The reactionary program for the coming civil war

The reactionary program is fallen governance for a fallen world: Immanentizing the Eschaton is the progressive program, it is the opposite of the reactionary program. Whosoever claims that the truest and most pure reaction will Immanentize the Eschaton is a progressive entryist, like those telling Muslims that Islam is the religion of peace, therefore the truest Islam is something that is suspiciously progressive sounding, like those telling Christians that single mothers are heroes, and that they should adopt blacks from Saharan Africa.

“hello fellow white male hetero sexual reactionaries. My reaction is purer than your reaction. And yet at the same time we need to be acceptable to moderates in order to obtain the broadest possible outreach.”

Reaction deals with fallen men as they actually are – hence we want our ruling bandit to be a stationary bandit evil overlord, and view the primary problem with government as mobile banditry – that anonymous bureaucrats have, as Taleb says, no stake in the game. We are worried about the evil overlord’s incentives, and not much worried about whether he represents the people, and not much worried whether he is nice and virtuous. We want a good man for Archbishop, but someone mighty like Trump for President, President for Life, King, God King, and Holy American Emperor.

If Trump successfully does a Stalin or a Cromwell, freezes leftism at the current year, that will be great, for the full implementation of the reactionary program is likely to be through all out war, where cities get burned, likely by nuclear fire, women and children get massacred, and the winning side is the side most willing to do the most terrible things.

If he does a Sulla, and rolls leftism back to 1933 that will be even better.

If he rolls leftism back to the leftism of the founders, better still. Best of all if he gets crowned God Emperor of the New Holy American empire, does a Charles the Hammer and a Charles the Second and rolls things back to 1660, in which case we are likely to get one hundred and sixty years of reaction.

The worst case outcome however, and a very likely outcome, is long, bloody, and terrible civil war with our enemies masters of the state. Trump gets impeached, not long after that imprisoned, and not long after that he and his entire family is murdered like the Romanovs as civil war and white genocide begins. In which case we will have to whip up our own state in one hell of a hurry.

  • Everyone who practices with a gun on the gun range is on our side.
  • Most men who lift iron are on our side.
  • Most men who practice the seriously dangerous martial arts on our side.
  • The great majority of young white males are our side.
  • Deus Vult. God is on our side.

But as well as that, if our enemies have a state, we will need a state.

Whites are in line for hot genocide. Whites also have more capability for war than any other race. No other race, no other people, have ever shown anything close to the capacity for organized mass violence. Which means that to re-awaken our capability, we need organization and mass.

To re-awaken the sleeping warrior, reward him for victory personally and individually with land, women and power, as well as with land and power for his platoon, his company, and his regiment. He will be back.

Set the status of women back to what it was in eighteenth century England, or better, back to what it was in the Carolingian empire. He will be back.

If the state remains in the hands of people who wish to destroy us, we will have to build our own state, and the quickest way to whip up a state from nothing much is feudalism and freehold – the full reactionary program. Every company and every regiment needs to be largely responsible for its own logistics, and will need its own pool of camp followers, thus will need its own domain of state power.

It would be better if part of the existing state comes over to us, with its existing institutions, in which case we will get something considerably less than the full reactionary program, very likely will get a Cromwellian program. We are not in this to build utopia. Reaction is impure in its essence, being committed to doing the best we can in a regrettably fallen world. The Cromwellian program would be great. Whosoever signals reactionary purity, signals leftism. We are, however, in this to win. If we cannot win with the existing state, or a breakaway part of it, will have to win without, and the full reactionary program is fully optimized for power, war, and the regrettable necessity of dreadful deeds.

From Jim’s blog.

A division not of states, but of peoples.

Just as the ShieldWall Network does not believe in equality and interchangeability between the races, nor equality within our race, not every place in states which contain seedbed White ethnostates are equally viable for White flight refugees. St. Louis and Little Rock are not good places to make a stand, even though they are in Missouri and Arkansas, respectively. It is southern Missouri and northern Arkansas where Ozarkia lies, and not even every town and county is equal demographically within it. That’s why we encourage those moving here to contact us for information on locales most conducive to accepting White flight refugees first, rather than just showing up or searching for property online.

Arkansas, for example, is two distinct states culturally and demographically, broadly defined as New Afrika in the south and east and Ozarkia in the north and west, a demarcation generally defined by I-30 running diagonally southwest to northeast. Here is a comparative compilation of data on some cities in the state, as instructive models:

The data shows that these 8 cities are currently among the most dangerous in the Natural State for 2018:
Pine Bluff
In Pine Bluff 20.96% of the population is Caucasian.
In Pine Bluff 76.63% of the population is African American.
In Pine Bluff 0.96% of the population is Asian.
Little Rock
In Little Rock 51.01% of the population is Caucasian.
In Little Rock 41.89% of the population is African American.
In Little Rock 2.95% of the population is Asian.
Blytheville
In Blytheville 39.36% of the population is Caucasian.
In Blytheville 59.06% of the population is African American.
In Blytheville 0.22% of the population is Asian.
Forrest City
In Forrest City 28.55% of the population is Caucasian.
In Forrest City 65.40% of the population is African American.
In Forrest City 0.40% of the population is Asian.
West Memphis
In West Memphis 32.84% of the population is Caucasian.
In West Memphis 63.50% of the population is African American.
In West Memphis 0.68% of the population is Asian.
El Dorado
In El Dorado 47.88% of the population is Caucasian.
In El Dorado 49.50% of the population is African American.
In El Dorado 0.64% of the population is Asian.
Hope
In Hope 44.23% of the population is Caucasian.
In Hope 45.09% of the population is African American.
In Hope 0.00% of the population is Asian.
The data shows that these 8 cities are currently among the safest in the Natural State for 2018:
Greenbrier
In Greenbrier 95.14% of the population is Caucasian.
In Greenbrier 1.90% of the population is African American.
In Greenbrier 0.43% of the population is Asian.
Lowell
In Lowell 85.81% of the population is Caucasian.
In Lowell 0.71% of the population is African American.
In Lowell 4.31% of the population is Asian.
Bella Vista
In Bella Vista 95.74% of the population is Caucasian.
In Bella Vista 0.83% of the population is African American.
In Bella Vista 0.82% of the population is Asian.
Greenwood
In Greenwood 96.06% of the population is Caucasian.
In Greenwood 0.06% of the population is African American.
In Greenwood 0.74% of the population is Asian.
Bentonville
In Bentonville 81.62% of the population is Caucasian.
In Bentonville 2.65% of the population is African American.
In Bentonville 10.23% of the population is Asian.
Cabot
In Cabot 92.38% of the population is Caucasian.
In Cabot 1.17% of the population is African American.
In Cabot 1.58% of the population is Asian.
Batesville
In Batesville 87.00% of the population is Caucasian.
In Batesville 3.78% of the population is African American.
In Batesville 2.30% of the population is Asian.
Mountain Home
In Mountain Home 97.04% of the population is Caucasian.
In Mountain Home 0.35% of the population is African American.
In Mountain Home 0.32% of the population is Asian.
Do you notice anything interesting between the best and worst places to live in Arkansas?

 

Guerrillas vs Gorillas

Along with physical prepping, such as obtaining and training to proficiency with firearms, comes psychological prepping. ShieldWall Network affiliates should read this lengthy study of the history and practice of guerrilla warfare. 

In this interview with Ted Midward of Caucasian Christian Communications, Tom Chittum, the author of “Civil War Two: The Coming Breakup of America”, discusses how the inevitable balkanization will likely begin and play out.

ShieldWall Network Coordinator Billy Roper will do an interview with Ted next week, to follow up and expand on this topic.

What will it take to start a domestic conflict?

From: Forward Observer

“It will never happen.”

That’s often a response I get when I start talking about why I think we’re headed towards a domestic conflict. Never mind that we’re seeing the early warning hallmarks of a civil war/domestic conflict; most people can’t be bothered to consider the possibility. But, in fact, we’re probably already in a very low grade domestic conflict and we’re just waiting to see when/if it goes hot.

Here’s the key thing about our future conflict: it won’t be a conventional war. We’re not talking about tanks in the streets or bombing insurgents into submission. The combatants of tomorrow won’t take part in pitched battles of maneuver warfare, but they’ll engage in what we’re already seeing:

  • political warfare
  • economic warfare
  • information operations/propaganda
  • cultural/class war
  • sporadic political violence

In other words, our war includes all the activities below the threshold of conventional war, but above routine, peaceful competition. Calls to boycott Tesla because Elon Musk donated to Congressional Republicans is an example of economic warfare. Boycotts of all stripes and terminating employment based on political affiliation is economic warfare; it’s intended to damage the livelihoods of political opponents. The steady stream of labeling as “fascist” and “Nazi” those who aren’t actually fascists or Nazis is information warfare intended to de-humanize political opponents and make them easier to target. Fomenting racial animosity and class war is a great indicator of social unrest because one of the requisites of domestic conflict is a politicized social base with a grievance; the bigger the grievance, the more the unrest. Politicized social bases who arm themselves to solve their grievances, instead of solving them through political channels, start insurgencies and revolutions. Violence against civilians to achieve political goals is terrorism. (We’re seeing examples of all these things, as reported in the National Intelligence Bulletin.)

It’s increasingly likely that we’ll arrive at a point where one or more of these politicized social bases arrives at the conclusion that their problems can’t be solved through political channels, or that nonviolent solutions are less preferable than violent ones. Some will scoff, but there’s a very good chance that we have another recession within the next few years. High youth unemployment is a universal early warning indicator of civil unrest, and we’re likely to see high youth unemployment during the next recession (and especially so as automation, machine learning, and artificial intelligence change our economic landscape). We should absolutely consider the possibility not just that a domestic conflict is possible, but that it’s probably already here — again, just a very low level.

Let’s address the psychology of violence in general and compare it to domestic conflict. At an individual level, why is anyone moved to violence? Why do people engage in seemingly irrational behavior (like indiscriminate or targeted violence)? Because they feel that violence is justified or they’re able to rationalize their decisions (i.e., violence against “fascists” is rationalized because “the mere existence of a fascist is an inherently violent act”). Why did a shooter attempt to murder Republican congressmen last year? Because he was able to rationalize the violence against them (“Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.”, according to his Facebook post). The media greatly aids in extending the myth of fascist Trump (he’s obviously no fascist), and the constant drum beat of victim pimping over issues of class, race, privilege, and capitalism perpetuate a grievance and victimhood culture. It’s this resentment, especially over issues of race and class, that’s historically been exploited to move people to violence.

At a broader level, countrymen (politicized social bases) go to war against themselves when the alternative to war (i.e., being dominated or conquered) is less preferable than fighting, and they feel that they can or should use violence to achieve their political objectives. War in America will increasingly look like tribal and gang conflict, but along the lines of politics, culture, race/ethnicity, and class, and armed with the tools of economic and information warfare that ultimately generates violence.

According to a recent Rasmussen survey, nearly one-third of Americans believe that the U.S. will have some kind of civil war within the next five years. In that same poll, half of all Americans felt that the country was more divided as a result of the Obama administration, which divided Americans by race/ethnicity and class for eight years. [source] You can’t create fault lines to exploit for political gain, and then complain later when there’s an earthquake… yet that’s exactly where we are.

No one can tell the future, but we can identify trends. We are trending towards more social upheaval, spurred on by demographic and cultural shifts (“America is for us” nationalists vs “America is for everyone” internationalists; traditionalists/conservatives vs progressive globalists; capitalists vs socialists/communists) and technological advancement (machine learning, automation, artificial intelligence, and robotics which will be very economically disruptive). All these factors will change the political landscape in America, and we should be open to the potential for generational war because that’s how long this domestic conflict could last until it can be resolved. (For some context, the Irish Troubles lasted roughly 30 years.)

Those are my thoughts this morning.

Always Out Front,

Samuel Culper

 

20 Preppers Speculate What Civil War 2.0 Would Look Like in America

From The Organic Prepper

The division in America has become so dramatic over the past year that many people can only foresee it heading one place: Civil War.

There’s a pronounced uptick in violence and protests (often going hand in hand.) Free speech is being crushed by the opposition with the mere threat of violent responses. Statues and memorials are being vandalized or defended. Protesters show up armed and armored, ready for battle. The media throws gasoline on these flames with reports solely laying the blame on one side. Some groups are openly planning sedition and no one is trying to stop them.

Our country has reached a point of such division that it’s hard to imagine how we could once again become united.

The events are snowballing…

Historian and strategist Gregory Copley wrote:

Yes, there is a civil war looming in the United States.

But it will not look like the orderly pattern of descent which characterized the conflict of 1861-65. It will appear more like the Yugoslavia break-up, or the Russian and Chinese civil wars of the 20th Century.

It will appear as an evolving chaos…

…It is significant that the gathering crisis in the United States was not precipitated by the November 7, 2016, election of Pres. Donald Trump, and neither was the growing polarization of the United Kingdom’s society caused by the Brexit vote of 2016.

In both instances, the election of Mr Trump and the decision by UK voters for Britain to exit the European Union were late reactions — perhaps too late — by the regional populations of both countries to what they perceived as the destruction of their nation-states by “urban super-oligarchies”.

The last-ditch reactions by those who voted in the US for Donald Trump and those who voted in the UK for Brexit were against an urban-based globalism which has been building for some seven decades, with the deliberate or accidental intent of destroying nations and nationalism. It is now crystallizing into this: urban globalism sees nations and nationalism as the enemy, and vice-versa.

The battle lines have been drawn. (source)

And this makes sense if you consider that the majority of Clinton voters were from heavily populated urban areas like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York City. As well, Mr. Copley points out, the urban globalists control the greater part of the media.

Urban globalists control most of the means of communications [is this new “means of production”; the 21st Century marxian dialectic?] and therefore control “information” and the perception of events.

“Nationalists”, then, are operating instinctively, and in darkness. (source)

He’s certainly not wrong.

Oh – and before someone chimes in and starts hysterically talking about “white nationalists” – Mr. Copley isn’t referring to the KKK. He’s referring to people who put national interests ahead of global interests.

Some folks believe that Civil War 2.0 is already happening.

It’s interesting to get a perspective from a spectator outside the United States. Russian political commentator Dmitry Kosyrev says that the war has been raging in America for the last few years.

“Democrats are doing wild, suicidal things because they are not just on the defensive, but on the verge of collapse, as the Trump administration breaking down their ‘evil empire’… Their goal is not the destruction of Russia, but the salvation of their own project,” Kosyrev pointed out, referring to the ongoing scandal over alleged “Russian interference” in the US 2016 presidential election.

“Democrats do not have a majority in Congress or their own army, but the war they have been waging is a hybrid one,” the commentator wrote.

“Therefore, in the media zone, they are advancing with a wild, schizophrenic rage. However, they haven’t yet fully monopolized this sphere,” Kosyrev noted, adding that their outrage against the very existence of the Russian English-language TV channel Russia Today is also a “military phenomenon.”

“The essence of what is happening is that the Republicans are now advancing,” he explained, “It simply happens in dozens of small, internal episodes.”

“As one could see, the Democrats have a lot to lose in this war,” the commentator said, adding that the ongoing civil war still has no end in sight. (source)

Unsettling when viewed from a distance, right?

So, what would a second Civil War look like?

I asked you, the readers, for your opinions on what a Civil War would look like if it erupted in American.

With the incendiary situation going on across the country, there’s been a great deal of talk about the potential of civil war erupting in America.

IF such a terrible thing would occur, how do you think it would happen? How do you believe we’d all be affected? What would you foresee?

This is all speculation, of course, but share your thoughts in the comments below.

Of course, this is all speculative, but there are some pretty interesting answers. Here’s what you all had to say:

1.) Laura…

…the cities would be hit hard, outlying areas will become balkanized…and as far as ‘it’ happening, it started with ‘the resistance’…just hasn’t gone hot yet. And PS it won’t be a civil war, when it goes hot it will be along the lines of race and economics, nothing like the Civil War which was a federal vs state issue (control).

Note: Balkanization is defined as the “fragmentation or division of a region or state into smaller regions or states that are often hostile or uncooperative with one another.” (source)

2.) Jeriann…

I see it starting in the streets of the South. Then the National Guard gets sent in, then local militias build to fight the National Guard. Civil unrest runs amuck. People flee the Southern states, going north and west. Seeds of hate growing in their hearts against the government for allowing this to happen. Groups are gathering in homes to discuss the next step. Hoarding of food and gas begins. Desperation sets in. Peopllosese faith in government both local, state, and federal. The reality sets in we are vulnerable to Russia, China, Isis, fear and despair over take the people. They cry out in the streets, camps are set up for our protection and to provide for us.

3.) Chris…

I wonder what it would be fought over….where would the lines be drawn? Racial? Political? Economics? Who will be fighting who? I think flat-out every man for himself anarchy is a more likely scenario than what we would consider a civil war.

4.) Koi…

This is what the government wants to happen so they can have Martial law, and throw the Constitution in the trash.

5.) Ryan…

It’ll be based on race, the easiest distinguisher for low information people with anger and a desire to fight. I’m not sure how white people on the left would distinguish themselves as allies though, they’ll probably get caught up in the carnage. The real question I have is: how long will TPTB allow the bloodshed before they implement the next phase of police state

6.) Andrea…

If it really took off, if you don’t live in a major city, I think the main effect you’d feel is a shortage of goods. Truckloads of deliveries not being able to get safely to certain destinations would eventually just stop coming.

7.) Tony…

If this did go down I think it will be short lived. The government would turn off the communication systems and money supply to the country. The stock market will crash and the one-percenters will load up on shares and make billions once order is restored and the market rebounds.

8.) Lyle…

A civil war totally manufactured by the media.

9.) Joshua…

There is nothing left to hold civil society together. No shared values. No shared history. No shared worldview. In many places, not even a shared language. What we see now is the Balkanization of America. In essence, we as a people have already seceded from each other.

10.) Marvin…

Here are the options
1. Nothing’s gonna happen, well, except ALL statues will be removed, confederate, union, MLK, presidents, baseball players, even poor ole Elvis.
2. A lot more protests and more deaths.
3. North Korea drops an EMP and we thin the herd.

11.) Sherri…

In a way I think it’s already been going on for sometime. Internet trolling, hackers, some laws aren’t really enforced.

12.) Brian…

The UN will get called in. One World Order implementation.

13.) Liz…

I think a financial crisis of sorts , most likely causing serious uproar. An outside source of the United States coming in to try to look like helpers , I think they get a lot of people to follow them then off more than half, I think they want the very young. Madness, looting, complete anarchy until people begin to fight back.

14.) Scott…

It’s not just America, the civil divide is being pushed toward civil war in Europe and UK too!
The economic crash will be global as will the response…
this is the endgame that has been coming a long time.
Expect microchipping of the population through FEMA camps for starving and preppers being shot for hoarding food.
Make sure your food is not all in one place, have multiple caches so if one or two are discovered it doesn’t leave you with all the others queuing up for a loaf of bread and swiping your new microchip.

15.) Tim…

…Someone in our government will get the idea, if they haven’t already, that the best way to bring us back together as a nation is to give us a common enemy. Then with the help of the Media, they will demonize this enemy to the point where we as Americans can no longer just sit idly by. All the sudden, all the other issues disappear and the US government is back in control of the hearts and minds of its people.

16.) Pat…

I think the polarization is so extreme and so deep-seated that the very best thing for the majority of people would be for the USA to split into 3 or 4 separate countries. I don’t think we will have peace until this happens (if it ever happens). The alternative is likely to be extreme control by the government to a degree that none of us ever want to see or experience.

17.) Ivar…

What will begin as a somewhat ideological war (Antifa versus the Alt-Right) will sooner or later devolve into an outright race war. At that time, Antifa will cease to exist (split up in ethnic gangs). The Whites in Antifa will be on their own, and not last very long… The Alt-Right will continue to exist, although it might adopt a different name.

Since Whites own most of the land and ammunition, and are better trained and prepped, they will most likely win this race war.

I do not think it is likely that the race war will end soon. I’m afraid it will continue until America is all-White. Once faced with an existential threat, people can do crazy things to make sure it can never ever happen again.

This could have as a consequence that not only North America becomes all-White, but South America too.

A similar process will happen in Europe. It is quite likely that the Europeans will not only drive Islam from their continent, but remove it from the globe completely and repopulate the entire Middle-East.

These Antifa provocateurs and Islamic terrorists are taking a terrible gamble. Their tactics either succeed (and the entire world turns Communist or Islamic), or it will be the eradication of all the people they represent.

18. Renny…

I foresee a lot of guerrilla-type warfare. If Martial Law was instituted, I could easily imagine the Antifa types committing acts of vandalism, bombing things, holding up supply trucks. Sneak attacks with huge shocking impacts, like attacking children at a school or something. It would become dangerous for people to be in certain areas based on their race.

This could result in extreme violence against innocent non-combatants. Schools would shut down, public gathering areas like malls and markets could be targeted. Businesses would be unable to continue due to repeated vandalism. This would, in turn, affect the supply chain, which would increase theft as desperate hungry people did what they had to so they could feed their families.

19. Kendall…

This will be a race war, flames fanned by the likes of George Soros in order to destabilize the country. It’s a Marxist agenda that separates black vs. white and causes problems where there were none before. Paid protesters, activist groups funded by billionaires, and the crushing of free speech through violent protests will all boil over into more division.

Confusion will occur because this won’t be a clear-cut, North vs. South issue. The “enemy” would be hard to identify and easy to be mistaken for. How can you tell if someone is right-leaning or left-leaning?

United we stand…divided, billionaires make lots of money off our pain. Just like every other war, it all boils down to money and control.

20.) A…

I think we’re already seeing civil war, courtesy of Bush, Obama, Trump and now people who want to further ‘fundamentally change America’. The ‘war’ is between those who think the American dream is so-called equality for all, free stuff like healthcare, maternity leave and cell phones (coz that’s what our Founding Fathers intended – NOT!) and those of us who want to retain Her glory, where Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is all that matters. We won’t see the death toll of the 1860’s, but we’ll see even more hatred, fear and division, combined with occasional attacks like Charlottesville. A nation divided cannot stand and sooner or later, whether

We won’t see the death toll of the 1860’s, but we’ll see even more hatred, fear and division, combined with occasional attacks like Charlottesville. A nation divided cannot stand and sooner or later, whether it’s a natural disaster, an external attack, financial crippling or just plain consequences of our action, there will be chaos, with FEAR being the biggest killer!

People keep talking about this one event…

I think it’ll be more of a slow and painful process, with serious consequences for our children’s children worldwide! The Beacon on the Hill WILL go out, and the world will be plunged into darkness

Some ugly and terrifying pictures painted there…

Thank you, Readers, as always, for your insight and participation.

How would you prepare for something like this?

Just like any other disaster, unless you are right in the midst of the conflict, your primary concerns would be supply shortages and self-defense.

Prepping for a long-term supply shortage is the number one thing you should do in order to be ready for this.

You also have to be prepared to defend yourself, your family, and your home.

  • This article explains why it’s essential for preppers to be armed
  • This book discusses home security for preppers
  • This book talks about self-protection for people who aren’t black belt ninjas (the title says it’s for women but I think anyone could get extreme value from it.)
  • This course dives deep into the psychology of civil unrest and how to keep yourself and your family safe.

It would be wise to be discreet about your supplies, as shortages and hunger will cause otherwise decent people to commit acts they would have otherwise never considered.

 

What do you think?

In the comments section, let me know what you think about the looming prospect of civil war. Tell me…

  • If you think it’s already here, just undeclared.
  • What you think the ramifications will be.
  • How you think the lines will be drawn.
  • Who stands to benefit the most.
  • What the trigger might be that would really kick things off.
  • How you feel people should prepare for this

Alternatively, you may think we are in no danger of Civil War 2.0 actually occurring. Explain your reasoning.

Turn out the lights, the Party’s over…

In another sign of increasing balkanization cementing the fact that the deep south is becoming New Afrika, a Georgia town has become the first to have a criminal justice system made up entirely of black women. This follows the trend illuminated in ‘Ethnostate’, of blacks moving back to the black belt, widening and deepening it, and Whites responding by moving to the upper south. Ozarkia and East Tennessee are just the two most prominent examples of this ongoing phenomenon as emerging seedbed ethnostates.

The anectdotal evidence compiled during the recent travels to and from the ShieldWall Network meeting in the delta of south Arkansas, as well as to central Tennessee, bear out the census data and shifting demographic statistics. As The Balk nears, more and more people anticipate the end of multiracial democracy. It will not end peacefully. Law and Order will not be maintained. For a time, chaos and anarchy will ensue. In many areas, the law of the jungle will return. The color of our skins will be our uniforms of war. There will be no mediators, no referees, no cops to protect the degenerates from the righteous fury of the people. Literally, it will quickly be seen whether the far right or the far left is more ruthless. The winners will stand victorious on the bodies of those who were just trolling and LARPing.

In “How the South Won The Civil War”, Brett Stevens astutely observes that the entire system is now irrevocably headed to failure and collapse. That doesn’t bode well for those dependent on it.

Billions of people are still alive only because it’s currently illegal to kill them. Will that protection always remain in place? What would the “revolutionary” left do, without the establishment to protect them?

A new article on the SPLC website helpfully directs their readers, many of whom are actually White Nationalists who use the anti-White website for networking purposes, to The Roper Report article on the Knoxville assault on a Christian protester, even though their typically shoddy reporting incorrectly identifies that protester.

“…In fact, Dutton’s involvement might have been overlooked if not for Billy Roper, a long-time white nationalist who has sought to grow his infamy as racist ideologies push for mainstream prominence in the era of Trump. 

In reaction to Dutton’s arrest, Roper claimed on his blog that Dutton was a “lone Christian protester who was assisted by pro-Whites who came to his aid, ending the assault and resulting in one arrest on the Christian side…”

The author of the poorly written SPLC article, a failed former journalist named Ryan Lenz, is almost as butch as Heidi, but not quite. It would be obvious to any honest reader of The Roper Report that Kynan Dutton was coming to the aid of the lone Christian protester who was being attacked by transvestites and other Antifa, including Chris Irwin, when the alleged altercation took place. But at least Roper-obsessed Suzy Buchanan kept her calves together for this writing assignment, for once.

Now, imagine what will happen when the Balk takes place. Economic collapse. Grid failure. EBT cards won’t work, and grocery deliveries to cities will slow to a trickle anyway without fuel to move them. Government will abdicate power or find itself unable to exercise it as it cannot pay its muscle, law enforcement and the military (both racially mixed and mercenary) to follow orders. Police and soldiers will take their toys and go home to defend their families and communities, or frag their officers and mutiny and divide up into opposing sides of the civil war.

Red vs. Blue, White Nationalists vs. Antifa. When the lights go out and don’t come back on, what will happen? When there are no more whores enforcing the laws of men in between God’s enemies and His laws, what will be their fates? This is strictly a hypothetical scenario, but it does illustrate why the left are such strident supporters of the establishment, and vice-versa. Their lives depend on it. Being establishment slaves is an existential issue for the Left. Without it, the ash heap of history gets a little higher.

A Second American Civil War?

Balkanization & Back To Blood

By ROD DREHER

The American Conservative

Politico has a fascinating story from Minnesota, about the fight splitting up the foundation started by the late Sen. Paul Wellstone’s family and supporters.  A majority of the board of Wellstone Action, which trains progressive activists, kicked the senator’s sons off the board. Why? They cared too much about rural poor white people. Excerpt:

Founded after Wellstone’s death in a plane crash in 2002, Wellstone Action has trained thousands of progressive candidates, campaign operatives and community organizers throughout the country, with alumni serving in local and state offices and in the U.S. House. In 2016, the last year for which tax filings were available, the group reported providing training to 2,135 data and digital strategists, 723 nonprofit leaders and community organizers, and 854 aspiring political leaders.

David Wellstone and other Democrats close to his father began objecting last year to what he described as Wellstone Action’s abandonment of disaffected Democrats in the rural Midwest — the rural poor were an early focus of the late senator — with an increasingly narrow focus on gender politics and people of color.

“I said, ‘After Trump, we’ve got to figure out how we are going to go back after those Democrats that we lost,” David Wellstone said. “We can do all the stuff we do. We do great stuff on communities of color, we’re doing great stuff on gender identity politics. But we need to do some of these other trainings. … Nobody wanted to have a discussion about that.”

Read the whole thing. 

Serious question: how many people think that having a truly liberal, non-identity politics is possible anymore? On this day in which Tom Wolfe’s death was announced, I’m reminded of this passage from his final novel, Back To Blood. The speaker is a character named Edward Topping IV, a white American who, in Wolfe’s fiction, is editor of the Miami Herald:

“Everybody… all of them… it’s back to blood! Religion is dying… but everybody still has to believe in something… So, my people, that leaves only our blood, the bloodlines that course through our very bodies, to unite us. ‘La Raza!’ as the Puerto Ricans cry out. ‘The Race!’ cries the whole world. All people, all people everywhere, have but one last thing on their minds – back to blood!”

The novel (which is not very good, or at least not the part I read until I gave up from boredom) is about ethnic cultural conflict in contemporary Miami. Tom Wolfe built his entire career as an observer of status in American life. I wonder what he thought of what was going on in Trump’s America, and how we were dividing over race and other identity markers. Look at this headline from an essay in The Forwardtoday: “Intersectionality Has Abandoned Jews. Should We Abandon Intersectionality?” If the emerging left-wing politics has no role for poor, rural, and working-class white people, and a diminished role for Jews, will they turn to the Right? What about white gays, as the gay rights issue fades among Republicans (the GOP leadership already doesn’t care about it, and it’s going to become a non-issue as older Republicans die off).

If thinking about American politics this way makes you uncomfortable, well, I think it should. But progressives — the kind of progressives who kicked Paul Wellstone’s sons off the Wellstone Action board for caring more about economics than identity politics — are driving this train. David French writes:

Linker’s essay reminds me of a recent Remnant podcast with Jonah Goldberg and Michael Brendan Dougherty. I’m paraphrasing, but Michael made the point that the Left is simultaneously crowing about the decline of the white voter while scolding any white voter who racializes their politics. A message that essentially declares, “Ha! White people your time is over!” and “It’s racist for you to care” is unsustainable outside progressive academies or corporations. [Emphasis mine — RD]

The answer isn’t for politics to strive to ignore race. To ignore the role of race and racism in American history (or the American present) is to ignore reality. But I can think of few developments more destructive than doubling-down on racial identity as the defining strategy for coalition-building. Given the fact that American demographics are hardly changing at the same rate in every community, this is a recipe for Balkanization and division far more than it’s a recipe for Democratic dominance.

Another serious question: what are the meaningful forces in American culture that push back against racial balkanization and other forms of identity-politics balkanization? Can they be strengthened?

A final question: It is a Noble Lie that America only started practicing identity politics recently. Our politics have always had a strong racial and ethnic element. Sometimes they were nakedly present (e.g., Southern segregationist Democrats’ appeals), but more often they were submerged in the peaked waves of meringued rhetoric like Woodrow Wilson’s speeches about how ethnicity doesn’t matter in America. Is it better to be honest, or will we miss the Noble Lie when it is gone?

UPDATE: A view from across the Pacific, from reader Seoulite:

To frame this in terms of race, with a view from an outsider:

The US originally was a white empire with black slaves which became a white dominated multi-ethnic empire. Until now this has been relatively stable because: 1) there was one undisputed majority group, and 2) economic and political ascendancy allows people to look past a lot of grievances. Like an indebted gambler who’s still on a winning streak, those niggling problems seem like far away things to be tackled some other day.

Now that whites are no longer the undisputed dominant group (at least in the mind of the people, not yet in reality), the empire is starting to fracture as do all multi-ethnic empires. Think of what is holding China together: 1) economic prosperity, 2) the relentless dominance of the Han Chinese. If the economy was seriously faltering or Beijing started giving an equal voice to any and all identity groups, how long do you think the country would hold together?

So in answer to your questions Rod:

1) non-identity politics is no longer possible because there is now a feedback loop. Identity politics grants one power, which means more people in power are identity politicians, which strengthens identity politics, and so on. Heck, many groups aren’t even really in the game yet. Whites haven’t yet taken the field in earnest under this new paradigm. Nor have East Asians, or those from the Subcontinent. Let alone black Africans. It could also be argued that hispanic identity politics is still nascent, as the conversation in America is still dominated by black-white history. This identity politics thing has barely even begun.

2) The meaningful forces that could have held the US together were civic nationalism and Christianity.

We have already begun to see some groups reject civic nationalism outright (#NotMyPresident, #TakeAKnee, pulling down statues, renaming buildings, Founding Fathers were racist, etc). It clearly does not have the power to unite people anymore. Or those who previously rejected it no longer feel the need to keep quiet.

The Church, as you’ve said many times, is weakening. The only religion that could hold the US together would be a muscular (Islam-style) Christianity that strongly rejected racial identity while enforcing Christian identitarianism. This of course would be rejected out of hand by atheists, liberal Christians, and any others who believe that multi-faith, multi-ethnic empires are sustainable. It is far too late for any of that.

As I’ve written above, this has barely begun. The legacy of slavery narrative is still so loud that other conflicts are being drowned out, but as time goes by this black vs white history of America will be replaced by a multitude of voices. I’m thinking of the political battles between Asians and Hispanics in California. Or Hispanics and Blacks in California. Or Muslims and whites in Michigan. The list goes on and on.

The story of the American Dream requires prosperity and American exceptionalism to unite people. If the USA is no longer #1, what is this American Dream and why would an immigrant from North Africa care who died in the civil war and what they blasphemed about one nation under a false god?

To Suggest An ‘Amicable Divorce’ For America Is To Talk Civil War

This article in response to Jesse Kelly’s recent The Federalist piece arguing for the need for peaceful separation makes some very good points in defense of the position that a civil war in the (formerly) United States will be necessary, and that it won’t be pretty. 

By

The Federalist

We are in a very divided moment, and when divisions run that deep, centralized decision-making can make it worse. But that’s no argument for secession.

Federalist contributor Jesse Kelly recently wrote an article suggesting that political divisions in the United States may now be so extreme that the country should be peacefully divided into two separate countries. He is wrong, and his advocacy that we should divide effects by negotiation flies in the face of the political values that have dominated American political thought for centuries, especially among Republicans and conservatives.

Before I get to explaining where Kelly makes a serious error, I should note some places where he makes some good points. Kelly notes that, while we may tend to see national borders as immutable from our current perspective, especially in the post-WWII dispensation when most nations have agreed to forsake wars of expansion, in fact history shows that boundaries change. Current country boundaries are historically contingent things that can change, and we need not necessarily view current boundaries as permanently morally privileged. In other words, redrawing map lines in North America yielding a breakup of the U.S. would not be the end of our civilization or some end-of-history apocalyptic event.

I’ve argued as much on this website myself, or at least a related point, when I pointed out that particularly for Christians political apocalypticism is a foolish mistake. All too often, we have a tendency to elevate today’s political squabbles far beyond their merits.

Beyond this, Kelly raises an interesting historical question. He says, “We are more divided now than we have ever been in our history. And before you start screaming at me about the Civil War, keep in mind that bloody conflict was fought over one major issue. In those days, take ten families from New York and ten families from Alabama, put them all in a room, and you’d find they mostly had the same values (and bad accents).” This claim is certainly plausible; the typical enfranchisable individual (adult males) in 1860 might possibly have had had more shared values across regions than today.

However, while that is possible, I am skeptical of it in practice. One of my direct ancestors incited a bloody anti-Catholic pogrom because the Catholic religion, as all God-fearing Americans knew, was incompatible with true Americanism. At the same time as slavery was an increasingly pressing issue, our nation faced a massive rise in divisive debates about immigration, leading to the rise of a single-issue anti-immigrant party.

Meanwhile, there were massive and divisive movements afoot on issues such as temperance, womens suffrage, and labor unionism. Industrialization was creating a new wave of urban problems and disrupting the Jeffersonian vision of an agrarian nation. We were a country in extraordinarily rapid flux. And indeed, it should be noted that one of the more common pro-southern narratives of the civil war suggests it was actually a war against trade policy! While this argument is not true, it is true that the northern and southern states were deeply divided on the issue.

While I suppose it is possible that there is more variation in political philosophy today than in 1860, it doesn’t seem even close to obvious. And the claim that Americans were basically divided on one issue is obviously false and unsupportable. What has actually happened is that the American memory of the 1850s tends to be defined by one issue; the 1850s themselves saw a huge range of social movements and conflicts.

But it does seem like we are a pretty divided nation today. I’d wager we may be in one of the top 25 percent most divided election cycles in American history by almost any metric. But that’s a lot different than saying we are in truly uncharted waters. This matters, because your assessment of the extent of polarization impacts how intractable you think our problems are, which in turn helps define what measures you think count as acceptable solutions.

That brings us to Kelly’s proposed solution: peaceful division. I don’t want to argue about whether such a division would be legal or constitutional. That question isn’t very relevant when we are talking about such a seismic change to fundamental political structures. And besides, if a person believes our problems are so severe as to countenance splitting up this one nation under God, then I doubt procedural arguments will change their mind. Certainly if I thought this was our most divided moment ever, a procedural argument wouldn’t dissuade me from considering secession as an option.

But although I don’t think Kelly has offered a shred of compelling evidence that we are actually at such an epochal level of dividedness, I’m willing to play along. Let’s say we are, and we have reached a point where procedural arguments are moot. All faith has truly been lost in constitutional government. Soldiers who swore oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution no longer feel beholden to those oaths, taxpayers resist payment en masse, militias are formed to manage local security needs. Say we’ve reached that point. We haven’t! But imagine we have. What then?

Well, we have to return to those map lines. How do map lines actually change, historically? Peaceful changes turn out to be uncommon. The boundary changes Kelly invites us to consider usually involve a very large number of people dying violently.

And sometimes, lots of people dying is worth it! There are justified wars. I’m not making some argument that we should have peace-at-any-cost. Justified wars should be fought, and we, individually and collectively, must be prepared to pay the last full measure of devotion in the event of such a conflict. But while there are justified wars, there are also unjustified wars. Philosophers and political theorists have debated what makes for a justified war for as long as there have been wars, and there have been wars ever since a certain dispute between two ill-fated biblical brothers.

I’m not going to delve into the nuance of just war theory. But all theories of the justifiableness of wars include some consideration of how a war is to be waged, and what costs may be involved. That is, there is no theory of war which holds equivalent two wars, one of which is fought by a few thousand professional troops in some distant theater in a relatively controlled warzone, and the other of which involves 50 million people dying in a radioactive blaze. No matter your theory of what justifies a war, on some level, you have to ask yourself how the war is going to be fought, what it would look like, and what the cost is likely to be.

So maybe a war of secession would be justified, but maybe not: and one factor we would want to consider is what such a war might look like.

We must then ask what might happen if we went down this road. Say that Kelly’s Federalist States seek to go their own way. Well, in 1860/61 when the southern states seceded, they thought what would happen would be the north would negotiate, or else chicken out and sign a treaty recognizing their independence. And indeed, if it came to war, the enormous southern domination of the military officer corps seemed sure to give the south an unbeatable advantage. The war would be quick, handing southerners a victory in their “second war of independence.”

But it turned out they were wrong. Lincoln was a steely-eyed missile man. More than that, he was ready to burn it all down rather than let the union be torn apart. He did not have popular support in this: he won with just 40 percent of the vote, and he repeatedly deployed military forces to crush anti-war riots, sometimes with substantial loss of life. Southerners had assumed that the namby-pamby north had no will for war, but they underestimated the phenomenal energies a robust state can exert in its own self-preservation. Southerners had assumed that their gallant officers and chivalrous cavaliers would give them an insurmountable advantage, but they were crushed by a failed farmer and a Classicist, Grant and Sherman.

The cost of the war was enormous. By my calculations, between 7 and 12 percent of the recruitable population of the Union states died in the war. For the Confederacy, it was between 20 and 30 percent. Their presumption that the less-culturally-militaristic north would be easy to beat was utterly and completely wrong. The North had what was necessary for victory: a larger economy, infinite manpower superiority, and iron-willed leadership.

Lincoln talked about this in his 2nd inaugural address, which happens to be etched in stone on the Lincoln Memorial, for the express purpose of preserving his reasoning for our edification. He said:

“On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war — seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.” (emphasis mine)

This is the key point: the battle cry of bloody secession has always been peaceful negotiation. The exact analogy Kelly appeals to, of splitting possessions in a divorce, is the analogy Lincoln uses for his foes: insurgent agents seeking to divide effects by negotiation. This has always been the secessionist gameplan, from Hartford to Montgomery.

This peaceful division, however, is likely impossible. The reasons are several, and I will begin with the basic logistical problem.

Modern political coalitions are not actually regional. They are local. The electoral college map makes them look regional, but if you look at a county or precinct map, you’ll see very clearly that local factors drive our politics. We are not divided by north and south, or east and west, or even coasts and heartland. We are not divided by state. Our true divisions are about whether you live in a relatively dense city or not.

Go look at a county map of presidential elections! Every state has Blue America holding some of its territory, and virtually every state has Red America holding some of its territory! How exactly is this territory supposed to be peacefully divided up? Any division would leave huge stranded enclaves of dissidents, dissidents who would suddenly find themselves vastly politically outnumbered, unable to effectively preserve their way of life at all. Many would flee to whichever country best represented their views, creating a refugee crisis that might agitate for revanche. But many would remain in place, forming an enraged and restive local populations. Blue Team’s countrysides would become the hills of Vietnam to them; Red Team’s cities would threaten the carnage of Mosul on every block.

Elections would be contested, legal frameworks uncertain, military allegiances shifting: it would be a calamitous disaster of monumental proportions. No authority would exist with the ability to peacefully manage the transition and be respected by both sides. Local political factions would take measures to guarantee persistence and self-defense, such as training militias. In such an environment, it would be easy for a spark to set the whole thing ablaze. The ensuing war would be mind-blowingly violent. The entire war would be continental-scale streetfighting.

You might think you’d stay above the fray. You’d be wrong. Maybe you aren’t passionate about holding the union together! But the war won’t be on the Texas border. It will be on the border between suburbia and the urban core, as disaffected Blue Teamers refuse to recognize Red Team laws they abhor, and they eject officials and set up rebel governments. The battlefield won’t be the Mississippi River, it will the I-66 corridor heading out to West Virginia, which becomes impassible as Red Team militias close off the interstate and begin purging dissidents from the region, creating a safe zone around West Virginia.

Modern civil wars are not mysterious events. We have plenty of examples to look at, like Syria. And we Americans have so many guns (proud gun owner here!) that you’d have practically universal potential for combatancy, that is, everybody could be a soldier. The geography of political disagreement suggests that practically the entire national population would be within 100 miles of an active warzone at any given time; every household would face immediate existential risk if the other side made a breakthrough. Any sane and loving parent would join the militia and bring the fight to the other side.

Anyone imagining that this inevitable conflict might occur along some rational territorial border defined by large regions is hopelessly naïve. We would be spilling each other’s blood in every school district, parish, neighborhood meeting, and sports stadium in the country inside of 12 months. Not because we’re awful people, but because once the cat is out of the bag on disorganized tribal violence, it’s awfully hard to put it back.

This is a nightmare scenario. So whenever you find yourself imagining that our country is as divided as the civil war, envision 10 people you love who fit the demographic profile for a soldier (nowadays this probably just means age, not sex). Now choose 1 to 3 of them you are willing to bury for your cause. Is it really worth it? Regardless of who provoked whom, or who has the most justifiable claims … are you willing to pay that price? If not, maybe don’t advocate secession. Maybe work to heal the wounds.

There are actually a few things that are worth that much to me. Again, this isn’t a “peace at any price” post. I’ll kill for some things. But I want to be realistic: the cause has really got to be worth it to get me in a killing mood. Some things are worth that cost. Some are not. And to pay that cost, I need to know that I have exhausted my other options.

And the truth is, we haven’t even seriously tried our other options!

It is true we are in a very divided moment, and that when there are divisions that run deep, unitary, centralized decision-making can make those divisions even worse. But that’s not an argument for secession!

That’s an argument for, wait for it …

Federalism.

Large-scale devolution of Federal powers and responsibilities to states, counties, and municipalities to allow distributed and divergent state and local decision-making is a reasonable solution to periods of heightened division. We can’t devolve everything of course, and we need some shared standards on some issues, but we should not try secession before we try enhanced federalism.

And if federalism fails, then the war will come. And may I say, when the chips are down, secessionists may find that the spark of union has not died. It doesn’t take many of us unionists to reach a critical mass to torpedo peaceful division, and let me tell you, we will torpedo it. There aren’t many things I’m willing to bury myself and two of my best friends over. Union is one of them. Union forever; hurrah boys, hurrah; down with the traitors and up with the star!

And if in the end union ends in blood, well then, we must simply sing that, “He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored; He hath loosed the fateful lighting of His terrible swift sword: His truth is marching on.”

Lyman Stone is a Senior Contributor at The Federalist. He writes about migration issues on his blog “In a State of Migration.” He is also an agricultural economist at USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service, and an Advisor at Demographic Intelligence. He has an MA in international trade policy from the George Washington University. Opinions expressed are solely his own, though his wife Ruth occasionally agrees with him.

It’s Time For The United States To Divorce Before Things Get Dangerous

This idea of breaking up the country may seem a bit outlandish now, but you won’t think so once real domestic unrest comes to your town.
Jesse Kelly

By

“When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…” — The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

Divorce is hard, but it’s easier than cutting the brake lines on your wife’s car. It is long past time for an amicable divorce of the United States of America. There is simply no common ground with the Left anymore. We are now the couple screaming at each other all night, every night as the kids hide in their room.

We cannot come together, but we do not have to live like this. The history of the world is nations breaking up and redrawing their borders. If we want to avoid this political divide turning into a deadly one, we should do likewise.

Stop clinging to the past and acknowledge where we are as a country, not where you want us to be, not where things were when your grandpa was storming the beaches of Normandy. Where we truly are.

We are a nation hopelessly divided. We are more divided now than we have ever been in our history. And before you start screaming at me about the Civil War, keep in mind that bloody conflict was fought over one major issue. In those days, take ten families from New York and ten families from Alabama, put them all in a room, and you’d find they mostly had the same values (and bad accents).

Now, fast-forward to today and do that same thing. Those families have virtually nothing in common. We as a nation have polarized and separated from each other.

Anyone who thinks this is a radical idea has an extremely narrow view of history. If you don’t believe me, go try to book a plane ticket to Czechoslovakia, or look at a map of Europe from the year 1600, then look at one today. See any differences? Borders move. Countries split and change hands. They do this for a myriad of reasons. Ours would be a major cultural shift toward the left and half the country refusing to go along with tyranny.

I have been championing this idea for a while, and it appears others are catching on. Just last week, a group of lawmakers in South Carolina introduced a bill that would allow the state to secede if the federal government starts seizing guns.

Why would those lawmakers even be worried about such a thing? Because Democrats are saying it—and not just some hippie chick with armpit hair at a vegan rally. When a former justice of the Supreme Court of the United States calls for a repeal of the Second Amendment, we should take the Left seriously.

The GOP has many problems, but the Democratic Party has turned into something completely un-American. The United States was founded on two things: Judeo-Christian values and a limited federal government. The entire platform of modern Democrats stands completely opposite both of those.

This is the party that booed the very mention of the word “God” at their 2016 convention. This is the party whose candidates openly “joke” about killing anyone who won’t turn in his weapons. Their senators joke on national TV about killing the U.S. president, and the host responds by clapping like a seal.

The 1960s counter-culture liberal protestor who just wanted free weed and an end to the war in Vietnam has been replaced by a man who hunts down Steve Scalise and tries to kill him at baseball practice. The Left is not playing games. They are getting bolder, and they are getting more violent. They have no interest in rational compromises. Like all authoritarian ideologies, they want you to bow down before them or be destroyed for daring to resist.

If you believe in God and limited government, here are the entities that now proclaim their hatred of you in full view of the public: The Democratic Party, media, Hollywood, the public education system, and now even corporate America. The GOP may have the House, Senate, and presidency, but we have completely lost the culture war.

It does not have to be this way. There is a difficult, but ultimately peaceful path that ends with everyone getting most of what they want. We divide the nation in two. We can and will draw the map and argue over it a million different ways for a million different reasons, but draw it we must. I’ve got my own map, and I suspect the final draft would look similar.

Jesse Kelly®

@JesseKellyDC

The peaceful solution.

People say both sides disagree on everything, but that is not entirely true. A mass shooting happens at a high school in Florida. Both sides do agree something should be done. People on the Right think we should increase school safety. People on the Left think we should restrict the gun rights of every American citizen, and they’ll try to destroy the career of anyone who disagrees.

Illegal immigrants are pouring across the border. The Right calls for increased border security. The Left offers them sanctuary cities and protection from federal enforcement.

Every issue plays out this same way, and people on the Right will only accept this kind of abuse for so long. Sooner or later, the left-wing rage mob will start coming for the careers (and lives) of any normal American who sees things differently.

This idea of breaking up the country may seem a bit outlandish now, but you won’t think so once real domestic unrest comes to your town. Our political disagreements have become a powder keg, one that already would have blown if conservatives had liberals’ emotional instability.

Nobody is expected to cheer for this split. Cheering is not a normal reaction when couples get a divorce. We cheer for old married people on their fiftieth wedding anniversary.

But life is imperfect. Life is hard. We both now agree that living under the other side’s value system is wholly unacceptable. The most peaceful solution we Americans can hope for now is to go our separate ways. So let us come together one last time and agree on one thing: Irreconcilable differences.

 

Jesse is a Marine Corps combat veteran, former congressional candidate in Arizona, and contributor to The Resurgent. Jesse currently resides in the Houston area with his wife and two sons.