Posts Tagged ‘Civil War’

Our Cold Civil War

Thursday, February 21st, 2019

There’s no shooting yet, unless you ask Steve Scalise(R-LA.)  He might well see it differently, and justifiably so.  He was grievously wounded by a leftist madman with plans of wiping out Republicans. Even in the Cold War, there were occasional incidents that involved shootings, even though most people observed the peace, perhaps just barely.  Now we face something different in character.  It is a combination between our worst fears of the growing police state in the era of the War on Terror we’re still fighting, a new version with different motivations than the bloody Civil War we fought one century and one half ago, and the Cold War we didn’t fight, but ended, some thirty years ago.  This new form of war is different in some ways from what we’ve seen in the past.  Our nation is so thoroughly divided that it seems impossible to heal.  Violence threatens from just beneath the surface, only constrained by our lack of desire.  Like all people under the boot of oppression, we will go a long way before we will rise in rebellion.  We don’t want a fight.  We want to be left alone.  Just as in the war on terror, however, the enemy seems bent on denying us that option called peace, and they’re bringing war to us. For now, it’s cold, or at least cool.  As the rabid left continues to agitate for more from their neighbors’ wallets and souls, the temperature is rising fast. Now we find ourselves in a Cold Civil War in which the violence is just beneath the surface and an open war is just one election or one court ruling away.

Alexis de Tocqueville famously warned:

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.

We are approaching the end of the American Republic.  Congress discovered in the 1930s that it could bribe the public with the public’s money, and the bribery began in earnest in the 1960s.  Now, the bribery is everywhere.  Now the guns hide just beneath the surface.  There is always the threat that they will be pointed in your face. Somewhere, even now, some statist is contriving the next approach to coerce your rights and your property from your hands.  In fact, there are more statists coming up with ways to spend you into oblivion than there is money to be expropriated and spent.  The Green New Deal is one example, but it’s only the most recent.  Understand that they are willing to use violence.  Let them hem and haw all they will, and let them attempt to conceal their malign plans, but do not let them go without demanding of them: “Where do you get the right to steal from others at gunpoint?”  Do not allow them to hide the gun.  That’s why they immediately shift to nonsense about “social contracts” and so on.  They want to pretend you’ve volunteered to be robbed.

Ladies and gentlemen, we’re in a cold civil war that is just one bad incident or one miserable election from going hot.  Some will moan that I’m far too pessimistic about it, but let’s be blunt, shall we?  Look around.  It’s so bad that we now have Americans turning to theories that may or may not have any basis in reality for belief.  The left has its collusion hoax, while Trumpsters have something I’m investigating called “Qanon.” I know the left’s Russia/Collusion story is a thoroughgoing hoax, but only recently, having encountered advocates of this Qanon business, I’m still investigating.  For all I know, Qanon is a political operation of Trump’s to keep his base in line. (Don’t email me to complain, please, as I’m still investigating this, and this is one of a number of theories floating around the Internet about Qanon.) Still, let us imagine Qanon is substantially real, whatever that means. How far have we fallen that such a character (or collection of them) would constitute the only hope of salvation for America?  How thoroughly bankrupt have we become?  How corrupted is our government and those who not only staff it, but also who choose them?  Why are we looking for a hero rather than rising to be heroes ourselves?  We’ve sat by and let them steal our country, and now we wish for some sort of superman with a bold “Q” emblazoned on his chest to save us from our own intransigence?

We let the statists steal our schools and universities.  Having monopolized these platforms, they stole our children and grandchildren away, now to be used as fodder in the war against us.  We let them control all of our media because we have refused to bankrupt their outlets by simple disuse.  That’s all it would take.  That’s all we would need.  Just stop using them.  Turn off their television channels.  We hang onto their platforms(I’m as guilty as any) like Facebook and Twitter and Youtube because… they’re convenient!   The problem is that they’ve turned it all against us.  Where are we now? How can we claim to support the constitutional republic while we join these villains in a “civil” relationship comprised of their guns and their threats, but only our submission? What sort of mixed signals do we send to our progeny? On the one hand, we talk to them about the evils of the popular culture, but on the other, we partake of it.

It’s awful.  The real problem may be that the left is now pushing so hard that people who are only barely anchored to reality may begin to do completely unhinged things, and some may ultimately involve actual shootings.  First, think of this fool Jussie Smollett, who created a hoax hate attack, all so he could defame Trump and his supporters, but perhaps also to help Kamala Harris(D-CA) and Cory Booker(D-NJ) push their anti-lynching bill through the Senate last week.  Then, on Wednesday, an apparently demented US Coastguard Lieutenant was arrested on terrorism charges in Maryland.  Christopher Paul Hasson, of Silver Springs, was planning to kill a number of leftist federal office-holders in particular, but apparently had a more generalized hate on for all of humanity.

If you view these things as I do, it’s becoming obvious that America is being pushed to the brink.  We are still in a “cold” phase of this second civil war, but that won’t last too much longer.  People from both sides of the divide are now openly talking about this as an eventuality. Warfare is much uglier than most can imagine, but that’s part of the reason to worry:  Too many Americans think warfare is clean and easy, because too few Americans have served in the Armed Forces.  Too few among us have borne the real burdens and costs of war.  War, civil or otherwise, must never be treated as the first or best alternative, and those who seem to place it on the table as a first or best option should be watched closely.  Sometimes, wars must be fought, but never should any person contemplate war too easily or too frivolously.

Despite what prudence tells us, there are those who claim to relish a civil war, and would prefer it become “hot.” This is a danger to be avoided at all costs but one.  We must de-escalate this situation by whatever rational means still remain to us.  If we fail, this situation may break down in a tragic way.  I haven’t been an advocate for liberty and freedom just to see it pissed-away by hot-headed numbskulls on both sides of the ideological divide.  There are too many outside provocateurs, and I worry that what Russia was unable to accomplish by colluding with Obama and Clinton, they now intend to accomplish by pitting one side against the other.  Don’t underestimate that problem.  The world is full of enemies who would be thrilled to see the US consumed and effectively neutered by a domestic civil war.  This is a time of intense danger, friends, and I fear for our republic as never before.

Editor’s Note: It came to my attention after the publication of this post that Mr. L had posted a video with a similar theme and title last summer.  First, I apologize to Mr. L, because it had not been my intention to plagiarize his work, either in title or in content.  As he says so frequently, we are like brothers from different mothers, inasmuch as we frequently agree on many things, though we may arrive at our conclusions by somewhat different paths, or express them in different ways.  Due to that, things like this can happen, but unlike some others on the Internet, I go out of my way to avoid it, even inadvertently.  Second, let me commend that most excellent video, The USA Cold Civil War, and present it here: 

Advertisements

This is 1860, and Obama Isn’t Lincoln

Thursday, March 22nd, 2012

Who We Need

Our country is in crisis, but at present, we have no leader emerging to save the union, and it seems there will be no Abraham Lincoln to save the nation.  Barack Obama is more like his long-ago predecessor, James Buchanan, who was put in place by his party, the Democrats, to protect the institution of slavery.  Obama is in that position, as his job has been to protect and grow the welfare state, and in much the same way as Buchanan, it may be a case before the Supreme Court that defines his presidency.  If Barack Obama and the Democrats have their way, the Supreme Court will uphold the Affordable Care Act(Obama-care) thus defining the character and inevitable course of the nation, much as in 1857, Justice Taney’s ruling upholding slavery in the Dred Scott case set the nation on a course to civil war. The difference was that in 1857, the court held that federalism applied, and in 2012, Barack Obama’s justice department is demanding that the 10th Amendment and the entire notion of States’ rights be ignored. There may only be one way in which this issue is finally settled, and it may require war.

In 1860, the budding Republican party sought to set the question on slavery right, the abolitionists in the North propelling Abraham Lincoln to the presidency.  Lincoln had the distinction of overseeing the abolition of slavery, but to do so he would need to fight a war.  In much the same way, if Republicans are to begin abolishing the soft slavery of the welfare state, beginning with Obama-care, they will need to elect a leader prepared to wage war in defense of a principle.  After all, in 1860, the South was entrenched in the notion of keeping the institution of legal slavery, but the abolitionists knew that could not be permitted to stand.  In 2012, faced with a Supreme Court case that may well decide the future of the country, we wait to see if the court will act to save the country, or fail to defend the principles enshrined in the constitution as they did in the Dred Scott case one-hundred-fifty-five years ago.

People have falsely compared Obama to Lincoln, thinking his stance on the supremacy of the central government over the states is the most pressing comparison, but this simply isn’t the case.  What will save our republic now is not more government but less, and not fewer freedoms but more, and in this sense, Barack Obama has nothing in common with Abraham Lincoln.  Lincoln thought that it was impossible to better the lives of some men by subjecting other men to ruin:

“Property is the fruit of labor…property is desirable…is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, “Reply to New York Workingmen’s Democratic Republican Association” (March 21, 1864), pp. 259-260.

Clearly, Lincoln was not interested in Obama’s updated form of enslavement, and yet that is the central crisis that will confront this nation in the 2012 elections, and for some years to come.  Nobody can say with certainty what will be the final tipping point, but if this nation continues apace, it will plunge into anarchy and civil war, but this time, the government is likely to be on the side of the slavers.

There is something fundamentally flawed in the thinking of those who argue that this is just the natural progression of nations, because what they argue is that Americans are neither wise enough, nor even capable of sufficient self-control to attempt to restrain intemperate desires for wealth derived from naked expropriation, but I submit this is not true, at least not yet, and that we must not permit it to become true.  Once we cross that invisible plane, the ramifications will be known with little delay, as the country you had known and loved and labored to propel disappears into the fog of a war from which only savagery may emerge.

Let us not pretend that we can’t imagine what will happen in such a scenario, but let us not delude ourselves into the beautiful lie that tells us it will somehow resolve by other, less painful means.  Von Clauswitz said that war is politics by another means, and I am here to tell you that politics is just the precursor to war  in such a context as the one in which our nation now persists.  All of the political rancor we now experience would be replaced by open warfare, at least for a time, in the scenario I am describing.  That our slate of Republican candidates might not see this is disturbing enough, but that our front-runner intentionally avoids seeing it is frankly inexcusable.  Of those now in the nomination fight, I think Gingrich is most apt to understand what’s at stake, because his knowledge of history may permit him to see the warning signs with a clarity the others are neither inclined nor perhaps able to see.

Gingrich has a fine understanding of the Civil War, and he certainly knows the history of the period, and how the nation arrived in that predicament.  I think Gingrich also understands that our current predicament is in some ways worse, because whereas in 1861, Lincoln put the government in service of the proposition that all men were created equal, we now have a government committed to the notion that it is the job of government to compel an equality of results.

This is the nature of the grave danger we now face, and it is every bit as dangerous as 1860, but perhaps with the added danger that we now have  a president who is part of the problem.  Put another way, imagine that in 1861, it had been a President from the South who instead caused t he Northern delegations to Congress to walk out, and had engaged in a brutal war to compel Northern states to the “peculiar institution” that had been slavery.  That’s what we now face, as Barack Obama seeks to impose his own form of slavery on the American people.

This is why I insist that this election year is not like 1980, or even 1932.  This election is most like 1860, and if we don’t find a candidate with the common sense and righteous aims of Lincoln, it may have been in vain that we exercised our vote.  If we are to preserve this republic, we will need leaders who are willing to wage even war in defense of individual liberty.  That certainly won’t be Barack Obama, and it surely won’t be Mitt Romney, leaving us to ponder whether it is even possible to save our union once more.