Continued discussion on proposal to divide the United States into two countries

Over two days ago “Jeffersonian” presented an original plan for a conservative secession from an America that with the passage of the health care bill has crossed the line into undisguised lawless statism. His article set off a discussion that has now reached the maximum size for an individual entry at this site, and so is being continued in this entry. The first comment is by Jake Jacobsen who thinks the whole discussion so far is a lot of hooey.

Jake Jacobsen writes:

I have to laugh reading through this at the bloodthirsty tone of these “conservatives.” I might, and I want to emphasize the word “might” take this more seriously had I even once seen a “Conservative” defend another “Conservative” from physical attack, but I have never seen that, not once though hundreds of “Conservatives” have been attacked and assaulted by leftists over the years.

While I was part of the Minutemen I documented thirty odd cases of these fine folks being assaulted by either Leftists, Communists or Illegal aliens. Not once did we ever protect our brethren, not once.

I might take this a little more seriously if “Conservatives” seemed capable of something other than a sniveling response when attacked, defense is prima facie moral, yet whenever I’ve suggested simply acting to protect ourselves from violent Leftists “Conservatives, including you Mr. Auster, have reacted in horror.

Please tell me how so called “Conservatives” will “rise up!”

Ha! Its like a sad joke, and oddest of all is that it is military men who are most horrified by the idea of defending “Conservatives” in the real world. I cannot explain this but know it to be true.

I have been on the front lines of this battle, I genuinely know what the enemy looks like and how he acts and reacts. I have watched my wife assaulted by a group of Communists while ten of them held me back. What’s coming will be a bloodbath and like every other time in history when “Conservatives” were slaughtered it will happen while you fools are dotting your I’s and crossing your T’s.

We need to band together for protection and to build some sort of proto Actual Conservative defense league, but I’m sure actually doing something, not just sitting behind a keyboard is far too terrifying for most of you “Conservatives,” right?

I hope this missive has enraged you, that was the intent, but I mean every single word.

Gintas writes:

Jake Jacobsen writes:

I have been on the front lines of this battle, I genuinely know what the enemy looks like and how he acts and reacts. I have watched my wife assaulted by a group of Communists while ten of them held me back. What’s coming will be a bloodbath and like every other time in history when “Conservatives” were slaughtered it will happen while you fools are dotting your I’s and crossing your T’s.

Are you really a fool like he says? Say it ain’t so!

I like his rough no-nonsense pure action approach, mocking scribblers and intellects. Reminds me of Alex Linder. End of sarcasm.

LA replies:

What Jake wants is that we just do it. But to just do it, we’d first have to know what it is we’re supposed to just do. Which requires that we think. But thinking is the very thing Jake has had enough of and regards as contemptible foolishness. So it looks as though Jake is just as stuck in non-action as we are, or rather he’s more stuck than we are, since we’re willing to think about what to do, and he’s not.

Dan D. writes:

OK. I like his challenge.

However, before commenting on his main topic of our conservative gutlessness, as it were, what does: “I have watched my wife assaulted by a group of Communists while ten of them held me back,” really mean?

Jake, I hate to break this news to you, but there is no “us.” The main body of what once was the American population, Euro-derived, over the last 40 years has be thoroughly beaten down, kind of like a goodly portion of European Jews during the 1930s.

What you’re seeing is the quite rapid dismantling of a culture, and along with it the marginalizing of that culture’s purveyors, Euro-Americans, a.k.a. whites. That this process has happened in the past isn’t much consolation though. (Once there were Etruscans.)

That we are our own worst enemy is also obvious. Our elites push open borders and multiculturalism. Our business class choses to fire their American workers to import foreign workers or just send the business overseas. Our academic class is loath to espouse anything but sheer hatred for the average American. Our religious class reminds us of the particular sins of the “white” among to congregation (and I’ve been told so by such “brothers” in conversation as casual as der Fuhrer contemplated the “Jewish” problem. Our educrats? Hardly.

Can’t you just feel the balance of our civilization tilt? The open hatred of whites as a people. What did Howard Dean call the Republicans? Wasn’t it something like: “the party of white Christians”? At the time I thought, “Is that supposed to be bad?”

On a personal level, people I have known since youth have all drunk the Kool-Aid. Add to that the fact that I’m one of a few who has had any children, who hasn’t divorced, who is still confused over being called the usual: bigot, racist, homophobe, etc. Such is life in our present era.

Much more to be said on this topic. But I’m not a member of any group. Who could you trust?

Felicie C. writes:

Sorry if this has already been brought up. Which, in your opinion, is the smarter group? The “Blues” or “Reds” (whites, I mean)? Which has the higher average IQ? I came to think of it apropos the question of who needs whom most. There are certainly a lot of techies and science PhDs among the liberals. The Red folks seem to be less educated. Will they be able to compete with the other group? Will there be enough smart nerds to allow Red America to thrive as a knowledge economy?

If I were to guess, I would guess that among the traditionalists one finds both the lowest and the highest IQs. You either don’t question the tradition and do everything as your forefathers did. Or you question the tradition on the deepest, most fundamental level and end up reaffimating it.

On the other hand, liberals cannot think very deeply, and the answers they come up with are usually superficial or harmful. Liberals are smart, as a group, but not sufficiently smart.

(The situation is a little bit similar to that of the humanities vs. sciences. The majority of the smart people are in the sciences. An average scientist is smarter than an average humanist. And yet the smartest people are often found among the philosophers. It is usually philosophers that change paradigms in a most fundamental way).

Mark Jaws writes:

I applaud Jake. He is indeed correct in discussing the unwillingness among conservatives to deal with rowdy and in-your-face leftist demonstrators. He is spot-on about the need for conservatives to start talking about defending themselves not only during protests, but in their communities as well. Forward looking people should consider what they and their neighbors should do in the event of financial meltdown and the possible collapse of civil authority.

But perhaps a change is taking place as the great white whale is getting off the beach and back into the ocean. As I commented back in August when I attended a town hall rally and led the jeering against the lying lefties—people are riled up, and perhaps even moved to the point of fighting back if provoked by lefty agitators. I don’t think the SEIU union thugs or the Black Panthers or white student anarchists can any longer bully conservative whites into submission during these public rallies. In Virginia people are carrying concealed weapons to our Tea Party events, or carrying in the open. As you mentioned, Sir Lawrence, Barack Obama is the greatest conservative community organizer of all time.

Gintas writes:

Jake’s comments strike me as recklessly provocative. He mocks our “bloodthirsty” comments, then eggs us on to swaggering violence. Is he being paid by the Feds to try to flush out potential “terrorists”?

I appreciate his doing Minuteman duty, but he should surely know the value of not giving the Feds an easy way to shut you down hard.

Ferg writes:

Jake Jacobsen writes:

Please tell me how so called “Conservatives” will “rise up!”

Ha! Its like a sad joke, and oddest of all is that it is military men who are most horrified by the idea of defending “Conservatives” in the real world. I cannot explain this but know it to be true.

I have been active in conservative politics for many years and I find all this rather puzzling. In fact I have to say I don’t know what he is talking about. I have never seen any of the behavior he is citing. Further, as a military vet, and someone who is armed and trained, and goes about his daily life armed and aware, as do most of my friends many of whom are vets, I find it improbable in the extreme. I don’t know of a more loyal or cohesive group. In fact I have to say that Jake’s tone is far more that of an outraged Liberal adolescent, than of a normally motivated conservative adult.

Jake also writes:

I might take this a little more seriously if “Conservatives” seemed capable of something other than a sniveling response when attacked, defense is prima facie moral, yet whenever I’ve suggested simply acting to protect ourselves from violent Leftists “Conservatives, including you Mr. Auster, have reacted in horror.

I am sorry, Larry, but I guess I missed your “reacting in horror” to the idea of protecting yourself or others from attack. When was that? And when was your response to attack “sniveling”? Is Jake talking about you or did I miss some reference to another person? Did we not just recently have a rather in depth discussion of various aspects of personal defense? When did you or anyone we know of run from confronting Liberals?

LA replies:

I also have no idea what Jake is talking about. I posted his comment, as overheated as it was, because I felt there was something genuine he was trying to convey. But as I look at the comment again I’m thinking he was just indulging in irrational anger and maybe I shouldn’t have posted it at all. Jake is welcome to explain what is his beef and what is his message

Jake Jacobsen writes:

Uh yeah, turn it on me? I am an individual who has been involved with a lot of Conservative activism and has witnessed firsthand copious amounts of violence against conservative activists and speakers of every stripe over the last decade.

The reason you cannot find any record of this on VFR is because Mr. Auster has refused to print the exchanges. I have emailed on this subject several times and told in no uncertain terms that we should not invite violence. Mind I was simply talking about defense, can’t stress that enough. Defense is always moral, always. [LA replies: I don’t remember specifically what Jake is referring to. But if he sent comments that advocated or seemed to advocate organized violence, I would have told him that VFR is not the place for those types of discussions. If he’s suggesting that I refused to post comments that simply said that people need to defend themselves when attacked, then that’s untrue. If there were such comments, and I declined to post them, it was for some other reason that I chose not to post them, such as that they were too hot-headed. While I’ve posted many comments of Jake’s, I do remember that there were some that I have not posted, because they were too hot-headed.]

I’ll just note for the record that you all are doing exactly what I said in my message. I am only talking about “Conservatives” defending themselves from attack, not instigating, yet you are in true paranoid fashion wondering if I am a government plant? Are you all really unaware of all the violence perpetrated against conservatives by the Left? I have to wonder what it is you are doing if this is coming as a shock to you?

Yes I am angry and frustrated, perhaps I was over the top, but I don’t think so.

The question isn’t whether you are well armed at home but whether you are willing to stand up and protect fellow Conservatives in the public square? Defend their right to protest or speak? I have never seen this happen* even though I’ve made several efforts to create some sort of conservative “Guardian Angels” and every time I was met with blank eyed incomprehension, most especially from military men. Just my experience make of it what you will it is not meant as a broad slam against military men, merely an observation.

The Left has been waging a physical, literal war on Conservatives since at least the Sixties to try and drive them out of the public square through violence and intimidation. Yet somehow the individual that “conservatives” get bent out of shape over is the guy suggesting we do something about it.

Consider me sold that we won’t be massacred because we are too busy infighting and worrying about what mean names our enemies will be calling us.

*I’ll just note that I live in a major Blue city (Chicago) which is why the level of political violence is so high. To protest as a conservative in a major city in this day and age is to take your life in your hands.

LA replies:

I don’t see that Jake’s concerns are relevant to this discussion, and I regret posting his initial comment because I think it has become a distraction. The subject of this thread has been the mega issues relating to a possible breakup of the United States into two countries; it has not been the use of violence by leftists to prevent conservatives from holding peaceful demonstrations. I’m not saying that Jake’s comments are illegitimate. I’m saying that they didn’t belong in this discussion.

Jake writes:

More: Apologies I wrote the previous response before reading all the other comments.

This is what conservatives do when you talk about this, they mock as the Lefties batter us into submission. If you haven’t experienced this then I guarantee you haven’t been outnumbered at a protest anytime recently.

Our opponents first instinct is violence and while I am not for a second suggesting ours should be as well, I am suggesting that we spare a moment to consider the protection of our co-conservatives. If possible and it may very well not be possible but does that mean it cannot be considered?

This has not been a major issue with the Tea Parties because of the tremendous turn out and the lack of opposition but this happy state of affairs will not last forever and if we really are contemplating something as dire as splitting off into a Red State I have not a single shred of doubt that our opponents will use violence and intimidation to try to keep that from happening.

What will our response be? If I am so reckless and out of control pray tell me your plan for keeping your fellow conservatives safe while at the same time never even intimating that violence might be necessary against a violent foe? [LA replies: Our original topic was the possible formation of two new nations out of the existing United States. It is obviously foundational to the existence of a sovereign political society that it be able to defend itself by force, meaning with an army or militia. That is understood and nothing more needs to be said about it. Your anger about conservatives lacking the courage to defend other conservatives from violent leftist thugs at street demonstrations is a different matter. Also, may I remind you that this is an intellectual discussion. We are, or were, talking about the pros and cons of Jeffersonian’s proposal and other proposals and scenarios, to see if they are at all plausible, to see what the obstacles to their implementation would be, to think about whether those obstacles could be overcome.]

I have watched for ten years as conservatives (not anyone here so please stop talking as if I’m talking about you personally, but I have been involved with national level groups and that is what and who I’m talking about) desperately seek any excuse to hide their heads in the sand and not acknowledge the violence of the Left that ultimately dispirits people and makes them feel as if their on the losing side.

Because that is exactly what a number of people I know personally told me was the reason they would no longer attend protests. They feared for their safety and leadership in various groups would not take their concerns seriously or got their knickers in a bunch worrying about the perception of them for fighting back. How crazy is that?

I didn’t for a second think this would help, it is truly one of the pathologies of the right that makes me a little crazy but I got it off my chest, that’s all I can do.

Please feel free to keep wondering if am an agent provocateur, its quite exciting for me!

LA writes

That’s enough on Jake’s issue, at least in this thread. If there is still interest in what we were talking about before, let’s continue the discussion.

April 10

Van Wijk writes:

Another factor in favor of secession is the fact that, as far as I can see, it is the only viable means toward racial separation (this may not be something that all traditionalists would consider desirable, but I certainly do). In my previous comment, I said that making the political left powerless in the Red state would be a necessity, so that welfare and other wasteful tax-funded programs would be virtually non-existent. The vast majority of those minorities who currently burden the American system would make for the Blue state, which would keep welfare and open immigration as an article of faith.

Also, while the older liberals certainly know where their meal ticket really comes from, many younger liberals do not. There must be a sizable number of young liberals who actually believe their own propaganda and would welcome a chance at having a country of their own, free from us bigoted rednecks. It’s possible that a secessionist movement will create a schism within liberalism itself between the younger true believers and the older, savvier generation.

As far as Jake goes, he seems to be saying that since we haven’t won by now then we’ve already lost. We still live in the U.S. and conservative protesters are very aware that violence toward a leftist, however justified, is a fast-track to the nearest federal prison, with the added bonus of wall-to-wall condemnation by the media. For better or worse, those Jake derides believe they still have something to lose, and they’re right. As I’ve stated elsewhere, no secessionist movement is viable until the current standard of living takes a plunge, and the economic crisis brought on in no small part by Obamacare promises to deliver just that. A lower standard of living means more and more agitation, which in turn means a heavier federal hand and more or less open tyranny in the form of mass arrests, which gets us to a viscerally intolerable situation. As of right now we are not near the bottom, but we’re headed there quick.

I also note that Jake does not mention using violence himself to defend his “co-conservatives” at the rallies he’s attended. He only states that his wife was assaulted while he was held back. Has Jake actually done what he derides his fellow conservatives for not doing? Perhaps he dismissed the notion because he was outnumbered, and none of his fellows stepped up? If that’s the case, perhaps they were all thinking the same thing, and waiting for a spark that didn’t come.

Alexis M. writes:

I just came across your blog via a link to the secession discussion and read the posts by Jake Jacobsen.

I feel his frustration. I’m not completely comfortable thinking I can translate his posts, but I do know one sad fact for sure: the left will never relinquish the ground it believes it has taken (and I guess it has by hook or crook) for something as mundane as a lost election. Those who think the libs and leftists in foreign nations will isolate and harass a Conservative American nation are probably close to the truth.

I’d love to secede and start over again (long live the Articles of Confederation!) but I don’t see it; the one hope for non-violent change is via the 10th Amendment movement and the blue libs aren’t going to go for that, either.

Very discouraging …

Yours is a great blog site and I’m glad to have found it.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 09, 2010 07:35 PM | Send