Victim Blame: Let the People Go Their Separate Ways
By Joe Jarvis - January 04, 2018

The United States was founded on secession. It didn’t have to be violent, but it was. Whose fault was that? Was it the United States’ fault for insisting on more local governance? Or was it England’s fault for ignoring the consent of the governed?

In 1991, when Ukraine and Belarus declared their independence from the USSR, things did not end violently. They were allowed to exit the union peacefully. The Soviet Union dissolved without further violence.

Of course, there was plenty of past violence the Soviet Union had used since 1922 to keep Ukraine under their control. This included the orchestrated famines in the 1930’s which killed around 4 million Ukrainians.

But why is it so clear that places like Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, and many other countries were justified in declaring their independence from the USSR?

Was it the fact that they had been independent countries at one point? That would suggest that Catalonia and Kurdistan are equally justified in demanding independence, based on their historic sovereignty.

Yet as Ryan Griffiths puts it:

Both referendums place these secessionist regions on a collision course with their central governments and the international community, increasing the probability of conflict…

Roughly a third [of secession movements since 1945] have resulted in violence. Indeed, some claim that secessionism is the chief cause of violence in the world today.

Isn’t that like saying, the best way to avoid rape is to say yes? Demanding autonomy may bring violence upon you, in the same way that resisting a sexual advance might do the same. But the violence was not caused by either victim.

According to Griffiths’ book The Age of Secession, between 1915 and 1945 the fewest sovereign nations existed on Earth since 1816. (This was also the fewest since well before 1816, but that is how far back his studies goes.)

Is it a coincidence that merely 50 sovereign nations existed around both World War One and World War Two? Of course not. These periods of extreme violence coincide with the very opposite of secession: annexation and invasion.

So by what standard do people such as former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali declare:

“If every ethnic, religious or linguistic group claimed statehood, there would be no limit to fragmentation, and peace, security and economic well-being would become ever more difficult to achieve.”

Indeed there would be no limit to fragmentation, but it does not follow that this would undermine peace and security. If the world held the attitude that consent is required of the governed, the opposite would prove true.

The cause of the violence of the World Wars was aggression, not secession. The violence of the USSR in the meantime was caused by keeping people in the Soviet Union. The violence of Mao’s great society unified and centralized China. With such data, how could you seriously argue that secession movements are the cause, rather than the victims, of violence?

People often talk of unity as if it inherently promotes peace and stability. But efforts to unify without the consent of everyone involved only cause conflict and violence.

Ironically, decentralization can promote the unity of voluntary groups.

Bitcoin is a decentralized currency, yet people all over the world are unified by their use of the cryptocurrency.

All internet communities are decentralized physically, with participants voluntarily joining together on a virtual platform.

Estonia is building a digital nation that would do the same for government. Based on their innovation, in the future, we may be able to become digital residents of distributed decentralized nations. You would not be organized under a government based solely on your location, but rather on your choice.

And even when division does not cause unity, it often leads to positive results.

When the Dodge brothers went their separate ways from Ford, they were left with a warehouse full of car parts. So they started a company which competed with their old business partner. This gave consumers more choice, improved the product, and brought down the price of cars.

Would anyone argue that Ford would have been right to forcibly keep them a part of his company? Would anyone blame the Dodge brothers for resisting such a tyrannical effort? When they no longer liked the deal they were getting from Ford, they terminated it.

There is no reason that secession movements have to be met with violence. When they are met with violence, we should condemn the aggressors, not blame the victims.

There is no inherent reason why an increase in sovereign nations would cause more war and poverty.

Especially in the modern age, it is easier than ever to organize into voluntary groups online. So why do we need nation-states forcing us into groups against our will?

The power of individuals is increasing. Violence will only erupt if old world governments resist this growing autonomy of people, groups, and regions.

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!


Biggest Currency Reboot in 100 Years?
In less than 3 months, the biggest reboot to the U.S. dollar in 100 years could sweep America.
It has to do with a quiet potential government agreement you’ve never heard about.

Tagged with: , , , ,
  • Alan777

    You are absolutely right, Joe. It truly would be a better world if the motto “Live and let live” were followed regarding governments and secession. If federal and state governments had much more limited powers, then there’d be far fewer conflicts.

    • James Higginbotham


      • Number 6

        Agreed But would like to add the same can be applied to every country and every government, with or without an official constitution.

        • James Higginbotham

          and it has happened throughout history.
          but where people get confused even our so called leaders.
          is this.
          and it NEEDS ENDED.

          • Number 6

            I see democracy as nothing more than two street hustlers, getting punters to place a bet they cant possibly win, and its just as much a scam as any form of government, its just a trick to persuade people to vote and in so doing give their consent for whatever follows, I don’t think democracy lends any credence to government, to anyone other than those who are fooled into voting, for those that don’t government is just as illegitimate as in the case of a constitutional republic.

            The real difference with the united states and the rest of the world, is your being held up as an example to everyone else, of the evils of Capitalism and Liberty ie Freedom to which the remedy they will offer will be form of world governance aka Communism.

          • James Higginbotham

            the STARK difference between a Democracy meaning MOB RULE, and a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, which means THE PEOPLE RULE.
            is where were at today, we have MOB RULE BY COMMUNIST DEMORATS, AND SOME RINOS OF THE SAME CLOTH.
            along with their BLACK ROBED PETTY TYRANT JUDGES.

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            You should put the word “evil” in quotes in your comment, for there is nothing evil about laissez-faire capitalism, properly understood. It is an expression of personal liberty, for it is based upon legitimate individual rights (self-ownership; personal liberty; peacefully-acquired private property regardless of the type and quantity; privacy; self-defense; freedom t keep and bear any type and quantity of arms; freedom of speech, and conscience; freedom of association, non-association, and contract).

          • Number 6

            No sorry you completely misunderstand my comment, I FULLY understand there is NOTHING “Evil” about capitalism or Liberty. I merely said “The United states is being held up as an example to everyone else, of the evils of Capitalism and Liberty” The example they are giving us is Completely Contrived, fake stories to show us peasants how bad our economic and personal liberty is ie the “evils” of capitalism and libertarianism. Its the chosen people and they have been engineering the united states since its inception for their biblical prophecy, Their idea is we (the world) will reject our liberty and submit to gods self proclaimed chosen people and embrace communism (neo feudalism) the word of god (those who pretend to speak for god ie religious supremacists) Do you see what Im getting at ?

  • Secession is both a biblical and a great idea, *provided* it’s based upon Yahweh’s immutable/unchanging moral law as its standard. Anything else will be just another contemporary instance of man doing what is right in in his own eyes, per Judges 21:25.

    Judges 21:25 is what today is commonly known as humanism, aka We the Peopleism, which is just an ancient form of Baalism.

    See blog article “Could YOU Be a Disciple of Baal and Not Know It?” at

    Then Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of free online book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at

    Find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of the 85-page “Primer” of “BL vs. USC.”

    • Boysie

      America has a very bad habit of producing an endless stream of religious morons – who preach what the bible says night and day – and at the same time Americans send their sons and daughters to plunder and pillage other defenseless countries – America rapes other countries via he World Bank USAID and The IMF – so what about you trying to say about the bible – where in the bible does it say that America has the right to murder / pillage / plunder other countries ?

      • Boysie, thanks for responding but you should be careful about putting “words in someone’s mouth”:

        “…The power to declare war is a serious responsibility. Why were the framers so vague in defining the parameters of war and the conditions under which it could be declared? Section 8, Clause 11 is the only place of significance where warfare is mentioned in the
        Constitution. Little wonder this power has been abused. Luther Martin [one of Maryland’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention] protested:

        ‘…the congress have also a power given them to raise and support armies, without any limitation as to numbers, and without any restriction in time of peace. Thus, sir, this plan of government, instead of guarding against a standing army, that engine of arbitrary power, which has so often and so successfully been used for the subversion of freedom, has in its formation given it an express and constitutional sanction….’40

        “John Quincy Adams [“prophetically”] predicted the consequences of America’s international military entanglements:

        ‘America … has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings…. Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions, and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in
        search of monsters to destroy.… She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors, and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force; the frontlet on her brow would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished luster, the murky radiance of dominion and power.
        She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.’41

        “Because the framers provided no Biblical parameters, unbiblical warfare has been the rule ever since. Following is a list of the countries bombed by the United States since World War II:

        China: 1945-46; 1950-53
        Korea: 1950-53
        Guatemala: 1954; 1967-69
        Indonesia: 1958
        Cuba: 1959-60
        Vietnam: 1961-73
        Congo: 1964
        Laos: 1964-73
        Peru: 1965
        Cambodia: 1969-70
        Granada: 1983
        Libya: 1986; 2011
        El Salvador: 1980s
        Nicaragua: 1980s
        Panama: 1989
        Iraq: 1991-2001; 2003-09
        Sudan: 1998
        Afghanistan: 1998; 2003-09
        Yugoslavia: 1999.

        “From 1945 to the present [2012], the United States has bombed nineteen different countries under the guise of defending America’s sovereignty and promoting democracy. But America is none the better for it, and not one of these countries has become a legitimate democracy – not that this would be anything to celebrate. Something is amiss. Wars fought for political gain or
        financial profit can only be classified as ungodly acts of aggression….”

        For more, see Chapter 4 “Article 1: Legislative Usurpation” of free online book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at

        • Boysie

          I think it is extremely sad – when people in general and Americans in particular reference the bible as their goto source –

          Between my (14 / 15) birthday – I attempted to read the bible cover to cover – I did not find anything in the (10 Commandments) that lead me to conclude that America has devine ownership of pathological violence against other peoples or other countries of the world / or / that Americans has some pre-ordained redemption from / whoever / that allows to be both bombastic and totally stupid at the same time

          I do NOT often respond to such banal rubbish – so this is the very last time that I will respond to your diatribe…

          • What’s sad Boysie is someone who would read the Bible once and reject it, thereby rejecting their God and Creator Yahweh and thereby rejecting their Savior Yeshua, Yah who saves.

            If ever you’re led to look again, let me know, I’d be pleased to assist you in finding your way to the cross and empty tomb of our Lord and Savior.

          • James Higginbotham

            Jefferson was NOT ANTI CHRIST, and Neither was Washington.
            Jefferson had a PROFOUND AND INQUISITIVE MIND, who just questioned any and everything.

          • Regrettably, Jefferson was indeed anti-Christ.

            “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH….” (1 Timothy 3:16)

            “For many [plural] deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that JESUS CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your [personal, State, White, Senate, or] house [of Representatives], neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” (2 John 1:7-11)

            Now consider the implications of these two passages in light of following:

            “…That Freemasons and antichrists, such as Washington and Jefferson (who cut the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and ascension of Christ – what he described as a “dunghill” – out of his cut-and-paste New Testament18), could be elected President speaks volumes of the non-Christian character of the Constitution.19

            ‘The Framers at the Constitutional Convention issued a death warrant against Christianity, but for tactical reasons, they and their spiritual heirs refused for several generations to deliver it to the intended victims. They covered this covenantal death sentence with a lot of platitudes about the hand of Providence, the need for Morality, the grand design of the universe, and similar Masonic shibboleths.’20….”

            For more, see online Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at

            Praying alone does not make one a Christian:

            “He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.” (Proverbs 28:9)

            “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'” (Matthew 7:21-23)

            One can only become a Christian by means of Christ’s blood-atoning sacrifice and resurrection from the grave, as depicted in the Bible. See John 14:6, Acts 4:12, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 22:16, etc.

          • Clearpoint

            I believe it was Tocqueville who pointed out that Americans place an uncommon and undeserved faith in the written word at their own peril.

          • David Hodges

            Then Tocqueville must have been double-minded. In this quote he attributed America’s success to America’s embracing Biblical legislation. Notice what Alexis de Tocqueville, in his book Democracy in America, said about the Colonial American theocracies:

            “They exercised the rights of sovereignty; they named their magistrates, concluded peace or declared war, made police regulations, and enacted laws as if their allegiance was due only to God. Nothing can be more curious and, at the same time more instructive, than the legislation of that period; it is there that the solution of the great social problem which the United States now presents to the world is to be found.”

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            Theocracy is pernicious to legitimate individual rights and personal sovereignty, a maker of enslaving and murderous problems in any society that practices it, as does any practice of statism (socialism, communism, fascism).

          • David Hodges

            So why didn’t Tocqueville describe Colonial America as “pernicious to legitimate individual rights and personal sovereignty, a maker of enslaving and murderous problems”? Why was it called “the shining light of the world”?

          • Roger Schweikert

            What? Alexis de Tocqueville was a catholic political scientist, historian and French diplomat who visited the United States and recorded his observations of the nature of our political system in his seminal work “Democracy in America.” As a practicing catholic I suppose that might explain one reason why he said what you are quoting him as saying Clearpoint, because of the predominate view of many Catholic Church leaders historically who view most Bible’s passages from an allegorical point of view rather than as the actual inerrant word of God as most Protestant groups have believed since Luther. For by way of contrast, de Tocqueville and later Charles Finney would assert that the secret of America’s greatest was then and always would be based upon whether American pulpits would remain “aflame with righteousness” or not, and that “America is great because America is good. If America ceases to be good she will cease to be great.”

          • Clearpoint

            I believe we are talking two different things altogether. First, my reference to Tocqueville is not a direct quote, but a reference to thoughts I remember expressed in “Democracy in America.” Second, the written words he expressed those thoughts about were those of the Constitution, not the Bible. I concur with you, and with Tocqueville, that religious faith was very important to America’s founding.

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            Your entire comment is one long tedious, fallacious Argument from Authority.

            You fail.

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            It is only sad to you, a theist, that one would reject as the metaphysical rubbish that it is that which you credulously accept as fact.

            Allow yourself the courage–for the first time in your life–to check objectively your false dualistic metaphysical premises upon which all of your theistic beliefs are based, and discover their falsity.

          • David Hodges

            So what do you think about the way all of the Indians within several miles of Plymouth Rock were killed and the tsunami that killed the aborigines along the coast of Australia? Was this a fulfillment of 2 Samuel 7:10? Does Yahweh need you to straighten Him out for letting such “divine ownership of pathological violence against other peoples” happen?

        • James Higginbotham

          also remember President Washington’s warning as he was leaving office.
          our leaders DIDN’T listen, and aren’t listening TODAY.

          • Even a Freemason can get it right sometimes.

          • James Higginbotham

            speaking of a freemason, i happen to be one.
            and president Washington and Jefferson are my two FAVORITES.

          • Well, I hope you’ll be motivated to check into them. There’s plenty to be found by Googling it. Look especially for books written by previous Freemasons.

            Freemasonry is not Christian. Among other serious problems, it’s polytheistic to the core. In other words, it’s in violation of the First Commandment.

            Neither Washington (a Freemason) nor Jefferson (an anti-Christ) were Christians.

            For more regarding the late 1700 founders’ (including Washington’s and Jefferson’s) true religious persuasions, see Dr. Albert Mohler’s interview with Dr. Gregg Frazer at

            Dr. Frazer proves from the key founders’ own writings that they were neither Deists in the purest sense of the word, nor were they Christians in the Biblical sense of the word. Instead, they were Theistic Rationalists.

            Dr. Mohler is President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Frazer is Professor of History of the Master’s College in California.

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            “Freemasonry is not Christian. Among other serious problems, it’s polytheistic to the core. In other words, it’s in violation of the First Commandment.”

            The real, serious problem is the false dualistic metaphysics (i.e. reality comprises a natural and supernatural aspect) underlying the bible’s authors’ beliefs, and other theists’ beliefs (Freemasons, etc.) in the existence of a supernatural giver of commandments.

          • David Hodges

            What do you suppose TJ will say on Judgment Day when Yahweh asks him how he felt about Revelation 22: 18 & 19?: “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

          • James Higginbotham

            i have no clue what TJ will be asked on judgement day just like i don’t know what i will be asked on that day?

  • Boysie

    Can you explain – why you write about places and peoples that you know absolutely nothing about – but fail to write about American history that you should know about –

    Your article seems to be based more on euphemisms rather that reality of historical fact – yes there are some fact – but the objective of your article is banal – since it has nothing to do with anything of substance

  • Clearpoint

    You are awfully glib about the causes of WW I and WW II. Certainly, secession was not the cause; nor, on the other hand, were the opposite political actions of annexation and invasion, the cause, as you infer. Changes in political control of any smaller nation were merely symptoms of the underlying power struggle between the elites of the major powers for economic (and, therefore political) dominance. Both WW I and WW II were fought over economic (and political) dominance. Germany was ascending as an economic power, and this was a threat to the economic power of England and France. This is what brought on WW I — not secession, not annexation, and not the assassination of the archduke Ferdinand. The Treaty of Versailles, in which England and France imposed severe economic penalties against Germany, in large part, made WW II inevitable. An economically capable Germany merely needed financing, which western banks were more than willing to lend them, and political leadership, which came in the form of Hitler, in order to rebuild and reignite their economic and military might. This is what brought on WW II. Behind both wars you will find that profit-seeking banks were there, instrumental in fueling the fire.

    • Don Duncan

      To focus on the power struggling elites and their profit motives is to take for granted the power itself. I don’t. I challenge the mass superstition that makes power elites possible. Without majority support for the concentration of power and use of violence no war is possible. The populace create the monster that destroys them by their faith in force, their worship of rulers. Like zombies they form mobs of suicidal murdering machines supported by many more at home who idolize this insanity. “We support our boys” they chant as the maddness infects all nation-states, all armies. All kill all with moral superiority. And all are wrong. All are self-destructive.

      • Clearpoint

        I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with you at the same time. Yes, I must concede that the power of the elites is a mass superstition; but all evidence suggests that the masses easily and mindlessly surrender their power to the elites, in large part based on these superstitions. The masses failure to exercise their own power creates a power void that the elites step into and fill, and the masses end up getting sucked into the power void that they created and the elites filled. I too hold the masses accountable for their failure, but I also hold the elites accountable for their treachery.

  • Number 6

    Where did you get the figure of 4 million who died in the Holodomor ? Every source Ive read or seen puts the figure at 10 million, and the article complete ignores the 65 million estimated to have been murdered by the jewish Bolsheviks, during the communist invasion of Russian and in the following years, its well known they murdered the intelligencia and all the peasants opposed to what was in effect the reintroduction of the Feudal system. I know this article is talking specifically about secession but unintentionally downplaying the figures of the evils of communism is just aiding their propaganda, that communism was good, but Stalin was bad, but still not as bad as Hitler, 4 is less than 6 ect ect ect

    By the way ALL Wars are Banker wars, the timing of the Communist invasion of Russia and the first world war is not a coincidence, The United states and Britain and Germany were supposed to fighting one another, yet they both aided the insertion of Trotsky real name Lev Davidovich Bronstein a jewish taylor from New York via Canada and Lenin on the famous sealed train through Germany into the Soviet union to begin the Soviet revolution, the sides pretending to opposed one another in the first world war were clearly on the same side.

  • NobodysaysBOO

    “There is no room in the country for hyphenated Americans.

    The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin,of

    preventing all posibility of its continuing to be a nation at all,

    would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.”


    • Don Duncan

      Translation: “I demand at gunpoint one nation, one voice, one power to rule everyone with no dissent allowed. Freedom of expression is ruinous to nationhood and unity. Permission to dissent will be denied by violence.”

      • NobodysaysBOO

        HMMM sort of like a FREE SPEECH ZONE?

      • NobodysaysBOO

        PS: he was speaking about becoming an American CITIZEN and ASSIMILATION not DISINTEGRATION thru ALIEN INSURGENT immigration which is a crime.

        • Don Duncan

          What difference does it make how long a threat to my freedom has been around? If that threat is a citizen or an invader, I am still at risk, maybe more so from the born resident because that person “feels” morally privileged to dictate by the fact of historical heritage.

          • NobodysaysBOO

            like CANCER or RAPE just lay back and let it happen , for ever and never make things better, works for the third world. NOT HERE.

          • NobodysaysBOO

            PS: HERITAGE is always HISTORIC that is the ONLY KIND!

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            If it is a heritage that is expressed by coercion upon any individual who shares it in the name of preserving it, essentially regarding a person as the property of–a slave to–that heritage, I will gladly, readily, and proudly fight against it.

          • NobodysaysBOO

            heritage is earned you get NONE!
            sort of like BLACK heritage there is none.
            or anything else you can find to start a FIGHT about!
            TILT at some WINDMILLS this time.

        • Col. Edward H. R. Green

          TR was speaking of coercive, Borg-like assimilation into an American collective.

          • NobodysaysBOO

            bull , asshats like you would never know, tell it to some of your somolie neighbors!

    • Col. Edward H. R. Green

      A collectivist assertion uttered by a statist.

      • NobodysaysBOO

        use a dictionary.

    • Yet another reason why TR should be set aside for the statist he was.

      • NobodysaysBOO

        “There is no room in the country for multi-named persons either”