Why Mike Vanderboegh is Right

Over at Mike's blog at Sipsey Street Irregulars, and via e-mail, he has responded and raised valid points, as have others amongst our Three Percenter movement.

Mike points out, of course, that secession would encourage foreign enemies.

This is true, but a thousand square miles declaring itself sovereign is not going to give Beijing the courage it needs to try to take on the (still standing, in this scenario) military of the United States. Thousands, or in fact millions, of American citizens declaring their nation independent of its "government" (read: rulers) and engaging its military and paramilitary forces certainly will.

If territory from Florida to Arizona broke from the country, yes, that would immediately lead to the same sort of instability against which I am cautioning. The methods I will shortly propose will not.

Mike's Friend #1 says:

We are moving ever closer to Rawles’s Patriot scenario. The birthright of American Liberty will fail without resolute action. I absolutely expect Russia, China, Europe and/or militant Islam to take advantage of the situation.
This is all to the good.

I do not think that your critic has thought through his argument sufficiently. If he really agrees that a restoration is necessary and desirable, then why he would not support it or why he would caution against it – just because Russia, China or Europe “might” take advantage of internal unrest? He argues that we cannot engage in a restoration because of “what if” scenarios. This result of ‘taking counsel of one’s fears’ results in failure through inaction.

Certain sure the socialist tyrants of the old world would love to intervene to secure the riches of America. But were the enemies of the United States to intervene, it will drive huge numbers of fence-sitters to our side. The logistics of intervention, of sustaining credible, robust military forces across an ocean are significant. Let them come.

I must point out that Friend #1 (subsequently F1) agrees that it's far less a "might" than a "will" scenario.

I respond that I do not at all suggest that we cannot engage - just that the cost will be many times higher than thus far anticipated, and victory in light of certain contingencies is not at all a foregone conclusion. We ought to take intermediary steps before we resign ourselves to such a bitter situation. Also, you will find that it is not at ALL good if they do intervene.

There is a major difference in strategy between a conqueror and a defending tyrant. The tyrant won't burn his own fields or kill his own subjects when he can avoid it - the conqueror has no such reservations. Washington will not drop bombs on New York City just because there may be Restorationists within. Beijing will drop bombs on New York City just to prove a point.

Mike's Friend #2:

Saw it.

Agree that cold blood is needed here.

The central fallacy is that by standing pat, the evils foreseen by the author will be avoided.

The reality is that the PRC, a resurgent neo-Tsarist Russia, expansionist Islam, and the worldwide socialist cabal stand ready, willing, and able to dismember the country of our births.

Much progress has been made by each -- individually and collectively. Perhaps even a fatal amount.

Within our own country, legions of Quislings, sworn to the cause of foreign ideology, skulk ever closer to complete control of the three branches of government at the local, state, and Federal levels.

BTW, the most important priorities in my mind are preservation/restoration of your health and completion of the novel. Everything else should come last.

The simplest refutation has been made already by Churchill:

If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

Remember too that the evil ones would have you stab yourself with your own pen. Beware.

Should you choose to engage, suggest that you contact the author and propose an exchange of correspondence, published for the world to see.

Your case is freedom.

His case is slavery.

I cannot but assume that F2 reads something not present into my writings. This is fine, and in fact I left a lot unexplored because of time restraints and for rhetorical purposes, so exploring the gaps and crevices of my words is fair.

I don't propose "standing pat," not at all. In fact I propose something that can be done now, and might in fact lead to that victory sans bloodshed. I also don't suggest that global-rule socialists (I'll henceforth call them the "NWO," not to suggest that they're a fiction, or conversely that every conspiracy theory written about them is true, but just because it's much faster than "global-rule socialists") will not attempt their coup regardless. I might even be willing to go so far as to suggest that with the inauguration of Barack Obama, they have succeeded.

I also would never propose that we should cease preparing for, or reminding would-be rulers that we are prepared for, what is, in truth, an armed insurrection. Don't read me wrong: I am a Three Percenter. I want Mike to keep up what he's doing. I want to help Mike with what he's doing. I just propose one final method to perhaps prevent the spilling of blood.

I do not at all see Mike and myself as enemy generals sitting down to put forth our respective proposals, but rather commanders on the same team backing different strategies.

One of the main points of contention regarding the "John Galt scenario" is the way in which the Weavers, the Davidians, and other "fringe" groups who have tried something similar have been attacked. There are critical variances that I'll talk about in my next post.