Guardian: Why Leftist Groups Are Taking Up Arms

From The Guardian, ‘If others have rifles, we’ll have rifles’: why US leftist groups are taking up arms:

A John Brown Gun Club member wears a patch featuring the Trans Pride flag and an AR-15 while community defending Trans Pride in Seattle.
A John Brown Gun Club member wears a patch featuring the Trans Pride flag and an AR-15 while community defending Trans Pride in Seattle. Photograph: Grant Hindsley/The Guardian

The van lumbered down one of Seattle’s many steep hills. A half dozen people packed inside but despite the heat, most wore long pants and boots, and several sported black hoodies. The atmosphere was subdued, except for the occasional joke. It wasn’t so much tension as seriousness – there was work to be done.

The people in the van are members of the Puget Sound John Brown Gun Club (PSJBGC). Their stated aim is to fight white supremacy and build community defense in America’s Pacific north-west, and their presence has become a fixture of protests in the Seattle and Tacoma areas, where the group is often invited to provide security against rightwing aggression.

The night before, several of them had been called to a library in nearby Renton, Washington, where a Drag Story Time Hour, an event series in which a local drag queen or drag king reads to children in a library or bookstore, was being disrupted by rightwing protesters. The protesters, who opposed the event as “immoral”, held up signs equating drag with pedophilia, and screamed “Shame! Shame!” at parents and their kids. Among them were members of the Proud Boys, a violent rightwing street gang, and Three Percenters militia, who were open-carrying firearms.

The north-west has been at the center of tense political clashes over the last two years. The area is an adopted home base for far-right groups like Patriot Prayer, Identity Evropa/American Identity Movement and the Proud Boys, who have organized numerous marches that have ended in violence. In response, a range of leftist groups have organized self defence groups and, in doing so, present gun ownership as a way to protect themselves and others.

Now, the Puget Sound John Brown Gun Club was en route to Seattle’s Trans Pride March.

In the weeks prior, word spread that a number of white supremacist groups had planned to disrupt the celebration. Hearing this, the club reached out to the organizers of the event, the Gender Justice League, and offered to assist with security or to provide escorts.

Brooke Wylie, the head of security for the Gender Justice League in charge of overseeing the 101-person security detail for the event, did some research on the club. She told them the event had a policy of having no open carry (that is, no visible weapon), which they were fine with. She accepted their offer. Police were also present, but many marginalized groups do not trust them to provide protection at public events, especially when far-right groups are involved.

Each member showed up with a concealed handgun. “We do our actions proportional to the threat, so when other people are out with rifles, we’ll be out with rifles,” Nick, the group’s de facto spokesperson, explained. “In this case, we don’t want to appear threatening for the people that we’re trying to protect and support; we want this to be a happy atmosphere, especially for a population that may have faced gun violence on the street just for being who they are.”

This scenario – in which armed community groups are working together to patrol a Pride event and protect it from other malicious and potentially armed groups – is becoming more and more common. There are more guns than people in America – approximately 393 million in a country of 328 million people…

Click here to read the entire story at The Guardian.

 

Related:

Defense Maven: Man killed in attack on ICE facility identified as Antifa militia member/John Brown Gun Club member.

…Van Spronsen was declared dead at the scene. The Pierce County medical examiner said he died of multiple gunshot wounds.

He was quickly identified as an active member of the John Brown Gun Club, a left-wing militia, who had been arrested in June of 2018 while protesting at the same facility he was trying to blow up when he was fatally shot, the Seattle Times reported…

RT: America Stumbling Towards Civil War One Terrible Tweet at a Time

Forward Observer: Breaking Down “Civil War 2” – Part V

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

In this video, intelligence analyst and Iraq/Afghanistan war veteran Samuel Culper breaks down his thoughts and the implications of military and law enforcement involvement during a Low Intensity Conflict.

Forward Observer: Breaking Down “Civil War 2” – Part IV

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

 

In this video, intelligence analyst and Iraq/Afghanistan war veteran Samuel Culper breaks down his view of the future (insurgency vs civil war), guerrilla warfare, phases of revolutionary conflict, and answers the question, “Where are we now?”

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.

Forward Observer: Breaking Down “Civil War 2” – Part Two

This video is a continuation of intelligence analyst Sam Culper’s earlier discussion which you can find here.

 

In this video, intelligence analyst and Iraq/Afghanistan war veteran Samuel Culper breaks down some alternative scenarios to “civil war.”

Related:

Wilder: Civil War Weather Report #2, Censorship, Stalin, and a Bunch of Links with some of his commendary on the same Civil War 2 video.

…YouTube© is the real star of censorship in June.  Comedian/journalist Steven Crowder has been a long-time YouTube® broadcaster who is generally on the mainstream “Right” side of the political world.  He likes guns.  Doesn’t like abortion.  He is not extreme in any real sense of the word.  But as a comedian, one of the things he does regularly is mock people.  Which people?  Everyone.  I won’t go into the details (you can look it up) but a group of Leftists decided Crowder should be banned from YouTube™ since he made a lispy-Leftist journalist who is an ethnic and sexual minority feel bad…In a crowning bit of irony, YouTube® censored a video where a Google™ (owner of YouTube™) executive talked about how Google© wouldn’t allow another “Trump situation.”  This was presumably via using their ability to manipulate what search results people see when they use Google™…

Charles Carroll Society: Heritage Foundation Debates the Cold Civil War

A short article and fifteen minute video from the Charles Carroll Society – Heritage Foundation debates the Cold Civil war | Establishment Types now taking the Patriots community seriously .

The patriot community has been saying to establishment Republicans that we are in something other than “politics of the normal.” BTW, patriot is not a person who is overly “patriotic” you can love your country but distrust your government. Patriots are people who are libertarian-leaning, conservative Christians who are anti-federalist, not anti-government.

Some call our current situation a proto-insurgency; I call it a “cold civil war.” I have explained that we are already in a non-violent civil war since 2013. In my post from November 19, 2012, titled The Haze has Lifted I said “The divide is so deep I would call it a Cold Civil War between these two groups. By Cold Civil War I mean, a non-violent (cold) intense internal struggle (civil) that is not politics as normal (war). I believe this can be considered a “war” because people have compromised on all they are willing to compromise on.”  I am unsure if I was the first to use this term, but I was one of the first.

The reason I do not say we are in a “hot” civil war is that a civil war is defined as over 1,000 deaths a year due to political differences within a country. We have a lot of violence, but we have not descended to this level yet

Click here to see the entire article and two videos at the Charles Carroll Society.

Forward Observer: Civil War?? The Truth About America’s Future

Sam Culper of Forward Observer has a very good video up talking about “Civil War 2.0.” It’s a response to someone else’s video which talked about who would win the fighting. Sam Culper believes it is highly unlikely that we would get to an 1860s-style conflict, but does believe that we’re in a hot peace that will get worse. He talks about many different aspects of non-violent warfare that are currently happening in the country and makes some inferences about the future.  The video is about thirty minutes long, but it is worth a watch.

 

Sam Culper also wrote a longish article specifically critiquing the “Civil War 2 in America: Who Will Win?” video. He responds to/refutes specific points made in that video.  That article is through this link. If you do think there will be a fighting civil war, this article is a good read as Sam Culper discusses the types of responses the government could take to make life miserable for whomever is on the other side.

Forward Observer: May Update on the “Second American Civil War”

Sam Culper at Forward Observer has another article update on our Second American Civil War. Forward Observer provides daily, weekly, and monthly intelligence updates to its members on matters of national concern.

For a couple years now, I’ve described “low intensity conflict” as the doctrine which best represents post-Obama America.

I believe very few things said about the current “civil war” but here’s what I know to be true of our current domestic conflict:

1. It’s “low intensity.” Low intensity conflict (LIC) is the doctrine of war below the threshold of conventional war (tanks, troops, planes) but above routine, peaceful competition. Anything over 1,000 deaths a year from political violence would be classified as a civil war. That’s certainly a much higher intensity than what we’re seeing now. LIC is characterized by political, economic, diplomatic, and information warfare, along with low-level politically- or ideologically-driven violence. See here for additional examples.

Another characteristic of low intensity conflict, as we’ve seen throughout history, is a relatively small percentage of the population engaged in violence. It may only be one percent of an entire country ‘at war’ while another 5-15 percent support the violence, and 75+ percent of citizens are just trying to live their lives.

Those who disagree sometimes reply, “Go to your grocery store. Go to the bank. No one is at war with each other. Everything is fine. You’re making too much of this.”

This is not 1861 where up to 10 percent of the country is fighting each other on battlefields, and the effects of conventional war are widespread and devastating.

In LIC, historically, it’s only a small fraction of a country doing the fighting, and most people live among the disruption to go on about their business…

2. We’re in a “hot peace.” I certainly would not characterize America in 2016-2019 as being at “peace,” other than the absolute absence of outright war. The cultural cold war has turned hot; albeit at a very low level. If you ignore this, then you ignore reality…

3. It’s very likely to worsen. The tectonic shifts in American culture have caused periods of political violence before. The Civil Rights movement, the race riots and unrest between 1968 and the 1970s, and abortion clinic bombings are a few key examples, but even those ‘conflicts’ eventually died down. Oftentimes, conflict is generational. One generation goes away, and future generations develop their own problems.

For current generations, I believe conditions are more likely to worsen before they get better because the culture war now includes more fronts that foment the anger and resentment that cause political violence…

4. We could have just two to three years before we see routine, sustained political violence. For as long as I’ve been writing about LIC, I’ve warned of the effects of the next recession and financial crisis on the political and cultural climate. (I now believe that the next recession and financial crisis have an above average chance of happening simultaneously.) Class and race warfare, I believe, will worsen as we move through this period of economic and financial uncertainty.

High youth unemployment is a universal indicator of civil unrest and violence. What I’m seeing in America’s future are social bases charged by race, class, and/or politics, who also lack economic opportunity and the hope of a better life that comes with it…

Click here to read the entire article at Forward Observer.

US Civil War 2.0 Update

Young boy sleeps between his parents

There have been several articles in the past week or so on the topic of the possibility that there will be or there already is a second civil war occurring in the United States. Several of them reference each other.

The Washington Post started with In America, Talk Turns to Something Not Spoken of for 150 Years: Civil War in which it blames Trump and conservatives for the current state of affairs.

From Richard Fernandez’s article at PJ Media, What Would a Hybrid Civil War Look Like? wonders if we are already in a civil hybrid war where victory is achieved by silencing opponents, punitive prosecution and deplatforming.

Howard Schultz tweeted that “the failed political class of Washington, D.C., has broken America’s political system. And out of that are rising political extremes on both sides.” Yet to some, extremes are not a bug but a feature. Bernie Sanders declared without a hint of irony that “Donald Trump wants to divide us up based on the color of our skin, based on where we were born, based on our gender, our religion and our sexual orientation,” even though that is the perfect definition of intersectional identity politics.

While one explanation for the fractiousness is a reversion to our primitive natural tendency to mistrust outsiders, the other possibility is that it is now the way modern warfare is waged. The Russians have ascribed events unfolding in Venezuela to an American Trojan Horse strategy. It “would rely on ‘protest potential of the fifth column’ to destabilize the situation in the countries with unwanted governments … using the technologies of color revolutions.”

The Russians, whose Soviet empire was overthrown by the color revolutions, have been experimenting with similar strategies known as hybrid warfare. As the NYT reported

General Gerasimov laid out in an article published in 2013 … which many now see as a foreshadowing of the country’s embrace of “hybrid war”… analysts see a progression from the blend of subversion and propaganda used in Ukraine to the tactics later directed against Western nations, including the United States, where Russia’s military intelligence agency hacked into Democratic Party computers during the 2016 election.

With conventional war rendered suicidal by the advent of nuclear weapons, a cocktail of lawfare, info war, deliberate population movement, and targeted physical intimidation is now the toolset of choice and the Russians, Chinese, jihadis, EU, and USA each have their versions.

“The idea that the Russians have discovered some new art of war is wrong,” Mark Galeotti, a Russia expert at the Royal United Services Institute and the author of “Russian Political War,” said of the general’s latest speech. “This is basically the Russians trying to grapple with the modern world.” Hybrid war has long been a Western military term of art, analysts say, especially in the context of counterterrorism.

But since the resulting battlefields are waged inside the country, there is little reason why domestic political conflict should not resemble the international ones. Because victory is now attained by jailing opponents, silencing or financially sanctioning them, punitive prosecution, deplatforming, and universal surveillance are used alike in both cases and it is increasingly hard to tell them apart. The thesis that America is already in a “civil war” or on the brink occurred to Greg Jaffe, national security reporter, and Jenna Johnson, national political correspondent for The Washington Post...

Robert Bridge writes at RT American Civil War 2: US media will have only itself to blame if all hell breaks loose that the media’s self-righteous bias stokes the divisions.

…Michael Cohen, for example, Trump’s turncoat personal lawyer who committed perjury by lying to Congress, was quoted high in the article as saying, “Given my experience working for Mr. Trump, I fear that if he loses the election in 2020 that there will never be a peaceful transition of power.”

Now that is certainly rich. Ever since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election, Washington has been consumed by the Mueller investigation, and amid mindless chatter that Trump is an illegitimate president slated for impeachment. In other words, the last thing that can be said about the Democrats is that they facilitated a “peaceful transition of power.” In fact, they have hobbled Trump and his administration ever since he entered the Oval Office.

Another pro-Liberal voice dragged into the Civil War story was Robert Reich, who served on Barack Obama’s economic transition advisory board. The Post linked to an article Reich wrote last year where he posited the fictional scenario where an impeachment resolution against the president is enacted, thus kicking off mass civil strife on the direct command of dear leader…

Now that is some world-class chutzpah. In fact, it is the same self-righteous, ingratiating tone that weaves itself throughout the Post article. In keeping with the mainstream media’s non-stop narrative, Trump and the Republicans are blamed for everything that has gone wrong in the country, while the Democrats come off as little angels trying to piece the fractured country back together.

As already mentioned, Donald Trump is certainly not above criticism. Far from it. But for the mainstream media to place all of the blame for the current political malaise at the Republican’s door is about as responsible as lighting up a cigarette inside of a Chinese fireworks factory…

Finally Malcolm Pollack’s On Civil War discusses how it is the Left that has pulled crazily away from the rest of the country and the resulting desperation of normal people to return to civilized order that is causing the chasm.

…That’s it exactly: we are desperate. We know how close we are to the edge, to the dissolution of civilized order into chaos and tyranny. We can feel in our bones the implacable hatred of our would-be commissars for everything we believe is good and right and true — along with a growing understanding that their hatred doesn’t stop at our traditions and beliefs. As long as we live and breathe, we are a threat. If the blood-soaked history of the twentieth century can teach us anything at all, it should teach us that it will not be enough to see us displaced and destroyed. They will want us dead and gone.

One of the milestones along the road to civil war is the normalization of violence as a rational response to a dehumanized enemy, followed soon after by an eagerness for general conflict. This eagerness arises first in the breasts of those seeking radical change, who see violence as justified by the righteousness of their cause, and who are usually young and excitable people who have a much better sense of how to destroy what exists than to build and preserve a system that, however flawed, actually works. (This also reflects that the Right, almost by definition, moves toward order, while the Left is always entropic.) But the Right is eminently capable of reactive, or even proactive, violence when confronted by an existential threat to order, and is every bit as liable to the “othering” and dehumanization of its enemies in preparation for war.

There is, then, a spiral of mutual threat and provocation in the run-up to war, along the course of which a people can go from general comity and commonality, to political or cultural division, to rancorous debate, to increasingly bitter struggle for political power, to “othering” and dehumanization, to normalized violence, to bloodthirsty eagerness for war, to general armed conflict. We are already well into the latter stages, and even on the Right I see martial enthusiasm increasing: the hatred of the enemy, the idea that we are now so far beyond reconciliation that there is going to be a fight, and that we might as well get on with it (especially as we are the ones who will most likely win)…

RT: America Stumbling Towards Civil War One Terrible Tweet at a Time

Burning Platform: 2019 From a Fourth Turning Perspective

William Strauss and Neil Howe (both historians, among other things) wrote a book in 1997 called The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy — What the Cycles of History Tell Us About America’s Next Rendezvous with Destiny — which introduced what is now called Strauss-Howe Generational Theory. According to that theory, there is a four stage cycles of eras, called turnings, which repeat in cycles of approximately 80-100 years, the fourth of which is the Crisis turning, an era of destruction and revolution. The theory has its critics as well as proponents, so, as with everything, use your think-thingy. The following is an excerpt from a lengthy article on The Burning Platform titled 2019 From a Fourth Turning Perspective, which gives some overview of the theory and applies it to world and US events.

“An impasse over the federal budget reaches a stalemate. The president and Congress both refuse to back down, triggering a near-total government shutdown. The president declares emergency powers. Congress rescinds his authority. Dollar and bond prices plummet. The president threatens to stop Social Security checks. Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling. Default looms. Wall Street panics.” – The Fourth Turning – Strauss & Howe

Image result for budget impasse trump schumer

Strauss and Howe wrote their book in 1996. They were not trying to be prophets of doom, but observers of history able to connect events through human life cycles of 80 or so years. Using critical thinking skills and identifying the most likely triggers for crisis: debt, civic decay, and global disorder, they were able to anticipate scenarios which could drive the next crisis, which they warned would arrive in the mid-2000 decade. The scenario described above is fairly close to the current situation, driven by the showdown between Trump and the Democrats regarding the border wall.

It has not reached the stage where all hell breaks loose, but if it extends until the end of January and food stamp money is not distributed to 40 million people (mostly in urban ghettos) all bets are off. The likelihood of this scenario is small, but there are numerous potential triggers which could still make 2019 go down in history as a year to remember.

As we enter the eleventh year of this Fourth Turning, the fourth Crisis period in U.S. history, the mood of U.S. citizens and citizens around the globe continues to darken. Fourth Turnings are driven by generational configuration and the emotional reaction to events by the Prophet generation leaders, Nomad generation spearheads, and Hero generation cannon fodder.

As we close out this year, stock markets are gyrating wildly, central bankers are trying to reverse their nine years of interventionist strategies to sustain the establishment, civil chaos spreads across the European continent, saber rattling between the U.S., Russia and China increases, the animosity between political parties reaches new heights, the Deep State relentlessly pursues their Mueller led coup against Trump, mega-social media corporations tighten their grip on free speech by silencing conservatives, leftists push their socialist, open borders, normalizing degeneracy agenda, and global recession gains momentum as trade declines and global debt reaches unserviceable levels…

Click here to read the entire article at The Burning Platform.

Patriotman on American Partisan has his own take on the article, The Fourth Turning & The Future, As I See It:

…I think that the article was very closely aligned with my fears. The biggest threats we face as a country are all intertwined (thus, don’t consider this a ranked list) and are: civil unrest due to a growing divide between ideologies, economic slowdowns due to massive debt and employment trends, and outside challenge of the unipolar world by China and Russia.

I don’t think that any of these are the causation for the others, but if I was forced to choose it would be the differing of ideologies that is driving the other two. The urban and rural divide has always been present obviously, but the obvious disconnect between the coastal elites in their ivory towers and those in the hinterlands seems unsolvable at the moment. The problem mostly lies with the former as the latter would like nothing more than for everyone to be left alone by everyone else. It is the liberal elites who insist on forcing their culture, norms, and ideology on those conservatives in rural America and continually try to remake the system in their permanent favor. They attack our religion, our culture, and our lifestyle because they do not approve of it…

 

 

AIER: The Real Problem Is the Politicization of Everything

Kai Weiss at the American Institute for Economic Research has a nice, short article on the problems of over-politicization and the solution thereto – The Real Problem Is the Politicization of Everything. Unfortunately, at least one of the sides will reject the idea of a less-intrusive state.

…This is a problem the great C.S. Lewis also saw when he mused that we should focus on “a household laughing together over a meal, or two friends talking over a pint of beer, or a man alone reading a book that interests him.” Meanwhile, “economies, politics, law, armies, and institutions, save insofar as they prolong and multiply such scenes, are a mere ploughing the sand and sowing the ocean, a meaningless vanity and vexation of the spirit. Collective activities are, of course, necessary, but this is the end to which they are necessary.”

So what is a possible way out of this conundrum? A multitude of proposals have been made to detoxicate today’s climate, and it would frankly be pretentious for me to claim to know the solution. Nonetheless, one surefire way, as friends of liberty will quickly point out, is to get politics out of our lives. As Kristian Niemietz notes, “The most obvious antidote to a dysfunctional, adversarial political culture is just to do less politics.”

What does that require? It necessitates a dramatic reduction in the size and scope of the state, the building of a wall between the state (so long as it exists) and the rest of our lives, and the restoration of the conviction that society works best when it is left alone. In other words, we need desperately to resurrect the vision of classical liberalism and draw lessons from its modern heirs in the libertarian tradition…

To regain civility in human interactions and finally treat other human beings as human beings again, we would do well to get politics out of human affairs.

Click here to read the entire article at AIER.org.

FO: What Most People Get Wrong About Our ‘Civil War’

Sam Culper at Forward Observer has another piece in this series covering our ongoing domestic conflict, What most people get wrong about our ‘Civil War.’ It’s got some length to it, but it’s a good read with valuable information for you to understand.

…While a civil war, by definition, has not yet started, I do argue that a domestic conflict has already started (my specific thoughts are here, here, and here).

There are plenty of naysayers, and I understand their logic. They advise listeners or readers, “Go to your local Walmart or grocery store. Your local doctor’s office. Your local bank. Walk out your front door and talk to your neighbor.” They ask if Americans are at war with each other in these places, and use these anecdotes to explain that America isn’t locked into a civil war and won’t be.

They’re right in that regard. America isn’t at war.

But the problem with their argument is that it’s not all of America fighting the culture war, nor is it all of America fighting in the ongoing domestic conflict. It’s an ‘irate, tireless minority’. (The brunt of the ‘fighting’ in this conflict isn’t being waged by the average American, as two of my favorite thinkers people in the world — Victor Davis Hanson and Niall Ferguson — have alluded to. You can read my review of Ferguson’s latest book here.)

Another reason why most Americans — the overwhelming majority — aren’t engaged in our domestic conflict is because we’re still really early. Those engaged in establishing the battle lines of today’s culture war were ‘innovators’ in the 1990s. Those engaged in the culture war through the 2008 and 2016 elections were ‘early adopters’. But once the ‘early majority’ joins as soon as 2019-2021, the evidence of an active domestic conflict could be overwhelming. That’s a very distinct possibility.

My estimate is that we have maybe a few percent of the population pushing left or right extremes at the center of the culture war, but there’s an even smaller percentage (a fraction) that actually engages in political violence. There’s probably another 10 percent on either side actively engaged in political, information, and economic warfare. The remaining 75 percent is on the bubble, indifferent, or just plain stuck in the middle — a lot like other intra-state conflicts we’ve experienced.

So can we really have a domestic conflict with just a few thousand combatants?

Well, yeah. But we’re probably still very early.

To understand why we’re still in the beginning phases of our domestic conflict, we can look at three concepts…

Click here to read the entire article at Forward Observer.

Related:

The Organic Prepper: Are You Prepared for Lockdown? How to Stay Safe When All Hell Breaks Loose in America

…Add in the fiercely-fought midterm elections and the threat of civil unrest is high…

Strategic Culture Foundation: American Politics Is Now Just Civil War by Other Means

…Trump didn’t cause today’s polarization, he only exacerbates it because he punches back…

Monster Hunter Nation: The 2nd Amendment is Obsolete, Says Congressman Who Wants To Nuke Omaha

…We are so divided it’s like we are speaking two different languages. Hell, on this topic we are on two different planets. And it is usually framed with a sanctimonious left versus right, enlightened being versus racist hillbilly, unfailing arrow of history versus the knuckle dragging past sort of vibe…

Imprimis: America’s Cold Civil War

Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College, has a posted a transcription of a speech given by Charles Kesler, the Dengler-Dykema Distinguished Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College and editor of the Claremont Review of Books. America’s Cold Civil War discusses the current political divide in the USA and how it came to be. The somewhat lengthy piece details the difference in beliefs about the Constitution, individual vs group identity, and opposing definitions of rights. It also identified five possible paths ahead, including hot civil war.

…[W]e have described our current political scene as a cold civil war. A cold civil war is better than a hot civil war, but it is not a good situation for a country to be in. Underlying our cold civil war is the fact that America is torn increasingly between two rival constitutions, two cultures, two ways of life.

Political scientists sometimes distinguish between normal politics and regime politics. Normal politics takes place within a political and constitutional order and concerns means, not ends. In other words, the ends or principles are agreed upon; debate is simply over means. By contrast, regime politics is about who rules and for what ends or principles. It questions the nature of the political system itself. Who has rights? Who gets to vote? What do we honor or revere together as a people? I fear America may be leaving the world of normal politics and entering the dangerous world of regime politics—a politics in which our political loyalties diverge more and more, as they did in the 1850s, between two contrary visions of the country.

One vision is based on the original Constitution as amended. This is the Constitution grounded in the natural rights of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution written in 1787 and ratified in 1788. It has been transmitted to us with significant Amendments—some improvements and some not—but it is recognizable still as the original Constitution. To simplify matters we may call this “the conservative Constitution”—with the caveat that conservatives have never agreed perfectly on its meaning and that many non-conservatives remain loyal to it.

The other vision is based on what Progressives and liberals, for 100 years now, have called “the living Constitution.” This term implies that the original Constitution is dead—or at least on life support—and that in order to remain relevant to our national life, the original Constitution must be infused with new meaning and new ends and therefore with new duties, rights, and powers. To cite an important example, new administrative agencies must be created to circumvent the structural limitations that the original Constitution imposed on government.

As a doctrine, the living Constitution originated in America’s new departments of political and social science in the late nineteenth century—but it was soon at the very forefront of Progressive politics. One of the doctrine’s prime formulators, Woodrow Wilson, had contemplated as a young scholar a series of constitutional amendments to reform America’s national government into a kind of parliamentary system—a system able to facilitate faster political change. But he quickly realized that his plan to amend the Constitution was going nowhere. Plan B was the living Constitution. While keeping the outward forms of the old Constitution, the idea of a living Constitution would change utterly the spirit in which the Constitution was understood.

The resulting Constitution—let us call it “the liberal Constitution”—is not a constitution of natural rights or individual human rights, but of historical or evolutionary right. Wilson called the spirit of the old Constitution Newtonian, after Isaac Newton, and that of the new Constitution Darwinian, after Charles Darwin. By Darwinian, Wilson meant that instead of being difficult to amend, the liberal Constitution would be easily amenable to experimentation and adjustment. To paraphrase the late Walter Berns, the point of the old Constitution was to keep the times in tune with the Constitution; the purpose of the new is to keep the Constitution in tune with the times.

Until the 1960s, most liberals believed it was inevitable that their living Constitution would replace the conservative Constitution through a kind of slow-motion evolution. But during the sixties, the so-called New Left abandoned evolution for revolution, and partly in reaction to that, defenders of the old Constitution began not merely to fight back, but to call for a return to America’s first principles. By seeking to revolve back to the starting point, conservatives proved to be Newtonians after all—and also, in a way, revolutionaries, since the original meaning of revolution is to return to where you began, as a celestial body revolves in the heavens…

Click here to read the entire essay at Imprimis.

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

 

NY Times’ Literary Supplement Publishes “Trump Assassination” Story

From Mac Slavo at SHTFPlan.com comes a story of media hypocrisy. While the media and media talking heads like former CIA head Brennan blame President Trump for inciting violence leading to the recent failed bombing attempts, they ignore the well recorded incitement to violence of Democrat party leaders and the media.

While mainstream media outlets balk at the suggestion that they may have been guilty of ramping up the division and political tensions in the United States, one of those outlets actually published an assassination story about president Donald Trump.

While those in the mainstream media blame Trump’s inflammatory “fake news” rhetoric for half a dozen bombs mailed to prominent Democrats and CNN, the New York Times ran a short story envisioning Trump’s assassination.  The story detailed a failed assassination attempt by a Russian but what happened next was incredibly disturbing.

Frustrated by the failure of the Mueller investigation to turn up the requested dirt on their “enemy”, Trump, the media “resistance” asked a few spy novelists to predict a more “appealing future” for the president in the Times‘ literary supplement., according to RT. The results revealed some shoddy writing work, even putting aside their predictable endings. Spoiler alert: Trump was colluding with the Russians all along…

…This is a highly hypocritical stance for the mainstream media to take.  On the one hand, they demand Trump cool down his rhetoric toward them, but on the other hand, they insist on publishing violent leftist trash meant to incite glee over the president’s assassination.

Trump’s election has hastened a decline in journalistic standards that has seen once-respectable media outlets like the Times jettison fact-checking, accountability, and taste standards in favor of grinding their political axe. Journalists’ concerns about the Trump regime are not unfounded, however – his Justice Department has prosecuted more whistleblowers and leakers than even media darling Barack Obama, who previously held the record. -RT

If you think the media is not inciting violence, just take a quick look at an article by Breitbart titled, 613 Acts of Media-Approved Violence and Harassment Against Trump Supporters...

Democrats claiming that they are not inciting violence with their words are reminiscent of South African President Zuma singing “Kill the Farmers, Kill the Boer” and claiming that it is merely preserving history and is not an incitement to violence.