Bruce Herschensohn pointed out that "Republicans want a big military, but they don't want it to go anywhere. Liberals want a small military, but they want it to go everywhere." In other words, liberals always want to cut back the armed forces and spend all the government's money on social programs. At the same time, they want to use American forces to run the affairs of every country in the world. For humanitarian reasons, of course.

That is how "The Best and the Brightest" got us into Vietnam. This was the Harvard crowd around John Kennedy in the early 1960s. Kennedy went through with the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, but the minute it got serious, he pulled out all American air support for it. The Cubans he had promised to support were slaughtered.

So when things got rough in South Vietnam, Kennedy's advisors wanted a small-scale response. They sent in military advisors, expanding the war a bit. In short, they did what Clinton is doing today. They started small-scale and then expanded, step by step. Under liberal policy, the other side got more serious with each step, so the liberals responded by sending in more troops. And so it went, just as it is going today in Serbia.

This process was described by David Halberstam in his book, "The Best and the Brightest." He was a Kennedy liberal, and he knew those people personally. He watched them get us into Vietnam, step by step. Liberals want American troops everywhere. They don't want them to stay out and they don't want them to win.

Some time back, General Colin Powell was discussing the size and excellent armament of American armed forces. While Powell was proud of the size and strength of American forces, he consistently opposed the State Department's proposals to use those troops for action in the Balkans and other areas. This prompted Secretary of State Albright to ask, "What good are those forces if we can't USE them."

Historically, the reason one wanted large armed forces was so that one would NOT have to use them. Sweden and Switzerland have spent more per capita on their armed forces in this century than any other countries in Europe. Germany spent a lot on armed forces during the two world wars, but Sweden and Switzerland have maintained huge military establishments during every single year of this century.

The result has been that neither Sweden nor Switzerland has spent a single day at war during this century. That is the ideal use of military expenditures: to keep your military large enough so that no one wants to attack you.

Usually it is the Defense Department that tends to be militant in foreign policy, and the State Department has tended to lean more toward diplomacy. But President Clinton has now stated that the enemy today is not Nazism or Communism, but Hate. America's power is to be used around the world to crush Hate.

Translation: America's forces around the world are to be used to crush what America DEFINES as Hate. This gives a green light to liberals. Liberals do all the defining for America. Liberals propose, conservatives oppose. But conservatives never do the defining.

The State Department has been a stronghold of the political left since Franklin Roosevelt took over, so the State Department is straining at the leash to enforce this new "anti-Hate" policy for which American power is to be used.

This explains why Secretary Albright would ask, "What good are these forces if we can't USE them."

The question Albright asked could only have been asked by a liberal in our own time. In any other time, it would be assumed that no one would ask such a question unless he was a fascist. It is a very, very cold-blooded question, after all: "Why do we have all these people in uniform if we don't put them in harm's way?"

Who would ask that?

Think about it. What would a liberal have said in 1980 if Reagan had asked, "Why do we have all these soldiers if we don't USE them." There would have been a shriek from the media that could be heard in Europe by the naked ear.

But when Albright asked it, it was not even considered odd. And no respectable conservative is going to question it.

That includes the war hero who worries so much about the welfare of American troops, Senator John McCain of Arizona, the liberal's favorite conservative.

Southern Nationalism gives us the opportunity to change the world by offering a nation where people want to live. In every country on earth today, leftism and respectable conservatism have united to force people to live the way liberals want them to.  If we provide a nation which rejects all the leftists experiments, leftism will collapse forever.

Real secession, the slightest hint of a real choice, will be devastating to leftism in a way that respectable conservatism can never be. The left has an exposed Achilles heel, and that fatal exposure is the simple fact that their entire enforced program is ridiculous, and nobody really WANTS it. Leftism is gigantic fraud waiting to be exposed. Only respectable conservatism and the lack of any true alternative keeps this titanic fraud going.

One place which is truly independent, where people can live among the people they choose, and give their children the education they choose, and have the kind of justice they choose, would be fatal to the left. One place like this would be the envy of all other people in the Western world.

Nobody WANTS leftism. "Devolution" is a code word for the fact that people want OUT of this system. REAL devolution will be CUMULATIVE: it will grow as the escape becomes a flood.

As soon as people find they can have REAL devolution, everybody will want it. But the emphasis here is on the word REAL.

In Scotland, there is going to be a referendum which, if it gets a majority, will lead to independence in four years. Sean Connery was denied a knighthood in January because he supports Scottish nationalism.

But you can have NOMINAL independence, and it won't mean a thing. After all, when Scotland or the South or Quebec gets "independence," it will do so as the result of a signed agreement. That agreement will include matters like free trade and military agreements with the country they are separating from.

When and if Scotland and Quebec become "independent," the nationalist leaders will be so desperate to get their titles as Prime Ministers and so forth that they might agree to anything. More important, they will want to appear to be Respectable Leaders in the eyes of World Opinion. They don't want to look provincial.

So the Scots and the Quebecois will be pressured to agree to keep their borders open to massive third world immigration. They will agree that Scotland's goal is to be "multicultural," In other words, Scotland is welcome to be a country as long as it doesn't insist on being Scottish. Likewise Quebec.

There is an easy way for Scotland's independence movement to be tamed. Right now the United Kingdom is in the process of giving up its sovereignty to the developing United States of Europe. The pound will be replaced by the Euro and all economic policy will be run from the new central government of Europe. Economic policy will move to the European central government.

Europe began its unification plan in the 1950s with a small and reasonable attempt to reduce tariffs. This was to make trade easier and to "provide for the free movement of goods throughout Europe." Then a little change occurred in the language. One day the centralizers began to say that the idea was to "provide for the free movement of goods AND PEOPLE throughout Europe."

As usual, nobody questioned that apparently small change in language. But it was no small change. It was a gigantic step. It meant that every state in Europe was to give up its control of immigration. The centralizers, who favor enormous amounts of third world immigration into Europe, were to be given authority to impose that on every part of Europe.

So if Scotland signs on to be a part of the United States of Europe, its "independence" will be a fake. I expect that there will be a lot of pressure for this kind of fake "independence." Fake opposition and fake alternatives are all we have today, and the left knows how to keep it that way. Real nationalism, real independence, would be a threat to the whole leftist program, so that is the first thing nationalist leaders will be required to give up.

Liberals are always quoting surveys where people tell them what the establishment wants to hear --- that multiracialism is wildly popular with everybody. But, oddly enough, they will never allow any alternative to it. Every last white person must be chased down. If it's so great, why can't it stand competition?

To follow on with this example, every professor who wants to keep his job assures us that multiracialism and multiculturalism are wildly successful and make people happy. All the media assure us that practically everybody is wild about multiculturalism and multiracialism. But they demand that every single stray white person be chased down and forced into a multiracial community.

If multiculturalism is so great, why do they have to do that? They cannot allow there to be a place on earth where whites are able to live in their own communities, because they know very well that most whites will want to go there.

There is no area in which liberalism can allow any real competition to develop. In every area, from dealing with criminals to education to economics, liberalism can only survive if it is enforced on everybody.

Liberals cannot allow any white majority country on earth to close itself to third world immigration.

No community can be allowed to treat criminals as criminals. No community can allow parents and taxpayers to use their money for any schools they want to, because that would mean the end of the state educational bureaucracy. No community can be allowed to exist which does not chase down whites and force them to integrate.

If a country were allowed to do ALL that, the left would be doomed, and nobody knows that better than leftists. Nothing would be more fatal to leftism than REAL secession, because real secession means real CHOICE.

When they tell you how their system is beloved by all, your reply should be short and simple: "You want to put your policy up against ours? OK. Let's try it. Make my day."

The trouble with what we want is that it is 1) obviously reasonable, and 2) obviously fatal to the political left. It is obviously reasonable that we would have the right to have our own land and to live to ourselves if we so choose. But it is also obvious that, if we ARE allowed to live to ourselves, absolutely everybody else is going to want to join us.

This is not because WE are so great, but because what THEY impose is so obviously awful, and it only survives because it allows no alternatives.

One instance of TRUE secession will lead to more REAL devolution, and that will lead to yet more. We must settle for nothing less than this real and therefore cumulative form of secession.