Monday, January 12, 2009
Why Mike Vanderboegh is Wrong
I'm a big fan of Mike Vanderboegh, the man and the author. He's got a solid spirit and a strong backbone. Lotta brain, too.
With that said, the Three Percent restoration can't be allowed to happen.
I'm not saying it's immoral. I'm not saying it wouldn't work - in fact, the thing I like most about Mike is how he demonstrates how possible it really is.
I'm saying it's too dangerous. Not for the individual members of the Three Percent, nor for gun owners, I mean for the United States and everything it stands for.
Think about it - what happens when a nation dissolves into civil unrest?
Generally they fracture, and many times they are then occupied by an enemy force.
I don't believe that we're still two minutes to midnight with Russia, or with China. However, civil unrest in the United States would be a perfect excuse for either of them to capitalize on our instability. God knows what "U.N. peacekeepers" might do.
It's very simple - we won't only be dealing with the U.S. government, which we may be able to handle. We'll be dealing with every major military in the world.
I will explore the other options we face in subsequent posts.
Now, I came back from Indy 1500 with a renewed sense of purpose to finish Absolved as soon as possible. The fact that I seem to have picked up a bug there has only complicated things. Thus, I cannot waste too much time on the blog or getting into skirmishes. Nevertheless, "sinreg" raises a real issue that I have heard before. So, unable to take the time to engage and unwilling to shift my own focus from Absolved, I forwarded it to two of my good friends and this is what they had to say:
First, Friend #1:
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.
Then, Friend #2 had this to say:
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.
In the middle of waiting for their responses, I had my aforementioned email failure. When it came back up, oddly enough, I had this from "sinreg" himself:
Supplying the Three Percent
The 3% would need a large number of supplies, chemically speaking. Propellants for bullets, rockets, et cetera, as well as several other compounds which require substances difficult to acquire even today with a spotless record and good connections. I would like to pool information in this regard, but not via e-mail, because 1) it's conspiratorial and a conspiracy is not what I want, just a free exchange of hypothetical ideas; 2) private correspondence limits us to our respective knowledges, shrinking the pool of available resources. Would you be interested?
Also, I have a post on my blog at sinreg.blogspot.com vis a vis a 3% Restoration. I hope you will consider and respond to it. Bear in mind that if it occurs, I'll proudly be by your side - but I believe I make a strong case as to why we must dedicate every possible resource and attempt every other method we can before we resort to such a final measure.
Thank you, and stay well
To which I responded:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:06 PM,
I am working on a response, but it strikes me as passing strange that someone who believes I am "wrong" would seek to engage me in a discussion about chemical stockpiles.
To which he responded:
Well, that's just a title. Wrong? Not so much as "if things go that way, we're really really screwed, so we should try like hell to direct things down a different road."
Like I said... I'd rather fight a losing battle than live under a tyrant's boot. But I'd rather win than either, know what I mean?
I'm thinking that it'd be far safer to, if we absolutely abandon political action, secede than to try to challenge Washington directly, just because taking a little square of land somewhere on the North American continent would be far less disrupting than bringing the fight to them. Mostly because in that case, a whole bunch of people will take advantage of the situation, and while we might be able to turn Washington in our favor, we won't be able to turn Beijing or Moscow.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:16 PM,
Secession as a goal from the outset is a losing proposition. Besides, if your criticism of restoration is to make sure that we don't encourage our foreign enemies, I can think of no more certain way to do that than secession. Color me . . . puzzled.
Back at me:
I don't mean on a state-by-state basis a la the Confederacy. The method would have to be determined by the people participating, but I'm thinking more John Galt than Jefferson Davis.
I considered the inevitable fracturing and potential invasion of the country - if it starts to fall apart, everyone's gonna want a piece - and I'm not sure how we could handle it. My conclusion was the only way to handle it would be to leave the body politic of the United States intact, and there's no way to do that but by operating lower on the radar. The inevitable success of a freer territory would either lead to the unfortunate result we now discuss, anyway, or it would encourage others to pressure Washington. Either way, it seems that it is certainly one of the options we must exhaust before lead flies.
Well, that's where the exchange rests. If you have your own thoughts, feel free to post them here. Let's be civil. He raised a good point, if oddly put in his further explications.
As for me, Absolved beckons.