top of page

The Secession of South California

Updated: Feb 4, 2021

There was a report in the news yesterday (July 1, 2011) that thirteen southern counties of the State of California were considering seceding from that state and creating a new state.  Presumably, this state would be named South California.  It would be formed to address some of the issues of border regulation, balancing budgets, improving schools, and creating a “vibrant economy.”   I see this as a step in the right direction, but only on the level of “smaller makes better,” as having 51 states is in no way a solution to any real problems.

The problems that exist in California (which are similar to those now reported in Minnesota, with other states facing severe economic problems) mirror the problems that cover all of the United States, as well as Western Europe.  These problems are rooted in the central theme that unity is not working.  Unity only works when those unified are strongly together, seeking the same goals.

The idea of a portion of a state seceding from a preexisting state, becoming a new state was last accomplished when the northern part of Virginia refused to go along with the State of Virginia’s decision to secede from the union of states, consisting of the United States of America.  This process began as a motion before the Virginia legislature in 1861, while northern Virginia was occupied by Union troops.  The vote for secession was far from a majority, with many illegal (non-residents) votes cast for secession.  West Virginia was recognized as the thirty-fifth state on June 20, 1863.

According to the Wikipedia article on West Virginia, under its history and separation from Virginia section, the following is written. “While many felt that West Virginia’s admission as a state was both illegal and unconstitutional, Lincoln issued his Opinion on the Admission of West Virginia finding that “the body which consents to the admission of West Virginia, is the Legislature of Virginia,” and that its admission was therefore both constitutional and expedient.”

Certainly, any serious challenges against the illegalities and unconstitutionalities were never made because of two reasons.  First, Virginia had seceded from the Union.  Regardless of the Union’s failure to recognize that secession, while recognizing West Virginia’s secession and fast-track admission as a new state, Virginia was the state where the battlefront was drawn.  Virginia’s delegation to the Congress would have ceased playing a role in the United States government, having joined the Confederate States.  Second, the Confederate States ultimate loss in the American Civil War kept it a prisoner in its “own land,” powerless to challenge its master, while being forced to reconstruct.

The issue in California in 2011 is not too different from the issues in the United States between 1840 and 1860.  The similarities can be boiled down to showing how the population is divided on major issues.  The solution found in 2011 is to divide the state, because the direction the state has gone is not satisfactory to a significant portion of the population.  The solution found in 1861 was the same, only there was already separation as states (all sovereign entities).  The thirteen states that seceded from the Union did so because the direction the Union had gone was not satisfactory to a significant portion of the population.

The problem is the United States of America was “too big for its britches” in 1861.  Rather than allow a European format of state-size nations to be established in North America, the president of the United States (Abraham Lincoln) decided savage tactics were demanded.  American soldiers died in greater numbers than in any other war this country has ever been in, because the control of the Federal Government was being challenged.  Should the “South” be allowed to dissolve their unity, and walk away from a strong central government (their Constitutional right), the ultimate end of Federal manipulation of the states would result.

If thirteen states had been allowed to leave, making the United States of America comprise of only 22 northern states, and with every western territory (all land stolen from “Indians”) a free-for-all, the future for the Fed would have been bleak.  Any subsequent federal action causing other significant populations to become pissed off (by recognizing a Fed more dedicated to serving its own greed than the will of the people), more moves towards secession would have followed.  Eventually there would have been no need for an outdated Washington, D.C. power model.

The problems with California today, while unique to California, unique to the southwest (southern west), and unique to those lands once possessed by Mexico, are really no different to those faced in all states in the Union.  The design was to have a Federal government that acted as a servant to the needs of the states; and this was never to be a land where sovereign states had to succumb to the will of a few Washington politicians.  The Federal government has become a seesaw of political party politics, where one party up makes that party down suffer.  In that swing, each state either suffers or enjoys the benefits of the Fed being either favorable or unfavorable to the ruling parties of the individual states.

This is a war between the parties, rather than a war between the states; but all states are caught in the middle, caught in the crossfire of that battleground.  The only way to end this continuing (and increasing) war is to dissolve the Union and do away with the Fed.  Once that is out of the way, party politics will still exist, but on state levels.  The caveat then would be what is in the news about California today.  Try to get one party ruling unjustly over more than a minority of the people and the state will further divide.  In a democratic republic form of government, this division will continue until the population is fairly represented.  The issue is not the right of the government, but the right of the people to control the government.

Another problem brought to the forefront is how the media presents this news of secession in California as a joke, worthy of ridicule.  The media has always acted for selfish reasons, making it always be a useful tool of propaganda.  The media of the 19th century also tried to sway the the population on volatile issues, such as slavery, when no one in the newspaper industry faced the hardships of growing their own cotton, and weaving their own clothes.  They were told what to write, by those who controlled the presses.  Those who wanted secession were ridiculed in an effort to garner support from the reading public.  They sought to raise anger in the population, over the thought of separation, to the point the population would volunteer to go fight for the Union.  They wanted human beings to lay their lives on the line to “save the Union.”  The hope was that ridicule might cause those bold enough to secede to tremble, and back off their announced plans.  Perhaps, return things to the way the were, before we have to get harsh.  However, the South only get bolder, meaning the press turned to savage attacks on separationists.  The propaganda painted them as being tremendous threats to the safety to all citizens.

While there was plenty of volunteers (on both sides) during the American Civil War, the reality is both sides were ready to quit and go home after the first rounds of maiming and killing bullets (mini malls) started flying (along with swords, cannons, and later mines).  Forced conscription fueled a war that most ordinary citizens in the North did not want to fight.  They simply had nothing to gain from going to war over a political ideal.  Many sympathized with the plight of the Southern “rebels.”  It was then, and always will be the politicians who will force the lambs to the slaughter, so they can maintain their political power.

The people who propose “One World Government,” where bigger is better, are liars.  Those people propose all normal citizens bow down to the superiority of one class of human being, who would rule the world as the new “princes of peace.”  Anytime this concept is proposed, it is time to get far away from those people and that principle.

In the minds of these “super class rulers,” the citizenry should voluntarily place the chains of bondage around their own necks, then kneel and pray to their new lords and their philosophies of “freedom, liberty, and justice for all.”  Should that stage of total control be reached, and should a state like California ever have citizens contemplate secession, the only ones free to separate and become new states are those who march to the beat of the Union.  All changes must serve the One.

Should the move to secede by contrary to the One, the voice of the population wanting to be free will be stymied by the minority holding all the weapons.  Those weapons will then be pointed at the population, with orders readied to command troops to commit genocide, regardless of whose relative is in the line of fire.  As long as those in power control the military, they will act however they will to retain (or increase) their hold over the population.

As of now, these Federal monsters control no states, and act as servants who can never come through on promises.  Their continued hope for control comes through the power of persuasion.  Their gift of talking concepts, pointing to the greed of others (never pointing to their own greed), sways people to believe they are saying, “We will give you what they have, if you give us the chance to rule over you.”  The reality is they want to take from all who would oppose their rule, once given power.  The people wanting to become the State of South California want to move away from those who have only lined their own pockets, at the expense of the majority population.

The California proposition is a step in the right direction, but it is a step that everyone needs to see as a model for how to go forward.  This country need to get small now, not bigger.  If for nothing more than making many little targets harder for the enemies of our Federal government to hit.  For humanitarian reasons, we need to learn self-reliance, rather than dependency on some government far away, one that is never able to live up to its ideals.

We need to all secede from a system that promotes the destruction of religion and morals.  We need the majority to rule through a return to reverence of God.  A smaller world makes abiding by the guides set down by Christ are attainable to those who seek that form of government, while it also allows those who wish to have no religion rule themselves accordingly, on land they possess collective (as the majority).

If that solution is not seen globally, through the United States and the whole world, then there will be a war coming.  It will be one that our leaders will gladly send conscripted “volunteers” to fight and die in, while they sit back and deny benefits to those who do not contribute to this slaughter.  In that end scenario, we will all be in smaller groups, each dependent on self-sufficiency, but on an earth no longer able to sustain life.  I recommend everyone look at what South California proposes, and ask yourself, “Why wouldn’t that work here?”

Recent Posts

See All

Nostradamus quatrain VIII-50

Quatrain VIII-50 is said to be one of Nostradamus' "hits" or accurate predictions of the future. Supposedly, this quatrain was fulfilled in 1573 (after Nostradamus died in 1566), when a "bastard Span


Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet

Add a rating
bottom of page