Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Maybe we *should* pick an inland state...  (Read 10024 times)

Elizabeth

  • Former FSP Vice President
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1650
  • Someone has to ask the tough questions...
    • Free State Project
Maybe we *should* pick an inland state...
« on: August 02, 2002, 02:36:43 pm »

 ;)

Planet X: The New Rave
By J.J. Johnson Published 07. 31. 02 at 20:03 Sierra Time
xxx
Most folks figured it would be a cold day in hell before The Sierra Times would ever put anything about the new rave, 'Planet X', on this web site (Sagebrush Saloon not-withstanding). But taking some time check out some of the data on this topic, I'd say the jury is still out ... Either it's true, or it's not.

But in either case, there is no need for alarm. Let the reader read on.

For this skeptic, it started when a fellow ranch hand, Wayne Hicks, sent me a book (Blindsided! Planet X Passes in 2003! by Mark Hazlewood) and said read it -else he would bother me until I did. It took me awhile to get through the condescending attitude of author Mark Hazelwood and try to understand what message he was trying to convey. For some reason, Hazelwood spends the first 35 pages or so of his post 9-11 paperback screaming and yelling, over and over again, that a big 'Planet X cover-up' is being perpetrated by 'the controllers'. You should either listen to what he is saying, or just be a dumb little sheeple and die with the rest - "the media will cover it up and keep you blind".

Being one that doesn't need to be talked down to, I simply hit the Google search engine on our main page, typed in the words 'planet x', and lo, came up with enough reading material on the subject to last until that big rock (dark star, brown dwarf, whatever) finally gets here.

This means - PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME ANY MATERIAL ON THE MATTER.

Cover-up? Yeah, right. Only a mouse click away.

Planet X, according to author Mark Hazelwood and many, many others, is a very large planet which orbits our sun every 3600 years, swinging far out into space for the majority of that time, and then falling back towards the sun and, inevitably, coming into close proximity to our own planet Earth. And that, as they say, is where the trouble lies.

According to those who have researched and studied Planet X (known also as Nibiru, Wormwood, Varuna, and a host of other names), there are records in history and antiquity of great planet-wide calamities caused by the planet's passage , and this one will be no exception. In fact, if the planet makes its scheduled appearance in May of next year... that's right, only ten months from right now... it is highly likely that our poles will shift, plunging much of the United States into ocean waters, and killing as much as two-thirds of the world's population in a span of time as short as one day.

Cool.

Of course, there are those who debunk all this hype, but these days, it is certainly getting a lot of mileage in the alternative news circles. So what gave me the gumption to write this article?

Answer: "No man knoweth the hour or the day". I won't cite chapter and verse, but Jesus said it somewhere in there. I don't consider myself an old man yet, but I still remember the drop-dead dates of 1968, 1984, 1988, and of course, Jan 1, 2000. I could just guess how many times in the last three millennia someone has been out there preaching the end of the world as we know it (a.k.a TEOTWAWKI). That's one reason I'm not going to freak out about the whole thing. But that's just one reason.

Another is that once I got past the first 7 stages of Hazelwood's rantings, I began to read things that I had seen - and yes, thought about - before.

You see, as a child, I was a fan of things like Atlantis, The Bermuda Triangle, ancient civilizations, and yes - space exploration. Yes, I had dreams of being an astronaut like many others. Doing studies on my own made me believe long ago we were getting fed a line of bull in our classrooms.

Let's take the dinosaurs: remains were found with evidence of undigested food in their stomachs. In some cases, whole families were found together, as if they were having dinner - as in whatever happened to them, had to have happened fast - not some ice-age thing. Same goes for things like the Wooly Mammoth. These dudes were found frozen solid with tropical food in their systems. I read about this in books long ago.

I then remembered our solar system. Between Mars and Jupiter sits the Asteroid Belt, some junk yard of rocks that floats around the sun just like every other planet. I always figured that was probably a planet some time ago that was hit by - well, something - so powerful that maybe an asteroid, flinging off of the shattered world, hit earth, wiping out the dinosaur population, and other civilizations we are just now finding pieces of. Question was: what hit us, and where is it?

Well, this could answer the question. And if so, when will this 'thing' return?

No man knoweth the day or the hour.

While NASA scientists are tight lipped about the whole thing, yet resigning for their cottages in remote places, if this is true, there isn't a darn thing we could do about it, and it might explain a lot of weird things going on around the world, not to mention stupid new environmental and homeland security proposals.

Is it just me, or are we getting a little more than normal amounts of earthquakes, floods, famines, droughts, and darn weird whether? (You folks in Boise enjoy that 110 degree day?). Beached whales, squid all over the place, and if you folks in Texas think your floods are bad, talk to the folks in central China. And what ever happened to that chunk of ice that broke off Antarctica, the size of Connecticut?

You go figure it out, but no one is arguing that something is going on with our weather atterns, and I never did believe that global warming crapola.

All these things - we are told are signs of TEOTWAWKI.

So, freak out? Hardly. In fact, I'd say if it IS true, have faith in our Creator, obey the Commandments, and think about the positive:

1) It should pretty much end the War on Terrorism, drugs, and poverty.
2) We won't have to leave our posterity the legacy of the Internal Revenue Service and every other stupid alphabet soup agency of the federal government.
3) No more spam mail.
4) Worried about that mortgage? Forget about it!
5) So much for Global Governance.
6) Survivors can homestead all the federally protected land they want.
7) It should end the debate on the New Testament
8) You Islamic folks want martyrdom? Problem solved.
9) If I don't survive, I can die happy having the last laugh - in the face of Sierra Club executives
10) C'mon, admit it. The place is so sick, you figure either God was gonna clean it up soon, or He has a really good sense of humor.

My opinion: True or not, buy your survival gear soon. I have a feeling that by Thanksgiving, the prices will be through the roof for one reason or another.

Logged

debra

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 287
Re:Maybe we *should* pick an inland state...
« Reply #1 on: August 02, 2002, 08:29:22 pm »

I stopped paying attention to TEOTWAWKI scenarios a few years back, although I have to admit they are entertaining.

Not only would the scenarios fail to manifest, but each would be hyped, and then when it didn't occur, everyone would pretend the prediction never happened. I felt like Winston Smith.   :o

Previous predictions in this century that have gotten some hype:

1936: Herbert W Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Church of God, predicted that the Day of the Lord would happen sometime in 1936. When the prediction failed, he made a new estimate: 1975.
1953-AUG: David Davidson wrote a book titled "The Great Pyramid, Its Divine Message". In it, he predicted that the world would end in 1953-AUG.
1982: Pat Robertson predicted a few years previously that the world would end in the fall of 1982.
1982: Astronomers John Gribben & Setphen Plagemann predicted the "Jupiter Effect" in 1974. They wrote that when various planets were aligned on the same side of the sun, tidal forces would create solar flares, radio interruptions, rainfall and temperature disturbances and massive earthquakes. The planets did align, as seen from earth, but nothing unusual happened.
1988: Hal Lindsey had predicted in his book "The Late, Great Planet Earth" that the Rapture was coming in 1988 - one generation or 40 years after the creation of the state of Israel.
1988: Alfred Schmielewsky, a psychic whose stage name was "super-psychic A.S. Narayana," predicted in 1986 that the world's greatest natural disaster would hit Montreal in 1988. Sadly, his psychic abilities failed him on 1999-APR-11 when he answered the door of his home only to be shot dead by a gunman.
1988-OCT-11: Edgar Whisenaut, a NASA scientist, had published the book "88 Reasons why the Rapture will Occur in 1988." It sold over  4 million copies.
About 1990:  Peter Ruckman concluded from his analysis of the Bible that the rapture would come within a few years of 1990.
1997: When Rabin and Arafat signed their peace pact on the White House lawn on Sept 13, 1993, some saw the events as the begin of tribulation. With signing of the peace agreement Daniel's 1260 day countdown was underway. By Adding 1260 days to Sept, 1993; you get Feb 24, 1997.
1999 - 2000: Y2K bug and/or Judgement Day
May 2000: Planetary Lineup (which was going to split the earth in half via volcanos).

Coming attractions:

2003 - Planet X fore-ordains end of the world
2012 - Mayan calendar predicts end of the world
2028 - Asteroid predicted that will cause the end of the world

...etc etc etc  ;)

---------------------------
Anyway, I still believe in preparedness, but I focus on things like floods, drought, local water/electricity loss, riots, etc.  
Logged
"Society has always honored its live conformists and its dead troublemakers."

Mega Joule

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 291
Re:Maybe we *should* pick an inland state...
« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2002, 10:29:51 pm »


Quote

2003 - Planet X fore-ordains end of the world
2012 - Mayan calendar predicts end of the world
2028 - Asteroid predicted that will cause the end of the world

Anyway, I still believe in preparedness, but I focus on things like floods, drought, local water/electricity loss, riots, etc.  

I generally think of myself as fairly well prepared for the ordinary sorts of disasters myself...but...to think...
I should add a boat to our family’s disaster prep supplies?
:-\

Mega Joule
Logged
"One essential of a free government is that it rest wholly on voluntary support.  And one certain proof that a goverment is not free, is that it coerces more or less persons to support it, against their will."  (Lysander Spooner, 1867)

Elizabeth

  • Former FSP Vice President
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1650
  • Someone has to ask the tough questions...
    • Free State Project
Re:Maybe we *should* pick an inland state...
« Reply #3 on: August 03, 2002, 12:28:46 am »

I don't know whether or not I should be embarassed to admit this, but I was *convinced* Y2K was going to be an issue.  Not TEOTWAWKI, but major.  Now I think I couldn't be convinced that anything might lead to the apocalpyse.  I just thought it was hilarious that J.J. would write about it...
Logged

debra

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 287
Re:Maybe we *should* pick an inland state...
« Reply #4 on: August 03, 2002, 11:18:51 pm »


I don't know whether or not I should be embarassed to admit this, but I was *convinced* Y2K was going to be an issue.  Not TEOTWAWKI, but major.  Now I think I couldn't be convinced that anything might lead to the apocalpyse.  I just thought it was hilarious that J.J. would write about it...


LOL!  I did think it would be *somewhat* more impressive. I think the only big glitch I read about was some east coast state printing out automobile registration titles for "horseless carriages" (since anything '00 or '01 was obviously antique...  ;D.

Personally, I'm a big fan of Dave Duffy and John Silveira at Backwoods Home magazine.  They're both very logical, rational, yet open-minded. They have a way of presenting the information in a neutral manner, and then saying, "Okay, this might be a problem, but you're more likely to die being eaten by a shark in the Mojave desert..." or "This couldn't happen in a million trillion quadrillion years" or "Hmmm, maybe you *should* think about preparing for this..."  or whatever.

In 2000, BHM ran a series of "End of the World" specials, mocking all the doomsdayers.  It was pretty cute.

As far as the apocalypse, when those 4 cowboys (War, Famine, Pestilence, Death) show up, I'll probably ask them for ID...  ::)
Logged
"Society has always honored its live conformists and its dead troublemakers."

Elizabeth

  • Former FSP Vice President
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1650
  • Someone has to ask the tough questions...
    • Free State Project
Re:Seriously: Maybe we *should* pick an inland state...
« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2002, 10:51:57 pm »


First, I have to admit Elizabeth and I agreed on something


Holy cow!  Somebody send out a press release!  ;D
Logged

wilaygarn

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
Re:Maybe we *should* pick an inland state...
« Reply #6 on: October 09, 2002, 10:20:53 pm »

I have two books, "Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings" by Charles Hapgood and "Cataclysms of the Earth" by Hugh Auchincloss Brown.
Both authors are/were convinced that the Earth has experienced cataclysms in the past.

Hapgood cites ancient maps as evidence, both of an ancient worldwide civilisation with sophistication enough to determine longitude and which occupied parts of the globe no longer habitable, while not inhapiting parts that currently are.

Brown theorised that periodically the ice would build at the poles until the weight upset the balance of the Earth's rotation, and that it lurches and realigns itself.

Geological evedence is cited, I think in both books, to suggest that the poles have indeed shifted.

Could a Planet X make enough difference to do it? Beats me.

One thing Y2K did was to open countless computer systems to reprogramming, and some have suggested that it was feasable that "back doors" could have been written into computer systems critical to communication and potentially to national defence. A senario similar to that portrayed in the book and miniseries "Amerika", but instead of EMP devices being used to cripple communications, viruses  or enemy computer hackers could do the same, with the added benefit that they would control communications.
I recall hearing in the "official" mass media news a few mentions of red China's development of this sort of capability.
Do I believe it? Beats me.

But seriously, IF giant tidal waves are the concern, and I live on the coast myself and heard stories about one while growing up, from what I just read on the Armageddon site I think much of New Hamshire and Maine are of sufficient elevation to be safe. Ditto for Vermont, etc.
The problem with Alaska, I think, is that so much of the occupied parts are on the coast.
I think nuclear missles may be able to reach the middle states like the Dacotas if they send them over the North Pole from "our friend"  Russia.  And Germany and the U.S. were good buddies even a few years before WWII, so I put no trust in foriegn governments. I don't even trust my own.
Logged

wilaygarn

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
Re:Maybe we *should* pick an inland state...
« Reply #7 on: October 10, 2002, 06:38:27 pm »

More on Planet X.
I found a website today that claims to debunk it: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planetx/index.html#toc
'Course there is that new planet beyond Pluto... :-)
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Maybe we *should* pick an inland state...
« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2002, 04:11:48 am »

Departing from a TEOTWAWKI theme, perhaps there are other reasons to avoid coastal and border access.

The most telling reasons have to do with homeland security concerns.  The federal government is currently working with coastal and border states to enhance security and scrutiny at our ports and border crossings, and this fact could bring us a number of unwanted problems with attempting to implement our agenda.  Consider the following:

1.  A Story from MSNBC:  "Report:  US Still Vulnerable," begins:  "A prestigious task force led by two former U.S. senators has concluded that the American transportation, water, food, power, communications and banking systems remain easy targets for terrorists despite the government's efforts at tightening the nation's domestic security in the past year."

This article then goes into detail on which areas are affected most by this situation, and leads off with the following:  "Only a minuscule fraction of the containers, trains, trucks and ships entering the country are searched, which means the chances of detecting a weapon of mass destruction are almost nil."

And further:  "Port officials estimate the cost of securing U.S. ports at $2 billion. Only $92 million in federal grants has been authorized.
       "This screams at us as a top national priority," said Stephen Flynn, the task force's director and a former Coast Guard officer. "So few resources are being expended on this."
http://www.msnbc.com/news/825779.asp?cp1=1

2.  The following article was found at CNN.com with regard to the Canadian border:  

"The border with Canada became the focus of scrutiny after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Since then, leaders in both countries have spoken of the need to tighten security and pay more attention to those people who cross it..."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/12/03/inv.ashcroft.canada/index.html

3.  From a speech given by George W. Bush, Friday, June 7, 2002:  

"The Department of Homeland Security will be charged with four primary tasks. This new agency will control our borders and prevent terrorists and explosives from entering our country."

Search news articles on "homeland security" and you'll find such references over and over again.  Seaports and the Canadian border are the some of the most heavily emphasized aspects of the homeland security agenda.  The federal government clearly does not view all things as being equal here, and maybe we shouldn't either.  After all, if the government is busily tightening controls on our ports and borders, what reception are we likely to receive if we come along wanting to reduce controls?  If we run into difficulty with the federal government in these areas, we will have less to take them to task on because the Constitution gives them legitimate authority in these areas.  Few people are likely to side with us in a dispute with the feds when the areas in dispute involve legitimate federal authority and the safety of "the children."

This is not a definitive argument, I realize, but it does seem to strongly suggest that we should take another look at our in-land options instead of emphasizing coastal and border states.  At the very least, we minimize our chances of inviting federal interference on legitimate, constitutional grounds, and we also reduce our risk of inciting the American people against us as being "the ones who don't seem to care if terrorists get into the country."
« Last Edit: November 03, 2002, 04:14:08 am by Robert Hawes »
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Maybe we *should* pick an inland state...
« Reply #9 on: November 10, 2002, 06:27:56 am »

States with the often-cited coastal advantages would be more vulnerable to federal shipping interdiction or restrictions...Maine has lots of intricate coast, but a few Naval or Coast Guard patrols could seal it off.

Absolutely the case.  And added to this is the fact that the waters off Alaska and Maine (the only half-way viable states for any such scenario) are notoriously cold and treacherous.  People who are not experienced in seamanship are not encouraged to head out into them by any means.  Even people who have spent their whole lives on the northern coast respect and fear those waters, particularly off of Gloucester and Nova Scotia.

Quote
Those with borders with Canada would be more vulnerable to Canada going along with a US request to isolate the rogue state with more border restrictions.

And Canada will do it too.  They like to raise a little sand with the U.S. every once in awhile just to remind the world that they're not the "51st state," but they realize what American trade sanctions would do to them.  And the two countries are already working together to tighten border restrictions in the north, which the U.S. considers to be even more dangerous than the Mexican border or the coast due to Canada's comparatively lax immigation laws.  The Canadian border is also perceived as more of a threat because it is rural and heavily forrested in many areas, making it much simpler to cross undetected.

Quote
Neverthess, the best states in the extremis would be those with hundreds of miles of border that is heavily forested mountains, hills, or swamps.

Maine or Montana would be best here, but they are both on the high end of the population scale, and they are projected to continue growing rapidly.  We need a state that is lower in population and growing less rapidly so that we have a chance to get in and work the system before the demographic changes on us.

Quote
The worst case is a state with a supposedly advantageous border but which several patrols in humvees or one helicopter or AWACs could cover because there is no cover on that border for hundreds of miles along it or to either side -- example the northern plains.

This is well said and would effectively invalidate North Dakota (as well as eastern Montana), which are two of my own favorite choices.

Quote
Give it up folks. The Free State will have to work within the United States.

I was doubtful about this when I first joined the FSP, but now I am reasonably certain of it.  Borders and port access take too much of a chance for collision with the feds on constitutional grounds where they have legitimate authority.  State and local officials are working with them on this, and both are backed by populations fearful of another 9/11 or drug-running from Canada.

If secession becomes a factor in the future, then I would point out that there are nations that do quite well away from coastlines (Switzerland for example).  The key here is to have infrastructure and active trade, both of which we would be facilitating anyway.  

And as for an international border, well, if a state secedes, then it's entire border becomes an international border by default, either with just the U.S. or with both the U.S. and Canada.  Currently the only candidate state that could secede without continuing to border the U.S. would be Alaska.  And there is no reason to think that trade would simply dry up, particularly if our economy is as successful as we hope to make it.

Border access and coastline have advantages with regard to trade certainly.  Canadians enjoy shopping in America and coming for health care services that they can't get back home.  But if you're thinking of borders and coastlines in any other terms than trade, an advantage with regard to thwarting the feds during times of conflict, for example, then you'd better be prepared for the consequences:

1.  The feds will blockade your coastal access quite simply, inexpensively, and totally within their constitutional rights to regulate trade and defend access points into this country.  They will also have the backing of the population that will stand ready to condemn you for lax security concerns and/or permitting drug traffic.
2.  Sneaking across the Canadian border will, once again, stray into areas in which the federal government has legitimate, constitutional powers.  This would make you a criminal under federal law and legitimize federal intervention.
3.  Sneaking across the Canadian border will likely provoke an international incident, subjecting you to not only federal charges, but possible charges under international law as well.  Canada is not likely to risk a trade war with the U.S. to defend a rogue U.S. state, particularly when they would be defending those who have violated U.S. law, Canadian law, and international convention in the process.

In short, trade, which can be easily curtailed under federal constitutional powers, is the only justification for seeking an international border or coastal access.  If, on the other hand, you seek to use them for thwarting the feds, then you might as well just secede officially and be done with it.  The consequences of proceeding otherwise are simply too formidable to be worth the risk, and with secession, you might have the advantage of certain protections under international conventions (rather than being penalized for violating them).

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5720
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Maybe we *should* pick an inland state...
« Reply #10 on: November 11, 2002, 05:38:01 pm »

I don't think the feds will ever blockade us, actually.  This would be a human rights violation on a massive scale, and everyone would be up in arms about it.  I concede it's not outside the realm of distant possibility, however.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Maybe we *should* pick an inland state...
« Reply #11 on: November 12, 2002, 02:55:48 am »

I don't think the feds will ever blockade us, actually.  This would be a human rights violation on a massive scale, and everyone would be up in arms about it.  I concede it's not outside the realm of distant possibility, however.

I hope you're right.  If they did choose to enact some type of blockade though, I think they would most likely conduct it as a customs or homeland security exercise as opposed to an overt military action.  It would essentially achieve the same thing, but in a less sinister fashion.

JT

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
  • How can someone else know what's best for you???
Re:Maybe we *should* pick an inland state...
« Reply #12 on: November 12, 2002, 07:16:34 pm »

I don't think the feds will ever blockade us, actually.  This would be a human rights violation on a massive scale, and everyone would be up in arms about it.  I concede it's not outside the realm of distant possibility, however.

I'm more worried about agent provocateurs (sp?).  There's no telling what slimy plans the feds have for dealing with us...
Logged

mlilback

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38
  • I'm nobody's llama!
    • home page
Re:Maybe we *should* pick an inland state...
« Reply #13 on: November 12, 2002, 10:18:07 pm »

And as to Canadian border importance - tell me the Canadians will tell Washington "No!" if a Clinton-type president asked them to shut the border down or just inspections of such thoroughness as to back traffic up for miles until the shippers give up and go elsewhere.

A Clinton-type president? I'd expect that more out of shrub and Ashcroft. (I can't imagine how any liberty-minded person would consider Ashcroft an improvement over Reno. Sure, she was bad, buy Ashcroft's the most dangerous person to personal freedom since J. Edgar.)

Anyway, I thought Canada was already giving the finger to the US in relation to pot. And since that Canadian citizen was shipped to the middle east where he's likely been imprisoned for life, they seem to be very willing to challenge the US on border matters.

Mark
Logged

ZionCurtain

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Maybe we *should* pick an inland state...
« Reply #14 on: November 12, 2002, 10:38:52 pm »

Last I checked Reno burned woman and children in Waco and had a woman murdered with her baby in her arms at Ruby Ridge. Not to say Ashcroft is a saint but Reno was evil.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up