Alt-Market: Biden’s Presidency Will Be A Catalyst For Secession – And Perhaps Civil War

Brandon Smith at Alt-Market takes a stab at predicting the next few years in Biden’s Presidency Will Be A Catalyst For Secession – And Perhaps Civil War.

Over the past few months I have written a handful of articles which discussed what would probably happen if Joe Biden actually entered the White House and launched his administration. My initial belief was that Trump would refuse to concede and that this would be a trigger for national chaos blamed on conservatives, but I have also noted that Biden’s entry is almost just as disruptive, as it sends a signal to the political left that it is “open season” on anyone that disagrees with their ideology.

Of course, conservatives are not going to simply sit still and be purged and abused, they are going to strike back, and this sets the stage for a number of events and outcomes, some of which are completely unpredictable, even for establishment globalists.

First, though, we need to address how Biden and the globalists are going to create chaos so that they can then demand their own brand of “order”.

In my article ‘A Biden Presidency Will Mean A Faster US Collapse’, published in October, I outlined why the ongoing economic crisis will accelerate in the wake of a Biden takeover. More specifically, I predicted that Biden would implement a federal covid lockdown, probably within the first year of his presidency, similar to the Level 4 lockdowns implemented in Europe and Australia. Biden may lure Americans into complacency with promises of “relief” and less restrictions in his first couple months, but he will then use the rather convenient news of “covid mutations” to bring in even harsher mandates.

Such a lockdown, if Americans submit, would mean an even larger spike in unemployment, a loss of hundreds of thousands of small businesses as well as a huge loss in tax revenues for some states (mostly blue states).

Another scenario is that Biden leaves the lockdowns in the hands of state governments, but pursues a nationwide program for medical passports. The passport, of course, would require people to take the vaccine and accept contact tracing apps on their phones; meaning 24/7 surveillance on the public. At least 30% of Americans have said in polling that they will refuse the vaccines outright. Another 60% have said they are wary of the vaccines and need proof of their effectiveness. So, the medical passports will lead to millions of people being denied participation in the mainstream economy and collapse happens anyway.

In other words, the elites are going to try to hold the economy hostage while telling the public that if we don’t accept medical tyranny it will be OUR FAULT if the system breaks down.

The economic crisis, however, started long before the pandemic, long before Biden and long before Trump. It has been building since the credit crash of 2008, and in the 12 years since, the Federal Reserve and other central banks have been pumping out trillions in stimulus while encouraging non-stop debt accumulation. Right before the beginning of the pandemic, the US was suffering from the highest corporate debt in history, the highest consumer debt in history as well as the highest national debt in history.

What we are witnessing right now is the final phase of a collapse scenario that was more than a decade in the making, and Biden is about to help finish the job.

Biden will no doubt seek to hyperinflate the dollar in the name of offsetting the losses and keep things afloat for a short time, but the real agenda will be to trigger price spikes in goods as well as eventually killing the dollar altogether. No amount of stimulus will stop the crash that has already been set in motion; the bailout measures from this point on are Kabuki theater, a show put on for the masses to make us believe that the government and the banks “did everything they could” to save us. The elites have no intention of stalling or stopping the collapse; their “great reset” demands it.

One’s initial assumption would be that Biden would then take the blame for the economic crisis, but it appears that the establishment is going to set up a Herbert Hoover narrative and lay all the blame squarely on Trump and conservatives. In the past I have noted that Trump’s trajectory was very similar to Herbert Hoover’s, in that he was a business mogul and Republican that pushed for corporate tax cut policies and also extensive tariff’s.

Hoover also served only one term, taking the blame for the crash of 1929 and the advent of the Great Depression, even though the crash was primarily caused by the Federal Reserve’s ultra low interest rates and easy money, followed by a series of rate hikes (a fact which former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke would later openly admit to in 2002). This launched the three term dominion of Franklin D. Roosevelt, one of the most communistic presidents in our history and the initiator of socialist programs which have since buried the American public in Quadrillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities.

Biden’s latest statements indicate he will be introducing numerous executive orders to “correct the mistakes of the Trump administration”, thereby implanting the idea that whatever happens next is Trump’s fault. The “Reset” globalists and their central banking partners will have to bring down the US economy very quickly under a Biden White House. Why? Because if they wait, or if they try to drag out the collapse and the worst happens a few years down the road, Biden and the globalists will get the blame. They MUST crash the old world order now so that Trump and conservatives can be saddled with the consequences.

The strategy seems to be this: Demonize conservatives as much as possible as quickly as possible so that our purge from social platforms can be rationalized. When we are incapable of defending ourselves in the public sphere because we have been removed from the internet, the establishment and leftists can blame us for everything going wrong. The public would have no access to any other points of view or contradictory facts and evidence because the alternative media will be gone. We become the monsters, the bogeymen and the source of all American suffering.

We didn’t fall into the trap of supporting martial law measures during the BLM riots, so this must be Plan B.

Will their plan work? I doubt it. Just as the globalist rollout of the pandemic lockdowns and medical tyranny is failing to gain traction in the US as huge numbers of people refuse to take the questionable vaccines, I suspect millions upon millions of Americans are already savvy to the propaganda schemes of the establishment and will not buy in. But, that doesn’t mean the elites won’t try it anyway.

In early November in Issue #47 of my newsletter, The Wild Bunch Dispatch, I war gamed the Biden scenario extensively and concluded that if he was to enter the White House it would have to be followed by a massive erasure of conservative media platforms from the internet. I stated that:

If Biden does indeed enter the White House and take control of the presidency, expect certain consequences right away: A complete full spectrum censorship campaign of conservative news sources will be undertaken by tech companies and government. There is no way Biden and the democrats could keep control of the situation while conservatives are able to share information in real time. Do not be surprised if web providers suddenly start kicking conservative sites off their servers, just as Bitchute (a YouTube alternative) was kicked off their server for 24 hours on election night.”

This is already happening, and Biden hasn’t even stepped foot into the role of “commander and chief” yet. The coordinated effort by Big Tech to remove Parler, a Twitter alternative, from the web completely was not all that surprising. Luckily, Parler will be back up and running by the end of the month, but the censorship campaign is only going to get worse from here on. Biden WILL support and defend the censorship efforts by Big Tech and the fascist marriage between government and the corporate world will be complete.

To summarize, the globalists have to silence us before they can effectively demonize us. The truth is on our side; facts and logic are on our side. They can’t win the war of ideas if we are allowed to speak; this is why they are so desperate to silence us.

Sweeping gun control measures will be issued by Biden, but only after the conservative purge from the internet is close to finished. If conservatives are isolated from one another in terms of communication, this makes it harder to organize a defense against aggressive gun confiscation. Biden will most likely try to exploit Red Flag gun laws first, this would allow federal agencies to declare anyone to be “a threat to public safety” without due process, and have their guns taken away preemptively.

There is an obvious outcome to all of these actions and I don’t think it’s far fetched to suggest that conservative counties and states will demand secession. At the very least, conservatives are going to continue to relocate to red states and red counties, just so they can continue to do business and make a living without government interference. There’s no way that most conservatives controlled states or counties are going to submit to federal lockdown mandates or medical passports, and economies in conservative regions are going to remain stable because of this while blue states are going to crumble.

Biden will seek to retaliate against conservative controlled areas of the country in response.

There comes a point when it is impossible for those that value freedom, logic and reason to live side-by-side with those that are irrationally obsessed with control. The American constitutional framework in particular was designed to prevent collectivism from overriding individual liberties, but if the system is sabotaged through subversion and the Bill of Rights is violated, then maintaining the system is no longer plausible.

The best option for a number of reasons is to separate. Secession is often referred to as “running away” from a cultural problem, but this is an ignorant way of looking at it.

We are reaching a stage right now in the US where it will be virtually impossible to voice political concerns without risking retribution. If you are a conservative, you will be targeted.

If conservatives and moderates migrate away from leftist controlled areas and congregate in red states or red counties, then it will be difficult for leftists to attack them for voicing their views. If your employer is a conservative, then he’s not going to care if a leftist mob demands you be fired. If you own a business in a conservative community, then the people that live there will continue as your customers regardless of what leftists say about you.

Conservatives and moderates MUST start to physically separate from the political left. We must remove ourselves from the blood sucking parasites that have attached themselves to us. This allows us to remain free to think and speak as we like, and it takes all power away from leftists to hurt us by disrupting our means of making a living.

Secession is a more extreme measure, but it WILL become necessary if leftists refuse to accept that we are no longer participating in their games of fear and subterfuge. Leftists are collectivist by nature, and collectivists see people as property. Walking away is not an option in their minds. So, though we might successfully separate, this would only be the beginning of the battle.

The important thing is to first make sure that conservatives KNOW that there are places they can go where their civil rights are valued and defended. If conservatives feel completely isolated and alone, many will give up, go dark and pray they are not discovered. This is unacceptable.

The advantage of secession is clear; by separating, conservatives force the enemy to come to them, on ground they have prepared. The leftists will be the aggressors by default. They will try to present the situation otherwise, but it won’t matter. We will have the moral high ground as well as the superior strategic position.

There are multiple narratives that will be used to demonize the secession movement beyond the terrorism angle. In particular, I think the government and the media will try to tie secession to “foreign entities”. In other words, they will claim the secession movement is being funded or supported by Russia, or some other foreign power. This is what almost every government in history has done when faced with a viable secession or rebellion that could threaten their control – They accuse the people that want to separate of being agents for evil outsiders.

It doesn’t matter.

Conservatives cannot live with leftists, their cultism and zealotry has made it impossible. And, we will not live under a globalist tyranny built around their reset agenda. Separation allows us to consolidate for defense, and protects us economically. It is the only way to ensure that we remain free.

The globalists and the leftists will try to stop us; they can’t help themselves. They are insane, after all. This will lead to a war many of us have been expecting for quite some time. At the very least, with separation and secession we will be in the best possible position to stop them. If we remain isolated from each other, the fight will be over before it even begins.

The American Mind: The New Oligarchs Will Not Tolerate Secession

Edward Erler at The American Mind talks about some similarities between problems now and problem pre-The Civil War in The New Oligarchs Will Not Tolerate Secession.

The article, “The Separation: A Proposal for a Renewed America,” was apparently written under the pseudonym “Rebecca,” which the author indicates was taken from a series of letters written by Abraham Lincoln using the same pseudonym.

The author surely knows that Lincoln was challenged to a duel by James Shields, the sitting senator from Illinois, as a result of the “Rebecca letters.” Lincoln accepted the challenge—he chose broadswords as the weapons, and actually took instructions from a military officer in preparation. Shields was an experienced Army man in his own right, considered an expert with the broadsword. But Lincoln designed the proposed combat arena in such a way as to give his size and considerable reach an advantage over the shorter Shields.

Though the matter was amicably settled before the duel could be fought, I invite all readers—including the second “Rebecca”—to ponder Lincoln’s ingenious and highly amusing design. It provokes reflection on the comedy and tragedy of politics.

Dueling was against the law in Illinois, so the plan was to stage the event in Missouri where it was permitted. Planning or conspiring for a duel either by principals or seconds was also illegal, and Lincoln surely broke the law in doing do. Had plans for the duel been carried out, Lincoln’s political career might have ended in 1842.

In any case, Lincoln did not write all of the “Rebecca” letters: some (and the most scandalous) were written by Mary Todd, his fiancée and future wife. Surely “Rebecca” was an odd choice on the part of our pseudonymous author: it wasn’t Lincoln’s finest moment and he never again resorted to the use of a pseudonym. He had learned his lesson!

A Sparring Match

I will not challenge our author to a duel, but I will challenge this holder of “multiple Ivy League degrees” on his understanding of the American regime. Our author rightly notes the deep division that has arisen in the nation between the Red States and the Blue States. He or she proposes, not a divorce, but a trial separation that may eventually lead to a reconciliation of differences.

Throughout the essay, the author makes a mistake that Lincoln never made: Lincoln never forgot that politics is the architectonic art. We have often heard from conservatives that “politics is downstream from culture” and the way to reform political life is first to reform culture. Lincoln never made this foolish error, nor do the progressive ideologues who drive the politics of the Red States. These leftist radicals are deadly serious; politics is their avocation. For them culture, while an important part of political calculus, is eventually determined or shaped by politics because politics is always a contest for rule.

Conservative Republicans who believe that the battle for culture takes precedence over politics will always lose because they don’t know where to drawn the main battle line: they prefer to fight skirmishes. Progressives count on the apolitical character of conservatism, its preference for private life over the political. This is why the leftist radicals saw Trump as such a threat: he was a political man and understood the supremacy of politics.

Lincoln in the 1850s

Our author rightly notes, as many commentators have, that our current situation resembles that of the 1850s and the election of 2020 appears eerily similar to the election of 1860. Lincoln’s great speeches of the 1850s all sought to reconcile the nation by restoring the principles of the Declaration of Independence as the authoritative source of the Constitution’s authority. He tirelessly reiterated that the Constitution, understood in the light of the principles of the Declaration, had put slavery on the “course of ultimate extinction.”

These speeches—the Peoria Speech in 1854, the Dred Scott Speech in 1857, House Divided (1858), Cooper Union (1860), and the First Inaugural (1861)—were all masterworks of reasoned logic and persuasion. But they were political failures! Why? Simply because the slaveholding states were consumed by their passions and so unable to listen to reason. The First Inaugural, for example, appealed to their self-interest: there would be no interference with slavery in the states where it already existed, Lincoln averred, because there was no constitutional power to do so. If the South left the Union it would lose its representatives and Senators and would therefore be unable to protect its interests in the government.

Secession was folly. It occurred only because the South had refused to listen to reason—reason, in other words, no longer informed public discourse. Today, too, reason has been driven from the public sphere. The era of the sound-byte and media manipulation has replaced reasoned discourse. The election of 2020 has sunk to the lowest level of public discourse in modern times and perhaps in history.

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

When read in the light of the principles of the Declaration, it was clear that the protections for slavery in the Constitution were merely compromises with those principles, temporary expedients to be observed until political conditions (and public opinion) would accept the abolition of slavery. Read in that manner—in the manner the Founders intended—the Constitution had doomed slavery to eventual extinction.

The public mind had rested with that assurance until the passage of the Missouri Compromise in 1854, which allowed local majorities in the territories to determine whether to have slavery or not. Stephen Douglas, the architect of the measure and Lincoln’s main political rival, maintained that it was not a matter of principle but simply of whose interest was served. If a majority of the people found it in their interest to “vote slavery up,” then they should do so. If not, they should vote it down. Lincoln, with his inimitable ability to convey complex matters simply, said it was like two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch—by majority vote!

Lincoln’s response to Douglas revealed the essence of republican government: if natural rights are only a matter of whose interests are served, then no one’s rights are secure. It will always be in someone’s interest to disenfranchise the rights of others—whether it be the interest of a majority, an oligarchy or a tyrant. Douglas’s claim that interest is the only basis for rights put everyone’s rights in danger. If rights are not grounded in “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” then it simply becomes a matter of whose interest is being served. The Missouri Compromise, in Lincoln’s true estimation, repealed the principles of the Declaration.

In the House Divided Speech, Lincoln made it clear that no further compromise on the issue of slavery was possible—or desirable. What would it profit to lose the soul of the nation—its animating principles? The body might live on, but without a soul it would be a nation indifferent to justice, that sine qua non without which no constitutional regime or the rule of law can exist. And in the Cooper Union Speech Lincoln revealed that the South did not want mere tolerance for its “peculiar institution”; it wanted the North to stop condemning the immorality of slavery and even demanded its recognition as a moral good, something that could not happen without repealing the Declaration.

Conflating the Timeless with the Timely

Our author recognizes that “[o]ur times are Lincoln’s.” But Lincoln’s times “attempted to accommodate the ‘peculiar institution’ with individual liberty.” This was an attempt “to reconcile irreconcilable ends…that could not be resolved within the system.” Indeed these were incompatible ends, but the “system” had “resolved” them, by putting slavery on the “course of ultimate extinction.” Read the Constitution in light of the principles of the Declaration and enforce the Constitution: that was the “system” as Lincoln understood it. The slaveholding states no longer wanted the resolution prescribed by “the system”; as Lincoln said over and over again, there was nothing inadequate, as our author seems to think, with “the system” itself.

The author admits that our current problems, however serious and dangerous they are, do not compare to slavery—although, I might add, some kind of tyranny (which amounts to enslavement of the people) might be in prospect. The author is correct that the people are currently deeply divided—“we are two people.” But here is the surprising observation: “The current political system cannot bridge the divide between the two Americas.” “The Constitution is not broken,” we are assured, “rather “the People for whom it was created are broken.” In order to address this problem our author suggests a “separation” that will allow Red and Blue America a “political living space.” This will allow the “people to relax the political bands connecting them.”

We are told that this strategy surely will be productive since “both sides still claim fealty to the Constitution.” This outrageous claim will be examined in short order. If suffices to ask now: Which constitution is our author referring to?

Our author assures us that the founders would not frown upon this innovation, since change was “not an affront” to them: “it was their expectation.” It is true, as our author suggests, that the Constitution was grounded on “timeless principles” which had to “adapt [to] the times.” But our author has done something incredible by changing a “timeless principle.”

We presume that the “timeless principles” to which our author has referred are contained in the Declaration of Independence and its invocation of “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” We remember that the Declaration appeals to those same laws when it says it has become necessary for “one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another.” Our author treats these “timeless principles” as flexible and adaptable, i.e., as if they were not sacred “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” but merely matters of convention which can be modified at will. Thus they can be reinterpreted to “relax the political bands” of the “one people” instead of becoming a foundation for the principles of a new separate and equal nation dedicated to the “safety and happiness of the people.”

Something is wrong here! The timeless and the timely have been confounded and the Constitution is now bereft of permanent principles. But is this the price that must be paid so the two separate people, Red and Blue, have their “space?” It might be separate, but it certainly will not be equal.

Understanding Regime Politics

Our author, I believe, shows a fundamental misunderstanding about the American regime, beginning with the assertion that the Constitution was “itself a course correction from the Articles of Confederation.” It was indeed a “course correction,” but somewhat more than that: Madison regarded the Constitution as an act of revolution because it not only rested on wholly different principles than the Articles but was ratified by the supreme authority of the people, not the states.

In Federalist #39, Madison wrote that the Constitution must be republican because that was the only form of government consistent with the principles of the Revolution, by which he meant the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Our author says that today our “current system” is inadequate to bridge the divide that separates the people.

Presumably our author believes that the “current system” or some reasonable facsimile is the regime of the founding that both sides of the political divide, Red and Blue, still adhere to. But what evidence does the author have that the Blue States still adhere to the same constitution that the Red States appeal to? The most advanced elements of the Blue states— the ruling elites, composed of the most progressive law professors, academics, the minions of the deep state, media, corporate elites, the tech oligarchy—don’t adhere to the Constitution of the founding; rather, they routinely refer to a post-constitutionalism in which the Constitution of the Founding will be rendered superfluous, having been replaced by the administrative state and bureaucratic rule.

What Would BLM Say?

Our author even seems to agree that the two Americas are operating according to different basic principles: Rebecca calls for a revitalization of the 9th and 10th amendments that might inspire some kind of decentralized federalism to encourage social experimentation in our separation. This can only mean that Red and Blue would be invited to govern themselves in quite different ways.

The 9th amendment’s provision for “unenumerated rights” might help soften the abortion debate that motivates much of our division. It might perhaps provide some new rights to be free from pollution and climate degradation, since climate change seems to be another source of unbridgeable division. Separations can be fruitful times for reimagining all manner of things that could lead to reconciliation. It might prove beneficial in reconciling Black Lives Matter and blue lives matter, for example, although it is difficult to see how any amount of relaxed reimagining might meet the non-negotiable demand of BLM and left-wing progressives—backed by Blue State Democrats—to defund the police.

Blue lives matter seems to be equally resolute and, not surprisingly, to have strong support among non-oligarchic, urban lower-class blacks and Latinos as well as whites and other ethnics. Mirabile dictu! BLM seems to be a part of the ruling oligarchy! A truly helpful reimagining might suggest a defunding the military wing of BLM, but this kind of creative reimagining would undoubtedly be stigmatized as “racist,” for which even the most active imagination seemingly has no defense—even among the “woke” ruling elites who tremble before the slightest charge of racism, real or imagined, conscious or unconscious.

Our author seems to be perplexed that the statement that “all lives matter” has been deemed “racist” by BLM. Doesn’t BLM realize that as a matter of logic “all lives” includes “Black lives?” But here is the rub. Logic and reason are a Western imposition on the world, invented by white supremacists and white imperialists. To say that black lives are included in all lives is demeaning—it pushes black lives into an invisible background. Logic is not life.

The assertion “Black lives matter” is a statement of racial superiority. It cannot be judged by “racist logic.” “All lives matter” is therefore racist—no logic necessary, only reimagination. BLM has considerable responsibility for driving reason out of the public sphere with its claims that Western logic is racist and imperialist. If you think BLM doesn’t have that much influence on elite opinion, I invite you to think again. Mull that one over in your separation and “relax.” Get back to me when you figure out a reconciliation. Do your best: our marriage may depend on it!

Is America Still a Republic?

The fundamental error in our author’s analysis, however, is still more glaring: America has not been a constitutional republic based on the consent of the governed for many years. It has, in fact, been a thinly disguised oligarchy, dominated by ruling class elites in the media, in academia, both political parties in government (where politicians freely make promises to voters but find it easy to evade and ignore), the bureaucracy, the deep state (including the intelligence agencies), corporations, Silicon Valley, and other centers of influence.

Aristotle in the Politics noted the tendency of democracies and republics to become oligarchies. On occasion, he noted, one of the oligarchs appealed to the support of the people to overturn the oligarchic class and return to the old regime. Is this how we are to understand Donald Trump’s rise and fall? He said during his primary campaign that he was a wealthy insider and he saw what was happening to the people, especially how the oligarchy was profiting from China at the expense of the middle and working class. He believed that the people were being defrauded to enrich the wealthy and that this was simply unjust. He wanted to act on behalf of the people to restore the constitutional republic in which they, not the oligarchy, held sovereign power.

Trump didn’t know about Aristotle, or Aristotle’s dictum that it is justice above all which preserves regimes. But he did understand that it takes an insider to understand oligarchy.

Why would Trump betray his own class—the oligarchy? Self-interest is not always the dominant motivating force in some men—sometimes an instinct for justice prevails, or sometimes a reputation for justice might be a primary self-interest. But it took an oligarch—an insider and a traitor to his class. In turn, his class reacted to his effrontery with deadly purpose. How dare he take the side of the people! How dare he invoke justice!

The Oligarchy’s Grand Strategy

The elites, in an out of government, mobilized against Trump with resources that he could not match. The so-called Masters of the Universe dogged him unmercifully, censoring him at crucial moments that had a significant, if not decisive, impact on the election.

Pollsters did not use the wrong methodology in conducting polls; almost certainly they misreported results on purpose to suppress turnout. The media was uniformly against him, suppressing news—which the FBI said was credible but not worth investigating—about Hunter Biden’s corrupt dealings, trading on his father’s connections with Russia, China, and Ukraine. The role of the Dominion Voting system, an easily manipulated system that can change results in real time without a trace, may be revealed in the future. But it is clear that the election was in fact stolen from Trump by the oligarchy he dared oppose. The likelihood that there will ever be another free election in America is remote.

Perhaps most important was the Wuhan virus, which provided an unexpected weapon for the oligarchy not only to consolidate their power but to terrorize the public into accepting oppressive government regulations that will probably extend into the indefinite future. Some of the regulations have been exercises in raw power, having little or no rational basis and little effect on curbing the pandemic.

Most telling, however, is the fact that the pandemic has resulted in the greatest transfer of wealth in history from the lower and middle classes to the wealthy and corporate classes. Whether the pandemic was an accident or not, the massive transfer of wealth was intentional. The reaction to the pandemic was the beginning of the end of President Trump’s attempt to survive the all-out assault mounted against him by combined forces of oligarchy. Without the pandemic, Trump, in all probability, would have won reelection, and would have been better positioned to deal directly with the minions of the deep state, the Masters of the Universe, and those who supported them.

Oligarchy and Regime Change

Oligarchy is not a permanent; it too is subject to regime change. It can become a democracy, or it can become a tyranny if one or a small segment of the oligarchs becomes predominant in wealth and power. In the near future, the latter prospect is most likely. What is clear however is that no “trial separation” will alleviate our situation, even when our highly educated commentator learns to recognize the politics of regime change.

Politics is a contest for rule—the people or the oligarchy in our current situation. It is not helpful to think of the relationship of the Red and Blue State as a marriage that needs a “trial separation.” Even if a separation was secured, I can assure you that the Blue State oligarchs—and for that matter the many Red State oligarchs and politicians who are content to return to status quo ante Trump—would not use it to work on the marriage. And they certainly won’t tolerate a divorce. Like all domineering partners who abuse their consorts, they want to rule.

The Trumpet: Disunited States – A Lesson We Must Learn

The Balkanized States of America

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)

Click here to continue reading at The Trumpet.

Alt-Market: Is America Heading For Civil War? Of Course It Is…

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)

Alt-Market: The Insanity Of The Political Left And The Balkanization Of The US

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…

Read the entire article at Alt-Market by clicking here.

American Thinker: Can the Union Endure?

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…

Mises: How to Avoid Civil War

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.

How to Avoid Civil War: Decentralization, Nullification, Secession

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.

Click here to read the entire article at Mises Wire.

Forward Observer: Breaking Down Civil War 2 – Part III

In this video, Sam Culper of Forward Observer shares part three of his critique of the Civil War 2 video.  See Part I and Part II.

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.

American Partisan: Balkanization in the United States

From the fine staff of American Partisan is this brief article, Balkanization in the United States: Is it Coming?.

…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.

Click here to read the entire article at American Partisan.

Related:

Forward Observer: The Hidden Tribes of America