw from a larger unit. The U.S. Constitution does not forbid secession. According to the tenth amendment, that which is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed. All states have a Constitutional right to secede.

Besides independence, what other principles does SVR subscribe to?

Living life on a human scale; sustainability in all aspects of life; economic solidarity; shared political power and devolution of government back to the people; equal access to health care, education, housing, and employment for all Vermonters; tension reduction and non-violence; and a strong sense of community.

Does the Second Vermont Republic want to take over the government of Vermont?

Absolutely not. The people of the independent republic of Vermont will decide how it is governed. Unlike the Free State Project in New Hampshire, our aim is not to take over the government.

Could Vermont survive economically as an independent nation-state?

Yes! Of the 200 or so independent nation-states in the world, 50 of them have a smaller population than Vermont (pop. 623,000). Six of the ten richest countries in the world as measured by per capita income are smaller than Vermont. Political independence is not a synonym for economic and political isolation. Over 600 Vermont firms export nearly 24 percent of the State’s gross state product. We see no reason why this should change after independence.

Is Vermont independence politically feasible?

Yes. Ultimately whether or not Vermont achieves political independence is a question of political will. Is the will of the people of Vermont for independence strong enough to overcome the will of the U.S. government to prevent them from achieving their goal? In 1989 six Eastern European allies of the Soviet Union unseated their respective Communist governments and seceded from the Soviet sphere of influence. With the bloody exception of Romania, this all took place nonviolently. The Second Vermont Republic has been particularly influenced by the solidarity movement in Poland and Czechoslovak leader Vaclav Havel’s concept of the “power of the powerless.”

What are the steps to independence?

The Vermont Legislature must be persuaded to authorize a convention of the people to vote on rescinding the petition for statehood approved by the Vermont Assembly in January 1791 and ratified on March 4, 1791. To be credible the vote should pass by at least a two-thirds majority. Articles of Secession should then be submitted to the U.S. President, Secretary of State, President of the Senate, Speaker of the House, etc. Diplomatic recognition should be sought from Canada, Quebec, Mexico, England, France, and the United Nations. And then the moment of truth-Vermont would start behaving like an independent nation-state.

If we secede, what government will we have?

Currently, Vermont’s state government is one of the most centralized governments in the United States. While it is up to the citizens of Vermont to decide on this question, we encourage Vermonters to adopt some form of small “r” republican representative government that draws on aspects of both existing town and state governments in a new and more decentralized relationship. Vermont’s own constitution provides an excellent foundation upon which to build an independent small “r” republican government.

Will we have our own currency?

Again, the citizens of Vermont will decide on this question. One option is to link Vermont’s currency exchange with a larger existing regional system: the E.U.’s Euro or the Canadian “Loonie,” for example. Other options would be to create an independent Vermont currency or several local currencies. Still another option would be to return Vermont to the gold standard. A thoughtful exploration of all the currency options is already underway.

What about the financial help the federal government gives us for education, transportation, and other programs?

For every dollar paid by Vermonters for federal taxes, Vermont gets back only 75 cents in federal expenditures. That’s not a very good deal.

With all the current immigration challenges, what about our borders? Will people need passports to go in and out of Vermont?

Passports may indeed be a handy way of allowing for easy cross-border travel in the new republic. Vermont citizens must decide on how best to protect our new republic’s borders and how best to allow for an immigration policy that balances safety with accessible cross-border travel. There are no easy answers here, but we remain confident that Vermonters will come to a judicious decision about how best to proceed in this area.

What about my social security? My Medicaid and Medicare?

Established during the Great Depression of the 1930s by FDR’s “New Deal” policies, social security represents an individual contract between each U.S. citizen and the federal government. Thousands of Americans living overseas collect social security payments. It is mainly a question of whether or not the federal government will honor individual contracts once Vermont peaceably secedes from the United States. With regard to Medicaid and Medicare benefits, we envision Vermont citizens developing a more decentralized and local alternative to the existing system. What it will look like will be up to Vermont citizens to decide.

Will our taxes be lower?

A family of three earning $50,000 per year would save $6,330 annually, if Vermont were an independent republic ($750 in income taxes and $5,580 in its pro rata share of the federal deficit).

What if Vermont independence fails?

Vermont still provides a communitarian alternative to the dehumanized, mass production, mass consumption, narcissistic lifestyle which pervades most of the United States. Vermont is smaller, more rural, more democratic, less violent, less commercial, more egalitarian, and more independent than most states. It offers itself as a kinder, gentler metaphor for a nation obsessed with money, power, size, speed, greed, and fear of terrorism.

How can I get involved with SVR?

Visit our website: www.vermontrepublic.org. You can also contact us at PO Box 544, Charlotte, VT 05445, or 802-425-4133.

Twelve Axioms of American Foreign Policy Towards Israel

1. Because six million Jews were annihilated by the Nazis during the Holocaust in World War II, Jews were entitled to their own country within what was once the Biblical Holy Land inhabited mostly by Palestinian Arabs.

2. The Holocaust provided the moral justification for Israelis to demonize, terrorize, displace, and murder tens of thousands of Palestinians. Since the Israelis are God’s chosen people, the Palestinians are considered to be racially inferior.

3. Because Americans were slow to respond to the horrors of the Holocaust during World War II, they must do penance. The U.S. government is obliged to provide Israel with unconditional economic and military support. It must veto all U.N. Security Council resolutions which are critical of Israel and boycott any international conferences which might embarrass Israel.

4. America should view Israel as its only truly loyal ally in the Middle East.

5. America’s primary obligation in the so-called Arab-Israeli peace process is to support Israel at all cost.

6. American attempts to control the supply of crude oil in the Middle East by hegemonizing the region are fully justified in light of the turmoil that exists between the Arabs and the Israelis.

7. Israel is the only country in the Middle East which has the right to possess nuclear weapons. Any other country in the region which aspires to membership in the elite nuclear club should immediately be demonized and treated as a terrorist state.

8. The Israeli military machine has the right to invade any Middle East country of its choosing and can expect the full support of the Pentagon, no questions asked.

9. Anyone who has the audacity to challenge America’s foreign policy towards Israel is by definition an anti-semite and deserves to receive the full wrath of the Israeli Lobby (AIPAC) and become the target of a disinformation campaign.

10. Since Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the only political leader in the world who has ever stood up against Israel and the United States, he must be thoroughly demonized and eventually destroyed. One of the tests of being a good American is taking a stand against Ahmadinejad.

11. Sudden political death at the hands of AIPAC can be expected by any member of Congress who dares to question these axioms of foreign policy.

12. So strong is the relationship between Israel and the United States that only the dissolution of the Union itself could put an end to the relationship. For that reason, Israel is unconditionally opposed to the American secession movement.

Rebél
Thomas H. Naylor
May 10, 2009

Vermonters’ Support For Secession Increases Dramatically

A recent statewide survey conducted by the Center for Rural Studies at the University of Vermont found that the percentage of eligible voters who favor Vermont seceding from the Union and becoming an independent republic, as it once was between 1777 and 1791, increased from eight percent in 2006 to thirteen percent in 2007. The 2007 Vermonter Poll was based on a random sample of 599 eligible voters conducted in February. If one extrapolated from the survey to the population of the entire State of Vermont, there could be as many as 63,700 Vermonters who are favorably inclined towards secession.

To put this thirteen percent figure in historical perspective, it is important to realize that when the thirteen English Colonies successfully seceded from the British Empire, only twenty-five percent of the population actually supported secession. Furthermore, thirteen percent may arguably represent the highest percentage favoring secession of any of the 35 states with secession movements. For a complete registry of all of these secession movements compiled by the Middlebury Institute visit www.MiddleburyInstitute.org.

These results are hardly surprising when you consider the response of Vermont voters to a second question, namely, "Has the United States government lost its moral authority?" An astonishing 74.3 percent responded affirmatively. Many Vermonters believe that this loss of moral authority stems from the fact that our government is owned, operated, and controlled by Corporate America. National elections are bought and sold to the highest bidder. It was the loss of moral authority which brought down the apartheid government of South Africa, the communist regimes in six Eastern European countries, and the moribund Soviet Union.

Of those Vermonters who favor secession, 83.6 percent would like to see the question put before the 237 town meetings in the state. Ninety-three percent would then like to see the issue considered by the state Legislature with 95.9 percent favoring a two-thirds majority of both houses for adoption.

Another year and a half of a convoluted war on terrorism, a foreign policy based on full spectrum dominance, unconditional support for the apartheid government of Israel, the suppression of civil liberties, citizen surveillance, corporate greed, and a culture of deceit combined with skyrocketing gasoline prices and a precipitous decline in the dollar could easily double the percentage of Vermont voters favoring secession.

For additional information, contact Thomas H. Naylor at 802-425-4133.

Overinstitutionalization in America

An institution is a self-perpetuating social organization created to achieve a specific purpose, which enables its founders and their allies to maintain power and control over other members through a set of formal rules and regulations. Overinstitutionalization has overwhelmed America and resulted in a loss of community; economic, political, and social chaos; as well as violence and war, so says Butler D. Shaffer in his prescient book Calculated Chaos.

Our lives have become hopelessly entangled with, and therefore controlled by, a plethora of institutions. We have become increasingly registered, regulated, licensed, taxed, and digitized.

——————————————————-
Butler D. Shaffer, Calculated Chaos: Institutional Threats to Peace and Human Survival. Coral Springs, FL: Llumina Press, 2004, 338 pages, $24.95.
——————————————————-

INSTITUTIONS ARE US

“We are born in hospitals, educated in schools, married in churches, employed in business establishments or government agencies, supervised by political authorities, retired with institutional pension plans and government security benefits, and we return to hospitals to die.” Shaffer, p.20

INSTITUTIONS AND CONFLICT

“Institutions are the principal means by which conflict is produced and managed in society. The success of institutions depends upon the creation of those conditions in which personal and social conflict will flourish.”
Shaffer, p.6

SHORTCOMINGS OF INSTITUTIONS

“The political State has not established order; religions have not made us more moral; education has not blessed us with wisdom; the mass-marketed affluence of our industrial system has not provided us with security; our ideologies have not advanced our understanding.”
Shaffer, p.269

THE STATE

“We have been taught that political leaders exist to serve us by harmonizing our differences and coordinating our energies in order to maximize our interests and promote the general welfare.

We discover that they coerce, threaten, and intimidate us to get us to do what they want in order to further the purposes of the State.”
Shaffer, pp.107-108

“The political State provides us not a shield but a jugular vein, a central point upon which a foreign state can focus an attack upon an entire nation.”
Shaffer, p.291

“In unity there is vulnerability, not strength.”
Shaffer, p.292

A CONFLICT-FREE SOCIETY

“A conflict-free society would be characterized by cooperation, not coercion; by mutuality, not manipulation; by personal autonomy, not collective authority. A conflict-free society, in other words, would be a stateless society.”
Shaffer, p.290

THE CHALLENGE

“Can we learn how to organize ourselves into groups without creating our own Frankensteins; how to work and play and help one another without institutions, without politics, organizational hierarchies, “hot” or “cold” wars, manipulation, moral imperatives, indoctrination, exploitation, rules and regulations, conflict, and all the other trappings of what we are fond of calling modern civilization?”
Shaffer, p.285

DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION

“The deinstitutionalization of our lives would likely result in more decentralized, individualized or small-group oriented, forms of economic activity.”
Shaffer, p.293

COMMUNITY

A partnership of free people committed to the care and nurturing of each other’s mind, body, heart and soul through participatory means.

COMMUNITARIAN

One who believes in individual rights and community obligations.

RECOMMENDATION

Butler Shaffer’s life-changing book is a must read book for any card-carrying decentralist or secessionist.

Thomas H. Naylor