Episode 65. Just Secession. Trump Voters Seek A Revolution, Not A Civil War.

Rumble video introduction to Episode 65

Podbean audio introduction of Episode 65

Episode 65 January 11, 2021

CLP Topic: The Democratic Republic of America

Title: Just Secession. Trump Voters Seek A Revolution, Not A Civil War.

Introduction:

I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this podcast is a production of the Citizens Liberty Party News Network.

We begin our advocacy of a new democratic republic by extending the question asked by C. Bradley Thompson “What type of person is attracted to Marxism?”

In his article, Why Marxism—Evil Laid Bare, Thompson writes,

“The better question here is: What kind of person is attracted to Marxism? The best scholarship now tells us that between 1917 and 1989 approximately 100 million people were murdered by various Marxist regimes, and millions more were tortured, starved, exiled, enslaved, and sent to concentration camps. Collectivization, one-party rule, man-made famine, secret police, arrests, propaganda, censorship, ethnic cleansing, purges, show trials, reeducation camps, gulags, firing squads, and killing fields—all these defined life under communism. Nothing in the long span of human history comes close to the tyranny, terror, and mass genocide caused by Marxism in power—nothing.”

Some conservative proponents of secession have questioned whether American Democrat Marxists would be willing to use violence and repression against their enemies.

For example, Michael Anton, in his new book, The Stakes: America at the Point of No Return, suggests that American Marxists may not have the right stuff to inflict violence against their enemies.

His phrase for the issue is whether American Marxists have the right “grit.”

Anton writes,

“The destruction of enemies has never failed to whet the insatiable           appetite [of Marxists] for more. At this point, policing their own           would require our rulers to be copies of Stalin. They don’t have the           grit for that.”

We disagree with Anton’s assessment that American Marxists do not have the right grit to inflict police state violence against their enemies.

Our disagreement is based upon our understanding of the type of logic and reason used by Marxists to impose socialism on conservatives.

To answer Thompson’s question about the type of person attracted to Marxism, we cite their logical fallacy of reasoning before the fact, not reasoning based upon observation and scientific investigation.

Their logic begins with the idea that capitalist society is in an ahistorical, perpetual, class war between elites and the proletariat.

All subsequent Marxist conclusions about society flow from this initial, irrefutable premise.

After Marx’s initial analysis of capitalism, in 1850, Democrat Marxists believe that every social malady, before and after the American founding, is therefore because of capitalism.

For Marxists, the logic of Western empiricism of observation and investigation is simply another case of capitalist class exploitation.

Other conservative proponents of secession cite irresolvable differences between urban and rural citizens, or changing age demographics in the American population as the reason for secession.

We explain that the more important differences in logic between conservatives and Marxists can never be overcome because the Marxist logic of reasoning always begins with their primal cause that racism is the basis of the founding of America.

Every historical event, after the fact of capitalism, causes racism. The Marxists are not capable of reasoning without this first principle.

Because all modern ailments in America are caused by racism, Marxists believe that they have a moral authority to impose socialism upon conservatives in order to impose a more fair and just system.

Anton continues with his analysis of the prospects of secession.

“Then there is the unpleasant fact that Blue America wants to rule Red           in a way that the latter does not want to rule Blue. To borrow from           Machiavelli, in the present-day United States, these two diverse humors are found, which arises from this: that the Blues desire to command and oppress the Reds, while the Reds wish to be neither          commanded nor oppressed.”

This difference in logic explains why Trump voters seek a revolution, not a civil war, with the Marxists. In a civil war, the socialist winners would impose its Marxist ideology on the losers, in a single unified state.

In a revolution, the two enemies part ways, to form two new nations.

We agree with Michael Lind, in his new book, The New Class War: Saving Democracy From The Managerial Elite, that the differences in logic are irreconcilable.

Lind writes,

“no peace or reconciliation is possible in the face of such a divide.”

Edward J. Erler explains in his article, The New Oligarchs Will Not Tolerate Secession,

“Logic and reason are a Western imposition on the world, invented by           white supremacists and white imperialists. To say that black lives are           included in all lives is demeaning—it pushes black lives into an invisible background. Logic is not life… The BLM party makes no           appeal to reason—it has driven reason from the public square. It     cannot explain why it is forbidden for anyone to say that “all lives matter” other than it is “racist” to do so. There is no reasonable     argument that justifies calling all lives matter a racist statement. This        is purely and simply a demand of racial superiority, not a demand of     equal justice under the law.”

We disagree with Erler that Marxists do not appeal to a form of reason. A more accurate description is that they appeal to the fallacy of Marxist logic, not to Western natural law logic.

The historical genesis of western conservative logic of empiricism begins with John Locke, J. S. Mill, David Hume, and Francis Bacon.

When Jefferson wrote “these truths are self-evident,” he meant that the truths were attainable by every citizen by observation and logical reasoning, that all citizens are meant to be free, as a grant from God.

The western logic prohibits conservatives from the application of mass murder, and totalitarian repression of Marxist Democrats because Western logic concludes that voluntary obedience to the rule of law is a result of the consent of the governed.

The fundamental difference between Marxists and conservatives is the legitimacy of authority based upon Locke’s principle that no one may rule another without his consent.

The Marxists have no concept of legitimate authority because they have no concept of the consent of the governed.

Their logic compels them to rule over citizens on behalf of their concept that collectivism is better than individualism, and that the Marxist elites are the only people allowed to make collective decisions.

The Democrat Marxists never describe how or why socialism is better than capitalism because their logic does not require any empirical justification of replacing capitalism based upon scientific observation.

The Democrat Marxists never describe how citizen participatory democracy works in a totalitarian regime because their society is based upon police state coercion, not consent of the governed, through voting.

They know that citizens would never vote for being enslaved by the State.

The Democrat Marxist never describe what type of economy replaces capitalism because Marxist elites seek to manage a centralized command and control economy whose mission is equality in incomes.

The economy and society that American Marxists seek, looks and functions just like the Communist Chinese society.

If violence comes to America, the Marxists will call it a civil war because their intent is to impose centralized state socialism, after the war, in order to  rule over the entire nation.

In contrast to a civil war, the natural rights conservatives will call the violence a revolution, in order to restore the logic of Locke and Jefferson that all people are created equal, in the principles of the new nation.

“What type of person is attracted to Marxism?”

The type of person who supports torturing General Flynn, for 4 years, because he is an enemy of Democrat Marxists.

The type of person who promotes the subversion of the electoral system of the representative republic, and destroys citizen rights, in order to attain illegitimate power to impose a minority ideology on a majority.

The type of person who continuously calls his enemies racists.

To answer Thompson, that person attracted to Marxism, has the moral depravity to inflict torture and repression on his enemies, just like all other Marxists in history.

The person who is attracted to Marxism is incompatible with the principles of the Declaration, and natural rights conservatives do not need to waste their time in a civil war with them that ends in a unified country, after the war.

We advocate a clean break with Democrat Marxists, and jettison them, and the former United States (FUSA), to their own morally depraved totalitarian destiny.

This podcast is the introduction to a much longer article, available for free, at clpnewsnetwork.com.

The other sections of the longer article are:

Section 1. For Marxists, Secession Is a Civil War.

Section 2. For Conservatives, Secession is a Revolution.

Conclusion: The Restoration of the American Spirit of Liberty.

 

I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this podcast is a production of the Citizens Liberty Party News Network.

 

Section 1. For Marxists, Secession Is a Civil War.

Beginning in early 2017, just after the election of Trump, socialist writers began imagining how secession would work, for them, as a strategy for overthrowing Trump, and imposing a socialist state.

One of the left’s most detailed books about secession, linked overthrowing Trump to the new political strategy of undermining the election process, as they did on November 3, 2020.

In his book, It’s Time to Fight Dirty: How Democrats Can Build a Lasting Majority in American Politics, (2018), political scientist David Faris argues that Democrats worrying about the legality and morality of their campaign strategies are wasting their time.

He suggests that a better idea for Marxists is to undermine the legality of the elections system by “fighting dirty.” His recommendations were implemented in the election of 2020.

Faris writes,

“You cannot win, in the long term, a policy or messaging fight on   a playing field that is tilted hopelessly against you…The book    was inspired by two things. Total depression on election night   [Trump victory] and then thinking about what it would take for       Democrats to recapture power given these structural obstacles.”

The structural obstacles he cites are majority rule in the Constitution.

Faris goes on to recommend a slew of ways Democrats can “fight dirty,” by which he means rewriting the rules of American politics including mail-in ballots, ballot harvesting and fraud in counting the votes.

In their review of his book, The New York Times Book Review noted,

“In [this] short, bracing book, David Faris … argues that Democrats           should immediately use every lever they have to gum up the works in           Washington, to ensure they win full control of government in 2020.”

The end goal for Faris, and all Marxists, in the political cheating is the elimination of opposition, and “full control of government in 2020.”

Two months after Trumps inauguration, another leftist wrote about “a declaration of independence from Trump’s America.

In his New Republic article, Kevin Baker writes,

“What I mean is that it’s time for blue states and cities to effectively           abandon the American national enterprise, as it is currently           constituted. Call it the New Federalism. Or Virtual Secession. Or           Conscious Uncoupling—though that’s already been used. Or maybe           Bluexit… We’ll turn Blue America into a world-class incubator for           progressive programs and policies, a laboratory for a guaranteed I          ncome and a high-speed public rail system and free public           universities. We’ll focus on getting our own house in order, while           yours falls into disrepair and ruin. Since you will not hear our words,   we will need to convince you by our actions. We will need to run our        states and our cities so well, in such an effective and enlightened         manner, that we can make you understand all over again what every     page of our history should already tell you. Through our own     example, we must win you over, American by American, town by         town, state by state, until we are once more in a position to mitigate     all of the foolish, cruel, and wasteful things you are about to inflict on       the rest of us, and to move forward once again, as American states      united.”

His point is that, after the Marxist gain unchallenged power, the nation can   “move forward once again, as American states united” under the banner of Marxism.

The Marxist falsely characterize the ideological divisions as between Democrats and Republicans, not between Marxists and natural rights conservatives.

Ezra Klein, writing in Vox, in his article, The Rigging of American Politics, (2018), makes many of the same points as Faris, about the need for Democrats to fight dirty.

Klein writes,

“If there is a threat to American unity, it rests not in the specific concerns of Virginians or Alaskans, but in the growing enmity        between Democrats and Republicans. A central problem in any free       political system is how to ensure a balanced competition. The problem           in our system is that what we have balanced is no longer what’s competing.”

We disagree with Klein that that the central problem in a representative republic is “balance.” As Locke and Jefferson point out, the central problem is how the government protects liberty.

By rigging the election system, Klein hopes to obtain a unified socialist state, run by elites, who make all decisions, in order to dominate and rule conservatives.

In her recent Nation article, Should the United States Stay United,? Jessica Suriano makes the case that Trump voters should be controlled by the Marxist elite.

She makes the same argument about two incompatible societies, as Calhoun, right before his death, in 1850.

Suriano applies Marxist two-class conflict to argue that there are two incompatible Americas.

She writes,

“The United States has never been an equal, peaceful, or functional           nation, despite what the history textbooks say. It was built from           genocide, slavery, and stolen land. This year, the Black Lives Matter           protests and the abolition movement, coupled with a pandemic that           preys most on people consistently excluded from the broken health           care system, demonstrate the lie of our “more perfect union” even           more.”

In Sean Wilentz’s new book, No Property in Man, he cites Calhoun’s opinion about two Americas.

Wilentz writes,

“ Calhoun became convinced that “what they call a Nation” was a           sham. He knew that the North and South had become two essentially           different societies. On the eve of his death in 1850, he said that “it is           difficult to see how two peoples so different and hostile can exist           together in one common Union.”

This same left-wing ideology of two social groups fits into their concept that the conservatives must be dominated and controlled by the Marxist elites

Robin Wright, in her New Yorker article in September 2020, Is America a Myth?

She writes,

“The idea that America has a shared past going back into the colonial           period is a myth,” Colin Woodard, the author of “Union: The Struggle           to Forge the Story of United States Nationhood,” told me. “We are           very different Americas, each with different origin stories and value           sets, many of which are incompatible. They led to a Civil War in the           past and are a potentially incendiary force in the future.”

She deploys leftist logic to argue that the only solution for Marxists is to win a civil war, and impose their socialist values on the entire nation, after the war ends.

She writes,

“The American promise has not delivered for many Blacks, Jews,           Latinos, Asian-Americans, myriad immigrant groups, and even some           whites as well. Hate crimes—acts of violence against people or   property based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation,         ethnicity, or gender identity—are a growing problem.”

In his new book, Break It Up: Secession, Division, and the Secret History of America’s Imperfect Union, Richard Kreitner fantasizes about “crushing” the Trump voters.

Kreitner explains,

“We’re trying to make this country something it has never been,           [Marxist Utopia] and they want no part of it. I want to defeat them, I           want to crush them, but I think if you look at the country that we have,           I just don’t know if that’s going to be possible. So if it’s not going to be possible to make this country something it’s never been, maybe we      need to start a new one.”

In order to make his case about the origins of racist America, Kreitner is forced to mischaracterize the American Revolution as a civil war against the British.

Suriano cites Krietner’s new book to explain,

“Kreitner rightly sees the Continental Congress, formed in 1774, as a           “spontaneous response to an emergency,” not born from widely felt           national bonds. Like other recent historians, he depicts the War of           Independence as being as much a “civil war”—colonist against           colonist.”

In the application of reasoning after the fact, Marxists must recharacterize the Revolution as a civil war, in order to make their argument that all other secession movements were also nascent civil wars between two incompatible people.

The end conclusion, for Marxists, is a civil war with Trump voters, where the Marxist gain monolithic political power.

Chauncey DeVega, in his Salon article, Yes, Trump will leave office — but his seditious secession movement isn’t going away, suggests that the civil war, after Trump leaves office, is necessary to purge racism from the Republican Party.

DeVega writes,

“Today’s Republican Party is the country’s largest white supremacist           and white identity organization. Donald Trump is its leader and           champion. Despite all of the polite talk of how Trump’s and 74 million           votes in the 2020 election are the result of “economic anxiety” or           “status anxiety,” social scientists have repeatedly shown that racism,           racial resentment and white supremacist views are the key           determinants driving Donald Trump’s support…Their psychological,           emotional and financial investment in white supremacy is too great to           give up. To maintain it, Republicans and Trumpists are willing to risk           destroying the nation. Their desperate allegiance to the lost cause of           Donald Trump’s presidency is proof.”

Ezra Klein cites the new book by David French, Divided We Fall: America’s Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation, as the justification of civil war, where the Marxists seize unchecked power after the war ends.

Klein writes,

“You open the book with this really ominous line, “It’s time for           Americans to wake up to a fundamental reality: the continued unity of the United States of America cannot be guaranteed… I see an election       coming that has the possibility to end in a scenario where one side          will not accept the legitimacy of the outcome and there’s not really           going to be a way to resolve that. We don’t really have a way to    resolve it now.”

In his moral arrogance, Klein projects onto conservatives his fear that Trump voters will not accept the “legitimacy” of the stolen election. The only way for Klein to resolve the issue is to compel Trump voters to accept the results through the police force of a civil war.

Section 2. For Conservatives, Secession is a Revolution.

Natural rights conservatives believe that there is no compromise with Marxists, in the same way, and for the same reasons, that Lincoln could not compromise with slavery.

Edward Erler describes Lincoln’s dilemma of citing the Declaration’s principles as the moral authority for the Civil War, while acknowledging that the two documents were not linked.

According to Erler, Lincoln “tirelessly reiterated” that the Constitution must be interpreted in light of the Declaration.

Erler writes,

“Lincoln’s great speeches of the 1850s all sought to reconcile the           nation by restoring the principles of the Declaration of Independence   as the authoritative source of the Constitution’s authority. He          tirelessly reiterated that the Constitution, understood in the light of the      principles of the Declaration, had put slavery on the “course of   ultimate extinction.”

The reason that Lincoln could not compromise with slavery is the same reason natural rights conservatives give today about compromise with Democrat Marxists.

Erler writes,

“The real reason that no compromise with slavery was possible was           that any compromise would have been a rejection of the first           principles of the nation announced in the Declaration. Slavery was           incompatible with the central principle that “all men are created equal.” Slavery could not be abolished all at once at the founding           because compromises were necessary to secure the support of the slaveholding states: if they had formed their own nation, the prospects      of ever ending slavery were remote.”

Trump voters have no compromise with Marxist Democrats because Trump voters will never accept, passively, becoming slaves to the Marxist state.

In other words, Madison’s 7 grand compromises with the slaveocracy on allowing slavery, after 1787, were essential for Madison to get the plantation elite to agree to the Constitution.

Madison combined two alien cultures under the Constitution, which were irreconcilably opposed. His framework precipitated the Civil War, and continues to wreak havoc on American society, in the form of on-going allegations of racism, that were never solved by the conclusion of the Civil War.

Today, the Marxist seek to use Madison’s flawed document to combine two alien cultures under the authority of one nation.

Madison accomplished his task by shifting the focus from the principles of liberty in the Declaration to balancing commercial and financial interests between the natural aristocracy and common citizens.

Madison’s emphasis on the checks and balances in the two competing social class interests in the Constitution left natural rights undefended, just as they are today, with no recourse for Trump voters to correct the recent election fraud.

Erler writes,

“If natural rights are only a matter of whose [financial] interests are           served, then no one’s rights are secure. It will always be in someone’s           interest to disenfranchise the rights of others—whether it be the interest of a majority, an oligarchy or a tyrant.”

In today’s setting, it was in the interest of the Marxist ruling class to disenfranchise Trump voters to seize illegitimate power to impose socialism on the majority of Trump voters.

Erler cites a conservative who advocates secession, named “Rebecca,” who makes the argument that there are two nations in America that are ideologically incompatible.

Rebecca states,

“we are two people. The current political system cannot bridge the           divide between the two Americas.”

Rebecca then reaches the incorrect conclusion that it is not Madison’s Constitution that is defective.

She states,

“The Constitution is not broken,”

We argue that Madison’s constitution is broken precisely because he did not connect the principles of the Declaration to his rules of civil procedure in his constitution.

Erler explains,

“Madison regarded the Constitution as an act of revolution because it           not only rested on wholly different principles than the Articles [of           Confederation, ratified by 13 states] but was ratified by the         supreme authority of the people, not the states.”

Later, in history, Lincoln had to rely on this same sleight of hand that the nation was not a contract between 13 independent states, in order to promote his ruse that the Southern states were in “rebellion,” not civil war.

Erler tends to gloss over the fact that “We, the people” was actually only 37 self-selected elites, who drafted the document in secret, to serve their own financial interests, not protect the interests of natural rights.

As a result of Madison’s omission in his Preamble of connecting the principles of liberty in the Declaration, to his rules of civil procedure in the Constitution, the nation eventually devolved into a centralized elite tyranny, now controlled by Marxist Democrats.

Erler writes,

“America has not been a constitutional republic based on the consent   of the governed for many years. It has, in fact, been a thinly disguised           oligarchy, dominated by ruling class elites in the media, in academia,           both political parties in government (where politicians freely make           promises to voters but find it easy to evade and ignore), the           bureaucracy, the deep state (including the intelligence agencies),           corporations, Silicon Valley, and other centers of influence.”

As Irving Kristol wrote in 1993, the Constitution is only a tool to be used by Marxists to impose socialism.

Kristol wrote,

“It’s a mistake to think of free speech as an effective means to           accomplish a more just society. …free speech “was only ever a means to an end” for liberals. When they got their free speech, made their           arguments, and failed to win over the American people, and when in           fact the speech from their opponents seemed too successful, they           switched to the repression of speech, because the end [for Marxists]           was never freedom.”

In his arguments about secession, Michael Anton cites the new book by Yoram Harzony, The Virtue of Nationalism, in order to describe why Trump voters seek a clean split with the Marxist Democrats to form a new nation.

Harzony writes,

“A “nation,” is a number of tribes with a shared heritage, usually           including a common language or religious traditions, and a past           history of joining together against common enemies—characteristics           that permit tribes so united to understand themselves as a community           distinct from other such communities that are their neighbors.”

The two ideologies in America share no common cultural values or heritage, and precipitating a civil war, where the nation continues to be unified at the end of the war will not solve those ideological differences.

The Trump voters seek a new nation, divorced from the Marxists, that restores the early values of the nation, which C. Bradley Thompson calls “The Spirit of Liberty.”

Conclusion: The Restoration of the American Spirit of Liberty.

Thompson describes the American Spirit of Liberty as the guiding philosophy of American patriots who fought the British for independence.

Thompson writes,

“The American “spirit of liberty” meant discovering and   resisting the       forces of despotism before such forces could sink   roots in the New World. It was common for colonial   Americans to view [tyrannical]power as restless and sleepless, which meant they must be ever alert to its         machinations. The colonists frequently invoked Machiavelli’s           famous dictum, “Obsta princiipis” (i.e., to resist the first          beginnings).”

Thompson describes the Spirit of Liberty as a philosophical mindset that is characterized by a love of individual freedom and a hatred of slavery. That mindset is the unifying first principle of the American society.

Thompson writes,

“The word “spirit” as used in the phrase signifies an action in defense of a principle, and was defined by American patriots as a sentiment, a       mindset, a disposition, and a virtue. As a sentiment, it loves freedom        and hates slavery; as a mindset, it is watchful, suspicious, and          skeptical; as a disposition, it is restless, protective, and vigilant; and as    a virtue, it is defined by integrity, fortitude, courage, and patriotism.        Taken together, the “spirit of liberty” is a sense of life defined by           independence in the fullest sense of the term.”

The Democrat Marxists have succeeded in sinking their fangs of socialist slavery into the American society. No force on earth is capable of changing the logic or mindset of the Marxists, which would continue, even after conservatives won a civil war with the Marxists.

The natural rights logic will never change the logic of the Marxists because there is no common connection between the two forms of logic.

 

In his recent book, America’s Revolutionary Mind: A Moral History of the American Revolution and the Declaration that Defined It, Thompson explains the Lockean logic of the new nation.

He writes,

“The new moral history begins with certain assumptions about human           nature; first, that individuals are the primary unit of moral value;           second, that human nature is knowable and sometimes predictable;           third, that man’s faculty of reason can know cause-and-effect           relationships in nature and human nature; fourth, that individuals are           confronted every day with choices, and that they have the free will to           choose between alternatives; fifth, that freely thinking (rationally and           rrationally) and freely acting (morally and immorally) individuals are           capable of making decisions and acting upon them; sixth, at purposive           human agents cause events to happen; and finally, that human thought           and action can have intended and unintended consequences. This view           of human nature suggests that individuals are morally responsible for           their decisions and actions and the consequences that follow           therefrom. Thus the new moral history puts the thinking back into           ideas, the judgment back into intentions, and the volition back into           actions.”

On every single Lockean principle, beginning with the priority of individual liberty, Marxists have a subversive, alien view of American society.

In their logic, society is comprised of group collective entities, not individuals.

The Marxist post hoc fallacy is that the historical event of capitalism equals the cause of a racist and unjust American society

Marx latched onto his observation that capitalism caused racism, as the single monolithic explanation of American society.

Because of their logic, the type of person attracted to Marxism deeply believes this simple explanation of American society.

Some conservative proponents of secession have questioned whether American Democrat Marxists would be willing to use violence and repression against their enemies, as all other Marxists in history have done to enforce their logic.

We disagree with Anton’s assessment that American Marxists do not have the right grit to inflict police state violence against their enemies.

As long as Trump voters remain in a union with Democrat Marxists, the conservatives will be subjected to increasing levels of police state repression.

A successful civil war with the Marxist would not eradicate their ideology of repression, after the war ended.

A better idea for Trump voters is to reclaim the heritage of the spirit of liberty, and correct the flaws in Madison’s document, in a new democratic republic, built upon the framework of state and national sovereignty.