Joel Hilliker at The Trumpet writes about divisions in the USA and whether they will lead to civil war in Disunited States: A Lesson We Must Learn
Is it unjust to prejudge people according to their race? Is it wrong for people in the street to exact vigilante-style “justice” against strangers? Is it wrong to prejudicially condemn people for the sins of their forefathers? Is it criminal to steal and destroy property? Should every citizen be able to live and work free from fear of arbitrary violence? Until rather recently, societal consensus was an unqualified yes to all these questions. But suddenly, they are all topics of fierce contention.
Here is a crucial question: How long can society function if we cannot agree on such basic points?
The fact is that, as alarmed as many people are by the lawlessness plaguing America’s streets today, it seems very few grasp the existential nature of the problem. America is facing civil war. Bible prophecy specifically says it will happen.
One major reason is that we are violating a specific biblical principle of living. This principle is controversial today. But it is a foundational truth. And it vividly illustrates the relevance of the Bible for our day.
In a cbs News interview, here is how Nikole Hannah-Jones, the architect of the “1619 Project” for the New York Times, responded when asked to “interpret” the arson, thievery, criminality and violence in America’s cities: “Yes, it is disturbing to see property being destroyed; it is disturbing to see people taking property from stores. But these are things. And violence is when an agent of the state kneels on a man’s neck until all of the life is leeched out of his body. Destroying property which can be replaced is not violence. And to use the exact same language to describe those two things, I think, really—it’s not moral to do that. I think any reasonable person would say we shouldn’t be destroying other people’s property—but these are not reasonable times.”
To have mainstream voices advocating destruction, lawlessness and insurrection as appropriate and legitimate is unprecedented—and deeply corrosive to society’s survival.
“If somebody decides to loot a Gucci, or a Macy’s, or a Nike, that makes sure that person eats. That makes sure that person has clothes,” Ariel Atkins, the leader of Black Lives Matter in Chicago, told reporters. “That is reparations. Anything they wanna take, take it, because these businesses have insurance. They’re going to get their money back. My people aren’t getting anything.”
A short time ago, such thinking was simply inconceivable. Everyone knew that indiscriminate destruction was evil. There was no controversy over the foundational understanding that arson, theft, looting, physical assault and violence were crimes. Everyone agreed that people should be safe, and their property should be safe. Someone who owns a business should be able to run that business, provide jobs, deliver goods and services to the community, contribute to the economic health of society, and earn a living—without fearing or actually suffering hatred, violence and destruction.
Stunningly, this is no longer something we all agree on. Rioters, journalists, commentators, professors, and even mayors, governors and members of Congress—influential, powerful people—do not believe it. They now insist that criminal destruction of property and assault on fellow citizens is understandable, even acceptable, even righteous, for the sake of “social change” in this “historic moment.”
This spirit is changing America. Prodded by such reasoning, cities are defunding police and allowing the predictable increases in crimes. And even more astoundingly, a growing number of people don’t even recognize these as problems—because they view them as mere symptoms of the real problems of racism and inequality.
Behold the consequences of adopting moral relativism as our society has been for decades—even generations. People have lost their elemental sense of right and wrong. They cannot recognize evil even when it is lighting their own city on fire.
Here is where the Bible is so supremely valuable. It gives us absolute standards—our Creator’s laws of right and wrong—that never change. It is a refreshing contrast to the moral standards of leftists, which change from year to year and sometimes from moment to moment. Yesterday’s heroes are today’s villains. And the most blatant evils are excused or even glorified.
Consider a few examples.
The Bible says God is no respecter of persons. He evaluates based on a person’s character. He judges the heart, not the outward appearance. He holds everyone to the same unchanging standard of right and wrong.
Accepting this truth is critical to a fair, just, stable society. All societies are flawed, but less so the ones that treat each person as a child of God, made in God’s image. This idea is articulated in America’s Declaration of Independence—that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with rights that include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…(continues)
Brandon Smith at Alt-Market writes more about unrest in the USA in Is America Heading For Civil War? Of Course It Is…
In last week’s article I discussed the issue of American “balkanization” and the rapid migration of conservatives and moderates from large population centers and states that are becoming militant in their progressive ideology. In my home state of Montana there has been a surge of people trying to escape the chaos and oppression of leftist states. Some are here because of the pandemic and the harsh restrictions they had to endure during the first lockdowns. Others are here because they can’t stand the hostility of identity politics, cancel culture and race riots. Either way, they are fleeing places with decidedly leftist influences.
Uprooting and moving to an entirely new place is not an easy thing to do, especially in the middle of a pandemic. For many people, such an idea would have been unthinkable only a few years ago. Believe me, moving to a place like the Rocky Mountain Redoubt is not an easy transition for most. Hopefully these people understand that they will have to make extensive preparations for the rough winter and be ready to work hard in the spring and summer months to survive. Maybe they don’t realize yet how tough it is here; maybe they know and don’t care.
That’s how bad the situation has become – Rational and reasonable people are willing to leave behind their old life and risk it all to keep a margin of freedom.
In my view it is clear that the political left has gone so far off the rails into its own cultism that there is no coming back. There can be no reconciliation between the two sides, so we must separate, or we must fight. I advocate for separation first for a number of reasons:
First and foremost, conservatives are the primary producers within American culture. If we leave the leftists to their own devices there is a chance they will simply implode in on themselves and eat each other because they have no idea how to fill the production void. The recent developments in the defunct CHAZ/CHOP autonomous zone are a perfect example. Those people don’t have the slightest clue what they are doing and it shows.
Second, if conservatives separate it provides a buffer that helps defuse future random conflicts. When you force the two sides into a box together eventually they will find a reason to try to kill each other. Putting some distance between them and us reduces the angst.
Third, if the leftists decide they don’t like that we have separated and are thriving on our own, and they attempt to antagonize or attack us where we live, then we hold the clear moral high ground when we smash them to pieces in response.
I fully realize that the third outcome is the most likely. War is probably inevitable. Why? Because collectivists and narcissists are never satisfied. They desire unlimited control over the lives of others and they will use any means to get that control no matter how destructive. Separating from them is only a stop-gap that allows us to take the superior position. Through peaceful migration, we set the pace of the conflict. Eventually they will come after us, and there will be no doubt about our response then. There will be no way to spin the result in their favor, no way for them to play the victims.
Some people might question if we are actually to the point of open conflict; they might accuse me of “doom mongering”. Others may argue that conservatives are acting “passive” and that we will never take any action. These assumptions are common right now because such people do not understand how history progresses and how group psychology evolves.
Domestic war is not something pursued lightly, or haphazardly. The average person knows at least subconsciously that it’s better to seek resolution or to remain patient as events unfold. Conservatives aren’t stupid; we know that before any civil war there is first a culture war. And, we know that the cards are stacked against us and that if we act rashly in any way we will lose position in that culture war.
So, we let the leftists spit and rage like madmen for a little while. Each day people who were on the fence when it comes to the culture war are witnessing this and come over to our side because we’re the only side that is sane. The drawback is, there comes a point in which calm professionalism might be wrongly perceived as weakness. And when people sense weakness among conservatives, they might run into the arms of the extreme left thinking that it’s safer to join the “winning team”.
I believe conservatives have not been sucked into a reactionary stance yet because they are thinking logically and refusing to play the game for now. In some ways it is how we enter the fight that is more important than the fight itself. To understand why, we have to look at the bigger picture beyond the left/right conflict.
As I noted last week, the political left is a tool for a greater agenda. They are being used as a weapon of chaos by globalist interests. This is not “conspiracy theory”, this is conspiracy fact. Millions of dollars have poured into Antifa and BLM related groups through elitist donors like George Soros and his Open Society Foundation as well as the Ford Foundation. Globalist institutions like these have been influencing the extreme left and promoting identity politics for DECADES. This is openly admitted. What we are witnessing in 2020 is simply the culmination of a half-century long propaganda campaign that created the modern feminist movement, victim group status, entitlement culture, etc.
The reason for the agenda should be obvious: Chaos creates fear. Fear creates division and crisis. And, crisis creates opportunity (as globalist Rahm Emanuel once bragged). Meaning, the extreme left is going to start a war because that’s exactly what the global elites created them for.
Now, some might suggest that this places conservatives in a Catch-22 position; if we don’t fight back then we will look weak. We will be culturally isolated and eventually overrun and wiped from the history books. If we do fight back we will be giving the globalists what they want – A civil war that will tear America apart.
The suggestion by certain special interests will be that there is only one way out; use government power to turn the tide to our advantage. In other words, institute martial law. I don’t really see it that way.
Once we understand that a fight is coming regardless, our task is to position ourselves with the most advantage possible while keeping our culture and our principles intact. This includes our belief in constitutionalism, civil liberties and opposition to tyranny in ANY form. Winning the fight is important, but maintaining our principles in the process is more important. Becoming a monster to fight the monster is the same as losing.
When the left comes for us (and they will), the fight has to be won by us, not government. We cannot hand even more power to government in the name of security. We cannot become the fascists the leftists accuse us of being.
I am often asked these days about my view of the 2020 election and how it will turn out. I did predict Trump’s election win in the summer of 2016 based on the idea that Trump’s presence in the White House would drive the left insane, as well as give the globalists a perfect “conservative” scapegoat for the economic collapse they had been engineering since at least 2008…(continues)
Brandon Smith at Alt-Market writes more about US political polarization, division, violence, and breakup in The Insanity Of The Political Left And The Balkanization Of The US.
Can leftists and conservatives of our modern era peacefully coexist within the same society? If someone asked me this question only ten years ago I would have said “Sure, it’s possible”. Today, the answer is a resounding “No way”. The political divide has become so vast that there is simply no chance for the two sides to reconcile or come to reasonable terms, and make no mistake, this is not a two-sided disaster; the majority of the damage is being done by one side of this equation.
Back in 2016 I wrote numerous articles discussing the issues and dangers of the political divide that was developing within the US, and many of these articles focused on who actually benefits. In my article ‘Order Out Of Chaos: The Defeat Of The Left Comes With A Cost’ I stated:
“When I mentioned in my last article the crippling of social justice, I did not mention that this could have some negative reverberations. With Trump and conservatives taking near-total power after the Left had assumed they would never lose again, their reaction has been to transform. They are stepping away from the normal activities and mindset of cultural Marxism and evolving into full blown communists. Instead of admitting that their ideology is a failure in every respect, they are doubling down.
When this evolution is complete, the Left WILL resort to direct violent action on a larger scale, and they will do so with a clear conscience because, in their minds, they are fighting fascism. Ironically, it will be this behavior by leftists that may actually push conservatives towards a fascist model. Conservatives might decide to fight crazy with more crazy.”
The transformation I described in 2016 is now happening in 2020. The left is going full communist, with a little help of course. Currently, the Cultural Marxists are seeking to clean house within their own ranks. They are terrorizing long time Democrats and “allies” of the movement into subscribing to ALL the tenets of the new social justice religion. No deviation is allowed; all progressives must declare fealty and signal their virtue and submission or they are systematically targeted and destroyed. It is essentially coercion by cancel culture.
After this phase is over and they have organized the political left into an army of mindless drones, they will fully turn their attention to conservatives.
To be clear, social justice movements are not the primary threat, they are merely a symptom of the disease – A cancer called “globalism”. These people are being used as a weapon of expediency, nothing more. There is an open and admitted organized effort on the part of a tiny minority of power brokers and money elites in our society that seek to manipulate the public into accepting the notion of total centralization and the end of personal liberty and national sovereignty in the name of an arbitrary “greater good”. This is not “conspiracy theory”, this is conspiracy fact.
As Richard N. Gardner, former deputy assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations under Kennedy and Johnson, and a member of the Trilateral Commission, wrote in the April, 1974 issue of the Council on Foreign Relation’s (CFR) journal Foreign Affairs (pg. 558) in an article titled ‘Hard Road To World Order’:
“In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion,’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”
It is my view, according to the evidence, that the social justice left is a cultivated threat, a product of the gatekeepers of Cultural Marxism that has been gestated over decades to the stage we now see today – a mass movement of useful idiots, insane narcissists and sociopaths obsessed with identity politics and the destruction of the “old world”.
It was globalist institutions like the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation that funded different elements of the feminist movement and “gender studies” movements from the late 1960’s onward. This included the Rockefeller Foundation’s large donations to ‘The Feminist Press’ and the Ford Foundation’s programs to indoctrinate teachers into injecting social justice talking points into their curriculum. This is openly admitted in Alison R. Bernstein’s book ‘Funding The Future: Philanthropy’s Influence On America’s Higher Education’. Bernstein is the vice president of Education at the Ford Foundation and the former Associate Dean of Faculty at Princeton.
That’s right folks, social justice activism was paid for and encouraged by the so-called “patriarchy”. This is the reality, and it never stopped. Even today SJW groups are funded by globalists.
For example, as the mainstream media often tries to dismiss or ignore, Black Lives Matter was initially funded by the Ford Foundation and George Soros and his Open Society Foundation. BLM coffers were flooded with over $100 million from uber rich white elites. Again, this is a FACT that even the dishonest spin doctors at Snopes were not able to deny. Instead, they attempt to use strawman arguments and sophistry to distract from the implication of extreme-left mobs receiving seed money from elitist billionaires.
As noted, the political left is being weaponized, but to what end? To understand the end game we have to understand the concept of the Hegelian Dialectic and “problem – reaction – solution”.
If there is one behavior that stands out above all others as a defining trait of the social justice left, in my opinion it is their obsession with exploiting tragedy and crisis for their own personal and political gain. The George Floyd incident, a terrible event to be sure, should have been held up as a prime example of police abuse, yet it was immediately twisted by BLM into an issue of “systemic racism”. There is no proof of systemic racism. There’s not even any proof that George Floyd was killed because he was black.
Police abuse is something which concerns every American equally, not just black Americans. But the BLM has obscured the real issue of police accountability and made it about the delusion of “white supremacy” and an attack on basically every element of American heritage and tradition. This will alienate millions of Americans who would have otherwise agreed to certain points and arguments. The narrative was hijacked by the political left and they reveled in the death of George Floyd as a means to push numerous unrelated agendas forward as quickly as possible.
These agendas include a vast array of censorship in social media and the firestorm of cancel culture, threatening anyone who does not agree with the prevailing leftist narrative. People are losing their platforms, their jobs, and their reputations are being dragged through the mud, and the mainstream media is helping to make this happen.
Now, as a true conservative, I respect the boundaries of private property, and to be sure, a website is indeed private property. A social media company has the right to remove people and content they don’t like, just as any person has the right to remove someone they don’t like from their home. That said, there are some exceptions to this.
For example, when a company has a monopoly over a certain means of communication, then censorship becomes a legal and moral problem and that company must be either limited or broken up. Monopolies are not natural functions of a free market, they are attempts by elites to subvert free markets. Corporations in general receive their charters from government, along with the protections of limited liability and corporate personhood. They are not a natural part of the economy, they are aberrations created by government. They are children of socialism, not “capitalism”.
If we are to solve the current problem in the long term, corporations must either be regulated or abolished and replaced with classical limited partnerships. Joint stock companies, as corporation used to be called, were never intended to become permanent power structures within free market societies, and now we are witnessing why.
That said, the danger of monopolies does not only extend to corporations. There can also be such a thing as a political or ideological monopoly as well. When a particular minority of ideologues take over a vast majority of mass communication outlets and actively seeks to squeeze out any dissenting voices so that only one point of view is presented to the public, what else do we call this but a monopoly?
I see where the cancel culture is going and it is quickly going to a very ugly place. While google’s removal of ad revenue from conservative websites like Zero Hedge is a legal grey area, the attacks will eventually go far beyond monetization. One day soon, I predict there will be an attempt to influence website host providers to remove “offending” sites altogether. One might argue that handing government the power to nationalize the internet would help to protect free speech, but I doubt that. Government is run by the same ghouls that are funding the social justice cult. Why should we trust them to police the web fairly?
The political left is not only asserting control over speech on the web, but also pushing restrictions in major population centers (to be fair, Trump and his cabinet of elites including Anthony Fauci are also culpable in encouraging medical tyranny). If you lived in a major US city during the first pandemic lockdowns, then you have seen the extreme lengths politicians, mostly on the left, will go to to assert dominance…
The global elites have a different scenario in mind, I think. They certainly want a civil war, but one that they can mold and control on both sides. They are using the left to strike fear into the minds of conservatives and they want us to demand government action as the solution. They want us to push the button on the Insurrection Act and to demand martial law. If we separate and establish conservative strongholds then the temptation to beg for government help will be diminished.
There will be numerous arguments made against this strategy – They will say the cities and high population states are economically essential and leaving will be financially disastrous for individuals. But, if producers are leaving in droves, then they can build an economy anywhere they please. It’s the leftists that need conservatives to feed off of their labor and production; conservatives don’t need leftists for anything. There will be others that claim that when we leave blue states and counties we are abandoning the fight and leaving those places to be completely taken over. I disagree with this mentality. By leaving and forming conservative communities and economies and businesses we are changing the landscape of the conflict. Instead of constantly contending with political obstruction we will be free to actually build something lasting.
This is what the establishment is afraid of; they do not want conservatives to become proactive. They want us to hide in our homes in fear and apathy waiting for someone else to save the day…
In yet another article predicting either civil war or other dissolution of the United States, here is American Thinker take on where the US is going. Can the Union Endure? I think the author speaks with overconfidence on the ease of a conservative victory but there are other valuable tidbits.
At this point, Red and Blue America are not even speaking the same language. We stand near the point of what divorce lawyers term “irreconcilable differences.” In increasingly strident and self-assured tones, the Left believes it is morally superior, intellectually untouchable, and wholly justified in pursuing whatever extralegal, corrupt, or violent methods available to implement their ideology.
Talk of a breaking point has been circling conservative circles for some time, with three tangible options arising from the chatter:
1) continued focus on barely winning elections, appointing “conservative” judges that uphold Obamacare, keeping Arizona from going blue, etc.;
2) a “divorce” of sorts that peaceably divides the United States into permanent blue and red territories, or;
3) civil war…
Civil war in present-day America would not consist of professional armies mowing each other down across empty fields. It would be a house-to-house, street-by-street massacre, more akin to Hotel Rwanda than the battlefields of the American or even the Russian and Spanish civil wars.
The majority of the fighting would be carried out not by professional armies, but by private citizens, vigilantes, partisans, ad hoc neighborhood units, and the like. People on both sides would use the breakdown of order to settle private scores and commit crimes of opportunity. Others would kill indiscriminately based on “offenses” such as voting records, yard signs, etc.
Schools would close. Hospitals would become graveyards for the untreated. Water purification plants, oil refineries, and transportation hubs would be sabotaged. Even in red states, food and energy supplies would be unreliable. Sympathizers would be targeted, mobs would destroy, and homes would burn. Bombings that bedeviled Great Britain during the Troubles or present-day Afghanistan would become the norm here…
Echoing the thoughts of intelligence analyst Sam Culper of Forward Observer in his previous videos on Civil War, the Mises Institute weighs in on the need for political separation in the United States in order to avoid a bloody civil war.
It’s becoming more and more apparent that the United States will not be going back to “business as usual” after Donald Trump leaves office, and it is easy to imagine that the anti-Trump parties will use their return to power as an opportunity to settle scores against the hated rubes and “deplorables” who dared attempt to oppose their betters in Washington, DC, California, and New York.
This ongoing conflict may manifest itself in the culture war through further attacks on people who take religious faith seriously, and on those who hold any social views unpopular among degreed people from major urban centers. The First Amendment will be imperiled like never before with both religious freedom and freedom of speech regarded as vehicles of “hate.” Certainly, the Second Amendment will hang by a thread.
But even more dangerous will be the deep state’s return to a vaunted position of enjoying a near-total absence of opposition from elected officials in the civilian government. The FBI and CIA will go to even greater lengths to ensure the voters are never again “allowed” to elect anyone who doesn’t receive the explicit imprimatur of the American intelligence “community.” The Fourth Amendment will be banished so that the NSA and its friends can spy on every American with impunity. The FBI and CIA will more freely combine the use of surveillance and media leaks to destroy adversaries.
Anyone who objects to the deep state’s wars on either Americans or on foreigners will be denounced as stooges of foreign powers.
These scenarios may seem overly dramatic, but the extremity of the situation is suggested by the fact that Trump — who is only a very mild opponent of the status quo — has received such hysterical opposition. After all, Trump has not dismantled the welfare state. He has not slashed — or even failed to increase — the military budget. His fights with the deep state are largely based on political issues, and not on major policy disagreements. Trump, for example, sides with the surveillance state on matters such as the prosecution of Edward Snowden.
His sins lie merely in his lack of enthusiasm for the center-left’s current drive toward ever more vicious identity politics. And, more importantly, he has been insufficiently gung ho about starting more wars, expanding NATO, and generally pushing the Russians toward World War III.
For even these minor deviations, we are told, he must be destroyed.
So, we can venture a guess as to what the agenda will look like once Trump is out of the way. It looks to be neither mild nor measured.
And then what?
In that situation, half the country — much of it from the half that calls itself “Red-State America” may regard itself as conquered, powerless, and unheard.
That’s a recipe for civil war.
But how can we take steps now to minimize this polarization the damage it is likely to cause?
The answer lies in greater decentralization and local autonomy. But as long as most Americans labor under the authoritarian notion that the United States is “one nation, indivisible” there will be no answer to the problem of one powerful region (or party) wielding unchallenged power over a minority.
Many conservatives naïvely claim that the Constitution and the “rule of law” will protect minorities in this situation. But their theories only hold water if the people making and interpreting the laws subscribe to an ideology which respects local autonomy and freedom for worldviews in conflict with the ruling class. That is increasingly not the ideology of the majority, let alone the majority of powerful judges and politicians.
Thus, for those who can manage to leave behind the flag-waving propaganda of their youths, it is increasingly evident that something other than repeating bromides about teaching high-school civics, reading the Constitution, or electing “strong leaders” will have to be done…
Writing at The American Conservative, Michael Vlahos, for example, appears unconvinced that violence can be avoided. But even he concedes the violence is unlikely to take the form of mass bloodshed as seen in the 1860s:
Our antique civil wars were not bound to formal rules, yet somehow they held to well-etched bounds of expectation. American society today has very different norms and expectations for civil conflict, which certainly will constrain how we fight the next battle.
Today’s America no longer embraces a national landscape of an industrial-lockstep battlefield (think Gettysburg, D-Day). Our next civil war — as social media so eloquently reminds us — will enact its violence on a battle campus of equal pain, if less blood.
Many devotees of perpetual federal supremacy, of course, won’t admit even this. Any attempt at decentralization, nullification, or secession is said to be invalid because “that was decided by the Civil War.” There is no doubt, of course, that the Civil War settled the matter for a generation or two. But to claim any war “settled things” forever, is clearly nonsense.
It is true, however, that if the idea of a legally, culturally, and politically unified United States wins the day, Americans may be looking toward a future of ever greater political repression marked by increasingly common episodes of bloodshed. This is simply the logical outcome of any system where it is assumed the ruling party has a right and a duty to force the ways of the one group upon another. That is the endgame of a unified America.
In this video, intelligence analyst and Iraq/Afghanistan war veteran Samuel Culper breaks down another reason to expect Balknization of the U.S., and two ways to begin looking at strengths and weaknesses of competing sides of a conflict.
…We are meant to swallow the lie that says “diversity is our strength” without consideration for merit, performance, ability, intelligence or actual results.
This is not meant to be an indictment on any specific culture or ethnicity, but more of a history lesson, a social observation and a dire prediction.
The history lesson is the continued failure of all socialist based economic models, whether we want to consider them “real” socialism or not. The sort of hard socialism seen in 1980’s Yugoslavia and the crony-capitalist soft socialist version seen in the US today are both examples of that failure system. As I stated earlier, it does not take any level of economic expertise to understand that our current system is insolvent and that we have passed the point of no return on a future crash of our financial system. Now that less than half of the people in the US are net-taxpayers and over half of the people in the US are receiving some sort of government assistance simply to survive, we have become a welfare state, with only decreasing numbers of producers with increasing numbers of consumers. Mathematically, it is not sustainable. Historically, it is disastrous.
The social observation is that such a mass of diverse peoples must have a voluntary pressure outlet in order to maintain peace. We must accept reality that not all cultures are able to be forced together with peaceful results. Forced proximity, with advantages, disadvantages and blame doled out to certain peoples, with a lack of opportunity to separate peacefully will always result in strife and eventual violence.
The dire prediction is one that is easy to see coming: An eventual economic failure is the lit match, while the total lack of national cultural identity is the gasoline. The media and governmental apparatchiks stand by to stoke the fires.
We are Yugoslavia circa 1980’s.
My advice? Stay out of Sarajevo.