Politics of the Counter-revolution
by Grugyn Silverbristle

Parochial: adj. 1) of or pertaining to a parish or parishes. 2) of or pertaining to parochial schools or the education they provide. 3) of very limited or narrow scope; provincial. [Random House College Dictionary]
Parochial: Relating or belonging to a Parish. [Black's Law Dictionary]
Parish: In English ecclesiastical law a circuit of ground, committed to the charge of one person or vicar, or other minister having cure of souls therein (1 Bl.Comm. 111). The precinct of a parish church, and the particular charge of a secular priest. An ecclesiastical division of a town, city or district, subject to the ministry of one pastor. 2. In Louisiana, a territorial governmental division of a state corresponding to what is elsewhere called a county. [Black's Law Dictionary]

We find it particularly amusing that, in these cosmopolitan times of political-correctness, people should equate provincialism with being narrow-minded, or presume that either is necessarily a bad thing. The words themselves are more often used as pejoratives, the kind of insult that one hurls at an opponent upon being bested at argumentation. And why is it that narrow-minded rural folk often lead the happiest lives, have stable relationships, and appear to be least in need of government intervention? Is there, perhaps, something that our social engineers have overlooked in their haste, some undefined virtue to be found in provincialism — something that may yet teach us a little more about what it is to be civilized?

We think there is, and so we emphasize the word parochial because it addresses a social concern that is often underemphasized, if not altogether overlooked: the dynamic equilibrium, or dialectic, that has always existed between church and state, or religion and politics, and which is crucial to maintaining that social harmony which is fundamental to a healthy community. We suggest that this subject is infinitely sublime, and that there is no one, single, perfect moral and social governing system that has all of the answers, or which can be — or ought to be — enforced upon everybody, everywhere.

And yet this is exactly what is happening. We all know it, or at least fear that it might be true: that the New World Order is not just about building a global economy and making us all into world citizens. It is also about establishing a world religion, a world culture, a world church and a world proletariat, a global elite, a world court, a global police force and a world prison.

Raised as we are on the doctrine of separation of powers, we can easily forget that the church and government do, in fact, work together. The nature of this cooperation, and the various forms it takes, are what we mean by the term dialectic. It is a dynamic relationship, ever-changing, whose every nuance has a profound effect on how we express civility — or civilization.

The church has an inherent energy — a potential for social and political influence — that makes it a magnet for political activism, and which renders it vulnerable to every form of political manipulation. It is therefore necessary that church leaders have sufficient political savvy to know when they are being manipulated, and the character to resist the temptation. Because government has the power to enforce, it will always be attractive to any church that believes redemption is achieved by works (as it well may be). Therefore, church leaders will always find themselves politically involved, insofar as their congregations represent little earthly kingdoms that are made up of real, flesh-and-blood persons, not disembodied spirits.

The idea of a secular priest may be discomforting to many, who see in their church a purely spiritual experience. Yet, should a church divest itself entirely of secular concern (such as care of the poor, education, morals and dogma, the raising of children and support of the traditional family) it would most likely transform itself into an apocalyptic cult, removing its members from any outside contact or interference.

Likewise, a state that divests itself of every religious artifact, or acknowledgment, will become Godless, worldly, mechanical and amoral, having substituted a self-seeking code of ethics for the spiritual presence of an unifying, national, moral purpose ... something that only religion can provide.

The nations are not bodies-politic alone, but also souls-politic; and woe to the people which, seeking the material only, forgets that it has a soul. ... A free people, forgetting that it has a soul to be cared for, devotes all its energies to its material advancement. If it makes war, it is to subserve its commercial interests.

Albert Pike
Morals and Dogma
I .: Apprentice

Perhaps fortunately, no matter how hard we try to separate church and state, or religion and politics, there will always be a secular involvement of the church, and a religious aspect to the state. Therefore, issues of religious tolerance, intolerance, exclusion and favoritism will always be an open question, and a valid political concern — contrary to our received wisdom that infinite religious tolerance and limitless inclusion by the state, together with a total separation of religion from politics (i.e., religion may not be discussed), is the only conceivable policy. As stated, we assert that total separation of church and state is impossible, and therefore religious discrimination can be a valid political outcome, acknowledging that some churches may, in deed, be working contrary to the public interest.

Further, we observe that religious diversity can be very burdensome to the state, forcing compromises and arrangements that impede the state's ability to function. As various sects compete for power, the state becomes entangled as the arbiter of religious dispute, and comes under pressure to demonstrate its impartiality by divesting itself of every religious artifact. Thus a small but politically active Jewish, Muslim or Hindoo minority, for example, can effectively destroy the religious aspect of a Christian government, to the detriment of its people and their community.

As we acknowledge that there is no perfect religion (or religious creed), and that we cannot build an impregnable wall of legality between church and government, we are led inexorably toward the conclusion that geographic separation between churches and cultures, as between states according to their dominant language, culture or church, is necessary to preserve the structure of civilization. We assert that each community has the God-given right to establish and defend its own standards, institutions and its territory. The theory of Parochialism holds that there must be a limit to anyone's moral and legal domain, and that these limits are best made geographically. Nothing makes for better neighbors than a good fence, and sufficient space between them. Let each rule where appropriate.

Take, for example, the controversy over abortion. Some people believe that abortion is murder, and this places them under a moral obligation to enforce their faith (belief) upon others. Should they fail in this, their moral authority will collapse, and with it their community standards. It is imperative that they prevent abortion (murder) from occurring under their very noses, even as they would prosecute murderers in their midst. But they have neither the obligation, nor the right, to make this into a crusade to be carried-off unto distant peoples and far-off states, anymore than we should be prosecuting criminals in Kosovo or cannibals in Sierra Leone.

It is wrong to expect all peoples everywhere to adhere to the same standards of language, culture, religion, politics or education, as it would be to demand that all farmers everywhere cultivate the same strain of rice or potato. There are different environments, cultures and peoples. What one can do successfully, another cannot. We were never intended to be all alike, nor to develop the same solutions, even when the problems we face appear to be the same. Civilization is based on compromise, trade-offs, and a degree of experimentation. Where something is gained, something else will be lost. Some preferences are material, others are religious or cultural. Even the same political or religious system, left to itself, will evolve differently in two different places.

The principle of seeking diverse, multiple solutions to similar problems can be applied to virtually any area of public policy. For example, some people regard guns, alcohol, drugs, tobacco and nudity as abhorrent, and they have a right to protect their way of life and the exposures to their children. Without this moral authority, their community standards — and their civilization — will collapse. But we must respect the fact that other people, in other places, will find different ways of dealing with these facts of life which, to ourselves at least, may be every bit as valid.

Some people believe in communal property-rights, wishing to embark on all sorts of idealistic social experiments. Let them build their new Utopias, for what good they may discover. Such were the Pilgrims, the Mennonites, the Mormons, the Shakers, ... or the Hebrews, and some Aryans, for that matter. America was once a haven for idealists with good hearts. Lately, it seems only those with evil hearts are able to prosper. Nevertheless, there are many social and political alternatives still unexplored, ideas yet untried, or things that deserve to be tried again. There are different lives to be led, and some of them may be very interesting. Isn't that what diversity was supposed to mean?

There may be people who view community enterprise as something different from community property (in the ordinary sense), and realize that they can unite — as a community — to resist the encroachment in their lives by globalism and multinational corporations. In fact, it is only as a community that we can hope to resist the displacement and disruption caused by this new global economy. Those who wish to build a strong and vital city-state (or county-state, a semi-autonomous zone) will find that the theory of Economic Parochialism is ideally suited to their desire for self-sufficiency. To such people, the freedom gained through independence (as in the ability to manufacture their own toothpaste) is worth the economic risk involved.

Nevertheless, it would appear that most regions — metropolitan areas in particular — are caught up in this global economy of laissez faire materialism (in their limited view, the only option), and endure the attendant problems of immigration, crime, social instability and loss of sovereignty, trusting their new corporate managers to attend to their needs. Each community will suffer according to its own failings.

For example, the problems of Urban Sprawl are largely the result of massive social engineering programs that had attempted to enforce a flawed ideology of universal inclusion. At first people bought into it, believing, as they had been told, that it was the right thing to do, ... but as the system began to fail, they opted out and fled to the simpler life of the suburbs. Such behavior gained them nothing but a little time, and see how they squander that! They travel faster and farther, consuming much, much more, depleting our precious resources, and leaving a gaping urban void that draws still more resource-consuming aliens hither.

Neither should we overlook the significance of culture in shaping a community, its institutions, and its attitudes toward its environment — both in what it creates and what it leaves alone. Some people may perceive the need to vigorously defend their cultural and educational institutions. They may find a moral value in separating pubescent boys and girls at school, for example, and in providing their young men with military training. Some may even wish to teach White History to their white children in white schools. Let us. Others will wring their hands in despair, and wonder why boys can't behave more like girls, or negroes like Asians, blaming their social ills on guns, poverty, white racism and testosterone poisioning. Time again will prove (as always, too late) who had been right.

There is no one perfect solution to the problems of civil and moral government, the distribution of wealth and opportunity, and the relationship of religion, culture and virtue: one system will work here and not there, while another there but not here. Different people, in different places, will work out their problems in different ways, and all of humanity is involved in some form of social experiment. There no more exists a perfect plan for social harmony than a perfect musical tune, to the exclusion of all others.

What's right for one is not right for all.

In other words, Parochialism recognizes that civilization is a trade-off, a political compromise, and it seeks to satisfy all parties in a political or ideological dispute by finding a way to put space between them, and to allow each to live where appropriate, and each to rule where appropriate. In return for respecting a community's right to enforce its own social, political, cultural and moral standards, we place a geographic limitation on that authority.

The Theory of Limited Appeals

Returning to our example of the abortion dispute, Parochialism would suggest that individual towns and counties do have the right to declare themselves abortion-free zones , and that neither state nor federal government can overrule the local authority on such an issue, which is essentially moral and religious in nature. We would further argue that Roe v. Wade should be overturned on the grounds that abortion is not a federal (or state) concern. By way of contrast, a Globalist (World Federalist) would argue for resolution of this dispute at the highest possible level, once and for all, either banning or condoning it altogether, he cares not which: so long as the dispute is pushed to a higher appeal, it will serve his purpose of centralizing all political and judicial power. It follows that the partisan (on whichever side of the issue) who seeks victory in a federal court is, in fact, playing into the Federalist hand — oy veh!

In this respect, Parochialism is very much the same as Antifederalism. Whereas the Federalist (Globalist) will resort to invoking a higher power of appeal, eventually centralizing all authority and lumping all similar disputes together into a single Grand Judgment, the Antifederalist will allow (even seek) a multiplicity of different solutions, geographically apart.

Whenever a local decision is appealed to a higher court — as in a state appellate division or a federal circuit — what is surrendered is not merely the adjudication of this single dispute, but rather the venue, or the authority, to oversee similar issues in the future. Local sovereignty is abdicated to others, who invariably rule from a greater distance. Tyranny follows. The very concept of a higher court is the centralization of power, and this nullifies consent of the governed , the foundation of all constitutional powers [i.e. those created by agreement]. We can therefore see how neither rights nor powers ever stem from any higher authority (excepting God) — and especially not the Constitution of any United States, or any Charter of United Nations. The terms themselves are self-contradictory: as soon as they become United , they cease to be sovereign.

The Theory of Limited Appeals asserts that federal courts (hence federal law) only have jurisdiction over disputes arising between states. Likewise, a state's jurisdiction extends only over disputes between constituent counties, which in turn have jurisdiction over their consituent towns. If people don't like it where they are, let them put their house in order or leave ... but the idea that a Jewish or Muslim family (for example) can move into a Christian town, and use the state or federal government to coerce the townspeople into changing their ways to suit the newcomers ... such a system is intolerable. As we recollect, this idea of federal intervention started during the Reconstruction Era of 1862-1878. That's also when civil rights began.

The fact that the federal Constitution and the constitutions of the States do not adequately spell out the Theory of Limited Appeals are but examples of how these documents are flawed and ought to be renegotiated. A constitution means an agreement. At the time these charters were adopted, the federal and state encroachments that we endure today were unimaginable to the framers, and therefore the present law was not their design or intent.

Parochialism embraces the axiom that all constitutions — and all levels of government today — are flawed, unnaturally distorted, and also invalid because the consent (or agreement) of the people had always been assumed, or contrived, but never proven. We also hold that the present system, and its multiple layers of government jurisdiction over any single issue, will collapse of its own self-contradictions. It does not even need to be pushed. It is that inevitable.

Elsewhere, we have pointed out that freedom is a limitation of government, while Civil Rights are an expansion of government.

In light of this, we can see how the popular phrase, Bill of Rights, was a misnomer, and how reference to one's nth Amendment Rights can become an ideological trap. The Ten Amendments to the Constitution create no rights of the people at all, nor should they, since the rights alluded to already exist antecedent to the Constitution, which merely recognizes them, and to the government, which was charged with safeguarding them. That government has failed, at all levels, in this charge is further proof of its blanket illegitimacy. The Ten Amendments were really a Bill of Limitations on the powers of created government, and that is exactly how they were worded. One should consider the content more than the title.

When the counties and parishes of America were first mapped-out, their borders were determined by the standard that all residents should be able to reach their county seat in a single day's travel. The practicality of this measure has been well tested, and it is the best way to ensure that the people are indeed governed by their consent. So long as those who govern reside within a day's march — within physical reach of their people — there is a sure-fire recourse to any abuse of power in office. Conversely, when those who govern do so at a distance, they are able to fortify their positions, surround themselves with allies, and tyrrany will inevitably follow.

To this point, Parochialism and Antifederalism are very much the same thing. They both recognize the political fact that, as the territory of a state expands, its form of government will become increasingly remote, monarchical and totalitarian. A true republic can exist only within a narrow territory.

Where these concepts diverge is over the changing landscape of political history: classic Antifederalism began with the proposition that the States were themselves sovereign, as indeed they were at the time of the Antifederalist Papers. To a large extent, this was a lingering heritage of the original colonial charters that had been granted by the Crown, and which had been accepted as the basis of the colonial governments, which later achieved statehood. When the Federal Government subdued the States in the Civil War, its usurpation voided any continuing legitimacy stemming from the colonial charters, hence the State governments themselves became illegitimate.

It is also interesting to note that, from the 13th on, succeeding Amendments to the Constitution do create rights — in the juristic sense of being enforceable entitlements — proof that a major change in our government had occurred during the Civil War, which, more and more, begins to look like it had been a revolution.

Equally significant, the concept of an American Nation — a term that is constantly being used, and continually redefined — has remained unresolved to this day, it being a racial, cultural and religious definition as much as anything else. At the time of the Civil War, our country was embroiled in tremendous racial, cultural and religious turmoil. What was needed most was time for a true national culture to evolve, together with its attendant institutions: but the issue had been forced already, with the ratification of the 1787 Constitution, in effect creating a paper nation that was, and is, for all intents and purposes, an idealized and fictional super-state. It was clear to the Antifederalists that this new super-state would undermine, and eventually usurp, every last vestige of individual State sovereignty.

The Civil War and Reconstruction removed any doubt but that they were right.

Today, the states of the Union have been reduced to mere agents of the federal power, and even in this prostration, they are as often bypassed by directly-administered federal programs — i.e. HUD, forestry, agriculture, civil rights and regulations of every sort — as not. As soon as a State allows the federal government to meddle directly with its constituent towns and counties, it has, in every last respect, relinquished its statehood.

The Theory of Home Rule

At this point we incorporate by reference the essay Local Self-Government in the United States, by Ellis Katz, professor emeritus of political science, and fellow, etc., etc., ... from which we excerpt the following:

Whatever legal theory might say, the political reality is that America's cities and towns enjoy a remarkable degree of autonomy and independence ... Writing 167 years ago, the French journalist Alexis de Tocqueville observed that the United States' pattern of local government reflected America's passion for popular sovereignty. By this, he meant that individuals and families joined together to form local communities, which, in turn, federated to form states, which ultimately led to the creation of the national government ... Forgiving some exaggeration, Tocqueville's observation does capture the important fact that local units of government are not created by some higher authority, such as the state or national government, but are created by the people themselves, and represent popular and enduring expressions of how we think about local government in the United States.

Every state except Connecticut and Rhode Island is divided into counties. Counties are subdivisions of the state itself. ... Their principal functions are judicial administration, public safety and the organization of elections, although in recent years they have taken on a variety of new functions, such as solid waste disposal, public health, libraries, technical and community colleges and environmental protection.

Typically, local communities of different populations receive different types of charters, so that the charters of large cities tend to establish a different form of government than is characteristic of smaller cities, and large cities tend to have more taxing and regulatory authority than do small cities. But, in all cases, the powers granted to a municipal corporation are to be narrowly interpreted. According to Judge John Dillon's famous 1868 [Is it beginning to make sense?]opinion:

It is a general and undisputed proposition that a municipal corporation possesses and can exercise the following powers, and no others: first, those granted in express words; second, those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted; third, those essential to the accomplishment of the declared objects and purposes of the corporation — not simply convenient, but indispensable. Any fair, reasonable, substantial doubt concerning the existence of a power is resolved by the courts against a corporation, and the power is denied.

Dillon's Rule, as it became known, while technically correct, flies in the face of the historical and political reality observed by Tocqueville only 37 years earlier.

To counter Dillon's restrictive view of local authority, states adopted a new way to charter local governments, one more way in keeping with the American tradition of popular sovereignty.

For example, beginning in the state of Missouri in 1875, the states began to change their constitutions to provide for home rule for local communities. Pennsylvania's home rule constitutional provision is typical, and provides that Municipalities shall have the right and power to frame home rule charters. Operating under such charters, a municipality may exercise any power or perform any function not denied by this Constitution, by its home rule charter, or by the General Assembly. Pennsylvania, by legislation, also extends the home rule option to counties and townships.

Today, many states have some sort of constitutional provision for home rule. Under most home rule provisions, the residents of a local community write and adopt their own charter that serves as a kind of constitution for the city. While home rule charters go far in restoring the historical independence and autonomy of local communities, citizens cannot adopt charters that offend the state constitution or state laws. Furthermore, state courts are called upon to interpret home rule charters and often have fallen back on Dillon's Rule to take a narrow view of local authority.

by Ellis Katz
Local Self-Government in the United States

And this is what lies at the heart of Parochialist theory: the idea that sovereignty and citizenship begin, not at the state or federal, but at the town and county levels of government. In 1863, a renegade federal government, under Marxist leadership, had created a fictitious federal citizenship, and this was formalized in the non-ratified Fourteenth Amendment. The federal and state governments, however, cannot prevent us from organizing our own legitimate county citizenship. As we shall see, the Federalist (NWO) forces have played into our hand.

The Point of Conflict

Now let us consider, as a point of departure, some convolutions of our current election law, which, by the Tenth Amendment, is still to be administered at the state and county level (the U.S. Constitution does not specify which). We note that Election Law constitutes the actual, working definition of citizenship. Using New York State as an example:

Laws shall be made for ascertaining, by proper proofs, the citizens who shall be entitled to the right of suffrage hereby established, and for the registration of voters; which registration shall be completed at least ten days before each election.

Article 2, Section 5
NYS Constitution

Article 2, Section 5 above clearly mandates the verification of citizenship and eligibility to vote before a person is allowed to participate in an election — but even a cursory glance at a New York State Voter Registration Card shows how the State itself has made it impossible to do so. An enrolee is not asked to provide his place or date of birth, to verify native citizenship. Neither does the form require the place and date of naturalization for immigrants, nor dies it request social security and driver's license numbers for verification. There is no way to ascertain either an enrolee's citizenship or his period of residence, other than by checking local utilities or rental records. There is no way to check whether the same person is registered elsewhere. There is no test of literacy. There is no way to check criminal status. There is no way to verfy even that the person is living.

Where the State has failed in its solemn duty to protect and uphold the privilege of citizenship, or the integrity of our elections, it is incumbent on the County to look after these concerns, and take precautions that these safeguards are never again let down. This is the point where we choose our ground, ready to stand and fight if need be, in order to secure our sovereign God-given rights against encroachment by the super-state.

The State government presently determines, for each constituent town and county, every last detail of how we are to circulate petitions, organize our parties and boards of electors, how our ballot is to be presented, how votes will be tabulated, and who among us may vote — without sufficient proofs — or stand for office, and then it presumes that those so- elected are our representatives! And not content with this, they implant a gimmick to assure our participation in their Two-Party System:

All laws creating, regulating or affecting boards or officers charged with the duty of qualifying voters, or of distributing ballots to voters, or of receiving, recording or counting votes at elections, shall secure equal representation of the two political parties which, at the general election next preceding that for which such boards or officers are to serve, cast the highest and the next highest number of votes. All such boards and officers shall be appointed or elected in such manner, and upon the nomination of such representatives of said parties respectively, as the legislature may direct.

Article 2, Section 8
NYS Constitution

In practice, this is interpreted as meaning that each county Board of Elections will be composed of one Commissioner appointed by the Republican Party and the other Commissioner appointed by the Democrats — how convenient! We assert that this is a false reading, and request a Board of five, or seven, or nine ... elected Commissioners of Election on our County, a majority of whom must be aligned with neither Party! We declare the election apparatus to be invalid.

That is the first salvo.

We find it amusing that some call the present system democracy, as if to imply that our elections are not being rigged! We challenge the State: what authority has the State to tell the citizens of a community how we go about electing our sheriff, mayor, councilmen or commissioners? That is none of the State's business. And why should the State be the one to determine who is eligibile to vote in our local elections?

From the perspective of these grievances we can better see how, for the past 140 years, the state governments have been acting as agents of the federalist power, and that the state political parties are mere extensions of a gigantic federalist political machine.

Because of State nonfeasance and misfeasance, too-long unremediated, we hold that all State-organized elections are invalid. We will declare an election boycott. When a majority of the voters fail to turn out, we deny government legitimacy. We have achieved a virtual mandate.

That is the second salvo.

After memorializing our local legislators that they are illegitimately exercising authority, we call upon the county sheriff to convene a Grand Jury investigation into political corruption and systematic election fraud. Irregularities will surely turn up in a frightful number. There has never been a serious investigation or prosecution of voter fraud in any state that we are aware of.

That is the third salvo.

Of course, the political machine will respond by denying our charges, and even denying the legitimacy of our Common Law Grand Jury. We are prepared for this. By evading our charges, they discredit themselves. The public will become disenchanted. Having thus prepared the ground, we proceed to stage an election coup that will turn their political apparatus inside-out. If we choose to make it happen, they cannot stop us. While the enemy is stunned by these blows, and temporarily out of office, we proceed to our objective of converting the local community college into an opinion-shaping and policy-making think tank for Parochialist theory, and an incubator for locally-directed public schooling. This is how the Counter-Revolution will take root and grow. If we are determined, they cannot prevent this.

The Parochial Counter-Revolution

Whereas Populism is an expression of the wishes or needs of the people, Parochialism takes a more active stance: it is an expression of the will of the people. Where a populist will accept constitutional powers and attempt to work within the system by asking for dialogue with our oppressors, a parochialist is more likely to begin laying the foundation for a whole new Constitution, from the ground up — as it should have been done in the first place. What is the point in talking to the likes of Bill Clinton, George Bush or Kofi Annan? They won't listen to us, and we have nothing more to say to them. Parochialism picks-up where populism fails.

We observe how the United Nations is now endeavoring to reconstitute local town and county governments, based on their Core Group of 25 Multinational Treaties. Our enemy are clearly aware of the importance of local government which, at the consumer level, is the ultimate provider of state, federal and U.N. goods and services. Everything they are doing — in our local governments, planning boards and social services agencies — is aimed at taking direct control over all aspects of local authority. When they are finished, we shall have none. We can also see how the multinational (transnational) corporate system is invading local government at its administrative level by means of international consulting firms, business councils and CEO networks. Whether one looks at our schools, associations, community colleges, churches, employment agencies ... everywhere you look, the enemy are making deep inroads.

Our local governments are under concerted attack.

The concept of Community Enterprise, as presented in the Theory of Economic Parochialism, is a most potent tool, whereby current (county citizen) residents may be enfranchised in their own community development programs, creating a form of surrogate citizenship, if you will. This is something that can exist outside of current state and federal statutes. We are limited only by our own imaginations. If we move with vigor and determination, it will be some time before they can catch-up with us. We might take, as a model, gambling casinos and other cooperatives that are operated by various Amerindian tribes, and where the profits are divided between the tribe and its members. In time, through community enterprise, it is possible for a town or county to abolish property taxes altogether (for its surrogate citizens ).

Of course our enemies will be furious. They are aware of the danger that Parochialism holds for them and their global village. In effect, the conflict is transformed into a battle between two conflicting definitions of citizenship. There are over 2,000 counties in the United States. The system would be hard-pressed if even 10% of these were to simultaneously embrace the principles of Parochialism. The system would, in effect, be confronted with 200+ separate and distinct low intensity rebellions. That is something the system can't handle. It is too much territory for them to cover.

In the meantime, we hold that all government actions are invalid, and they shall continue to be invalid, until we re-establish, at the local and county level, a system of verifying citizenship and administering elections. We will continually focus the conflict upon the weakest link — the State government — which has already been undermined by the federalist scheming. If they support the State sovereignty, they undermine their own edifice. They will be compelled to allow the State authority to collapse — which is already part of their plan for regionalism . We shall help them to destroy the State, which they themselves have mutilated, in order that we may ourselves reconstitute the State. In this way, we shall fulfill the expectation of Alexis de Tocqueville, 200 years ago.

This is why we refer to Parochialism as, the politics of the Counter-revolution. We understand that the New World Order is building a New Tower of Babel from the top down. We know that the New Tower is doomed to collapse, as did the old one, which was built in the same way. We understand, however, that it would be suicidal for us to stand in their path, and that they are destined to build what they will build, until it is time for their edifice to implode. We are not concerned with what they will do, because when their world falls apart, they will be powerless. We are preparing for that day, and because we know they will be powerless, we are not at all concerned with them. When that day comes, it will be we — our heirs and descendants — who will be in power, and it is our concern that our heirs will have learned to rule wisely.

Other Related Links

Democratic Local Government
by Ellis Katz, professor emeritus of political science and fellow ... etc.
As published in U.S. Department of State Journal

To Alter and Abolish: Secession Movements on the Move
by Diane Alden, September 5, 2000

Leaderless Resistance
An Essay by Louis Beam

Internet Law Library. Awesome.

This article by the late Grugyn Silverbristle was recovered from
the only copy in the the internet cache, dated 2002-08-27.

A copy of the entire Serendipity website is available on CD-ROM.  Details here.

Liberty and Democracy Serendipity Home Page