Fjordman: Can We Coexist with the Left?
EuropeNews 3 May 2010
The American writer Lawrence Auster had a debate with his readers regarding the possibility of splitting the USA along ideological lines. According to reader Tim W, modern Left liberalism is a universal totalitarian ideology, not a “live and let live” concept.
The goal of its adherents is a world government from which no one can escape. Leftists
need conservatives but conservatives don’t need leftists. To be blunt, they can’t let us go. We’d be happy to be rid of them, because to us they’re nothing but parasites and/or oppressors. But they can’t get rid of us because we do most of the work, pay most of the taxes, provide the stability and morality that allow their depravity to thrive with less damaging results. Furthermore, the white conservative population is the buffer protecting white liberals from the minorities.
A number of commentators questioned the viability of such a political division. Muslims believe not only that Islam is the best religion, but that it is the only true religion and that all people must be brought into its fold. Likewise, Leftists sincerely believe that Leftism is the only valid ideology, and that the whole world must be brought under its heel. Just like the very existence of self-governed communities outside of Islamic rule is considered an intolerable act of aggression by devout Muslims, so the existence of self-governed non-Leftist communities anywhere, at least if they happen to be white, is unacceptable to Leftist True Believers. They don’t just want to rule themselves; they want to rule everybody else as well.
Good arguments were presented in favor of secession, but opponents point out that attempted partition would likely trigger coercion and force when the ruling oligarchs fear losing control. If the Left sees everything it has promoted for generations about to be overturned it might resort to violence. Above all, opponents questioned whether the whole idea of “just wanting to be left alone” is defeatist and leaves the opponents with the initiative. Perhaps the battle cannot be won until we go on the offensive and take the ideological war to the enemy.
As reality is now, whites are considered potential extremists merely for existing, whereas the most revolting non-white organizations imaginable go free. For example, groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, which has the stated goal of destroying Western civilization, are labeled “moderates,” whereas whites who want an immigration policy that prevents such people from settling in their countries are demonized as “racist extremists” by the media.
As Lawrence Auster says, white Leftists show
absolute moral disgust and horror against white non-liberals for their (almost always falsely imagined) discriminatory attitudes toward nonwhites. The only two moral actors in this script are the white liberals, who are good, and the white non-liberals, who are evil. The nonwhites are not moral actors in the script. They are the passive, sacred objects around whom the moral drama between good whites and evil whites is played out.
In April 2010, the former left-wing US President Bill Clinton warned commentators to tone down their anti-government rhetoric for fear of inflaming hate groups, as polls suggested that public trust in the US government was at its lowest point for half a century. Clinton tried to conflate the anti-tax Tea Party movement with the 1995 Oklahoma City terrorist bombing, and implicitly voiced support for limiting certain forms of speech that might challenge the left-wing ruling regime. In an interview with The New York Times newspaper, Mr. Clinton was worried about the fact that “Because of the Internet, there is this vast echo chamber and our advocacy reaches into corners that never would have been possible before.” He warned against those who were too negative regarding the policies of Leftist politicians.
2009, the same Bill Clinton said that Americans should be mindful of their nation’s changing demographics, which led to the 2008 election of Obama as president. He told an Arab-American audience that by 2050 the U.S. will no longer have a majority of people with a European heritage and stated that “this is a very positive thing.” This was merely eight years after Arab Muslim terrorists staged the deadliest attack against the US mainland in peacetime, killing thousands of US citizens. Yet a dramatic increase in the number of Arab Muslims in his country does not worry Mr. Clinton at all. The only “terrorism” he is concerned about might be protests from people of European origins who oppose their own dispossession.
Bertha Lewis, the chief executive officer of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now or ACORN, spoke in March 2010 before the Young Democratic Socialists conference. There she predicted a USA headed toward violence that will “dwarf the internments during World War II.” Curiously, this statement was hardly reported in the mass media. She said that immigration is a big battle.
And the reason this is so important is, you know, here’s the secret: (whispering) We’re getting ready to be a majority, minority country. Shhhh. We’ll be like South Africa. More black people than white people. Don’t tell anybody.
Lewis encouraged people, based solely on the color of their skin, to “get yourselves together, get strong, get big, and get into this battle,” the battle here just defined as the dispossession of whites. She’s the head of an organization that’s been a good friend of the current President Barack Hussein Obama. ACORN was a political issue in the 2008 United States Presidential Election over allegations of voter registration fraud.
In April 2010 US President Obama, with unusual frankness regarding his anti-white coalition, appealed to “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again” for continued “change,” essentially the manifestation of an intifada on European Americans. Notice that his message was essentially the same as that of the radical Bertha Lewis of ACORN, only slightly less openly militant. A few days later, the same Mr. Obama with astounding hypocrisy in an address urged both sides in the political debate to tone down their rhetoric. This because using phrases like “Socialists” in his view “closes the door to the possibility of compromise” and “can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response.”
The problem is that extremist left-wing elements have received tacit approval for carrying out violence and intimidation for years. This trend is escalating because of thugs such as the Antifa groups in Western Europe. These Leftist vandals get away with what they do because they know they have the quiet backing of the media and the political elites. Also in 2010, the University of Ottawa in Canada cancelled a speech by the U.S. conservative writer Ann Coulter because organizers feared left-wing protesters would turn violent. The American Renaissance conference that same year met with extreme harassment, including death threats. Yet as AR leader Jared Taylor lamented, the story received virtually no coverage from the mainstream Western media, nor from Democratic Presidents Obama or Clinton. The question here is not whether you agree with the people at American Renaissance, the question is why a legal, white political organization cannot meet peacefully when Communists or organizations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood can do so.
My experience has been that two Muslims cannot talk together without their conversation turning into shouts within minutes, especially when they disagree with each other, and no good can come of that. When you talk to a Muslim, rationally, in a low calm voice, he has trouble understanding your point of view. He thinks you have lost the argument. A Muslim conversing with anyone else – Muslim or non-Muslim – cannot remember a single word the other person has said, any more than my mother could remember a single word of what the preacher in our local mosque said.
Former Muslim Ali Sina notes that
there is very little difference between the Left and Islam. What is lacking in both these creeds is the adherence to the Golden Rule. Just as for Muslims, everything Islamic is a priori right and good and everything un-Islamic is a priori wrong and evil, for the Left, everything leftist is a priori oppressed and good.
Facts don’t matter. Lying about opponents and their intentions is so widespread “that it is considered to be normal.
After it was revealed that much of the data regarding alleged man-made global warming was deliberately fabricated, which constitutes one of the largest and most expensive anti-scientific frauds in history, most of its Leftist backers continued as if nothing had happened. The fact that they had promoted outright lies and slimed their opponents based on these lies mattered little. They believe they had the right to do so, as long as their intentions were right. Muslims, too, are allowed to lie to further the spread of their ideology. This strategy is called taqiyya.
Just like Muslims, both national Socialists and international Socialists totally lack respect for Socratic Dialogue, the reasoned search for truth which has been a hallmark of Western culture at its best. This is why such a large percentage of Western converts to Islam are either neo-Nazis or Marxists: These groups already think a great deal like Muslims. Their creed is the Absolute Truth, which should rule the world and must be imposed on others by brute force if necessary. They consequently have no need for reasoned debate. Others should submit to their rule or be violently Squashed. End of story.
People of European origins who stick to their cultural heritage constitute the embodiment of evil for Leftists, just like the infidels do for Muslims. Since white Westerners invented capitalism, some radical Socialists apparently believe that a “Final Solution” to the Capitalist Problem involves the annihilation of whites.
Terms such as “ethnic cleansing” should not be used lightly, but the writer Paul Weston is unfortunately correct here: What is happening with the native population throughout Western Europe is a state-sponsored campaign of ethnic cleansing. The only thing that’s unique about Britain is that Andrew Neather from the ruling Labour Party admitted this openly, in writing.
NATO, led by the USA, bombed the Serbs for “ethnic cleansing” back in 1999, thereby facilitating the Islamic ethnic cleansing of Christians in the Balkans. So, if the Western Multicultural oligarchs are against ethnic cleansing, I guess they must now bomb Britain, where the authorities have publicly admitted that they are deliberately displacing the native white population of their country. So why isn’t that happening? Could it be because very similar anti-white policies are currently followed in all Western nations without exception?
Let med add that I don’t think all Leftists have a well-thought-out plan to destroy the West. I have some in my immediate family, and they don’t think like this at all. They sincerely believe that what they are doing is the right thing. The hardcore ones who deliberately want to kill the West might be a minority, but at the end of the day this distinction matters little.
In many cases you can compromise, but in others you cannot. If somebody tries to poison you then you have to resist. It doesn’t matter in the long run whether those who do this do so because they deliberately want to kill you or because they are fools who accidentally kill you while intending to do something noble. The bottom line is: You die. You cannot be slightly dead, just like you cannot be slightly pregnant. If the Leftists and the Globalists have their way then our civilization will die, plain and simple. That’s why this ongoing struggle is likely to get ugly, because no compromise is possible. Since similar ideological struggles are taking place throughout the Western world, this situation could trigger a pan-Western Civil War.
A proposal to divide the United States into two countries
(Note, April 9: the discussion continues.)
I post this article with a sense of ambivalence, since, notwithstanding the author’s boldness and originality of thought, his proposal presents grave practical difficulties which in my view he deals with only superficially. However, as I myself have said, with the passage of the health care bill America has now become in effect two mutually irreconcilable peoples (they want to impose unlimited state power on us, which we don’t want to be imposed), and the only two logical resolutions to the conflict are that one side crush and dominate the other, or that the two sides go their separate ways. There is no escape from thinking our way through the current crisis, and we have to start somewhere. Jeffersonian’s article is a useful contribution to that effort. (Readers’ comments on the article begin here.)
THE REDS AND THE BLUES: TIME FOR A DIVORCE?
In the aftermath of the presidential election of 2000, a newspaper published a map of the United States in which the counties that had voted for George W. Bush were colored red, and those that had voted for Al Gore were colored blue. The result was striking: The blue counties made up only a small fraction of the area of the United States, but included roughly half of the total population. Outside the Northeast, the map consisted mostly of a large expanse of red, interrupted by geographically small, but densely populated, urban areas. (Note that even though the original map showed the country divided into counties, it has given rise to the terms “red states” and “blue states.” Note also, that the term “Red” in this context has no implication of Communist sympathies. )
In recent weeks there has been a furor over the health care bill. This is partly because its opponents feel that it is an extremely bad bill: one which will not improve their health care, but instead add enormously to the public debt. Even more disturbing than the contents of the bill, however, is the fact that it was passed despite the clear opposition of the American public. Every national poll for months had shown that a significant majority of the public did not like this bill; and in the weeks preceding the vote, Congress had been besieged by letters, emails, faxes, and telephone calls from constituents, with the great majority opposing the bill. Those who urged congressmen to vote for the bill did not pretend that the majority of the public was on their side; rather, they urged congressmen to be “courageous” and ignore public opinion.
They claimed (correctly) that doing so did not violate the Constitution. However, it did violate our traditions on the relation of the government to the governed. This is the first time in American history that a major bill has been forced through over the clear opposition of the public. Even if the law itself is beneficial, the manner of its passage was semi-tyrannical, and the social fabric has been badly torn.
Many people believe that the passage of the health care bill will result in the Democrats losing many seats in the Congressional elections this fall. That may happen, but even if opponents of the bill gain a clear majority in the House of Representatives, they will still not be able to repeal it. To do that would require large gains in the Senate (both this year and in 2012) as well as winning the presidential election in 2012.
However, even if all that occurs, it will not be enough. Repeal of the health care bill is desirable; but it will not avert the deeper dangers facing us. The Blues will continue their attempts to force their leftist programs–including socialized medicine–on us; and given the demographic factors (immigration and natural growth of liberal-leaning, non-European populations), they will eventually succeed and they will transform the country totally. The ideological gulf between the Blues and the Reds is simply too great, and the Blues are too intolerant and unwilling to compromise, to allow for the survival of the type of society that we have historically had and still desire.
What sort of society are the Blues aiming for? Obviously, not all Blues hold identical political beliefs. By and large, however, most of them want the United States to become more like the “socialist” countries of Western Europe, such as Norway, Denmark, and Holland.
* The majority of the Blues strongly favor significant redistribution of wealth, partly by a steeply progressive income tax, and partly by other means.
* The majority of them are internationalists and multiculturalists.
* Despite paying lip-service to the idea of constitutional government, the Blues never let the Constitution get in the way of policies they favor, but constantly interpret it to mean whatever they wish. Among numerous examples of this are:
o The decision by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade (1973), a decision that overturned all existing states laws on abortion. (While one might believe that such laws were ill-advised, there is certainly nothing in the Constitution that prohibits them.)
o Perhaps even more extreme was Wickard v. Filburn (1942), which largely eliminated the restrictions placed on the federal government by Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution.
o Most Blues seemed quite ready to push the health care bill through by a vote “deeming” the Senate bill passed, without the House of Representatives ever taking a direct vote on that bill. (Faced with public outrage, the House leaders eventually backed down on this procedure, but not because of any constitutional scruples concerning it.)
o The majority of Blues approve of the federal and state governments mandating racial preferences and quotas, even though such laws clearly violate the equal protection clause of the constitution.
* Despite their claims of being opposed to racism (often expressed very sanctimoniously), the majority of the Blues are, by our standards, racists. That is, they strongly favor laws and policies–such as racial preferences and quotas–that deprive some persons of jobs, promotions, college admissions, and scholarships just because of their race. These preferences and quotas were first instituted about forty years ago and have gradually become more and more pervasive.
* Despite paying lip service to the notion of freedom of speech, in practice many of the Blues often favor censorship laws of various sorts, such as repressive “speech codes” on college campuses and laws banning “hate speech.” College speech codes, usually adopted by a vote of the faculty, typically a very liberal group, provide a clear indication of the way most Blues view the right of free speech.
Where does this leave us? Very simply, we do not want to live in a country dominated by such people, and we do not want to bequeath such a government to our children. For that matter, the Blues don’t like us much either. Many of them consider us to be racists, religious fanatics, stupid, heartless, and corrupt. It is, therefore, time for a divorce. Just as a husband and wife with “irreconcilable differences” are often better off living apart, so the Reds and the Blues would be far better off if we split into two separate countries.
How might such a two-country system operate?
1. Each country will have its own constitution. The Blue country could simply continue operating under the present constitution of the United States, but the red country would need to hold a constitutional convention shortly after gaining independence. It should, of course, form a constitutional republic (probably a federal republic), with adequate safeguards for civil liberties.
2. Each country will have its own courts and adopt its own laws. In particular, this means that the Blue country will be able to make its own laws regarding immigration and citizenship.
3. Each country will have its own military forces. Existing military hardware will be divided equitably between the two countries.
4. No person will be forced to move. However, some persons who are ideologically red but are residents of a blue county may choose to move to a red state or county during the transition period. (Similarly, ideological blues who reside in a red county might choose to relocate.) Provisions might also be made to permit an ideological Red residing in a blue county to become a citizen of the red country while continuing to reside in the blue country. In that case, he would have the status of a resident alien (and, of course, would have to obey the laws of the blue country). Similar provisions could be made for ideological Blues residing in red counties.
5. Each country would have its own currency. The existing national debt at the time of the breakup would be divided equally between the two countries. Of course, it is possible that one or both countries might afterwards choose to renounce its debt, or inflate it away (as might happen even if there is not a divorce).
6. Provisions would be made for free movement of persons or goods from one of the countries through (or over) the other without tariffs or extra port charges being imposed.
Let us be clear about this: We have NO desire to harm the Blues; we merely want to be left alone by them so that we can go our own way in peace. Nor do we want the two countries to be hostile to each other afterward, but rather to be friendly neighbors.
How can such a two-state solution be reached? Obviously, it cannot be achieved immediately. We must first build up support for the idea, a process which will certainly take several years. After due preparation, we might then assemble a Continental Congress (which is what our Founding Fathers did in 1774 and again in 1775).
Eventually, we might issue a Declaration of Independence, signed by representatives of several states. Such a declaration might adopt the format of the 1776 Declaration, and even much of the same wording. The new red republic could then invite other American states to join it, and also invite adjacent counties of other states to join our federation (while permitting dissident counties in our states to remain with the blue republic).
It has been suggested that such a partition of the United States, even if implemented peaceably, would inevitably lead to certain serious problems. For example, would not each of the two separate countries be economically weak? The blue country, although it would possess the majority of the factories, and almost all of the ports, might not be self-sufficient in food, and would have little in the way of mineral resources. The red country would have abundant mineral and agricultural resources but would have relatively little industry and almost no ports. All that shows, however, is that the two countries would be better off trading extensively with each other (as they do now) and avoiding any trade wars.
The Blues may well feel that they will be the more prosperous of the two countries, since–as they see it–their country includes the former America’s intellectual leaders, such as the faculties of most of the leading universities; the leading lawyers; the experienced civil servants and governmental leaders; the editorial staffs of the leading journals and book publishers; and the financial experts of Wall Street). They will also have all the advantages of diversity. On the other hand, they will also inherit the high crime areas and the majority of the welfare recipients. (On balance, however, I think that the Blues come out ahead on this.)
What about transportation problems? Many of the blue urban areas are not contiguous with other parts of the blue country, and the red country includes almost no ports. Such problems can easily be handled if there is a modicum of good will. Trains, trucks, airplanes, or other vehicles originating somewhere in the blue country will be permitted to move through (or over) the territory of the red country duty free. In return, overseas trade between the red country and foreign countries will be permitted to use ports in the blue country without paying any import or export taxes, but only the normal port charges.
Would not the two separate countries be militarily weaker than the present United States? Well, yes, but each of them would still be far stronger than any other country in the world.
The most serious objection to this entire proposal is that the federal government will never permit the red states (or counties) to secede. After all, when the Southern states seceded in 1860-61, the result was a bloody civil war in which the rebels were crushed. But there are major differences between that situation and this one.
1. Since the Blues feel that we consist largely of racists, religious fanatics and greedy capitalists who exploit the honest working people, they may be happy to be rid of us so that they may set up a more progressive polity without our interference.
2. The North was fighting not only to preserve the Union, but also (after the issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863) effectively to end slavery, which many in the North considered an intolerable evil. Forcing the Blues’ version of nationalized health care on the seceding Reds would hardly have the same moral appeal.
3. The North had three times the population of the South, and therefore felt assured of eventual victory if they persevered. By contrast, the red and Blue countries are approximately equal in population, and the outcome of a war would be uncertain.
4. The Blues are largely pacifistic, and are generally unwilling to fight long bloody wars. Consider their opposition to the Vietnam War and to each of the two Gulf Wars. Consider also their anti-war slogans, such as “Arms are for hugging,” “Make love, not war,” “There never was a bad peace, nor a just war,” etc.
5. The willingness of the Blues to fight and to keep fighting will be low, since the Reds will not be threatening to deprive the Blues of their lives, their liberties, or their laws. The Blues will be able to make whatever laws concerning health care that they think is best, and whatever laws concerning gay rights, abortion, racial preferences, tax policies, or unemployment benefits that they think is fairest, without any interference from the Reds. The Blues need only leave the Blues alone.
6. Finally, if the blue country tries to invade the red, many of the former’s soldiers may defect. Many of their soldiers will be reluctant to kill people who look like themselves and who mean them no harm. Do you think a blue general will order a battalion to start shelling a city in the red territory? And if he does so, will the unit commanders follow those orders, and will the troops under them obey?
A bit of history might be instructive. In December 1989, there were large demonstrations in Romania against the Communist leader, Nicolae Ceaucescu, and he tried to suppress the uprising by force. For the most part, the Romanian soldiers refused to fire on the unarmed demonstrators, and the rebellion succeeded. The total loss of life was probably less than a thousand. Our goal CAN be achieved!
What should we do NOW to further this program?
1. Gain support for it by talking with friends, family, and others in conservative circles.
2. Do NOT engage in violence or threats of violence.
3. Form one or more organizations to further our goals.
4. Hold conferences to discuss possible problems and tentative solutions, and also to improve our plans.
As we do this, we will discover how to proceed next, and leaders will emerge.
- end -
Locust: its always good to read the comments.
Laura Wood writes:
The idea of allowing dissident counties to remain within one of the two countries at least for a time is the most interesting and exciting aspect of this excellent proposal. It solves the logistical nightmare of relocating many millions of people at once.
Jeffersonian presents an inspiring and brilliant plan. All the essential components are there. This will avert violence, not encourage it.
John Hagan writes:
I don’t see anything like the scenario Jeffersonian sees for the United States playing out. At worst we will fade away like Rhodesia or South Africa, at best we will become a North American version of Brazil with whites continuing to migrate to places like Montana, the Dakotas, and northern New England.
There’s just no modern history showing whites defending themselves in any real way from their demographic dispossession anywhere in the world.
David P. writes:
The author Jeffersonian, makes an analogy of a husband and wife with irreconcilable differences. But what if I choose to use the analogy of America as a human body. That is, the left hand is Blue and the right is Red. The head is Right, while the heart is Blue. How then a separation?
Jeffersonian writes: Let us be clear about this: We have NO desire to harm the Blues; we merely want to be left alone by them so that we can go our own way in peace.
But that idea is not reciprocated at all by the Blue side. They want to rule over the Reds. Why should they give up on their historic duty to claim sovereignty, and rule over those who they regard as the right?
If the Blue and Red States are interdependent, as one has all the industry, and the other the food resources, how can they be independent? Even if such a separation could take place, a movement will soon gather strength to unite the states.
It will take more then a health care crisis to rend the USA. Such an event would be very damaging for the world. The USA would no longer be a super-power, with all that entails for the rest of the West.
Richard P. writes:
We do need to consider seriously some sort of separation in the U.S. because of the two irreconcilable world views held by the people. But it need not go as far as the full secession suggested by Jeffersonian. Instead of looking back to 1861, a better model might be to look back to 1781–the Articles of Confederation.
We could retain the union while devolving most power to the state governments. The federal government would primarily be charged with ensuring free trade amongst the states, foreign diplomacy, and with organizing a common defense. The federal government would not be able to impose monstrous policies on either reds or blues, because it would lack both the authority and the money with which to do so.
Such an arrangement would also bring an end to much radical activism. Reds would be less likely to be exercised over, say, abortion law in California. Blues would be less likely to be up in arms over school prayers in Oklahoma. State sovereignty would mean that local majorities rule over themselves.
It’s a system that worked well for us in the past, and it has worked pretty well for Switzerland.
Tim W. writes:
The article is interesting, but the author overlooks a few things.
First, he forgets that modern liberalism is a totalitarian and universalist ideology. It isn’t a “live and let live” concept. The ultimate goal of its adherents is a world government from which no one can escape. The idea that separation could occur, and that the blue nation would tolerate a conservative nation on its border, is highly questionable. More likely is that the blue nation would work with the EU and China to economically isolate and destroy the red nation.
Second, leftists need conservatives but conservatives don’t need leftists. To be blunt, they can’t let us go. We’d be happy to be rid of them, because to us they’re nothing but parasites and/or oppressors. But they can’t get rid of us because we do most of the work, pay most of the taxes, provide the stability and morality that allow their depravity to thrive with less damaging results.
Furthermore, the white conservative population is the buffer protecting white liberals from the minorities. Imagine if all the Obama voters were placed in a separate country all to themselves. That country would be only fifty percent white, if that. Meaning that the political clout of blacks and Latinos would be greater than ever, and their demands for quotas, handouts, leniency for their criminals, and open borders would be more powerful than ever. Meanwhile, the whites who would have to suffer to accommodate these demands wouldn’t be middle class conservative church goers, as they are now. Those whites wouldn’t be around anymore. They’d be across the border in another nation. Instead, the white left would have to sacrifice themselves to meet those demands. I, for one, would be interested to see how these whites deal with a demand for racial quotas when the only whites available for exclusion are liberals.
Despite all its difficulties, it’s interesting to discuss the possibility of separation. It may come to it someday, and I can’t say I’m opposed to the idea.
To expand on Tim’s idea, let me bring in my tri-partite theory of liberal society. Liberal society requires three parties, three “characters” in the script, in order to function: (1) the white liberals who run things and who embody the system’s ideals of tolerance and inclusion of minorities; (2) the minorities upon whom the white liberal exercise the liberal virtues of tolerance and inclusion, thus confirming the meaning and purpose of liberal society; and (3) the white non-liberals (or at least those whites seen by the white liberals as non-liberals), who are the liberals’ necessary foil, the evil force against which the liberals assert and demonstrate liberal virtue.
If there were a separation between liberal and non-liberal America, if liberal America were left without white non-liberals, it’s questionable whether the liberal America could survive. Without the non-liberals upon whom to blame the minorities’s dysfunction and misbehavior (e.g., “blacks lag in accomplishment because of racial discrimination,” “Moslems resort to terrorism because whites stereotpye them as terrorists”), the negative characteristics of minorities could no longer be evaded by being blamed on non-liberal whites, the truth about racial and cultural differences would begin to be spoken honestly, and thus the liberal system would break down.
Alan M. (a Canadian by birth who is about to become a U.S. Citizen, see prevoius entry) writes:
What’s sad about this is that the founders already gave us this with most of these powers retained by the states and/or the individual … and we (or a portion of “we”) have thrown it away. Now we have to fight for it all over again.
Rick Darby writes:
It is hard to doubt that there is no longer a “United” States. The country now consists of two basically separate cultures. Nor is this division one that will blow over as certain policy issues are settled or lose their charge. At issue are fundamental ideas about the role of government, as well as some social values in opposition. After 40 years of increasingly bitter civil conflict, it’s time to consider a fundamental change; not a perfect solution, because there is none, but the least damaging way of acknowledging the facts and reducing the odds of disorder, including violent disorder.
Easier said than done? Sure. A certain amount of crossover exists between the two cultures, and they are somewhat mixed geographically, which complicates any political remediation. And the question of national defense inevitably comes up, although that seems to me the least of the problems: agreements for mutual defense are not uncommon. For that matter, if one side doesn’t treat national defense seriously (which is the case now), they can carry on blowing kisses to the world’s villains. The other side can take care of itself.
The best opening would be a Constitutional amendment setting forth the requirements for individual states to secede. It shouldn’t be easy. No step so serious should be taken unless it is clearly the will of a significant majority of that state’s population. But the amendment should contain language that specifically prohibits Congress and, more important, the federal courts (including the High Priests of the Supreme Court) from overturning the decision if it meets the procedure stated in the amendment.
Many will protest that this idea is unrealistic, isn’t “politically feasible,” can’t happen, won’t happen, etc. But as you have said on many occasions (in different contexts), if we limit our proposals to what seems realistic at the moment, the game will never change. By putting new and different ideas on the table, there is at least a chance that what is realistic will change.
Robert Bove writes:
Walter Williams has a short piece at Townhall.com today in which he makes this statement:
I believe we are nearing a point where there are enough irreconcilable differences between those Americans who want to control other Americans and those Americans who want to be left alone that separation is the only peaceable alternative. Just as in a marriage, where vows are broken, our human rights protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted to protect them. The Democrat-controlled Washington is simply an escalation of a process that has been in full stride for at least two decades. There is no evidence that Americans who are responsible for and support constitutional abrogation have any intention of mending their ways.
You say, “Williams, what do you mean by constitutional abrogation?” Let’s look at just some of the magnitude of the violations. Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution lists the activities for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend. Nowhere on that list is authority for Congress to tax and spend for: prescription drugs, Social Security, public education, farm subsidies, bank and business bailouts, food stamps and other activities that represent roughly two-thirds of the federal budget. Neither is there authority for congressional mandates to the states and people about how they may use their land, the speed at which they can drive, whether a library has wheelchair ramps and the gallons of water used per toilet flush. The list of congressional violations of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution is virtually without end. Our derelict Supreme Court has given Congress sanction to do anything upon which they can muster a majority vote.
While he doesn’t explicitly provide a solution to our “bad marriage,” Williams implies secession is coming.
I think it is already here. People who can afford to do so are already moving out of the failed Democrat cities and states like Los Angeles and California and seeking small-state/low-tax places like Texas. This, of course, is accelerating the fiscal collapse of the former. New Jersey and, perhaps, Massachusetts are attempting to reverse their fiscal collapse. Certainly, the voters in those states want their state governments to shrink.
Everything, it seems, hinges on the results of this November’s mid-term elections.
Ron L. writes:
Putting aside the questionable goals of splitting the Union apart, it is completely not feasable logistically. The problem is that the divisions are not just between states, but primarily in states. Get a county map. Essentially, the left is comprised of urban areas, some inner-ring suburbs, and Black and Latino rural counties. How exactly would we then seperate?
Richard W. writes:
The idea that the USA could be split along county lines is completely unworkable. The American tradition Already gives us the historical basis for separation, it is the states. The states must be the vehicle of reasserting our traditional political rights and our society.
This can happen without secession or violence as states begin to aggressively rejecting Federal policy. This movement is already afoot, the “Tenthers” who focus on the rights retained by the states as called out in the 10th Amendment, the final section of the Bill of Rights.
Already I believe four states have written laws essentially nullifying federal gun control laws within their states. Wyoming’s law even has fines specified for federal officials who attempt to enforce federal laws inside the state of Wyoming.
As D.C. becomes more and more overbearing the obvious strongest point of resistance is the state. The same people who have voted to end the jurisdiction of federal agents for the purpose of gun laws in their state could also go after many other pet parts of the federal monstrosity.
Indeed, they already have! Look at the state by state rejection of affirmative action and gay marriage that has taken place in the last decade. View these movements as a small start in reasserting the rights of states to decide most of their own laws and regulations (the FedGov being limited to a narrowly interpreted set of enumerated powers as the Constitution requires) and you can sense the dormant power that we still hold via our State governments.
Because states, not counties, already have many historical and legal manifestations of sovereignty, they are the appropriate political subdivision for our efforts to be focused on.
Richard P. writes:
I think Richard W. is right to point to the nascent Tenth Amendment movements. As Federal intrusiveness expands we are likely to see that movement grow, and maybe even have teeth. I would also suggest one other proposal that could empower states and undo a great deal of the damage liberalism has caused. We should also pass a constitutional amendment that clearly and specifically defines what is and isn’t “interstate commerce.” For instance, it could specify that any commercial activity between and individual and businesses/individuals within the same state cannot be considered interstate commerce. Further, any activity that does not involve a commercial exchange is not interstate commerce.
Such an amendment would empower state governments while removing authority for much of what the federal government does now. A centuries worth of bad court precedent would be instantly rolled back. It would be as if Wickard vs. Filburn and its many progeny never happened. No longer could courts and the Congress use creative interpretations of the interstate commerce clause to grant themselves new powers, because the Constitution itself would have a clear and limited definition of interstate commerce.
Jonathan W. writes:
To answer Ron L.’s question, I think the only way to reconcile that problem is to realize that the conservative rural areas control the essential means for human survival. The liberal city areas may control finance, education, and politics, but the rural areas provide all of the necessities, like agriculture and energy generation. If middle America could muster the moral courage, it could choke off the urban areas, leaving them lying in their own garbage without electricity, clean water or food.
Jeffersonian’s plan ends with:
As we do this, we will discover how to proceed next, and leaders will emerge.
This is the MAR dream all over again. I’ve attached a classic S. Harris cartoon that addresses this.
Mel R. writes:
Thanks for the post regarding a proposal to divide the former United States. I say former with all due respect as I no longer view us as a “united” country. How does one with views like yourself feel anyway united with a person that could vote for Obama. The gulf between yourself and an Obama supporter is akin to the Grand Canyon, you can not possibly shake hands with a person on the other side of that divide.
My only hope for my children’s future is we Conservatives be allowed to go our own way. Unfortunately, several of you have made good points that the Liberals need us on numerous levels. 1) White liberals need us to protect them physically from the NAMs. 2) White liberals need us for their religion, we are like their animal sacrifices. 3) All Liberals need us to provide for them the basic necessities of life. The “Elites” Jeffersonian listed in the plus column for the Blues are all parasites, no matter what their IQs, Lawyers, Goldman Sachs bankers, college professors in Ethnic Studies, journalists, government employees? You have to be kidding me that those people are a net positive to society. They are all leeches.
Conservatives do not need Liberals.
Therefore, the Liberals would never willingly let us go. But, he did bring up a good point–Liberals would not actually want to get their hands bloody, so unless they could get China, Mexican narcos, Muslims, etc. to do the bloody work for them we might have a chance to separate peacefully from them.
My prayer for the future is separation, I see no alternative, but I think it will have to get much worse before a significant number of white people wake up.
Rick Darby writes:
Good suggestions from Richards W. and P. Selective state “nullification” and a sane, official definition of interstate commerce are promising strategies. But a parallel drive for a constitutional amendment to allow individual state secession under prescribed rules would keep the heat on Washington and encourage the states’ own efforts.
I hope Jonathan W. is not serious. Starving urban dwellers and leaving them “lying in their own garbage” is an act of war, the thing we want to avoid while effecting the desired changes. We shouldn’t antagonize every city resident; some are or could be allies.
Mark Jaws writes:
I am glad to see even our esteemed host and moderator, Mr. Lawrence Auster, entertain the Mark Jaws Idea of an amicable divorce between two hopelessly irreconcilable factions.
I think it is worthwhile to cite a few examples of how far apart we have drifted in the past 50 years. Blue America has no problem with 50 million human beings massacred in the womb, but goes meshugah when we pour water on a wash cloth covering the face of a terrorist mass murderer. Blue America conjures up images of racism in a movement (the TEA Party) where there isn’t any, but sees no problem with their Obamessiah’s having spent most of his adult life in a church which bestowed a lifetime achievement award on Louis Farakkhan. Blue America sees nothing wrong in having students in public schools don Islamic garb and cite verses from the Koran, but break out into hives when the word Christmas is mentioned.
I agree with those who maintain that Blue America is not likely to let us go without a struggle, but given the disposition and demographics of Blue America, I don’t think they can put up much of a fight. Most of the manly military mass lies in Red State America, and there will likely be no Blue State Grants, Sheridans or Shermans to march through our territory, but rather Attorneys General Dershowitzes and Admiral Snoop Doggie Dogs. Furthermore, the mere concentration of Blue State voters in cities in which the infrastructure is already at breaking point, makes Blue America vulnerable to a variety of peaceful–but delightfully mischievious–ways to endlessly aggravate the urban white liberal. Red State folks, on the other hand, are more dispersed and more self-reliant. We already have the social network of churches, fraternities, soccer leagues, swim teams, and shared military experience to bind us more readily into a common cause, as compared to isolated white liberals living in urban enclaves surrounded by–and alienated from–their black and Hispanic “allies” in name only.
Now is the time to push this agenda. It is our only hope of keeping Western Civilization alive.