https://screenshotscdn.firefoxuserco...f441543882.png
https://screenshotscdn.firefoxuserco...3457383752.jpg
Printable View
Some protests started in NYC and elsewhere.
10-15 years ago anyone talking about a potential second civil war was largely laughed at.
Now, when you have smart guys like VDH talking about the possibility, it might be a good idea to take notice.
Preparing to Survive Riots, Terrorist Attacks, or a Civil War
James Wesley Rawles Of all of the “worst case” possibilities that we prepare for, near the top of my “most dreaded” list is a second civil war. This falls in the category of a “highly unlikely, but profoundly inimical if it were to occur.” In this essay, I will discuss a full spectrum of threats, including contingency preparations for surviving riots, terrorist attacks, or a civil war.
I believe that the United States has entered a period of great instability, born of political divisiveness. The sharp differences between liberals and conservatives are now profoundly felt. Virtually every topic and issue has become heavily politicized. This polarization seems to have grown worse with every month since Barrack Hussein Obama (BHO) took office. And the divide has grown even more pronounced under the administration of Donald John Trump (DJT). The mass media simply loathes Trump. They are doing their best to foment or even fabricate a crisis that could be used as an excuse to see DJT impeached.
The Bard of the American Redoubt, Alex Barron, noted that some leftists have dubbed the current era a Cold Civil War. In fact, they did so quite soon after President DJT took office. The question is, will their Cold Civil War ever turn Hot?
Those sentiments are shared by legendary investor Doug Casey. In a recent interview, referring to prospects of a second civil war, he said: “I think, as I’ve thought for a long time, that we’re heading for a disaster of genuinely historic proportions.”
Troubles Of Our Own?
The situation that develops in the next few years will most likely be characterized by riots and isolated terrorist attacks. The Antifa crowd may be the key instigators. But there is a small chance that it could morph into an outright civil war. And unlike the Civil War of the 1860s, this one would not have sharp geographic dividing lines. It will not be a war between States. Rather, it will be a war between World Views. As I view it, one world view is essentially Biblical and freedom-loving, while the other world view is Secular/Statist/Socialist/Globalist.
With no sharp dividing lines, a 21st Century civil war in America would be a very messy conflict.
In a recent interview on Radio Free Redoubt, I posited two parallels for a near-future American civil war:
- First, a similarity to the domestic terrorism in the U.S. of the late 1960s and early 1970s. I’ve already discussed this in SurvivalBlog, so I won’t repeat it here. (See: The Antifa Threat Spiral: Some Safe Predictions on the Coming Unsafe Era.)
- Second, a similarity in the level of violence and profound ambiguity of The Troubles in Northern Ireland, in the 1970s. In The Troubles, there were lots of double agents, uncertain allegiances, large scale infiltrations, wiretappings, false flag attacks, internecine fighting, kneecappings (mostly of alleged informants or collaborators), bribed (or extorted) officials, conveniently “missing” police department guns, “missing” explosives, arms smuggling operations, and robberies. All of that was in addition to the expected riots, bombings, kidnappings, assassinations, sniper attacks, and arson attacks of a modern civil war.
Not surprisingly, the Irish “civil” guerilla war reached all the way to London and Boston. And although officially “disarmed”, some of the IRA old-timers are still at it. In my estimation that war isn’t truly over. It is just enjoying a Half Time celebration, sans the leggy cheerleaders. Oh wait, they’ve got those.
What We Might See
If a “hot” civil war breaks out in the United States then the initial battle grounds will probably be on city streets. These will be Protests on Steroids. The fighting will not be just with batons, rocks, and pepper spray. At some point the street brawls will evolve into gunfights.
We are also likely to see a larger number of mass shootings of soft (disarmed) targets. Schools, amusement parks, public memorial sites, churches, synagogues, and any public events that have security searches of hand baggage will all be targets. (Commonly called Second Amendment Free Zones.) Public meetings of any churches or civic groups that espouse conservative, libertarian, or nationalist positions are probably at the top of the potential list of targets.
The other likely development is of domestic kidnapping teams and hit squads. So… If you are a high profile individual, take note! You may end up on their target lists, even if you don’t live in a coastal state. take appropriate security precautions. Do a web search on: Executive Protection. Think it all through. Forewarned is forearmed.
Study Up, Stock Up, Team Up, Train Up
Regardless of the potential range of severity or likelihood of riots, terrorist attacks, or a future civil war, it is wise to prepare. There are many existential threats. As I’ve written before, it is wise to Study Up, Stock Up, Team Up, and Train Up. The same preparations that you make for an economic collapse will look a lot like preps for a surviving a civil war. Think in terms of: Location, Logistics, Training, Communications, and Force Multipliers. The SurvivalBlog archives are replete with useful knowledge on all of those. Dive in deep and take full advantage of those educational resources.
Pick Your Fights Wisely
The risk of a second civil war is low. But if it does come then its implications would be huge. Be ready. But also be ready to make big decisions. First and foremost, unless you want to willingly put yourself and your family in the line of fire, then relocate. Where? To a lightly-populated region that is well-removed from major cities. (Does that sound familiar?) Every adult has to know how to pick their fights. For those with families, we have to recognize that our first and foremost responsibility is to protect those that we love. But beyond that initial binary decision, the big decisions become very difficult. Should you be an active participant? In a support role, such as medical or safe house provider? A financial supporter? An armorer, or logistician? Or should you even involved at all? As an example, look at the choice made by my fictional character Ben Fielding, in my novel Founders. Such big decisions are sometimes simultaneously both simple and complex. And, of course, you must follow what you know to be right. In the emotional heat, never let anyone convince you to do something that you know is wrong.
An Instructive Precedent From Lore
I’ll round out this essay with a bit of Rawles family history that dates back to the War Between The States. California was officially a Union state, but unofficially it was neutral in the Civil War. There was no draft there, and the fledgling state was essentially just an observer to the nasty conflict between the eastern states. Its main role was simply in supplying gold to finance the Union. There was plenty of northerner/southerner animosity, but very little outright conflict in California during the Unpleasantness. Along with his parents, my great-great uncle, Joseph William Rawles had relocated from Missouri to Illinois and then to California in 1856, settling safely in Mendocino County, California. There, they established a large horse and sheep ranch. When news of the outbreak of the Civil War reached California, Joseph, who was then 19 years old, decided to return to Missouri, to enlist in the Union Army. Already an accomplished civilian horseman and marksman, he joined a Missouri cavalry unit, initially riding the same horse that he’d ridden from California.
At the end of the Civil War, Joseph Rawles made his way back out west, a changed man. He was by then in possession of two Colt’s revolvers, a Henry repeating rifle, and what could best be termed “special skills.” Family members later recalled that he was “…a wonderful quick shot with a pistol.” En route to California, he got into a shooting affray in the mining camp town of Silver City, Idaho. There, he was forced to shoot a man named Sim Oldham, in self defense. Fearing that he couldn’t get a fair trial, he fled the camp in the dead of night. After returning to California, Joseph Rawles used some of his 1860s-vintage “Operator” skills and became an armed stagecoach driver. He died a few years later, when he was bushwhacked in Cloverdale, California by a stagecoach robber named Joseph Gibbons. Ironically, Gibbons was a relative of Rawles, by marriage. (He was an in-law outlaw.) But that is another story.
Conclusion
The important lesson from the foregoing traverse into family lore is that actively participating a civil war can be optional, at least for some men. Even if you survive it, it is sure to change you, and not necessarily for the better. Civil war is never pretty. We need to be honest with ourselves about our ability to be combatants versus support troops, or just financial or logistic supporters. Please pray about being on the right side of history. But again, pick your fights wisely. –
JWR
What most people get wrong about our ‘civil war’
Domestic ConflictForward Observer Dispatch
By Samuel Culper
https://forwardobserver.com/wp-conte...ce867a10_z.jpg
One of my favorite things to do each week is to comb through articles and blog posts about our ‘coming civil war’. While a civil war, by definition, has not yet started, I do argue that a domestic conflict has already started (my specific thoughts are here, here, and here).
There are plenty of naysayers, and I understand their logic. They advise listeners or readers, “Go to your local Walmart or grocery store. Your local doctor’s office. Your local bank. Walk out your front door and talk to your neighbor.” They ask if Americans are at war with each other in these places, and use these anecdotes to explain that America isn’t locked into a civil war and won’t be.
They’re right in that regard. America isn’t at war.
But the problem with their argument is that it’s not all of America fighting the culture war, nor is it all of America fighting in the ongoing domestic conflict. It’s an ‘irate, tireless minority’. (The brunt of the ‘fighting’ in this conflict isn’t being waged by the average American, as two of my favoritethinkerspeople in the world — Victor Davis Hanson and Niall Ferguson — have alluded to. You can read my review of Ferguson’s latest book here.)
Another reason why most Americans — the overwhelming majority — aren’t engaged in our domestic conflict is because we’re still really early. Those engaged in establishing the battle lines of today’s culture war were ‘innovators’ in the 1990s. Those engaged in the culture war through the 2008 and 2016 elections were ‘early adopters’. But once the ‘early majority’ joins as soon as 2019-2021, the evidence of an active domestic conflict could be overwhelming. That’s a very distinct possibility.
My estimate is that we have maybe a few percent of the population pushing left or right extremes at the center of the culture war, but there’s an even smaller percentage (a fraction) that actually engages in political violence. There’s probably another 10 percent on either side actively engaged in political, information, and economic warfare. The remaining 75 percent is on the bubble, indifferent, or just plain stuck in the middle — a lot like other intra-state conflicts we’ve experienced.
So can we really have a domestic conflict with just a few thousand combatants?
Well, yeah. But we’re probably still very early.
To understand why we’re still in the beginning phases of our domestic conflict, we can look at three concepts: the three-part insurgency model, the ‘tooth to tail ratio’ of irregular conflicts, and contemporary examples of irregular conflicts which feature relatively few combatants on either side. (I’ve previously stated the case that, according to the doctrine of low intensity conflict, we’re already in a domestic conflict, however, these three concepts are a second frame of reference for understanding our conflict.)
The three-part insurgency model
I’m not suggesting that we’re getting to an outright insurgency in America, but briefly: there are three parts of an insurgent movement. Guerrilla fighters, the Underground, and the Auxiliary. Guerrillas are the irregular force; typically a small group/unit/cell responsible for carrying out direct action against enemy targets. The Underground is typically responsible for running intelligence networks, sabotage, propaganda, and other critical elements of warfare. And then there’s the Auxiliary, which is the support element responsible for logistics and supply, operating safe houses, intelligence gathering, and other generally nonviolent support activities. While there may be some crossover, traditional insurgent and resistance movements have elements of all three parts.
Are we seeing this triad in the current resistance movement? Yes, absolutely, but still at very informal and low levels. As I argue, we’re witnessing a high grade culture war, but a low grade domestic conflict. (And I should also state that the term ‘civil war’ would imply politically-related deaths. Some definitions of ‘civil war’ put the number of those deaths as low as 25 per year, or as high as 1,000 per year; but either way, deaths from politically-related violence are not at ‘civil war’ levels, strictly speaking.)
Tooth to tail ratios
The tooth to tail ratio is a measurement of fighters to support roles in a conflict. For instance, in Iraq or Afghanistan, there were anywhere between 10-30 support soldiers for every one infantry soldier. The tooth to tail ratio also applied for the Taliban, Sunni and Shia fighters in Iraq, and most other insurgent and resistance movements throughout history; although the ratios differ greatly.
What’s the tooth to tail ratio in our current conflict? For every one person engaging in political violence, how many are there supporting them with intelligence, safe houses, transportation, etc.? Not many. Most of the people engaged in political violence probably don’t have logistics support. If this 1:1 ratio were to ever start growing — which is to say that if very clear lines were to be drawn between guerrilla, underground, and auxiliary roles, and Americans began filling those roles on either side — then I would have a much greater reasoning to say that our low grade domestic conflict is developing. (If we start seeing the emergence of traditional combat, combat support, and combat service support roles, then I would expect a hot war to be imminent or have already started in earnest.) For what it’s worth, I routinely see PDF downloads and links to anarchist and communist/socialist insurgent publications (ELF, Mao, Marighella, etc.) on left wing extremist websites. Many of these groups hold meetings and informal recruiting events where these topics are studied and discussed. And some groups on the right are also studying these kinds of doctrinal materials. Last year, we saw a professionally-written operations order for a white nationalist event. It was no doubt written by an Army veteran. So military doctrine and training are being implemented on both the far right and far left. Once we see formal logistical support roles begin to develop alongside those who carry out political violence, then we can likely say that the domestic conflict has turned a corner. Until then, if or when it happens, we’re still in a low grade domestic conflict and it’s entirely possible that we stay there.
Contemporary examples
For all the references to ‘the’ Civil War (1861-1865), it’s important to note that military powers involved around 10% of the population of the United States over the entire course of the war. But at its peak, only 2.3 percent of the entire population was fielded in the military.
Today’s intra-state conflict is unlikely to reach those levels. Instead, what we see will probably be pretty similar to more contemporary intra-state conflicts and insurgent movements. It’s difficult to judge just what percentage of the populace engaged in violence in Iraq or Afghanistan at any given point, but suffice it to say that it was very small. A U.S. Government report from September 2017 estimated that the strength of the Taliban ranged from 25,000 to 35,000 fighters. Even if all those fighters were Afghans, the percentage of the population involved in fighting would be around 0.1 percent. (Since those fighters are not likely to all be Afghans, the percentage is likely lower.) The number of fighters in the Chechen insurgency at any given time was probably less than that. At the height of the Bosnian war, probably one percent of the Serb population were actively fighting at any one time. Around 1.5 percent of the Croat population was actively fighting at the same time. There are countless other examples of civil wars and ethnic/sectarian conflicts where very small parts of the population actively fight.
As a baseline scenario, I consider a low grade domestic conflict featuring sporadic violence, and at times spikes in certain regions, to be very possible. Life will go on, but we could be looking at an intractable, low intensity conflict that lasts for years.
But it’s tough to forecast just where this is going, this far out. Our maxim is that “The more extreme the prediction, the less likely it is to come true,” which is why we consider low frequency events to be so extreme. But they do happen. And if we have political instability or violence coincide with the next recession — which could be in 2020 — then we could absolutely see lots of different factors contribute to a ‘perfect storm’ scenario in the United States.
It’s something to seriously consider, and it’s our work here at Forward Observer.
Always Out Front,
Samuel Culper
Civil War 2.0 Becomes Inevitable As American Balkanization Reaches Terminal Velocity
by Brett Stevens on November 13, 2018
http://www.amerika.org/wp-content/up...nd-800x585.jpg
Democracy will fall soon, mainly because it can no longer make decisions. Rather than appreciate traditional wisdom that says that democracy divides a population into special interest groups, the West adopted diversity, which adds even more divisions of special interest groups, and finally has ended up as a bunch of bickering monkeys unable to see the forest for the trees.
When a democracy is young, it seems like an efficient way to make decisions: rely on utilitarianism, or the idea that whatever most people like is the best solution, and you get a clear statement of what most people are thinking. They call it the “wisdom of crowds,” forgetting that this phenomenon deals best with finite qualities and does poorly with leadership.
Leadership requires not a momentary look at what is popular, but consistent action toward goals which may be invisible over the horizon of time. This conflicts with the democratic idea of choosing what people are thinking about right now to see what may benefit them in the short term.
As it turns out, those short-term and long-term visions collide as democracy balkanizes into opposed special interest groups:Why the 1970s? Perhaps it had something to do with how the Left took over culture in 1968. After that time, you were either with the Left, or against it. The only brief respite came in the 1980s when Ronald Reagan ran on a moderate conservative platform in order to undo the damages of the Carter years and the 1960s. He came close.
The research, conducted by Zachary Neal, an associate professor of psychology and global urban studies at Michigan State University, is among the first to measure polarization not only by examining the frequency of parties working together, but also by demonstrating how they’ve grown more distant than any other time in modern history.
“What I’ve found is that polarization has been steadily getting worse since the early 1970s,” he explains in a university release. “Today, we’ve hit the ceiling on polarization. At these levels, it will be difficult to make any progress on social or economic policies.”
The full study was published on September 24, 2018 in the journal Social Networks.
An uneasy truce began after that with the next Leftist president, which was Bill Clinton. At that point, things were highly polarized, but owing to economic growth from the dot-com boom and “fast money” policies, Clinton seemed beyond criticism, and when he adopted some conservative reforms, became nearly untouchable. People refrained from rocking the boat so that the good times could continue.
When the Clinton years ended in a haze of scandal and hints of the upcoming financial crash, we returned to a quasi-conservative with George W. Bush, who made some positive changes but then became obsessed with the globalist mission of bringing democracy and consumerism to the world.
After that, the West went further into its diversity and globalism agenda with Obama in the US and a strengthening of the EU in Europe. Those both ended in soft disaster, meaning that no horrible events came from them, only a weakening of civilizations that left people feeling lost and adrift while social infrastructure slowly collapsed.
With the rise of Farage, Trump, and Brexit, the fragile truce that began in 1968 caved in as people realized that without us stopping it, the Leftist machine was going to take over everything here just as it did in the former Soviet Union. At this point, the peace evaporated because it became clear that we could not take a middle path, and we were either in favor of the Left or would be seen as opposing it.
That caused people to polarize into two sides instead of many and led to the conditions for civil war in which we presently find ourselves:
I never thought I’d end my career covering a civil war in America.
…There’s the battle between those who feel the American dream has slipped from their grasp and those who can easily pass it on to their kids. There’s the one between rural small-town Americans and “globalized” city slickers, who, the small-town folks are sure, look down upon them. There’s the fight between the white working-class Americans who feel that their identities are being lost in an increasingly minority-majority country and the Americans who embrace multiculturalism. And there’s the struggle between men who believe that their gender still confers certain powers and privileges and the women challenging that.
…In a tribal world it’s rule or die, compromise is a sin, enemies must be crushed and power must be held at all costs.
In other words, once we lost national identity as a Western European nation, our country fragmented into many special interest groups. These no longer trust that others have the same goals that they do, so have become paranoid and view other groups as manipulators who are exploiting them. Class, race, culture, religion, and heritage are all part of this great division.
People feel that their “identities are being lost in an increasingly minority-majority country and the Americans who embrace multiculturalism” because they are seeing their countries changed from unique things into the same generic mixed-race shopping mall that California has become. We have lost identity; we have become directionless and disunified as a result.
This disunity causes us to see other political orientations not just as competing points of view, but as competing types of societies. If we no longer have unity, we no longer need to tolerate each other, and then we can point out the parts of their ideal which are alien and destructive to us.
Some have looked more clearly into the source of our division and found that erasure of identity leads to populism as people see the Leftist endgame and want out of it:
Matthew Goodwin and I argue that both nativism and racism can be problematic terms in the context of contemporary European and American politics, while the fascist tag is inappropriate for this family of parties (though not extremist ones like the Greek Golden Dawn). ‘Nativist’ was coined in 19th century America to refer to those who sought to restrict new immigration to just Protestants, but today the term is typically used to refer to anyone who raises questions about the need for extensive new immigration and/or who seeks to defend national culture and traditions. The term ‘racist’ entered common usage in the 20th century, initially referring to the belief that the world was divided into hierarchically ordered races (a view for a time reinforced by racial science), and to a belief in dangerous Jewish conspiracies. Today the scholarly focus is more on a widespread ‘new racism’, which is based on allegedly irreconcilable cultural differences, together with ‘institutional’ and ‘implicit’ racism that do not require any conscious bias or prejudice.Reading through this somewhat dense text, we see that populists are those who are no longer afraid of being called “racist” or “fascist” for not wanting their societies to be assimilated by much greater groups of third world immigrants.
…Turning to the views of national populist voters generally, although a minority wear the racist badge with pride, we find that large numbers reject the white supremacism and narrow ethnic nationalism that is often associated with them by critics. In Western Europe and the US, few seek to restrict immigration to those who would immediately fit into the dominant culture, though fears about Islam are widespread and many seek to restrict the welfare rights of new economic migrants (a policy which has helped national populists appeal to former social democratic voters in countries like Denmark and Sweden, where such budgets have been under strain).
Moreover, many of the issues raised by national populists address larger questions, such as the importance of a sense of belonging and community in the face of often unprecedented rates of ethnic change. Some European countries have close to, even a higher, percentage of foreign-born population than the US, ranging from 11-17 per cent in Austria, Sweden, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands, while in France the number of Muslims is projected to rise from 9 to 17 per cent by 2050. Surveys show that across Europe and the US overwhelming majorities say that they feel strongly attached to their nation (an average of 82 per cent). It is, therefore, hardly surprising that many are concerned about the implications of growing hyper-diversity, and linked issues such as maintaining the trust which is so central to stable political and social life.
People like their nations, and know that after demographic change, those nations will no longer exist.
Since the 1990s, social change has picked up and the social engineering of the Left has sought to “fundamentally transform” enough different places to make the alteration in national character known. People are seeing how globalism means that their countries become properties, not unique spirits or groups, and how much is being lost through this insanity.
The terms “racist” and “fascist” arise because both of those groups embrace nationalism, or the idea that one ethnic group comprises each nation, and that by extension, diversity destroys nations and cannot function. The Left wishes to suppress this knowledge and so it makes nationalist ideas taboo.
They do this so that they can continue ethnic replacement of their opposition, who are dissidents to Leftism and therefore an obstacle to Leftist world domination:This article fails to mention that this changing demography was entirely created by the Left, who under Senator Ted Kennedy endorsed the Hart-Celler Act in 1965 which altered our immigration from pro-European to favoring the third world.
President Trump has declared war on America’s changing demography. His administration has followed through on that strategy with a proposal to add a question to the 2020 census asking about citizenship.
What this selective underenumeration will not do is make America’s growing racial minority populations disappear.
The losers from this undercount include members of Mr. Trump’s older white base, who will suffer from lost investments in a younger generation, whose successes and contributions to the economy will be necessary to keep America great.
America’s white population is growing tepidly because of substantial declines among younger whites. Since 2000, the white population under the age of 18 has shrunk by seven million, and declines are projected among white 20-somethings and 30-somethings over the next two decades and beyond. This is a result of both low fertility rates among young whites and modest white immigration — a trend that is not likely to change despite Mr. Trump’s wish for more immigrants from Norway.
Let that sink in for a moment. The Left is blaming us for pushing back against their change to how our society worked, since we have now seen that this new immigration agenda is not working so well. In fact, we are pushing back against all “we are all one” type initiatives.
National populism — a good enough term for the mellow mix of libertarianism, social conservatism, and opposition to increasing diversity championed by luminaries like Nigel Farage and Donald Trump — opposes the Leftist tendency to make all of society into a mass without differences between its members. National populism is a pushback against egalitarianism itself.
Some even correctly identify the sympathy between national populism and nativism, a movement to resist “fundamental transformation” by white ethnic mixing from two centuries ago:
According to Mudde, a professor at the University of Georgia, nativism is an almost exclusively American concept that is rarely discussed in Western Europe. The term’s origins lie with mid-19th century political movements in the United States—most famously the Know Nothing party—that portrayed Catholic immigration from countries such as Germany and Ireland as a grave threat to native-born Protestant Americans…Nativism arose in a natural place: a nation constructed through waves of migration and backlashes to migration, where the meaning of “native” is always evolving.
Nativism, Mudde told me, is “xenophobic nationalism.” It is “an ideology that wants congruence of state and nation—the political and the cultural unit. It wants one state for every nation and one nation for every state. It perceives all non-natives … as threatening. But the non-native is not only people. It can also be ideas.” Nativism is most appealing during periods when people feel the harmony between state and nation is disappearing.
…Whether nativism involves opposing the European Union because Germans have to bail out Greeks, or opposing multiculturalism because it means accepting forms of Islamic dress, the idea is that “there is a native population or a native culture that should be given priority over other kinds of cultures.”
As it turns out, we discuss nativism quite a bit on this blog, including how history proved it right and how diversity problems of today were predicted long ago as the heritage American nation found itself facing waves of impoverished immigrants from mixed-white countries like Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain as well as mixed-white groups such as Jews and Travelers who wanted to come over. Nativism says that each nation has a founding population, and that population should keep it, which means that other groups have to go elsewhere. So far, nativism has turned out to be correct and the “we are all one” diversity and equality type plans have all run aground in disaster.
In each nation, people are realizing that the more nations that are brought to the table, the less any one nation has the ability to act as it needs to, and the less specific the rules will be to its circumstances. If you join a group, expect your interests to be minimized in favor of those of the group; this is not a problem when the group consists of people like you, but groups of nations like the EU tend to expand outward and invariably become less distinctive. That in turn makes them hostile to the interests of national groups.
For those who are new to history, the West just got done — on the historical scale — fighting two epic wars of democracy versus nationalism. WWI and WWII both consisted of the pro-democracy powers trying to finish what the national revolutions following the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars had started, which was a quest to ensure that every other nation used the same democratic system and thus behaved the same way as the Allied powers did.
It was both a conflict for a certain type of political system, and a war against the distinctiveness of nations which made them resist the “we are all one” instinct of the group. The Allies wanted Europe to share an economic and political system so that its trade could go further, and out of that desire, it provoked a backlash which it then punished with two wars that it won through superiority of numbers guaranteed by American entry into the war.
The order established by those wars lasted for some time, but like all political systems, it is a virus and acts in self-interest like everything else in nature. As a result, it grows. It grew into civil rights during the postwar period when we applied our wartime ideology to domestic issues, and it competed with Communism by becoming more socialist and pro-“freedom” in the 1960s in order to offer something that the Soviet Union could not, and then after Communism fell, it fully hybridized socialism and capitalism into a consumerist system that used tax-and-spend to subsidize its underclass population growth and thus generate economic activity to increase demand for its currency.
National populism and the recent Right-wing movements — all of which arose from the European New Right — may not explicitly define themselves this way, but they are the opposition to the postwar order of consumerism plus “globalism” or diversity at home and international trade having sway over national customs globally.
This friction presents itself as the loss of common purpose in Europe, which really means that Europe is experiencing defections from the Leftist world order of liberal democracy, consumerism, and globalism:
In recent weeks, I’ve travelled to a number of European capitals. What I picked up is that a fragmentation of minds is under way, even though so many contemporary themes, from globalisation to migration, are the common concern of all Europeans. There is particular pathos to this as the centenary of the 1918 armistice approaches. With a key European parliament election just seven months away, the psychological divisions across the continent seem to be deepening, not diminishing.You have one of two options: either you support the natural selection model, in which each country does its own thing and some succeed more than others, or the egalitarian model, in which every nation is standardized to the same system so that there are no losers. This mirrors the class warfare nature of egalitarianism itself, which tries to eliminate differences between people so that there can be an end to struggle and the hierarchy that it produces, which we might see as a rejection of nature or life itself.
This is not just about the tensions between populist and non-populist governments. We know that two camps are pitted against one another: on one side, Hungary’s “illiberal democrat” Viktor Orbán, Poland’s nationalist leadership, Italy’s far-right strongman, Matteo Salvini; on the other, France’s Emmanuel Macron, Germany’s Angela Merkel and the Netherlands’ prime minister, Mark Rutte.
…A few weeks ago, during a debate on Europe in Vienna’s Burgtheater, I made the point that the Austrian foreign minister Karin Kneissl’s association with the far-right Freedom party embodied precisely the danger Europe faces: the go-it-alone message and the danger of democratic backsliding that comes when xenophobic nationalist parties gain power.
“We are all one” appeals to humans for the same reason that pacifism, inclusiveness, camaraderie, and acceptance do: it gives us a little human world in which the coldness of life is upended, and humans decide to make each other feel good and exclude the world and its demands from the experience. This consolation proves as old as humanity, and perhaps even older, since we see wild species do it as well.
However, “we are all one” is also self-interested, and people quickly use it as a path to power, which makes it into the norm but also gives power to those who have no idea how to wield it. We have lived too long under peasant-kings like Angela Merkel and Claude Juncker, but most cannot see what is actually wrong with them. They are salespeople using ideology to vault into power at a level beyond their understanding.
People across the West, who basically gave up after the horrors of WW1, have begun to rediscover their will to live. Specifically, they want to thrive among people like them without the intrusion of government and industry, and they are willing to throw away the social safety net and international commerce in order to do so. Their new desire is self-sufficiency, and if that means no iPads and quinoa, they are OK with that.
This new outlook challenges the existing liberal order, and presents to us the need to launch off on our own direction again instead of following the herd toward what groups of people always find pleasing:
Yet for all the significance of those two unfolding stories, the cumulative threats now facing the European Union could be of longer term and greater geopolitical significance. That’s because that the same brand of nationalism and populism that unifies Trump’s voters, and inflames his detractors at home and abroad, is a far more fundamental challenge to one of history’s great experiments, the European integration project that evolved after World War II.With the rise of Trump, America has rejected its postwar role. Trump has always said “America first,” and by doing so, he has rejected the comfortable system that allowed European socialism to thrive on American defense dollars. He has repudiated the military-industrial complex and demanded that instead of American military rule of the globe, there be independent nations who come together when convenient to eject threats from their spheres of influence.
…What’s too little understood in Washington and Europe alike is the crucial role the U.S. played in the development of a unified, secure and economically strong Europe. Indeed, today’s modern, prosperous, democratic European Union of 28 states – including some eleven former members of the Soviet bloc – is one of the United States’ greatest foreign policy accomplishment.
In doing so, he has rejected the WW2 order and the WW1 crusade that began it. Our goal as Americans is not to enforce “we are all one” through liberal democracy and consumerism, but to stand for our own interests, and encourage others to do the same. This is a first step toward balkanization, or the separation of racial, religious, cultural, and ethnic groups into their own civilizations so that each may pursue its values to whatever end they deliver.
Part of this includes the recognition that the anti-racism of the WW1-WW2 era is a mistake, since diversity presents nothing but an impediment to unity of the nation, which in turn implies that diversity will be leaving us soon much like other failed policies from the postwar era:
Most immigrants coming to Canada want to build a new life in a free and democratic society, escaping tyranny, prejudice or poor economic circumstances. Their local ethnic communities help them get adjusted to their new home. But it is nonetheless true that Canada faces a real test in maintaining national identity when so many people come from disparate backgrounds, and in avoiding problems that occur with ethnic conflict.
In principle, diverse populations can be economically rewarding. They provide more product and service choices.
Immigration brings workers with a greater variety of backgrounds. Immigrants can even spur more innovation since people with different perspectives combine ideas in ways that would not happen with homogenous societies.
However, the flipside is fragmentation — when citizens identify more strongly with a social group rather than the nation as a whole, potentially leading to conflict. Conflict itself erodes trust in institutions and encourages corruption…What researchers have found is that voters who identify more strongly with the “nation” rather than their particular sub-group, are more cognizant of the country’s overall well-being.
When your goal is to avoid membership in those large groups which reduce your own input to one of many voices, fragmentation becomes unacceptable. Those who identify with the founding group care about the well-being of the nation, but everyone else belongs to one of many bickering special interest groups, caring only about their group as the nation careens toward doom.
In the 1940s as in the 1840s, people were herding toward fear of strong power, since that could interrupt their personal life plans with the need to support orders larger than the individual like culture, faith, heritage, and purpose. Instead they elected democracy, which allowed them to separate from the process of the nation and become merely consumers who rented space within national boundaries in order to participate in one political and economic system more than another.
One reason that many of us rejected the Neoreaction idea of “patchwork,” or people shopping by governments based on what they offer, is that it merely extended this concept further. Nation became government which became product. This destroys any actual unity and replaces it with a temporary alliance of convenience, based on the shallowest commonality which can be found between human beings. The sense of significance, belonging, meaning, and purpose which comes with an actual culture and nation becomes forgotten, replaced by the state itself and the herd behavior upon which it relies for power.
The West revolts against fragmentation. The many aspects of breakdown of our society — fragmentation, diversity, special interest groups, fighting for power — all result from this flight from unity, not just of citizens with nation but of the elements within the nation, such as religion, science, culture, and heritage. When these are united and have a common root, life is good and sane; when they are not, life becomes neurotic, ridden with conflict, ugly, and predatory.
The Left of course translates this dissident behavior into the only language that they know, class warfare, and by doing so claims that this is an economic/social struggle instead of one for the soul of the nation, as Unabomber victim David Gelernter writes:
The difference between citizens who hate Mr. Trump and those who can live with him—whether they love or merely tolerate him—comes down to their views of the typical American: the farmer, factory hand, auto mechanic, machinist, teamster, shop owner, clerk, software engineer, infantryman, truck driver, housewife. The leftist intellectuals I know say they dislike such people insofar as they tend to be conservative Republicans.In other words, we have real members of the nation who care about it, and they oppose the international elites who see this nation as a means to an end, namely of their own wealth and safety. International elites buy multiple citizens and jet between homes in different places in order to avoid instability that, like the fluctuations in the market, they profit from by anticipating the disorder and betting on places where slightly more order remains.
…Those who voted for Mr. Trump, and will vote for his candidates this November, worry about the nation, not its image. The president deserves our respect because Americans deserve it—not such fancy-pants extras as network commentators, socialist high-school teachers and eminent professors, but the basic human stuff that has made America great, and is making us greater all the time.
Trump’s audience are those who do not intend to leave. Even if they had the money, they would not leave their beloved communities and the land they are bonded to. They like being where they are, and they distrust those who can skip out on the beauty of an exceptional place to go somewhere else simply to avoid the bother of dealing with a little social shakeup.
They distrust those who do not have an intense bond to their community, their people, and the land that supports them.
If you feel inklings of a rural-versus-urban divide, you might be correct, since the essence of the urban is detachment.
Detachment from the land, from the tasks required to produce raw materials, and from anything but the human-only world of feelings, emotions, and judgments in which one must be expert in order to succeed in marketing, business, law, and sales. Cities are humanism, “we are all one,” and the type of thinking that drives the EU, all in one place. They are alien to the notions of unity between people and land that are present in the country.
However, that misses the broader picture, as do all narratives of class warfare. Class is inherent to who we are; we are all born with a set of abilities than place us somewhere on a hierarchy, both vertical and horizontal, of who does what in a highly functional society. This class division obscures a larger truth, namely that this is a white civil war fought by those with the most money, education, and experience first, but spreading outward:
The report, “Hidden Tribes,” breaks Americans into seven groups, from left to right, with names like Traditional Liberals, Moderates, Politically Disengaged and so on. It won’t surprise you to learn that the most active groups are on the extremes — Progressive Activists on the left (8 percent of Americans) and Devoted Conservatives on the right (6 percent).In other words, much like the election of Donald Trump, this struggle plays out between those with actual experience of how to run businesses, groups, institutions, and systems within our society, and they are divided between those who want the status quo to continue and those who see it as moribund.
These two groups are the richest of all the groups. They are the whitest of the groups. Their members have among the highest education levels, and they report high levels of personal security.
We sometimes think of this as a populist moment. But that’s not true. My first big takeaway from “Hidden Tribes” is that our political conflict is primarily a rich, white civil war. It’s between privileged progressives and privileged conservatives.
Some recognize that Leftism has destroyed much of our society, while others — perhaps those who benefit personally from Leftism, or lack the ability to see beyond their immediate personal sphere — want more of the same because it is working for them.
They might even be divided by those who think solely of themselves versus those who think about the “community,” a difficult definition comprising not just other people but the continuity of their traditions, their beliefs, and their future. Some realize that their future is tied with community, while others do not, and this produces the fundamental clash dividing the West into individualists and tribalists:
I’m using “tribalism” to refer to what George Orwell, in an essay he wrote at the end of the Second World War, meant by “nationalism”: “the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. . . . The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.”
In other words, you either identify with self+community or you identity simply with self. Not surprisingly, this pairing comports with political divisions in psychology:
Haidt and his colleagues synthesize anthropology, evolutionary theory, and psychology to propose six innate moral foundations: care/harm, fairness/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation.In other words, Leftists value individualism; conservatives preserve the individual, as survival is important, but add to it loyalty and authority, which translate to membership in a group and concern for the prevalence of its traditions, which requires hierarchy.
…The moral mind, to him, resembles an audio equalizer with a series of slider switches that represent different parts of the moral spectrum. All political movements base appeals on different settings of the foundations—and the culture wars arise from what they choose to emphasize. Liberals jack up care, followed by fairness and liberty. They rarely value loyalty and authority. Conservatives dial up all six.
These two political viewpoints prove incompatible. Someone who values the individual only, as seems to have been the winning side in the twentieth century, will never understand someone who values individual+community, including the intangible (or long-term) aspects of community. They are like different species, getting ready to separate.
As it turns out, this fundamental divide extends beyond political parties to individuals who identify as independents associating with one outlook over the other and ending up forming a Left/Right divide within the middle ground:
According to the Gallup polling firm, the identity that people choose most often is actually “independent” – not Democratic or Republican. In 2017, 42 percent of Americans chose this label – up from the low 30s just 14 years ago, in 2004.In other words, you are wired to take one path or the other, and this probably varies with where you fit in the social structure. Peasants think only of themselves; kings thing of not just other people, but the whole of tradition, continuity, power, and finding the best solution for the long term and not just a temporary expedient until the next guy takes over.
However, three-quarters of these “independents” admit, when asked, that they lean toward favoring the Democratic or Republican Party. Judging by how they vote or what they think of national political leaders, the truth is that these “leaners” really are partisans rather than independents. Apparently, many people who like to think of themselves as independent-minded and free of party influence just aren’t.
Only about 10 percent of Americans are what we call “pure independents” – that is, people who identify as independents and claim not to favor either of the two major parties. Nor has that percentage grown in recent years.
This means that the vast majority of Americans – consistently around 90 percent – are partisans.
This means that the divisions that we see now are permanent. Our society has splintered itself by adopting Leftism, which has forced people to be either denialists who defend a clearly dying civilization, or those who think more clearly about the long-term future and want a civilization which is ascendant instead of dying.
Our current situation came about because a higher population clashed with less organized and lower IQ ones. Heritage America, or the Western Europeans who created this civilization, had a code of behavior which rewarded the good and punished the bad. Simpler populations saw no reason to play along with this, and so crept in and took advantage of the goodwill extended to them.
What resulted was a clash between the standards of groups. Heritage Americans played by certain rules, and went along with the Other groups until it became clear that those groups were not playing by the same standards, and now we are seeing that these Other groups must go because we need our standards.
In other words, Heritage America is saying to the post-1800 newcomers, “you didn’t play by our cultural rules, and therefore you are bad,” which means that a permanent schism will erupt:
Heritage America is finished because nobody respected the rule of law other than Heritage Americans. And those that did respect the law, manipulated it for their whims and purposes and changed it for their own narcissistic reasons…or worse, politically conspired intentionally against Heritage America.
That in turn means war, much as it did in 1861. When different groups are thrust into the same political space, conflict results, mainly because diversity never works, even if within the same race. We have nothing in common in America anymore, and it means that we will fragment, and each group will go its own way.
Although this sounds lugubrious, think of it this way: human history is receiving clear answers. Limited democracy still becomes mob rule. Diversity of any form destroys a nation. Those who see the long term must rule the rest, or those who see only the short term will destroy them. We are not all one; we are in fact, a varied and complex structure that requires separation not false unity.
On the Creation and Destruction of Constitutional Government
By J.R. Nyquist
November 17, 2018 Updated: November 18, 2018
Polybius was a Greek writer of history who served as a military adviser to the Roman General Scipio Africanus the Younger. However important his advice might have been to the destroyer of Carthage (in 146 B.C.), Polybius was even more important for America’s Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution.
We are often told that the U.S. Constitution owes much to Montesquieu and Cicero. Yet these writers were themselves students of Polybius. When Cicero praised the “mixed constitution” of Rome in “De re Publica,” he was praising the separation of powers, he was praising checks and balances, but more significantly, he was echoing Polybius. (Note:
Cicero’s book on republican government was lost until 1815 and would not have been available to the founders.)
It is alleged by many that America’s founders were in thrall to English political traditions and to John Locke. Yet again, the influence of Polybius was more profound. As R.A. Ames and H.C. Montgomery have pointed out in their essay, “The Influence of Rome on the American Constitution,” the U.S. government “owes nothing to any source but that of Roman government” as conceived and explained by Polybius.
Polybius not only praised Rome’s constitution, but he explained how and why it worked. Anyone proposing a republican constitution in the 18th century would have naturally turned to Polybius for inspiration.
Marshall Davies Lloyd has shown in a paper titled “Polybius and the Founding Fathers” that the founders were steeped in classical writings. They were, he says, the children of Roman antiquity.
James Madison, James Monroe, Benjamin Franklin, James Otis, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton knew the text of Polybius on the Roman constitution. During the Virginia state convention on ratification of the Constitution, Monroe even read passages from Polybius on the floor.
What was so special about Polybius?
The Power of Rome
In the sixth book of Polybius’s history, there occurs a critical examination of “the Roman constitution in its prime.” Polybius wanted his readers to understand how “nearly the whole world fell under the power of Rome” during a 53-year period.
According to Polybius, Rome’s world-dominant position owed everything to the Roman system of checks and balances.
In his discourse, Polybius identified three types of constitutions: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Which of these did he recommend? According to Polybius, “It is plain that we must regard as the best constitution that which partakes of all three elements.” In other words, the three simple forms of the state are inadequate in and of themselves. The best thing is to mix the three simple constitutional forms into a system of checks and balances.
What is the reasoning behind this arrangement?
Each of the simple constitutional forms tends to degenerate: Monarchy degenerates into tyranny, aristocracy into oligarchy, and democracy into mob rule. When Lord Acton wrote, “All power tends to corrupt; [and] absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely,” he was echoing Polybius’s discourse on the degeneration of the simple constitutional forms.
This degeneration through the accumulation of too much power can be checked by a mixed constitutional system consisting of all three forms at once. For example, the Romans had two chief magistrates (consuls) so that even the monarchical principle was divided. Rome’s aristocratic principal was contained in the Roman Senate. The power of the people was found in the tribunes who summoned and led the popular assemblies and held the power of veto over the Roman Senate.
Thus, the Roman constitution was simultaneously a double monarchy (or diarchy), an aristocracy, and a democracy.
We can see that the U.S. system also combines elements of monarchy (in the president), aristocracy (originally in the Senate), and democracy (in the House of Representatives). In addition, the American system makes use of federalism—the separation of power between the federal government and the state governments. All of these elements serve to prevent the emergence of an all-powerful individual or ruling body.
Absolute power cannot corrupt absolutely if nobody can get hold of it.
The advantages of this system are many. But the special advantage of the system was and is in its stability and the prevention of what Polybius said was a violent cycle of revolutionary upheaval or civil war.
Revolution
As observed in the ancient city-states, a monarchy eventually degenerates into a tyranny, which triggers a revolution led by aristocratic citizens. Next, the spoiled children of the new aristocratic government grow intolerably arrogant and exploitative, leading to a democratic revolution. Finally, the people become ungovernable and lawless.
“For the mob,” wrote Polybius, “habituated to feed at the expense of others … produces a reign of mere violence.”
Polybius described this situation in terms familiar to students of the French or Bolshevik revolutions, depicting “tumultuous assemblies, massacres, banishments, redivisions of land; until, after losing all trace of civilization, it has once more found a master and a despot.”
Mixing the simple forms of constitution preserves society against the bloodshed of civil strife and the vagaries of official corruption.
Polybius credited the Spartan lawgiver Lycurgus with the invention of mixed government. Naturally, mixed governments themselves would eventually succumb to degeneration. But this process would take centuries rather than decades. This was shown by the examples of Sparta, the Republic of Carthage, and Rome.
It is useful to know that the U.S. Constitution is based on the principle of mixed government as outlined by Polybius. Using Polybius’s method of analysis we can see, in the present constitutional crisis, that the people exercised a check on America’s elite (oligarchy) in November 2016 by electing the non-politician Donald Trump as president of the United States.
In the first two years of his presidency, the maverick national executive was continuously berated and attacked by the bureaucratic elite and by lackeys of the dominant ideology in the press and universities. The struggle between President Trump and the statist oligarchy now continues with mixed midterm results.
The Fall of Rome
A significant section of American voters recognize that a bureaucratic and “intellectual” oligarchy, at the national level, governs against the people’s interests. This is especially obvious in the oligarchy’s desire to import alien nationals as future voters in order to undercut a likely constitutional check on their power. This situation would be akin to the Roman Senate importing barbarians into Rome for the purpose of neutralizing the people’s assemblies.
In addition, a system of welfare bribery—of bread and circuses—is administratively used to progressively impoverish and simultaneously placate the populous, drawing votes for the oligarchy from the poorest people. Thus, it behooves the oligarchy to expand the poorest class of citizens—to make the poor into loyal clients of the administrative welfare system.
In this way, the socialist ideology of the bureaucratic state promises to become the ruling ideal of the masses.
This process is naturally accelerated through bureaucratic schooling, university brainwashing and credentialing, and by a larger and larger flood of poor immigrants overpowering the native middle class—permanently destroying the economic self-reliance and political autonomy of the electorate.
This appears to be a conscious strategy for the concentration of power by an administrative elite that now advances a socialist type of ideology under the banner of “democracy.” It is a process by which an oligarchy of officials transforms a free country into administrative despotism.
The key element is a cultural tyranny, introduced and maintained by elite media and prestigious schools, which forces all constitutional elements into an ideologically homogenized way of “thinking” by threats of ostracism and exclusion, labeling those who resist as racists, sexists, or xenophobes.
As the cultural power of the socialist administrative ideology grows, the system becomes increasingly immune to correction. Abuses and illegalities are beginning to appear more openly. Lawbreaking politicians are not prosecuted.
Innocent politicians are falsely accused. Brazen fraud is visible in various schemes of vote-stealing. Violence has made its appearance in America’s national discourse as supporters of the Constitution and the rule of law are directly threatened by mobs incited by the party of administrative Caesarism.
All these elements were present in the fall of the Roman Republic.
The disintegration of the Roman constitution led directly to civil war. This may be where America is heading. Even now as we turn the pages of Polybius’s discourse, we find a lucid analysis of republican principles and also discover, in ancient Rome, a distant mirror of ourselves.
J.R. Nyquist is a columnist and the author of the books “Origins of the Fourth World War” and “The Fool and His Enemy,” as well as co-author of “The New Tactics of Global War.”
Companion Threads:
- The Communist Takeover of America: 45 Declared Goals
- Communist Party USA Reveals: We're Using the Democrat Party
- KGB Operation "Bill Clinton"
- The Cloward-Piven And Now Obama Strategy
A Separation is Coming for Our Nation – Will it be Peaceful?
January 22, 2019
by David Blackmon
8 Comments
https://i2.wp.com/dbdailyupdate.com/...50%2C379&ssl=1
Today’s Campaign Update
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)
This is a good morning to just ruminate on the state of the nation.
Way back in 1994, when I was writing for a local newspaper in Texas, I wrote a piece about how dangerous it was for the future of our country that those on the political left, led by Saul Alinsky disciples Bill and Hillary Clinton, were in the process of destroying the entire nature of the Democrat Party.
Prior to the elevation of the Clintons, the Democrat Party had been a party that was basically a hybrid of a true “liberal” philosophy on national security and international policy matters (i.e., fairly strong on defense with an aggressive promotion of American priorities in international dealings) and a “socialist” party focused on redistribution of the wealth on the margins, designed mainly to provide what they called a “safety net” to provide for those incapable of providing for themselves.
But, with the elevation of the flower children of the 1960s into leadership positions in our nation’s academia establishment in the 1980s, this all began to change. As our country’s education establishment radicalized and went about filling millions of minds full of mush with their radical notions, the Clintons saw this as an opportunity to move the country to a more pure form of socialism, and to deploy the Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals tactics in support of that effort.
This all gave birth to Hillary Clinton’s failed, almost comical effort to nationalize the nation’s healthcare industry, and to the beginnings of the death actual political debate in our nation. As the Pantsuit Princess pursued her radical plan, those opposed to her became not just political opponents to be debated in the arena of ideas, but outright enemies to be portrayed as literal evil figures who want to kill fellow Americans.
Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals consists of 13 rules for the destruction of an enemy, not the conduct of political debate, and the last of them reads as follows:“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
This is how the nation’s children had already by and large been taught to think about “big business”, “Republicans” and “conservatives” in general since the 1970s, and it is the main principle the Clintons and their spokespeople like James Carville, Paul Begala and Ann Lewis brought into the public arena as their main tactic. Republicans like Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich were no longer described as simply being wrong in a public policy sense, they were literally to be demonized and castigated on the Sunday morning talk shows as being the incarnations of Lucifer and Beelzebub in modern times.
Dirt from their backgrounds was collected and leaked to the rising numbers of mainstream media journalists who had come out of communications schools over the previous 15-20 years and who were willing to go to print or on-air with that dirt at times of the Democrat Party’s choosing. This effort to collect dirt on enemies was what generated the scandal about Hillary illegally obtaining the “raw FBI files” on more than 1,000 political opponents, a scandal strategically dealt with by the utterly corrupt Justice Department led by Janet Reno.
Of course, once it embarked on this course and allowed it to fully take hold, the Democrat Party could never go back, which is what I wrote in that 1994 piece. The deployment of Alyinskyism is like a cancer that metastasizes within an organism – if not cut out early enough, its spread ultimately becomes irreversible and kills the host.
Had the 1996 presidential election gone the other way, the Democrat Party might have been saved – there were still enough leaders in the party at that time who truly believed in America and might have been able to retake the party and steer it away from its destructive course. But, just as they nominated the milquetoast and ineffectual Mitt Romney in 2012, Republicans in 1996 nominated the milquetoast and ineffectual Bob Dole, thus sealing the Democrat Party’s – and the nation’s – fate.
The increasingly-radicalized news media cheered.
And so it is that here we sit today, in early 2019, and the news media and Democrat Party have become completely indistinguishable from one another. Not only has the notion of actual political “debate” disappeared from the public arena, the entire notion of real, actual “news” has vanished from our nation’s airwaves and steadily disappearing newsprint.
As noted in yesterday’s Campaign Update, the jointly-determined Democrat/fake news media narrative is all we have left. That narrative dictates that Republicans and conservatives in general are evil, non-human beasts who are to be, in the words of Alinsky, “chosen, frozen, personalized and polarized.”
But, as we have seen over the past few years, this principle is not limited to the politicians, but to anyone who supports them, and now has even been extended to the children of parents who allow them to wear caps and t-shirts that contain a simple campaign slogan that talks about wanting to make their country great again. Indeed, the Democrats and their media agents have since 2016 consciously made an effort to demonize the 80 percent of mainland America that lies between the two coasts. The presence of Twitter, Facebook and other social media to serve as echo chambers for all of this divisiveness has only served as accelerants.
This is where the Clintons and their disciples have brought us. Electing the even more-radical Barack Obama to the presidency was seen as “progress” for our society’s destructors, and now the Democrat Party presents us with an array of choices for 2020 who make Obama and his unending efforts to divide the nation along racial-, gender- and any other lines he could think of on a daily basis look tame by comparison.
One of those 2020 hopefuls, Irish Bob O’Rourke – who the fake media wants you to believe is just like John F. Kennedy – openly questioned whether the U.S. Constitution is still relevant a few days ago, and no one in our fake media even blinked. I’m pretty sure JFK never questioned the applicability of the Constitution.
How do we come back from this? How does our nation absorb more than a quarter century of one major political party willingly converting itself into a degradation mob, a conversion that has now absorbed virtually our entire media establishment?
The answer probably is, we can’t. If you think these people can be reasoned with to see the error of their ways, well, there are no words for you. How could anyone watch what they all conspired to do to Brett Kavanaugh, and still harbor such hopes? How can anyone observe what they’ve been doing to a bunch of innocent high school kids the past 3 days, and still believe they are somehow redeemable?
The answer, pretty clearly now to anyone who is paying attention, must be that they aren’t. They aren’t redeemable, they refuse to be reasoned with, and that means that this is not salvageable.
Ordinary Americans see all of this happening – it has become impossible not to see it in recent years – and wonder what to do about it? The election of Donald Trump was largely a reaction to this phenomenon. But that outcome has only created focused and increasingly violent reaction from the radicals.
It make take another quarter century – by which time this writer will probably be long gone – but at some point the non-radicals who occupy the 80% of this nation out in “flyover country” will be left by the radicals with no choice but to either submit the will of hopeless ignoramuses like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or find a way to separate from them.
At that point, the question will become whether or not the Alinskyites in the Democrat/fake media establishment will allow the separation to happen peaceably. Given their history, how can anyone believe the answer to that question will be anything other than a very hostile “no”?
That is all.
Bracken: Covington Gives a Glimpse of Civil War Two
Posted by AP Staff | Jan 28, 2019 | Matt Bracken | 34 |
https://i0.wp.com/www.americanpartis...60%2C640&ssl=1
During the attempted electronic lynching of the Covington Catholic high school boys on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, the mask hiding the Left’s genocidal rage slipped and was momentarily visible. The reality of the confrontation was inverted 180 degrees by the duplicitous mainstream media so that a smiling white teenager was made to face the wrath of an Orwellian two-minute hate that stretched on for days, even after the factual record was corrected. Accelerated by social media, the virtual lynch mob called for, among other horrors, MAGA-hat-wearing teenage boys to be fed headfirst into wood chippers, or for them to be locked en-masse into their school and the school to be burned to the ground.
This hurricane of socially sanctioned racial fury did not arise spontaneously, but was the result of deliberate cultivation over the past few decades by the political Left, academia, the mainstream media, and the Hollywood entertainment elite. Entire books could be written laying out the many already familiar examples of the Left encouraging racial animosity against whites, but that is not my goal in writing this piece.
I am instead observing that before every notorious genocide, the same pattern of marginalizing and demonizing a designated scapegoat population has occurred. On the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, the national mainstream media signaled that it was now acceptable to vent seething racial hatred against white males, even teenage boys. This was further telegraphed when notable verified Twitter blue-check accounts were not suspended after doxing the boys and posting explicit calls for violence against them. (By way of contrast, I was permanently banned from Twitter for posting an anti-burka meme that did not even name a religion.)
The Covington confrontation points to an ironclad historical pattern. Every previous genocide in modern times was preceded by a similar pattern of public demonization of state-designated scapegoats. But is correlation causation? Does the American Left intend to eventually commit genocide against white heritage American males? In my opinion, yes. Scapegoating is part of a clear pattern of conduct seen during every socialist power grab from the French Revolution until now. In the case of German national socialists, European Jews were the scapegoats of the Nazis during their climb to power. In the case of international socialists, AKA Communists, class enemies were usually but not always the designated scapegoats. Examples of class enemies would include the Kulaks in the Soviet Union, “landlords” in China, and “intellectuals” in Cambodia. But in other cases ethnic groups were targeted as scapegoats by Communists, to include the Ukrainians, Crimeans, Latvians and others.
So, are today’s Democrats already planning to load their white heritage American enemies into boxcars for trips to a new Gulag? Probably not many at this time, but Barack Obama’s political mentor Bill Ayers certainly considered it. Ayers believed that so many Americans would bitterly resist Communism that 25 million would have to be “eliminated.”
Today in the United States, a possible future genocide remains far down the track and around the curve, well out of sight, and beyond the power of most Americans to even imagine. But the historical record is clear. Broad social approval of class- or racially-based scapegoating is a necessary precursor stage to eventual genocide, and a combination of both variants was clearly seen in the Covington case.
Will planned genocide ever be the overtly stated policy of the socialist-leaning Democrat (DemSoc) party? Probably not. Even Adolf Hitler never put “The Final Solution to the Jewish Question” into a formal written order, but the Holocaust happened nonetheless. Vladimir Lenin was less cautious, recording his orders for state terror and mass murder in his own handwriting.
But today’s American Democrats are still far from that final stage of dealing with their enemies. For now, the demonization of their future scapegoats is only one indicator of the current phase of the Gramscian “long march through the institutions” stealth communization process that is now underway.
So what is the overall process currently in play, and where are we on the timeline? I am going to assume that readers of this essay are already familiar with the Dunning-Kruger Effect and the Cloward-Piven Strategy. Summarized, the current Democrat strategy for political victory is to maximize the number of government-dependent morons, in order to overwhelm our national ability to pay for all of the government’s mandated social programs, to thereby collapse the system and bring about a revolutionary political climate. This is taken straight out of the Bolshevik and Alinsky handbooks. Vladimir Lenin supposedly put it this way: “The worse, the better.”
As the government fails to keep up with its social welfare promises, the Democrats will blame their pre-designated scapegoats for every one of their own failures. In the United States, Public Enemy Number One will be older white Christian conservative heterosexual men who will be called obstructionists and saboteurs. Being morons, the Dunning-Kruger Democrats will fall for the party line, and also blame white heritage American scapegoats for the failure of their own party’s utopian promises.
Why will the Democrats push for social welfare programs that are impossible to achieve, that in fact have failed in every other case ever attempted?
Because they only care about attaining permanent power for themselves, and this process is a proven method for reaching that goal. The Democrat elites are content to rule the ruins of a failed nation, in perpetuity. And to do so, they will need a convenient scapegoat population to blame for their own failed policies, and that is why they are encouraging identity (racial) politics, as starkly seen in the Covington confrontation. They are preparing their time-tested psychological weapons of mass destruction for the next phases in the ongoing stealth communization process. You may observe the history of Venezuela over the past twenty years to see the entire process carried out from start to finish.
The unexpected election of President Donald Trump indicated to Democrat party leaders that there were still too many white heritage Americans as a percentage of the electorate for them to cement their identity-politics socialist triumph in perpetuity. There are not yet enough moronic Dunning-Kruger Democrats to push the DemSocs over the top in national elections forever.
The Calizuela Model
Despite Trump’s 2016 victory, a glowing example of the solution to their national electoral shortfall is clearly visible to Democrat leaders. In my lifetime California was the wealthiest and most successful state in the union. It produced Republican governors and even sent Ronald Reagan to the White House. But due to open borders and unchecked immigration, California is halfway to becoming Venezuela, or as I shall term it, Calizuela. The former Golden State has gone from national leader to national embarrassment, with squalid tent cities for its burgeoning homeless population, complete with needle- and feces-strewn sidewalks.
Amazingly, this observable failure is counted as a great political victory by the Democrat party. Calizuela is proof that flooding a state with government-dependent foreign idiots and rewarding them with driver’s licenses and voter cards can turn a formerly conservative Republican state into a one-party Democrat stronghold in a single generation. The proven Calizuela formula is blazingly clear to the Democrat Party bosses in the other 49 states: import as many poor and illiterate foreign immigrants as possible, because over 80 percent of them will sooner or later become reliable Democrat voters. (And this is the reason that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats refuse to pay more than one dollar for an actual, physical border wall or barrier.)
Now I will distinguish between two general types of immigrants. The first type I’ll term Value-Added Melting-Pot immigrants. VAMPs usually form stable two-parent families and want their kids to grow up to be red-blooded Americans, happily assimilating into our culture, while quickly learning English and adopting American customs and manners of dress. Typically they are college-educated professionals when they legally immigrate to America. They may even vote Republican, and often have conservative values and political views.
On the other hand, we now also have millions of Feral Aggressive Clannish Low-Intelligence immigrants, or FACLIs in shorthand. They may or may not be illegal aliens, but the Democrat party does not care as long as they will eventually vote Democrat. The worst of the FACLIs belong to an unholy supremacist rape and murder cult that is attempting to force its totalitarian social-political system upon the entire world, at sword point if necessary.
The Democrats are not bothered by the inclusion of these dangerous fanatics among their FACLI immigrants as long as they reliably vote Democrat.
Unfortunately, ever since the passage of Senator Ted Kennedy’s infamous 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, the FACLIs have vastly outnumbered the VAMPS arriving in America. Instead of assimilating and blending into the American social landscape like the VAMPs, the FACLIs cluster in self-imposed ghettos, marking their territories with vandalism and graffiti, driving out their previous inhabitants, and turning these conquered areas into smaller versions of the third-world shitholes they fled in the first place.
Yet the Democrats actually prefer FACLI immigrants to VAMPs, despite their tendency toward illiteracy, criminality, and many other social pathologies. This is because they can be depended upon to vote Democrat, adding their numbers to the native-born Dunning-Kruger Democrats who are too ignorant to realize that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Additionally, high crime rates and inter-ethnic friction give the state a reason to use harsh police state tactics to maintain control. Writer Sam Francis described this dynamic as “anarcho-tyranny.”
It hardly needs to be mentioned that for a nation’s ruling elite to knowingly import a feral, aggressive, clannish, low-IQ population in order to replace their independent-minded, freedom-loving and self-sufficient population in return for cheap votes is an act of treason against their own people. But in both America and Europe, we can see that the Kalergi Plan for population replacement is working all too well. A half-century after Senator Kennedy’s notorious immigration act, America needs a fifty-year immigration moratorium to save it from utter destruction, but there is little chance of this ever happening in the prevailing political environment.
The Calizuelification Process
Once the Democrat Party reaches a ruling margin based on their importation of sufficient numbers of FACLIs to guarantee future electoral success, they weaponize the political and legal structures to ensure that they can never be defeated again. Ideologically corrupted law enforcement and tax agencies are turned against their political rivals. The Calizuela DemSocs use outrageous electoral district gerrymandering, conduct door-to-door “vote harvesting” by party hacks, and prepare boxes of pre-filled election ballots to ensure their victories. They even hand voter registration cards to illegal aliens at the DMV along with their official Calizuela driver’s licenses, with no questions asked and no voter fraud investigations ever conducted.
The amazing political success of the Democrat Party in Calizuela is now being copied in every other state. Once Florida or Texas flips to solid Democrat, the DemSocs will permanently control the national political process in the United States. But history shows that they will not then rest on their laurels and relax their guard. Their Marxist fiscal mismanagement will leave the economy in a shambles, but rather than accept the responsibility, they will instead set to blaming their pre-designated scapegoats. These shall be the aforementioned white Christian conservative men, the ultimate irredeemable deplorables, who will then be targeted for state-sanctioned hate and worse.
In the DemSoc mission to scapegoat white heritage Americans, it will actually be an advantage to them that their base, (the Dunning-Kruger Democrats plus ever-increasing numbers of FACLIs), are, by and large, morons. Due to their low average intelligence, they will not be susceptible to persuasion by reason or logic. Instead, they will carry the strength of invincible ignorance as their shield. The most erudite and sublime arguments of Locke and Jefferson will not hold a candle against machete-wielding MS-13 gang members high on meth. And there will be millions of them and others eager to turn their violent fury against the state-designated conservative white male scapegoats who will be portrayed in the media as purposefully sabotaging their awaited socialist utopia. Thus the DemSocs shall unify their base and wipe out any potential future rivals in one brilliantly calculated but incalculably evil maneuver.
Kill Whitey will be on their lips, their fury fanned to white heat by the collaborating mainstream media. What these morons lack in wisdom they will make up in aggression, low impulse control and sheer numbers. History teaches that racial fury can easily be whipped to such a fever pitch that a majority population can be induced to go house-to-house with machetes, massacring their former neighbors. This happened in Rwanda in modern times, and in Haiti in 1804, when all of the remaining whites were slaughtered, down to the last infant. Surely one of the most evil things any government can do is to set the stage for genocide by designating a group for state-approved scapegoating.
The Heritage American Right’s Reaction
But the Democrat party’s Dunning-Kruger plus Cloward-Piven strategy to turn every state into another Calizuela with uncontrolled FACLI immigration has at least one major obstacle in its path: conservatives have made a close study of Leftist revolutionary strategies from Robespierre and Lenin to Alinsky and Obama. The Right’s deep understanding of this process is the reason why so many millions of firearms and billions of rounds of ammunition have been purchased in recent years. Millions of precision rifles dispersed in the hands of scores of millions of heritage Americans will be a game-changer, delaying or blocking the usual pattern of Leftist revolutionary genocide. At some as-yet unknown breaking point, the Left’s unstoppable DemSoc political wave will collide with the immovable object of armed Right-wing resistance.
Nobody can say when or where the precise Fort Sumter moment will occur, but when it comes, a bloody civil war will follow. However, unlike the 1861-65 festivities, there will be no convenient regional divide between the warring camps. Instead, the red-blue county-level election maps will be a more useful blueprint for the coming mayhem, and even then, counties will often be too broad of a measure. I would suggest readers might review my earlier essay The CW2 Cube: Mapping the Meta-Terrain of Civil War Two, as well as When the Music Stops, How America’s Cities May Explode in Violence, for an in-depth look at how a dirty civil war may unfold and manifest itself.
In short, Civil War Two will quickly become an urban versus rural conflict divided along demographic and cultural lines. This type of dirty civil war will be fought at the zip code and neighborhood level. Front lines will be vague and constantly shifting, with three or more local factions often competing for supremacy. It will be a civil war of secret arrests, disappearances, IEDs and targeted assassinations that will have many of the worst attributes of Argentina and Northern Ireland in the 1970s, or even Rwanda and former Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
And once this vicious civil war is in full swing, the odds are high that the power grid itself will become the target of ten thousand attacks. In such a fluid crazy-quilt battlespace as an all-out dirty civil war, shared infrastructure lines will run through both friendly and enemy territory. Every faction will have a veto on their downstream enemy’s power grid and water supply. Food supplies that today are trucked from hundreds or thousands of miles away will disappear in this dangerous environment. Brainwashed Dunning-Kruger Democrats and their FACLI reinforcements might not enjoy living around evil and oppressive white devils very much today, but they are going to enjoy life without electricity, food, and clean drinking water even less.
They will discover that it’s much easier to turn Minneapolis into Mogadishu than the reverse.
What will happen inside the blue hives that are presently organized as DemSoc vote-harvesting plantations, when the EBT system collapses? When no electricity, food or water is flowing in to sustain their populations? This dystopian dynamic is likely to occur in some cities or regions earlier than in others, and this will lead to the imposition of extremely harsh measures, including martial law and food rationing in other parts of the country.
Alternatively, where government control is weak, local vigilantism will become rampant.
But history is clear: no matter how draconian the emergency decrees, new laws will not by themselves restore the power grid, or purify and pump the water, or get the food supply chain moving again. That will require the end of the civil war and a return to civility and the normal rule of law. Civil War Two will be brutal in every corner of America, but it will be absolutely catastrophic for the inhabitants of the blue hives when their sustenance is cut off. The Dunning-Kruger Democrats and the FACLI immigrants will not be able to eat socialist slogans or drink officially-sanctioned racial hatred.
The mainstream Right is finally beginning to understand the Calizuelification process that is now underway across America, and that the process is designed to have no readily apparent stopping point, braking mechanism or antidote. During every stage, the process of imposing tyranny by stealth is cloaked with a veneer of bogus legality. But thanks to the vision and wisdom of our founding fathers, our liberty has two clear and unbreakable lines of defense: the First and Second Amendments.
Regarding freedom of speech, an important part of the Calizuelification process is the systematic deplatforming, throttling, shadow-banning and outright perma-banning of conservative voices on social media. (The mainstream news media and Hollywood have already been a willing part of the process for decades.) But even on a sharply tilted field, for the time being conservatives are still allowed to say what they want. America is not yet at the point that Europe has reached, where dissidents are arrested for complaining on the internet about the dire social consequences of unchecked mass FACLI immigration. Today American conservatives can speak their minds, even as the Leftists who control social media attempt to algorithmically turn their volume and impact levels down to zero. The Right will grumble, but they will accept increasing levels of censorship—until they don’t. That point is still unknown.
The other and greater protector of our liberty is the Second Amendment, guaranteeing our God-given right to keep and bear arms. Any politicians or law enforcement officials who move to deny our right to possess classes of weapons that have been readily available for over a century will be declaring themselves to be domestic enemies of the Constitution. The Right has exhaustively studied the long history of Leftist revolution and genocide, and knows very well that every genocide is preceded not only by the scapegoating of official state enemies, but also by the strict curtailment of their right to keep and bear arms in the dubious name of “public safety.”
This makes the Second Amendment a very bright and clear line, the crossing of which will surely mark the beginning of a new civil war. Make no mistake: no matter what excuses may be offered, when the government comes for the guns, they have declared war on the America people. Once widespread gun confiscation begins, politicians, law enforcement officials, and even news and entertainment personalities supporting the disarmament of Americans will be seen and targeted as legitimate domestic enemies. Readers may wish to peruse my earlier essay, Dear Mr. Security Agent, which is an open letter to members of law enforcement, or my short story What I Saw at the Coup.
And the DemSoc Left will indeed make the try, because without disarming the Right, their long-term stealth communization of America will fail. Then, instead of chalking up another Communist victory using their old Bolshevik, Gramscian and Alinskyite handbooks, the Left will face a withering firestorm of right-wing counterattacks. Action will beget reaction until a dirty civil war erupts in full fury, but how will this conflict eventually be resolved?
Consider that one side consists largely of millions of government-dependent Dunning-Kruger and FACLI Democrats who are incapable of feeding themselves even in normal times. Will they become more capable when their blue hives are cut off from electricity, food and water? And consider that their leaders are not much more intelligent than the hive-dwelling drones who elect them. During a Leftist revolution, all that is required for a telegenic leader to rise to power is the ability to shout utopian slogans and gather a following of like-minded idiots: witness the spectacular rise of the Communist nitwit Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
The other side in the dirty civil war will largely be composed of self-sufficient and liberty-oriented students of history, springing from a long and storied line that produced the most successful modernizers and civilizers the world has ever seen—as well as its most effective warriors and generals. Many of them have served in America’s recent overseas wars, often in special operations units.
The beginning of Civil War Two will definitively mark the end of the era of political correctness, and the artificial sense of superiority that PC brought to the Left by diminishing the audible voice of conservativism. Kipling’s Gods of the Copybook Heading will once again reassert their eternal rules over mankind. In the end, cold reality and natural law will prevail over Leftist social deconstruction and utopian fantasy. When it comes to High Noon on Main Street, when the fight boils down to scoped precision rifles against machetes at one hundred yards, I would not bet on the machete-wielders to prevail. No matter how angry or numerous they are today.
Both good articles.
The author does a good job singling out the 1996 election being a turning point for the internals of the Democrat party. We really saw the radical left grow to "maturity" within the party during GWB's terms. Recall the Code Pink protests, burning of Bush in effigy, etc.? It then shifted into high gear with Obama's terms.
Where we go after this, God help us...
Another great piece from Bracken and he's spot on about losing CA or FL.
I don't think the left has their sights set on FL the way they do TX right now. They've pulled out all the stops to, at the least, turn it into a swing state. They've already damaged FL to the point where it will fall soon enough. A Republican can win without FL but doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell with all of the EC votes of Texas.
If Trump bargains away amnesty, if even for a wall, as he hinted he might in a recent Tweet...
https://i.imgur.com/5K3uNGB.jpg
What Will It Take To Make You Understand And Accept That They Hate You?
January 28, 2019
By Kurt Schlichter
You need to die because of your smile.
That’s the position of our enemies, and we know it because they told us – openly, proudly, in the garbage public forum that is Twitter and elsewhere. Oh, they backtracked a little when the extent of their killing fantasies got exposed, scampering like their insect analogy, the roach, when someone flips on the kitchen light. But that kid in DC with the Frigidaireborne reefer ranger banging that drum in his baffled mug? They wanted that kid to die for having a Wrong Smile.
Cue the excuse chorus: “That’s nonsense! We just wanted to pummel that kid and then destroy him, his family and and all his classmates! Don’t look behind the curtain at the woodchipper comments and bomb threats, you cisnormative monsters!”
Think of what they would do with real power…
Accept that that kid was you, and me. If they’ll ice a kid for not having the right grin, they’ll waste you or me in a heartbeat. Murder is, after all, how leftists roll. The USSR, Red China, Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba – that cadaver-strewn litany teaches what’s lurking at the bottom of the slope we’re sliding down. The Dems are spooning with socialism, and the goal of socialism is written in blood on the pages of history. The unapproved must be liquidated, and they are making no secret that you are unapproved.
Understand that and accept it.
I know it’s hard. It goes against everything you’ve been taught to believe to acknowledge that that a significant and influential group of other Americans – not that they identify that way – want you dead or enslaved. But they do. The Fredocons will scoff, but the conservaquisling collaborators’ actions speak louder than their weasel words – they’re currying favor with the enemy, betting that their abject groveling and supine submission will mean that they get the chop last.
You better get your head in the game or you’ll find your head in a guillotine – definitely figuratively, maybe literally.
You want to reject this reality, to dismiss it, to wave it off as crazy talk. But listen to what they say. Watch what they do. Have the strength to accept the harsh truth that is punching you in the face.
They hate you for not submitting, for being an obstacle to their rule.
The problem is that you are nice, and you project your niceness. Projection is human nature. So while leftist spittle-spewing sociopaths project their own shriveled morality when they shriek about how we’re all racist fascists of fascist racism when racist fascism is actually their jam, we Normals tend to project our decency when we assume that our opponents are just confused friends who are in the throes of a grievous misunderstanding about us that we can remedy with facts and evidence.
That’s 100 percent wrong. Facts and evidence don’t matter because the trial is already over and you’ve already been condemned because of who you are. You can’t ever clear yourself with the left because they don’t hate you for what you did or will do, but for who you are. That’s where the babble about “white privilege” comes from – if you’re white and conservative you’re wrong, and if you’re not white and conservative, you’re even…wronger.
It’s not about race or gender or orientation, but about power – they want to take yours, to strip you of your sovereignty and make you kneel. Their SJW posturing is all a lie and a scam. They don’t care about ending racism, sexism, homophobia, or any of the myriad other -isms and -phobias they blather about. Those poses are just weapons to be used to capture what they really want – total power over you. They seek to shame you into submission, and if that won’t work, then they’ll do whatever it takes.
Do you think the Democrats of yesterday spent a lot of time weighing the evidence before lynching black men? Those Democrats murdered black men for two reasons – because they wanted to send a message to other black men about the price of resistance, and because they enjoyed doing it.
Orwell wrote about the daily “Two-Minute Hate,” and how is this any different? These unloveable losers have nothing else in their lives, no connection with anything, so they find meaning by joining together with other misfit psychopaths so they can lose themselves in a frenzy of hatred where they get to play the role of righteous avengers.
Think of what they would do with real power…
And understand that they might get it. The Democrat Party is not just listening to them. It’s being transformed by them. Name the prominent Democrat politician who stood up and said, “This Covington Kid crucifixion is wrong!”
Cue the tumbleweeds…
Not one. Not one senior Democrat said that this was wrong. In fact, the big names joined in. Big Chief Lizzy tweeted about how these designated monsters from Kentucky, with their MAGA hats and audacity to march in support of their political beliefs, had disrespected a “Vietnam War veteran.” Even as this is written, and even after garbage outlets like the garbage Washington Post have had to confess their credulous reporting of Dick Blumenthal’s Saigon battle buddy’s garbage lies, Senator 1/1024th’s demonstrably false Twitter smoke signal is still up.
Think of what they would do with real power…
Do you think that a leftist Supreme Court majority won’t construe the First Amendment to exclude protection for “hate speech,” by which I mean any thoughts you might wish to express that they object to?
Do you think they won’t turn the federal bureaucracy – including law enforcement – against their political enemies a thousand times harder than before, having been rewarded for the last decade of doing so?
Do you think they won’t start tossing dissenters into prison? They do in England. You can go to jail for a tweet there – and do you think the left thinks that’s a bad thing, or a creative European innovation that needs to be imported?
How about the Second Amendment? Are you kidding? The idea that our citizenry maintains the ultimate veto over tyranny drives them bonkers.
Do you think they won’t use violence to make you conform? Hell, Democrat presidential candidate Eric Swalwell is willing to nuke you for not giving up your guns. We know that because he said so.
It’s time to stop pretending that people who hate our guts don’t hate our guts, and that given the chance they won’t act exactly like people who hate our guts would act.
The time to stop them is now, while we still can peacefully, before they quit tweeting about killing and start doing it beyond the occasional Bernie Bro at a ball field. We need to purge the weakhearts and Fredocons from positions of authority in our movement and be all-in for victory in 2020. In the meantime, we need to aggressively push our campaign to remake the courts. And it sure would not hurt to follow the Founders‘ advice to exercise our Second Amendment rights to reinforce the deterrent to tyranny that is an armed citizenry.
Just remember to smile as you fight to keep your freedom, because that shows them that they don’t get to win.
Now, if you want to see in more (action-packed and often hilarious) detail what will happen if they ever do get real power, check out my latest novel, Wildfire, and my earlier installments People’s Republicand Indian Country. Those 100 million corpses generated by socialism in the last century are not a hypothetical.
Exterminating Whitey
The end game of identity politics
January 28, 2019
In case anyone still needs confirmation, the rage and frenzy surrounding the supposed standoff caught on video last week between Covington Catholic High School students and an anti-Catholic, Native American activist demonstrates as nothing else has lately that the political left’s primary aim, the end game of identity politics, is the demonization of white Christian men.
Covington student Nicholas Sandmann (pictured above) was the unfortunate epicenter of this tempest-in-a-teapot concocted entirely by the activist media, in which he and his classmates were falsely portrayed as racist bullies surrounding and taunting a frail Native American “elder,” Nathan Phillips. The truth – that it was the schoolboys who were verbally assaulted by Black Hebrew Israelite activists, and that Sandmann did and said nothing but stand his ground and smile in the face of Phillips’ provocation – swiftly came to light, but not before the entire country had squared off over the lie.
It wasn’t that the news media got the story wrong, which would imply that they made a mistake, but that they didn’t care about getting it right. They didn’t care, because they saw an opportunity to dehumanize a white male wearing that triggering symbol of white supremacy, the “Make America Great Again” cap, and decided to run with a narrative that could be weaponized against President Trump and his “angry white male” supporters. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it,” master strategist Saul Alinsky once taught, and Catholic white boy Sandmann became the left’s target of the moment.
Some media outlets gradually and quietly backed off from their original rush to judgment as more video and context emerged, but the damage was done, the political divide between Americans was widened, and the more fervent leftists clung to their bigoted view that Sandmann represents the toxic, Christian white male underbelly of an America that bears racism in its very DNA, as Barack Obama once declared.
The media hurricane was reminiscent of the crazed spectacle of last October’s confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a devout Catholic who was viewed as the poster boy for the left’s favorite bogeyman, “white privilege.” Based on a single, decades-old, evidence-free allegation, the Alinsky-trained left smeared Kavanaugh as a drunken sexual predator (and even pedophile) whose addition to the Court would hurl women into a misogynistic dystopia straight out of The Handmaid’s Tale.
Sandmann is the left’s new Kavanaugh. On Twitter, BuzzFeed senior culture correspondent Anne Helen Petersen made that connection explicit by pairing Sandmann’s photo with one of Justice Kavanaugh’s smiling face and called their expressions “the look of white patriarchy.” Ebony Elizabeth Thomas, a University of Pennsylvania associate professor in education, tweeted that Sandmann represents “the smiling face of whiteness.” So “Smiling While White” is now essentially a hate crime. In fact, Smiling While White is not even considered a smile; it’s a “smirk,” and smirking is now seen as something only whites do. Has no one ever seen Barack Obama’s face?
Last month Democrat Senators Kamala Harris and Mazie Hirono grilled Trump judicial nominee Brian Buescher over his membership in the Catholic fraternal organization, the Knights of Columbus. Both hard-left Senators referred to the KoC’s “extreme positions” and Harris complained that it was an “all-male” institution – because any Christian-based institution that is all-male must be a hotbed of rapey patriarchs. Last week, Dan Levin, a reporter from the New York Times, went on Twitter with the hashtag “ExposeChristianSchools” digging for dirt on Christian educators. The day after his confrontation with Covington Catholic students, Nathan Phillips and his drum-and-chant ensemble, who demand reparations from the Catholic Church for indigenous peoples, tried to disrupt a Mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington D.C.
What all this comes down to is identity politics, the Marxist-inspired ideology of divide-and-conquer. It shrewdly posits that the dynamics of Western society can be reduced simply to the conflict between oppressor and oppressed, and thus the most effective way to resist and ultimately overcome the oppressor is to define and categorize people not by their individual character but collectively by the immutabilities of race and sex. In America as well as elsewhere in the Western world, the oppressor is seen as the Christian white male, and all other identities belong to one or more categories of the oppressed. The end game is not unity of the body politic, not e pluribus unum, but the overthrow of the oppressor.
In this worldview, if you are, say, black, then you are defined as an oppressed class regardless of what you think and believe, regardless of your economic stratum, regardless of your life experience. If you are a black who resents being lumped in with other blacks simply because of your skin color, and you resist the expectation to consider yourself a victim of white supremacy, then in the view of identity politics you aren’t really black. You are ostracized as a race traitor. Likewise for members of other designated victim groups.
But for all the left’s obsession with victims, the demographic facing far-and-away the most open bigotry today is the oppressor class, white Christian men. Nowhere is this more evident than in the indoctrination mills of our universities, where entire Women’s Studies and Ethnic Studies departments extol the righteous victimhood of the oppressed classes, alongside proliferating programs on “deconstructing whiteness” and “toxic masculinity.” In response to the Covington controversy, Kevin Allred, a white man and purported educator who teaches a course in “Politicizing Beyoncé,” tweeted that “white people really are terrorists. whiteness is terrorism.” Substitute "blackness," "Jewishness," or "Muslims" for "white people" in that tweet and there would be a flood of hate speech accusations and a Twitter ban. But because the left has made it culturally acceptable to spew hatred at whites, Allred will face no consequences. Whites who object to this are dismissed by the left as whining snowflakes – proving the point that blatant bigotry against them is acceptable.
None of this is new. Western civilization and the Christian white males with whom it is identified have been targeted increasingly for decades in the name of diversity and multiculturalism (recall Rev. Jesse Jackson in the 1980s leading Stanford protesters in the chant, “Hey ho, hey ho, Western Civ has got to go”?). As far back as twenty years ago, David Horowitz published a collection of essays called Hating Whitey about this dangerous phenomenon and its “growth industry” of anti-white activists and academics. Getting from hating whitey to literally exterminating whitey may be a bridge too far, but dismantling the purported white power structure by dehumanizing white males, inculcating a deep sense of guilt and self-hatred in them, and squeezing them out of positions of authority and influence is manageable and already underway.
Especially with the onset of Trump Derangement Syndrome, the left has ramped up this offensive against the Christian white male “oppressors” such as 16-year-old Nicholas Sandmann who stand in the way of their “inclusive” Marxist utopia. And like Sandmann, we must stand our ground.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.timetoas...jpg?1365496457
Nikita Khrushchev: "We will bury you"
"Your grandchildren will live under communism."
“You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.
We won’t have to fight you."
We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands."
Members Of An Antifa “Gun Club” Are Fishing For Death With This Fake Gun Stunt
http://redice.tv/a/c/n/17/04282114-J...e.ab94b306.jpg
http://fmshooter.com/wp-content/uplo...ddit-image.png
https://i2.wp.com/fmshooter.com/wp-c...size=862%2C569
In March of 2017, Free Market Shooter exposed the “Phoenix John Brown Gun Club”, which, according to many observers showed anti-Trump “counter protesters” showing up to a pro-Trump rally in Phoenix, Arizona openly carrying what appeared to be fake firearms:
The only reference to firearms training was in their “events” page, which had an event that took place on March 5th, titled “Introduction to Tactical Firearms”. It had 46 guests. There were no upcoming events, and the prior four events had absolutely nothing to do with firearms.The group has appeared to respond to criticisms of “LARPing” with fake guns by releasing a YouTube video entitled “Phoenix John Brown Gun Club – Range Day”. But this video ends up exposing not only the group’s laughable lack of experience with firearms, it all but confirms the (even more difficult to deny) accusation that their “open carry” demonstration did include several fake firearms.
Not much of a “gun club” at all, is it? Would you really be surprised to find out that many of their members didn’t even carry real firearms to an “open carry” demonstration against a Trump rally?
The video (still up on YouTube when this article was published) is below:
The shooting “range” in question during this video appears to be a spot in the desert. The “range” is littered with trash, as it appears PJBGC doesn’t bother to pick up after themselves. With a maximum distance of about 50 meters, most shooting takes place at what appears to be about 50 feet, if that… including the rifle “shootout” segments of the video.
Bear in mind, the US Army Field Manual on marksmanship indicates that the weapon is zeroed (sighted) at 25 meters, with qualified training taking place at 50 meters or further, and a maximum scored distance of 300 meters. Then again, even at the shorter distances, PJBGC doesn’t even seem particularly concerned with zeroing their weapons at all.
This is evident in their “shootout” starting at 2:09. I counted a number of shots completely missing the targets, at a distance that was no greater than 25 meters, most likely much closer than that. Bear in mind what the US Army Manual states on 25-meter “zeroing”:
https://i0.wp.com/fmshooter.com/wp-c...size=855%2C438
After completing Phases I and II, the Soldier conducts a firing event (Table 7-29) to zero or confirm the zero on his weapon and reinforce the fundamentals of marksmanship. This firing event will be conducted on a 25-meter range. If the Soldier cannot zero within 18 rounds, the trainer recommends retraining, retesting, or possible removal from the course. After the weapon is zeroed, any additional rounds will be fired and the coach will observe the Soldier for deficiencies in his marksmanship fundamentals.
https://i0.wp.com/fmshooter.com/wp-c...size=850%2C452
But don’t worry, certainly the PJBGC has other marksmanship qualifiers outside of the US Army Manual, right?
Take a closer look at two of the people who participated in said “shootout”:
https://i0.wp.com/fmshooter.com/wp-c...size=316%2C207
The one on the left appears at many points throughout the video, including a bayonet “intimidation” charge which will be discussed later. He appears to be the same man who appeared in the above photos from the March rally in a blue shirt, and can be seen wearing what appear to be the same pants, shoes, bandana and accessory pouch at the PJBGC “Range Day” as he did in March, only with a white shirt this time.
What’s different about him this time besides the shirt? The firearm, of course… because at no point in the video does any “drum” magazine appear to be used at all, by anyone. In fact, the “blue shirt” man in question from the top “counter protest” photo (on the left) appears to be using the wooden SKS-style rifle carried by the guy on the right of the first photo throughout the entire “Range Day” video.
As for the one circled on the right? She is seen firing an AK-style rifle during the video, and when her rifle appears to jam, she appears to not only perform several “dry” trigger pulls, she also appears to have no idea how to clear the jam. Which is hardly surprising, as she is seen later in the video at 4:21 firing a completely different rifle, under supervision of a man in camo gear, who appears to supervise nearly all of the “Range Day” participants.
Yes, the SKS appears to be the one of the only real rifles from the entire group that appeared in the March photos above, as the others made no appearance whatsoever at the PJBGC “Range Day”. The only other exception is the large scoped AR-derivative rifle (note the ultra-lite stock) which would likely be designed for ideal use at 100+meters… being fired at a distance at no more than 10 meters. It appears to be fired by the dreadlocked red bandana girl from the above photos which also appears to be the rifle she she toted in March, at 1:08:
https://i1.wp.com/fmshooter.com/wp-c...size=442%2C314
Notice: not only does she need to fire said rifle with supervision from the man in camo overlooking; just seconds earlier, the same exact rifle with the low-profile stock in question was seen being carried by another participant at the “arming table”, while she was standing right next to the person …
https://i1.wp.com/fmshooter.com/wp-c...size=312%2C402
…and the rifle in question is later seen appearing to be fired by the above girl in red stripes during the other “shootout” at 5:14. If this is indeed a real rifle, it is almost certainly not owned by the woman who toted it at the open carry “counter protest”, even if the owner let her fire off a few rounds for appearance’s sake.
In fact, with the exception of the aforementioned SKS, and the scoped AR with the low-profile stock, none of the other weapons pictured at the “counter protest” appear anywhere in the “Range Day” video. While there are clearly many real rifles sprinkled into the group, three out of four of the “fake ones” in the second photo of the “counter protest” have all but confirmed to be fake after all, including the one carried in March by Mr. Bayonet Charge…
https://i1.wp.com/fmshooter.com/wp-c...size=278%2C481
…who is the aforementioned “white shirt” guy who toted a fake gun at March’s “counter protest”, this time executing a “bayonet charge” on a thoroughly shot-up “Pepe the Frog” target with the SKS he is seen shooting earlier… of course, with supervision:
https://i2.wp.com/fmshooter.com/wp-c...size=340%2C481
Do not take this the wrong way – there is absolutely nothing wrong with first-time and/or beginner shooters learning how to both handle firearms and the proper fundamentals of marksmanship. In fact, you’ll notice most shooters welcome first-timers to shooting ranges, and teach them how to handle firearms properly and safely… which appears to be the one thing PJBGC gets right – safe usage of firearms under controlled conditions. The more people who understand safe operation of firearms, the better off we all are.
Still, it was clearly far too easy to expose the inexperience and overall lack of firearms proficiency this “gun club” chooses to assign to itself, all while shooting a video intended to intimidate its adversaries. These are clearly beginners, with a glaring lack of general marksmanship skills, masquerading as a trained combat-ready group, openly carrying firearms in an attempt to show pro-Trump supporters just how tough they are… or in this case, aren’t.
Take note, PJBGC… real “gun guys” are not fooled. It is rather easy to see how capable (or incapable) you are with a firearm after watching your “intimidation video”. You can strap up and act tough, but you better be careful if you plan on making yourself a target… when the bullets start flying, that firearm you’re toting isn’t going to do you much good (beyond putting a big bulls-eye on your back) if you can’t fire it accurately. Of course, that all assumes the gun is even real in the first place, and not one of the fake ones exposed being carried in March.
But, good luck trying to explain that to PJBGC… in spite of the negative response they’ve received to this video, it is rather difficult for you to explain that to them – they made sure to disable comments for the video.
https://i2.wp.com/fmshooter.com/wp-c...size=862%2C340
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2...ake-gun-stunt/
Antifa “Gun Club” Responds To Fake Gun Critics With Laughable “Range Day” Intimidation Video
The group has appeared to respond to criticisms of “LARPing” with fake guns by releasing a YouTube video entitled “Phoenix John Brown Gun Club – Range Day”. But this video ends up exposing not only the group’s laughable lack of experience with firearms, it all but confirms the (even more difficult to deny) accusation that their “open carry” demonstration did include several fake firearms.
The video (still up on YouTube when this article was published) is below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CywFbSdMVx0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CywFbSdMVx0
It was clearly far too easy to expose the inexperience and overall lack of firearms proficiency this “gun club” chooses to assign to itself, all while shooting a video intended to intimidate its adversaries. These are clearly beginners, with a glaring lack of general marksmanship skills, masquerading as a trained combat-ready group, openly carrying firearms in an attempt to show pro-Trump supporters just how tough they are… or in this case, aren’t.
Take note, PJBGC… real “gun guys” are not fooled. It is rather easy to see how capable (or incapable) you are with a firearm after watching your “intimidation video”. You can strap up and act tough, but you better be careful if you plan on making yourself a target… when the bullets start flying, that firearm you’re toting isn’t going to do you much good (beyond putting a big bulls-eye on your back) if you can’t fire it accurately. Of course, that all assumes the gun is even real in the first place, and not one of the fake ones exposed being carried in March
http://fmshooter.com/antifa-gun-club...idation-video/
I love seeing these Commies with their guns!
Now,
https://i.imgur.com/BD9lRR4.jpg
The Young Turks' Hasan Piker: Redistribution of Wealth Is Coming, "By Policy Or By Pitchforks"
Posted By Ian Schwartz
On Date February 7, 2019
'The Young Turks' commentator Hasan Piker explains why 'billionaire' is a dirty word and warned that a more equitable redistribution of wealth is coming, "by policy or by pitchforks."
HASAN PIKER, THE YOUNG TURKS: Technological advances have rendered globalism an unstoppable force so we have to adapt to it. One immediate way of doing that is through drastic wealth redistribution and that starts with banning billionaires. Part of the point of having a society, of having government is to "promote the general welfare." Welfare -- it's literally right there in the preamble in the Constitution.
Yet for some reason, we've been propagandized into believing that the purpose of the government is to clear the path for individuals to acquire and hoard ungodly amounts of wealth, regardless of the consequences to the rest of us or the health of the society as a whole. And now people all around the world are waking up. They are coming to the realization that this is no way to run a society and perhaps that's why 'billionaire' is becoming a bad word.
Look, this may scare you. But a more equitable distribution of wealth is coming, whether it is by policy or by pitchforks. So it's up to you guys. Which one is it going to be?
This just came across my Facebook feed. Not sure how I missed it in September since I try to keep an eye on TTAG.
The Violent Left Says They Want a Civil War: Antifa Forming A ‘Red Army’
September 1, 2018
A year ago, I wrote about the left’s civil war heating up in America. Since then, Antifa and company continue their armed marches against freedom and liberty. Initially, Antifa groups got away scot-free, beating Trump supporters bloody while, of course, calling them fascists and Nazis. More recently though, Antifa’s masked thugs have been the ones suffering the thumpings in direct confrontations.
In response, radicals have ramped up their efforts to form what they’re calling a “Red Army.” Why? To “annihilate” their enemies, of course.
Really. From one of the Red Guards Austin manifestos, posted August 19th and still online:
Oppose the Counterfeit! Antifascism Must Take On a Paramilitary Character!
…The fact that no fascists were harmed in the making of this “counter-protest” only proves that the main organizers have no stomach for antifascism—for us antifascism is concrete—it does not mean simply voicing a disagreement it means stopping fascists in their tracks and hurting their efforts to the point where they stop organizing.
…On the basis of our principled united front work, fascists and their collaborators can be drowned out, run out, routed, beaten bloody, and even annihilated. These are our principles and we aim to hold them to the very finish.
The twisted minds of these radical leftists view their unlawful, unprovoked violence against their political enemies as self-defense. In reality, their “self-defense” looks a whole lot like textbook fascism. In other words, using force and violence to suppress opposing points of view.
One thing seems perfectly clear. If the authorities do not stop and prosecute this sort of political violence, peace-loving American gun owners will. The will have no choice but to protect themselves, as is their right.
Looking back to the 2016 elections, the radicals in Antifa and their Black Bloc BFFs freely “drowned out, run out, routed, beaten bloody, and even annihilated” their fellow Americans. Local cops, some ordered to stand down, allowed the political violence to go effectively unchecked.
Or worse yet, cops in some places acted in concert with the violent left. In San Jose, Ninth Circuit appellate court justices have allowed a lawsuit against the police to proceed. Cops there not only failed to protect Trump supporters at an organized rally, but actually routed them into a mass of violent “counter-protesters.”
How did these Antifa types get away with this for so long? Sympathetic local government leaders, coupled with Americans’ reluctance to settle political disagreements via violence allowed this to happen.
It goes without saying that Antifa has no reservations about using violence to achieve their political goals. In fact, these masked thugs who fancy themselves anti-fascists live by Alinski’s Rules for Radicals.
“Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
“Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
“Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
“A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
“A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
“Keep the pressure on.”
“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
“The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
“If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside”
“The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
Particularly when it comes to violence, the left loves Rule #4 by counting on their fellow Americans not to risk possibly breaking the law to defend themselves. The left knows that everyday Americans will avoid resorting to violence, sometimes even when attacked. Since childhood, our society has taught people to eschew, and not embrace violence. And decent, well-adjusted, civilized people do indeed avoid violence.
Couple the reluctance to fight back with Rule #9, “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself,” this allows bullies to make threats to bully and intimidate others into silence. In other words, using the threat of violence is enough to suppress opposing viewpoints. That’s fascism.
Antifa never really believed that conservative Americans might actually answer violent attacks…with violence. It’s one thing for bullies to intimidate through force of numbers. It’s another when bullies see and taste their own blood.
This past summer, the right has organized and successfully pushed back against masked troublemakers. In most cases, it hasn’t gone well for the true fascists. Masked toughs don’t respond well when their intended victims don’t run, but fight back instead. In fact, masked tough guys tend to break and run pretty quickly when faced with violent resistance.
Take Mr. Masked Antifa, who tried to wield an expandable baton in Oregon earlier this summer. One punch and he was down for the count. Here’s the video.
In the streets where I live, attacking someone with a baton – with or without a mask – carries the risk of getting shot and taking the room temperature challenge.
Speaking of Portland: the battle of Portland his summer resulted in a near complete rout for the Black Bloc.
At another Portland event, an Antifa member’s crash course in kung fu got him knocked out cold. He learned that going hands-on carries risks. Especially when the other person is not intimidated by a group of Black Bloc bullies.
So faced with these humiliating defeats, the Antifa crowd now apparently is seeking an arms race.
From that same Red Guards Austin manifesto:
…we encourage the formation of paramilitary organizations on two levels. The first being those who are mainly unarmed but are prepared and trained to carry out fist fighting or using blunt weapons like axe handles or flagpoles as well as shields and basic armoring. The second level is the more advanced embryo of a Red Army, which is trained militarily and operates as soldiers all the time, engaging in production and mass work among the proletariat and the oppressed nation’s people.
I know from experience participating in and teaching Appleseed shoots that gun ownership doesn’t make a skilled marksman any more than piano ownership makes a skilled musician. At the same time, we know that bad music won’t kill innocent people.
Hopefully this is nothing more than fanciful talk from the radical left and will go nowhere. However, they have already demonstrated a willingness to tool-up and to use violence to suppress opposing viewpoints. If and when these “Red Guards” put their two acts together, they may win the first round of bloodshed.
Shortly thereafter, sanity will prevail and they will learn first-hand what Americans are willing to do to defend their freedom.