Listen to the podcast at YouTube, BitchuteT, or Gab (back up).
Michael Anton in The Asylum has a semi-imaginary dialogue between himself (he calls himself Tom) and a woke man named Malcolm. Subject: separation of Red and Blue. Trigger warning: there are a lot! of exclamation points!
Anton argues the case for a dissolution of Empire as best as he can, but is never convincing. We on the Reality side of the debate will agree with Anton on all symptoms of our declining culture, and even on the desirability that we go our own way, and let the Woke fend for themselves.
But they will never let us go.
The side that screeches about and weeps cataracts over “colonialism” must be our master. There is no point showing them the hypocrisy of this. They eat hypocrisy for breakfast. All must submit to them, here and everywhere. Only when all are made to toil under one rule, and profess belief in one idea, will there be true Diversity. They must impose their beliefs.
I think Anton, in his heart of hearts, knows this, too, because he puts into Malcolm’s mouth most of the reasons the left will never peaceably relinquish power. More on that in a moment.
Still, Anton give’s the old college try. By invoking nice legalities based on the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.
Look, friends, if we could reason and have pleasant debates over arcane law with the Woke and their undead DIEite Army, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. They are not going to read pieces like his, no matter how tightly argued, and announce, “Say, the legal reading of these curious historical documents is right. We admit we’re flummoxed. We have to let them separate. After all, the words in these documents meant something to those who wrote them. We must respect that. The law is the law.”
Anton next attempts tossing a Lincoln-wrench into the discussion, arguing that the Great Emancipator of War strangling the life out of the Confederacy is not at all equivalent to the New Confederacy’s longing to escape nouveaux Yankee puritanism. He hinges this foray on this claim: “The nation was divided on one issue during the Civil War: slavery.”
This is not so. But that doesn’t matter. Almost everybody now thinks it is so, and what is the old saying, perception is Reality? If there is any culture that lived by that dictum, we are it. (I do not apply this type of fantastical thinking to Anton, though I do disagree with him on the Civil War: a moot point.)
Grant his slavery-was-the-sole-issue ploy, and let’s next see Anton’s argument of how we are not now in a similar situation as Lincoln (ellipsis original).
[Anton-Tom says:] Now, the South in 1860 could not appeal to the right of revolution because the ground, the basis, for the right of revolution is human nature, the twin principles of equality and consent. Obviously, those are incompatible with slavery…whatever you want to call it, separation today would be justified on the basis of the right of revolution while secession in 1860 was not.
Lincoln and his followers hated slavery, but everyone except the most radical abolitionists were willing to tolerate it where it existed. They just didn’t want it to expand. They had three basic reasons. First, they thought that slavery is simply morally wrong. It’s one thing to tolerate it where it exists when it’s very difficult to get rid of, but quite another to choose it for its own sake or as a ‘positive good.’…
The Woke hate “racism”, “sexism”, “homophobia”, “transphobia”, “climate change”, and on and on and on, which of course Anton well knows. The Woke are not willing to tolerate these in their own ranks, and they certainly are not willing to tolerate them in ours. Or in those in foreign lands.
The Woke believe in Equality, the idea that all are interchangeable, and that the only “real” differences that exist are caused by accident of birth, and so all measured differences must necessarily be caused by some kind of “discrimination”. They must export and enforce and mandate this cancerous egalitarianism. This is the full and final fruit of the so-called Enlightenment.
The passions of anti-slavery were nothing to the combined white-hot emotional turmoil of Woke causes. They will never agree that “racism”, or anything else, should be allowed by deplorables in their own nations, should we be allowed to escape. Secession is even more unjustifiable to our modern Lincolns as it was to the original.
Anton has his Malcolm admit this: “You want us to agree to a separation so you can oppress minorities! How can you expect us to agree to that?”
We cannot. Malcolm said Blues will keep us imprisoned “To prevent you from imposing your racist utopia.”
Anton does have a sense of humor about this:
“OK, if you’re so worried about how we’ll treat minorities, here’s a simple solution,” Tom said. “You take them all.”
“So we’re back to ethnic cleansing?” Malcolm said. “You just denied you were going to do that! Now the truth comes out! This is, I have to say, truly monstrous: the creation of an all-white state through ethnic cleansing.”
Anton goes to great pains to deny this, but even if newly created Red nations would be racial paradises, the horrors the Blue leaders would imagine the Reds are up to are intolerable to them. We already have ample evidence that it is their imaginations that drive them.
Anton is so desperate for his argument, he is willing to have Red nations pay the Blue Danegeld in perpetuity:
Tom said, “…But just for the sake of argument, hear me out. Suppose I or someone could convince Red America to pay some kind of reparations, as the price of separation. I think it’s a terrible idea, and expect most Reds would hate it, but just suppose. What then?”
“How much?” Malcolm asked.
“That would be a matter for negotiation,” Tom said.
“I suppose you’re proposing some one-time payoff?” Malcolm said. “But why should you get off that easily? Centuries of racism can’t be paid off with a single check.”
“OK,” Tom said, “we’ll make it ongoing.”
Malcolm isn’t buying it, because he doesn’t have to. He, and the Woke, just can’t abide the idea of “racists” being “racist” anywhere in the world, but especially not their cousins.
Not only that, of course, but they’ll fret, as Malcolm does, of the “sexist dystopia” that will evince in Red nations. And this, too:
“OK,” Malcolm said, “here’s one last consideration, absolutely non-negotiable. Climate change. Emissions will kill this planet, and all of us with it. Your Red rump state will be a gigantic polluter. That will kill us. We can’t allow it. There is no ‘live-and-let-live’ with you on that issue.”
Anton, exasperating himself over what will certainly be the Woke’s real-life responses, finds some relief in reminding Malcolm that “the right of revolution is a fundamental natural right enshrined in the Declaration of Independence”.
Though he says, many times, it won’t be our side that initiates the violence. With the FBI’s help, it can sure be made to look like it, though. I’m sure they can get some rubes, à la the Gretchen Whitmare (a kind of nightmare) case to fire on a new Fort Sumter.
And, of course, all this is before considering how the oligarchs would never willingly set free a major source of their wealth.
Do read the piece. There is a lot of fun to be armchair generaling as you move the pieces of the once-United States into new configurations. For my own part, I will settle for nothing less than Emperor of Michigan, William the Red. I will separate the Ann Arbor-to-Detroit corridor as a Woke state: let them destroy each other: then move in and reconquer the territory.
Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. For Zelle, use my email: email@example.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank.
Parasites don’t willingly leave the host.
If you breed a species (with death for deviants) that subjugates indigenous populations, then their descendants will need new indigenous populations to subjugate.
Men serving the Creator should work together resisting those serving the Destroyer. Getting it clear in mind first which is the Creator, and which the Destroyer, is key to forming an effective spiritual/moral division. A man may do that regardless of whatever geo-political vagaries in which he finds himself. As a practical matter, it will likely prove worthwhile for the Creator’s allies to remove themselves from the Destroyer’s urban strongholds, and make themselves less dependent on the Beast system. The destroyer will eventually destroy himself and his minions. The process will be a test of your endurance.
Read the poem Danegeld by Rudyard Kipling.
We now are occupied by the Dane, so ridding ourselves of him calls for different means than meeting him on the open field.
HB @ 9:36 Yes.
Many who would server the Creator will be seduced by the propaganda of the other side, and will be lured into serving it.
Ridicule and truth telling may help some.
Mr. Cole is correct – see link below. The negroes are never gonna let Whitey run. We are stuck trying to placate them with cash so they won’t kill us.
BTW, that is the real reason liberal whites want gun confiscation. They know someday a gang of negroes (such as the Congressional Black Caucus) will be coming for them
Just remember this all started when Obama put men in the lady’s room.
Presidential Memorandum — International Initiatives to Advance the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Persons
The question about a payoff from the red states to the blue does work, but only in the context of undercutting the moral authority of the blue. There is of course no amount of money that they would accept, but forcing them to admit this can undercut their moral authority if the discussion is public.
What I mean is when they say things like “the historical costs of bigotry and other discrimination are still being felt today, and until proper reparations are made these wounds will always be with us” then the average NPC in the general population swallows the rhetoric and views them as kind and compassionate. If you push back with “today’s minorities don’t deserve reparations because the discrimination wasn’t against them” or “government reparations from one class to another are never just” you are just playing into their frame and casting yourself on the villain. You may be saying things that logically true, but you are ceding that the left has the moral authority in the discussion. And incorrect but moral beats correct but immoral any day when it comes to rhetoric.
On the other hand if you say “okay, so let’s do a hundred billion dollars of reparations to settle the matter” the leftist is never able to be satisfied with your number. It wouldn’t matter if you said five hundred billion, or a trillion, or ten trillion or a quadrillion. The number will always be too low. The leftist is forced in a situation where he hast to perpetually ask for more money, which casts him no longer as the hero but instead as a greedy parasite, removing him of moral authority.
But of course it won’t convince the leftist himself of anything. And that’s the problem with having a conversation like the one between “Tom” and Malcolm; the leftist won’t budge no matter how many contradictions he lines up because 1.) He doesn’t care about the logic in the first place, 2.) If he is forced to pretend to be logical (so as not to give up the frame of “I’m smarter than you”) he’ll just do a bunch of special pleading followed by smug mockery if you tear apart his special pleading and 3.) They don’t care what you think in the first place, they just care that you are crushed.
We’ve got a lot more than woke to look forward to…
Man Who Transformed Himself Into ‘Alien’ Hits Problem as He’s ‘Barred from Restaurants’
I’m Not Human, I’m A ‘Black Alien’ | No Filter
Here is the cost to Whitey (Link below) for living with minorities which is one reason the Jews desire mass immigration into America – to break Whitey’s wealth and spirit and make them descend into penury and pessimism.
No matter how much wealth and liberty Whitey surrenders, Negroes will still claim whitey has not done enough for them.
As to the nearly three quarters of a million white souls destroyed in liberating them in the war against the south – pffft, whatever. Name the negro who has ever expressed an iota of gratitude..
My brother-in-law used tp live outside of Atlanta, the county of which continued to tax them as though they were residents of Fulton County (they weren’t.) Who’n’hell did he think he was trying to live apart from the very negroes who hated him and hunted him?
Here’s the cost Whitey. Y’all have no one – NOT ONE- politician who will stand up for you and your legitimate gains.
ALL elections are like the old stick figure drawing of three men taking; one white man stick figure says to the black stick figure “Vote fo r me and I will give you his stuff – while pointing to the other white stick figure.
RH at 1:47 “the leftist won’t budge”
If dialog doesn’t work, what’s left? Especially if elections are “fortified” for democracy.
Dialogue doesn’t work, but rhetoric does.
Get 30% or so of the normies on your side and the left can’t act.
But those normies aren’t convinced by dialogue, they are convinced by ethos and pathos.
The hardcore leftists won’t change even if the majority of the population is against them, but they will be made irrelevant in that scenario.
Lincoln didn’t hate slavery at all. He just saw it as a useful way to create a 5th column in the south. Northern aggression instigated by Lincoln probably led to more slaves suffering and dying than any other cause; it starved the southern states of food and other vital life resources.
As the industrial revolution took hold there would be less and less need of slavery in agriculture – slavery probably would have gone away within a decade or so (white children were being born into slavery by 1862). The US Constitution permitted indentured servitude, slavery and unfettered slave trade until 1865. The Constitution of the Confederacy banned indentured servitude and the international slave trade but not intercoastal slave trade. It also strengthened state’s rights against the federal government (as compared to the US Constitution) and gave the President the line-item-veto.
I don’t quite get the purported hostility among Jews for “whitey”. So, guys like Jack Benny, Benny Goodman, and William Shatner aren’t “whitey”?
I think you’ve managed to miss Anton’s larger point. The purpose of the Tom/Malcom exchange isn’t to provide a justification for national divorce that both sides will accept. Anton knows this isn’t possible, and instead is attempting to illustrate his previously stated conclusion (paraphrase) “that while Texas is willing to let California be California, California is not will to let Texas be Texas.” See his Summer 2021 book review “Right Flight” in the Claremont Review. With that said, your implication that the whole appeal to 1776 act is a bit cringe-inducing is spot-on and it certainly seems like he is unintentionally confirming the observation made elsewhere that to agree to your enemy’s morality is to lose the argument. As long as Malcolm is allowed to set the moral frame, Malcolm enjoys the rhetorical high ground. Or put another way, Tom is engaging in griller-ism (he just wants to be left alone to grill) which will never compete with Malcolm’s moral crusade.
Dear Mr. Cotterman. Americans routinely say the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor but, obviously, that does not mean every Jap then living but, yes, Jews are prominent in the mass immigration into every one of the once majority white populations of the countries in the west.
In fact, they have been so busy doing that they haven’t yet gotten around to opening Israel to undifferentiated mass immigration.
The New Testament teaches us that Jews are the adversaries (enemies) of all men
1 Thessalonians 2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men;
TheZman and Michael Anton have been in a running blog duel over the idea of natural rights.
This whole idea of a philosophically justified separation of Red and Blue is based on Harry Jaffa’s second founding argument that Lincoln made whole the promise of the Declaration. Anton is trying to argue that the South’s secession was morally wrong and constitutionally illegal, and therefore that Lincoln’s war on the South was justified, whereas a new “separation” of Red and Blue would be morally based, more like the right to revolution than the right to secession.
This takes the argument back to what constitutes a moral society, which Anton believes is based on natural rights. TheZman argues that natural rights are an invention of the western mind, and that they don’t exist outside the western mind. He argues that nature only cares about the fitness to survive.
Anton knows that things are irreparable and he’s struggling to provide an intellectual basis for action. If separation were to ever happen, it will be the strong that risk it, do it, and prove the fitness to flourish, and that will be the only justification that matters in the real world.
Its interesting to read those who think secession is unjustifiable because they never refer to our secession from England.
Secession is as natural to Americans as is election cheating – My own State of Vermont was banging on about secession from thus crummy country LONG before the CSA reared its handsome face.
Secession is an American right:
Imagine if us Yankees had not been indoctrinated into an ideologically oddity (secession is evil) by the state seminaries (which taught us the American Religion) and had, instead, been taught a complete history rather than a fractured and fanatical history of the sacred union.
http://southernhistorians.org/freebooklet/uwbts-chapter-16-the-nature-of-the-union-and-the-right-of-state-secession/ory about the sacred union.
Dear Mr. Crank: You didn’t really address my question. Since Jews are white people (see examples I provided), it’s not clear how Jews are opposed to white people. Have a great weekend!
It’s a mistake to assume that Tom is simple stand-in for Anton. Remember that Anton is a Straussian, and they have a particular way of reading Platonic dialogues–which Anton appears to be attempting to revive as a perfect medium for the Current Year. See Leo Strauss’s “Persecution and the Art of Writing” for a complete explanation. Putting philosophical thought in a dialog form shields the author from censors–“I didn’t say that–those are words in the mouth of my (reprobate) character!”–and allows the author to lead readers to reason their own way to conclusions by noticing weaknesses and contradictions in the arguments. There’s actually a great deal of layering and nuance that can be accomplished with this form.
Dear Mr. Cotterman. I am the same age as Israel and I was born into an America that was 90% and Christian but then Jews gained controlled of immigration..
I thought this was well known by the based. I guess I was wrong.
There are al manner of links I could post about this but, this is off the top of my head, I remember Alan Shatter of Ireland who was head of immigration. He is a jew and it was his opinion that natural Ireland was an abomination because it lacked the diversity of subsaharan blacks.
But, the jews haven’t had time to change the make-up of Israel because they are too busy destroying the unity of majority white countries – countries once comprised of people who are essentially the same race, religion, culture and speech – but dissolving that unity by diversity which dissolves the political power because the Jews hate Jesus Christ and His Church and His people
Self-determination is racist
Representative government is Fascism
Closed minded is Woke