← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · confederate_commando
Thread ID: 13565 | Posts: 6 | Started: 2004-05-06
2004-05-06 02:51 | User Profile
[url]www.dixienet.org[/url]
Withdraw our consent, withhold our vote
By Thomas Moore
5 May, 2004
The question before Southerners who are committed to Southern liberty and independence is, how should we vote in the 2004 Presidential Election? Most of us take the responsibilities of citizenship seriously. But when confronted with the truly dismal choices the Democrats and Republicans are offering this year, we're torn. Do we succumb, as usual, to the 'lesser of two evils' argument, hold our nose, and vote for Bush? Or do we reason that he's been such a disaster even the execrable John Kerry is preferable, if for no other reason than to break up the neo-conservative cabal that has gotten us embroiled in a disastrous imperial war and given us a near police state in the bargain. Or do we 'waste our vote' on a philosophically compatible but quixotic third party candidate? I believe the dilemma can be answered with three simple words: withhold your vote. A vote for Bush or Kerry is a vote for a hostile Regime. Even a vote for a putatively acceptable third party like the Constitution Party or Libertarians serves the Old Paradigm instead of the cause of the South. Allow me to propose a New Paradigm.
First it needs to be said, though it won't be liked among Southern activists, that we are too mired in the past. We spend too much time trying to correct the historical record. We expend enormous amounts of energy defending the Flag or trying to persuade the willfully ignorant and malicious that the War wasn't about slavery. Like a continuous-loop replay of George Pickett, we lead gallant but doomed charges against the enemy's strong points in futile skirmishes over our treasured symbols.
We understand instinctively that attacks on our symbols are attacks on the reality they represent - ordered liberty, limited self-government, Christian culture, and our identity as a separate people; and we rush to defend the symbols whenever and wherever they are attacked. But it doesn't automatically follow that defense of the symbols in every instance is an effective defense of their underlying reality. Defending the Flag against all attacks isn't wrong, but is it truly an effective use of our limited time, energy, and resources? Devoting so much effort to what may be peripheral battles actually does our cause more harm than good. And yet out of loyalty and devotion, we plunge into every heritage controversy, feeling we are failing in our duty if we don't. I can't prove this empirically, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that our enemies (who understand Pavlov, after all) are deliberately prompting the broad array of attacks on our symbols precisely so we will be diverted from the real battle. The real battle is their assault on the South's existence as a people with a distinct culture and identity worthy of preservation, consonant with the Gramschian Long March to subvert all of America's traditional liberties and culture.
The Best Defenseââ¬Â¦
I believe we should determine never to fight at a disadvantage if we can help it, and especially not on an opponent's choice of ground or with his choice of weapons. It's inherent in any conflict - political warfare or shooting war -- that the defense cedes the initiative to the offense. The attacker can mass his forces when and where he wants and strike on the ground of his choosing, and the defender must respond to the attacker. These realities underlie two well known axioms of war: he who defends everything defends nothing, and the best defense is a good offense.
We need to ask ourselves: is it the symbols we want to preserve, or the priceless reality they represent? While we're fighting a rear-guard battle for the Flag, the enemy is pillaging our spiritual and cultural homeland, killing the last vestiges of ordered liberty and constitutional self-government and obliterating our identity as a distinct people -- in effect, a nation. Ultimately, the only successful way to preserve our beloved Flag, symbols, heritage, and culture is to regain our own country, to win our independence from a Regime that has become, in Robert E. Lee's prophetic words, "aggressive abroad and despotic at home."
So let our defense of the Flag be transformed to encompass a framework of the offense. Let us reframe the issues as they should be framed by focusing on the usurpations and abuses of the centralized, consolidated, bureaucratic, secular state. Instead of letting the Jacobins make us defend our heritage, let us make them defend a Regime that fails to do the few things it was authorized to do under the Constitution, while it extends its oppressive tentacles into every area of our lives where it has no right to intrude.
People know, either instinctively or experientially, the inherent weakness of a defensive strategy. Those who want to change things, who really want to make a difference, are not attracted to a strategy that is defensive. They want to attack, to do something revolutionary. Going over to the offense in an effective way should, among other benefits, also energize the ranks of Southern nationalists and bring in new recruits, especially young people. If we devote the same energy and resources to attacking the Jacobin Empire where it's at a disadvantage, then we might achieve far more - and save the Flag, our symbols, and our heritage in the process.
The Leviathan State's Greatest Need - Legitimacy.
If one accepts the proposition that we must direct our limited force not against the enemy's strength but where he is weakest - at his unguarded flank, so to speak - then where is that flank? I believe a centralized, authoritarian regime's (actually, any regime's) greatest need, and therefore its greatest vulnerability, is preserving the myth of its legitimacy, and thus its moral authority. For only if its subjects accept the state's moral authority can their voluntary compliance and willing obedience be assured. Peaceful non-compliance, escalating to active civil disobedience when conditions are right, has ended more corrupt regimes in modern times than the force of arms.
Withdrawing Our Consentââ¬Â¦
Like many compatriots, I no longer pledge allegiance to the Yankee flag; first because I won't swear an oath that is a lie; that is, we are 'one nation, indivisible, under God;' or that there exists any longer 'liberty and justice for all.' The other reason is because I have shifted my allegiance. The Southern cross is now the banner of my nation, and my allegiance is to that 'virtual' republic. But refusing the pledge is a lone and purely symbolic act. It might have some instructional value to nearby witnesses. But beyond that - and the satisfaction I take in my own small personal act of secession - it has little impact. I believe we need a collective, organized act of withdrawing our consent, a campaign of mass non-compliance with the Regime, that will both instruct and have practical impact beyond the purely personal and symbolic.
ââ¬Â¦Withholding Our Vote.
The pundits of conventional wisdom are always telling us, 'If you don't vote you can't complain about the outcome.' Actually, the reverse is true. If you do participate in the sham we call elections, you have no logical right to complain because you've tacitly conceded the process is legitimate. Only the person who withholds his vote has a right to complain, because only he has challenged the validity of the fraudulent process.
In keeping with the principle of peaceful, mass non-compliance, I'm convinced the most effective thing we can in 2004 to withdraw our consent from the Regime is to withhold our vote en masse, dramatizing that we Southerners no longer ascribe any moral authority to the neo-Jacobins and their Empire. This effort would mobilize our compatriots to boycott elections for President and all Federal offices because we no longer recognize the legitimacy of those offices. We would of course vote for local and State offices and participate eagerly as good citizens of our respective States in those races (and encourage voting only for pro-South candidates).
Some of our compatriots have suggested running a Southern independence activist for President, an idea motivated, I believe, by a similar impulse as my proposal; but also, I fear, by a flawed vision that remains stuck in the Old Paradigm. It's similar to the error of trying to check the Supreme Court or reform the moral and intellectual death camps known as public schools. The problem is that running our own Southern nationalist candidate puts us in the position of legitimizing the principal office of the Empire. Obviously the efforts of such a candidate would be purely symbolic, with the chance of winning near absolute zero. And of course, he wouldn't really intend to win, only serve as a 'spoiler.' But if we're going to engage in symbolic acts, they need to be consistent with our overall principles, goals, and messages. It makes no sense logically or morally to claim our goal is to separate from the Empire and then run one of ours - even as a symbolic gesture - for Emperor. Such an act would only make us look foolish, even in the eyes of Southerners whom we hope to reach. Worse, to mirror-image the official parties of the Regime, to look like we're playing the same squalid political-election-PR game as everyone else, forfeits the legitimacy and strategic leverage of our case. A Withhold Our Vote initiative would distinguish us dramatically from that wretched spectacle. We want to discredit the process, not participate in it.
Going beyond the purely symbolic, voting for a Southern activist instead of Bush, for example, could have a practical political effect if the race is razor-close. Simply refusing to participate in Federal elections and depriving the Regime's parties of a 'strategic handful' of votes could have the same effect as voting for a symbolic candidate, while at the same time dramatizing our principle of non-compliance and separation. It would show that traditionalist white Southerners (I've stopped using the word conservative) will no longer serve as political fodder for the GOP only to experience further betrayal. In fact, I can't think of anything we could do that is within our limited means that would have such potential impact.
The neo-Jacobins of the Regime think we Southern activists have marginalized ourselves and can be safely dismissed as a fringe element. Very well, let's show them what we can do on the fringe, how a truly revolutionary approach that concentrates our limited strength on the margin, even small numbers, can be decisive. (Remember Bush vs. Gore in Florida in 2000). Many people are already in the 'none of the above' camp and our campaign would appeal to them even if they don't necessarily support Southern independence. Imagine what 40-50,000 white traditionalist Southerners could do in a tight election by refusing to support either party of the Regime and boycotting the Federal elections altogether.
A Withhold Our Vote initiative is principled and straightforward, is consistent with and reinforces our overall goal, and gives us a cutting-edge, energizing issue. Having discerned the fundamental weakness of the modern state, we must actively refuse to recognize its legitimacy or accord it any moral authority. We must begin to withdraw our consent, starting with each individual. If we truly want a free and independent Southland, then each Southern patriot must resolve in his own heart to be free and independent -- and then act as if it's already a reality.
Objection: 'You'll Help the Democrats.'
Some Southerners might object that our boycott could result in a liberal Democrat as President or a liberal Democratic Congress in 2005. I can only say as one who spent 20-plus years as a Republican and conservative insider, in the long run it really won't matter and might actually be better for our purposes. Here's why. Republicans are marginally better than Democrats, but the difference is not enough to make a difference. What have today's conservatives actually conserved? Liberty? The principle of limited government? The Constitution? In John Wayne's immortal words, not hardly! Mostly they protect their access to power, their perks, and their privileges just like the Left. They maintain the status quo of unlimited, unaccountable government delivered to us by the Left, but they never roll it back, nor will they ever. It is the GOP and the Invasion of the Neo-Conservative Body Snatchers who have given us the disastrous imperial war in Iraq. It is our supposed friends who have given us open borders, swamping us with immigration from the Third World; and put in place the machinery for a police state in the guise of fighting terror far more dangerous than anything ever done by liberal Democrats.
Why has the GOP failed to provide a genuine alternative to the Democrats? Why did Republicans cease to represent a true choice of principled opposition to the limitless state? How did they become, arguably, the worst proponents and enablers of an unconstitutional Empire?
I used to think it was utter nonsense when Communists claimed that the principle of the dialectic conferred upon the Communist Party a scientific and historic inevitability. But I see now the dialectical process does work, and it dawned on me that today's Republican party and conservatives (falsely so-called) are the product of the Marxist dialectic. The GOP merely represents the outcome of dialectic in which two opposing ideas, thesis and antithesis, clash and then interact to produce a synthesis. And the synthesis doesn't always represent equal parts of the two clashing ideas that produced it. It's an entirely new thing, and it will be more like whichever 'parent' idea was most effective in the interaction. In the U.S. and the West this has always meant the Left.
Conservatives have a genetic pre-disposition to defend the status quo, any status quo. So the cycle keeps repeating itself, with yesterday's synthesis becoming today's thesis. Conservatives, even in the act of winning (as they falsely believe), get co-opted into defending the last synthesis that has become the new status quo; but also, by the way, 60-70 percent Marxist. Then the enemy takes up a new position even further to the Left as their new antithesis, the dialectical process spins again, producing a new outcome leaning more to the Left than before. Thus the Marxists drag us bit by bit toward their utopian paradise, which turns out to be Hell on earth. Lincoln Steffens, the left-wing journalist of the 1930's, came back from the Soviet Union and reported, "I have been over into the future, and it works." Well, I have been over in the dialectic, and it works.
Today Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin. Republicans are no alternative; they are only heading for the same destination at a slower pace. And that slower pace fools and beguiles us. Maybe it would provide clarity and enable us to act more wisely if the South's GOP blinders were removed. Maybe it would heat up the water in the pot so that the proverbial frog who is being cooked to death by slow degrees might realize his mortal danger and leap out. Lenin said one thing I agree with in the circumstances: "The worse, the better." By maintaining the falsehood they represent true and opposing choices, the two national parties only keep us in thrall to a deceptive fraud managed by and for the benefit of the Empire.
We who understand this, who see the game is rigged --and rigged to always favor the Left -- must opt out of it. We must opt out first before we can lead our compatriots to understand and follow. When the difference between the two parties shrinks to such an infinitesimal gap, true conservatives are forced to seek a New Paradigm, to seek new choices when the two parties no longer represent genuine alternatives but simply rivals for power. We must have the courage to show how the Bushites and the GOP are the principal enemy because they keep our natural potential allies -- patriotic, Christian, traditionalists and conservatives -- deluded by a lie and enthralled to a Marxist dialectic, enlisting good people who ought to be on our side in the service of a lawless Regime.
An Act of Futility?
One of the main obstacles to Southerners' committing themselves to true liberty and independence is the belief that the goal is futile. People can see a few limited victories here and there, but on the whole the Flag is coming down and Southern heritage is embattled on all sides. Those who can see at all can also see a defensive strategy is a losing strategy; and the pragmatic mind says, why sign on to that? Southern activists have to show our agenda is realistic and achievable, which means we aren't relying on the GOP and status quo conservatives to roll back the tide of Jacobin Empire in the United States. That's the true act of futility!
We have to show we have a credible theory of victory, one not dependent merely on numbers. Any viable plan for Southern liberty must begin with employing the principle of the leverage of the weak against the strong, by shrewd effective action of committed minorities on the 'strategic margin.' A Withdraw Our Consent, Withhold Our Vote strategy could be decisive in a close election in 2004 and demonstrate that we are not engaging in a futile, hopeless, romantic - and defensive -- campaign. This principle has worked many times in the past because it has great moral force. The Irish Republic, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King among others have demonstrated that moral force can outweigh political, economic, and military force.
For the most part, the Southern movement, though weak, has managed to lay a sound philosophical groundwork, build a vestigial but solid organization in the League of the South, recruit and train a handful of effective leaders. Yet the revived Southern cause is still crawling in its infancy. If we are eventually to stand and march forward, we must attempt bigger steps. A campaign to withdraw our consent, refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the Regime any longer, is a strategically meaningful place to begin.
If we are to be a separate and independent nation, we have to start acting consistent with that belief. The Withhold Our Vote campaign moves us from focus on the past to focus on the future, from the defense to the offense. Potentially it makes the most effective use of our limited numbers and resources by concentrating our efforts at the 'strategic margin.' It offers renewed opportunity for energizing our ranks, winning new recruits, and laying the foundation for victory.
:D
2004-05-06 06:51 | User Profile
excellent article !
2004-05-06 16:47 | User Profile
If a large percentage (not even a majority) of Southrons withheld their votes, pulled their children out of public schools, and loudly proclaimed their reasons for doing so, the empire would likely fall.
Let's do it.
2004-05-06 18:46 | User Profile
Quantrill, I would say at least 25% of people where I live are angry at the Central Commissar government in our State Capital and the anti-Christian, Alien loving national gangster government too. Notice that N.P.R and all media are almost shrill in their daily praise of our invasion of primitive white hating savages.
Two years ago the nutz, rear end fudger's, and rear kisser's found something to do to do, to make selves feel like they were going slap whites yet again......Here's the story.. When Oregon became a state our first governor proclaimed 50 lashes for any one bringing a Congoid to the state. It was against the law for any Congoid to stay over night, unless traveling through the state with a white man. after 1900 the Rail Roads worked it so Porters could stay at a hotel in Portland. After our Nation destroying treason of foisting U.S. with WW1 had passed the aliens pushed to gut the "NO CONGOIDS ALLOWED IN OREGON in 1927. It was repealed and stopped, but still in law books.
The law was forgotten and unknown to most all of the N.P.R./unitarian Apostasy cult type disciples.. They pushed by a signature initiative to get a ballot measure placed on the ballot at election time and got it. What this measure was, was to remove the NO CONGOIDS ALLOWED old law, to be literally blacked out from the law records in the Capital.. In plain English the old law was to be removed from any where it existed, though it had no force anymore.. Well, 34.5% of the people voted not to remove the old law. I believe the anti White Nutz only did this to guage what the White resistance is in Oregon, thats my guess. The whole issue was a bizzare political move, and after the vote not a word was said again about it.
Congoids have preyed on Native Oregonians hard. Especially in the 70's, though they are terrible in the big and large cities of the state, and now we have Hmoongs, and AFRICANS here now, who have been flown in to Oregon too, not to mention the Messytizo invasion and filling up our medical and school facilities as taxes are not going down, but jobs are. Rentals are very high priced in Oregon and decent clean ones are very hard to find. Construction of Californians moving here and building homes, is the only thing holding the state up now. Oregon, does not produce 50% of the food produce like peaches and others stuff from 1970.. Yet, we are loaded with Messytizzos. The evasion of Oregon dis not really kick in till Clitooon came in to office.. As Oregon had 83,000 Mexican invaders in 1990 and in 2000, 204,000, but since then the invasion has speeded up extremely fast, there is NO county that is with out them now, and counties now hire them. I had one laugh to me about how he got over the border illegally, and then got amensty in 88?
The invaders are only here, as we know by the threat of the bayonet and the willingness of the commissars to violate not only our Nations border's, but to physically violate U.S. if we do not smile about this this full fledged assault on our National security by the non-whites invasion.
2004-05-06 19:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Smedley Butler]Quantrill, I would say at least 25% of people where I live are angry at the Central Commissar government in our State Capital and the anti-Christian, Alien loving national gangster government too.[/QUOTE] Smedley, I'd say it is even more than 25% around here. Even people who previously supported the current imperial war are now having second thoughts, and nobody is seeing any new jobs, no matter how much we keep hearing that the economy has "turned the corner." The key, however, is whether they will do something about it. Being angry isn't enough-- we need to have more children, pull them out of government schools, and start fighting back.
2004-05-06 19:16 | User Profile
One more note on this withdrawing from the government. I have heard several men say, like in auto parts stores and other business, that this Nov., it will be the first time they won't vote. As they say they can't vote for Twig again or for Mr. K, from the MASSASSASTUPID state. I never heard that before from run of mill Workers and TV viewers..
In case you didn't know, Oregon's first governor was from Tennessee too.