Just like a cold wind blowing clouds across the horizon portends a storm, there are often many signs of a civilization entering its final days. When a culture is young and growing, it is full of life – a high birthrate, strong families, innovative business, and a people confident in themselves and their traditions. When a culture is in decline, however, the opposite is often true. Birthrates have fallen, families are broken and dysfunctional, innovation is marginal, and the traditions and beliefs that once united people are now fragmented and mocked. Most of all, however, the decline of a civilization is seen in how its people treat the weakest in their midst, especially their children. This week we got some graphic lessons in how far our own country has fallen.

First we had the state of New York passing a new law enshrining abortion on demand as a permanent legal right while writing into law that unborn babies are not “persons” with legal protection. As Governor Cuomo signed the bill he was flanked by several women smiling at the fact that they had just made it easier for women to kill their own children. They further lit One World Trade Center with pink lights, ostensibly to celebrate a victory for “women’s health”. 75 years ago the skyscrapers of New York lit up with crosses to celebrate Easter, but now of course traditional religion is banned from the public square. It has been replaced with a secular progressive faith that has abortion as one of its core sacraments. For adherents of this new religion, abortion is absolutely non-negotiable. Asking them to restrict it in any way is like asking Muslims to forgo the hajj or one of the other pillars of their faith. They will countenance no restriction or criticism of abortion, even to the extent of defending monsters like Kermit Gosnell rather than give an inch.

Shortly after this celebration of death in New York, Virginia attempted to follow suit. While it sounds like the bill in Richmond was defeated, abortion advocates never rest for long. Governor Northam was caught on tape advocating for the bill, saying that even children who were born alive could be left to die if it passed. His office later backtracked, but his position was evident. Like New York, Virginia is a state full of rural conservatives who are outvoted by the massive number of extreme leftists who have spilled across the Potomac from Washington DC. Residents of upstate New York, where my ancestors lived, or the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia can only watch helplessly as their states enshrine this religion of death into state law. When half the country celebrates the murder of innocents, you can be sure that your culture is in severe decline. We look back with disgust at cultures such as the Aztecs, Spartans, or Phoenicians who would sacrifice or otherwise kill their own children, but the people of the United States are in no position to judge them now. If God does not harshly judge our nation for this holocaust, then perhaps He should apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.

It is not just the unborn who bear the brunt of our culture’s decline into death. Our children are increasingly being subjected to propaganda and mutilation that would make both Goebbels and Mengele blush. Transgenderism has been pushed into the mainstream of our society faster than anyone could have predicted. Children are being taught from birth that sex is not determined by chromosomes but is a choice they can make. Children are used as props by their parents to show how diverse and tolerant they are. Children are being prescribed hormone blockers and even given surgery to change them from male to female, or vice versa, as if such a thing were possible. A culture confident in itself would see this propaganda and mutilation for the mental illness it is and would take steps to protect its children from this horrific evil. Our culture, on the other hand, celebrates and encourages it. Ten-year-old “drag queens” dance on stage for money at gay bars and instead of his parents being arrested for child abuse they are invited on morning talk shows to be lauded by smiling hosts. Public libraries invite adult “drag queens” to read stories of tolerance and acceptance to young children, even after these creatures admit that their goal is to literally groom your children.

Yesterday a Twitter user posted a thread about a TV show that celebrated one young man’s journey to womanhood. The entire thread is unrolled here and is worth reading, if you can make it through without feeling sick:

Transgenderism is a serious mental health disorder being paraded as a identity like homosexuality. The difference is they desire a brutally violent medical procedure that will not result in a body of the opposite sex. Just pain and complications
Currently nobody is fighting this. The GOP has not fought this. Nobody has. We are marching towards a very sick world and nobody is speaking up. Contact your representatives and educate yourselves. Its going to get worse.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1090725647733977088.html

This farce is being taught as normal to our children. If they go to public schools they are being taught this propaganda. If they read books or watch TV they are being taught this propaganda. As they grow up, they get this propaganda from media, celebrities, and colleges. Transgenderism is becoming a fad for lonely teenagers, just like goth culture was in the 1990s. Nobody tells these young people that transgenderism is a mental illness that needs to be treated, not enabled. Nobody tells these young people that hormone blockers and sex-change surgery do not turn you into the opposite sex but leave you broken, sick, and in pain. Nobody tells these young people that transgenderism leads to suicide at a tremendous rate.

This is the mark of a culture in decline. We worship death, and sacrifice the next generation upon the altar of diversity and tolerance. Our civilization carries with it the stench of death and decay, and the sooner it falls the better it might be for those of us who remain.

Sometimes the actions of the left can seem puzzling. Even after video evidence emerged backing up the story of the Covington Catholic high school students in Washington DC last weekend, leftist journalists and pundits continued to attack the students. To their credit, some of the leftist and Globalist right commentators apologized without qualification, but many in fact doubled down, continuing to accuse the students of being racist and evil. Many journalists wrote that the smiles on the faces of the students were emblematic of “white privilege” and that their presence at the March for Life rally showed they were evil sexists to begin with. An interviewer from the Today Show on NBC asked the main student, Nicholas Sandman, why he hadn’t apologized to the American Indian activist, despite numerous videos showing that the boy had nothing to apologize for. What is behind this sort of behavior on behalf of our pundit class?

The answer is “intersectionality”. Go to a college gender studies class and you will hear the word all day long. Intersectionality is basically the name given to the broad alliance of feminists, blacks, Muslims, homosexuals, Hispanics, and anyone else who feels they have an axe to grind with America’s traditional white majority. In a vacuum, many of these groups would have nothing to do with each other. Muslims in Saudi Arabia execute homosexuals while keeping their women as second-class citizens, yet in America the three groups are on the same team. Even in America, black rappers are far more degrading toward woman than the most stereotypical white misogynist, yet feminists and blacks make common cause against their white enemy. It doesn’t make any sense until you learn about intersectionality. Intersectionality is essentially a hierarchy of victimhood. Position in the hierarchy is determined by which group is most “oppressed” by the evil white male Christian patriarchs of our society. Intersectionality should best be understood as a modern secular religion, with its priests (college professors and journalists), acolytes (various members of the oppressed classes), gods (diversity and inclusion), and devils (white Christian men).

Acolytes of intersectionality have redefined racism from being simply animosity or judgment based upon skin color to the more complicated formulation of “power plus prejudice”. Under this new definition, racism is determined by the hierarchy of victimhood. Someone higher on the list cannot, by definition, be racist toward someone lower. Blacks cannot be racist toward whites, they say, because whites have institutional privilege. Privilege is another big concept in the intersectional soup. The higher you are on the list, the more “privilege” you have. It doesn’t matter if you’re a dirt-poor white man who was raised by a single mother and didn’t finish high school. In the world of intersectionality, you have more “privilege” than former president Barack Obama. His children will receive affirmative action and special deals in life to make up for their lack of privilege, while your children will be taxed to death to pay for it. This also explains why men such as Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton can say terrible things about whites and Jews and not be censored, deplatformed, and fired from their gigs. George W. Bush once spoke of the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” Intersectionality means having no expectations of civility at all for favored groups.

Over the last few years, white women have started to learn that their position in the intersectional hierarchy is not as good as they once believed. Despite being the driving force behind feminism for the past century, white woman are now being attacked as enablers for the white male patriarchy. Slightly more than 50% of white women voted for President Trump in 2016, which is an unforgivable sin to the rest of the intersectional coalition. White women who fear for their lives from inner-city black thugs find themselves accused of racism. The slow speed at which some feminists have accepted the transgender movement has left them open to attack as well. The old guard of the feminist movement thought they were blazing trails for women – biological women, that is – but instead they simply opened the door for men to put on dresses, take hormones, and then dominate in women’s sports. The intersectional hierarchy is constantly evolving, and woe to the unwoke leftist who doesn’t change fast enough for the zeitgeist.

Understanding the intersectional hierarchy helps a great deal in explaining how leftists interpret the world. In the case of the Covington Catholic students, they exist at the very top of the privilege list, and therefore are always going to be the bad guys in the story. In their first encounter, with the Black Hebrew Israelite group, they simply withstood horrible insults and slurs. But in intersectionality, blacks are valued higher than whites, so the Covington students are the villains in the story. Then when they have a standoff with an American Indian activist, they are once again the higher-privileged group, and are once again the villains. The actual facts of the encounter do not matter one bit. Who said what, who approached whom, none of these things matter. Only intersectionality and privilege matter. The leftist journalists and commentators who have turned this encounter into a two-minutes-hate against white Christians are simply following in the footsteps of Vladimir Lenin, who believed that everything could be broken down into “who, whom”. “Who is doing what to whom?”

The one thing that confounds the hierarchy is party identification. Typically ones position in the list is determined by gender, skin color, religion, sexual orientation, etc. But party identification can move you up or down, depending on if you are a Democrat or a Republican. White male Democrats like Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, or Ted Kennedy can say or do things that would get their Republican counterparts absolutely destroyed in the media. On the other hand, black or female Republicans get no quarter from the left. It is worse, even, since they are seen as betraying their natural state. The left treats Clarence Thomas and Sarah Palin with the most vile insults and attacks because they left their natural positions within the leftist intersectional hierarchy. As usual, the accusations by the left about the right’s supposed racism or sexism are often simple projections of what they do and say to people who leave their reservation. The absurdity of the whole thing is evident when you see leftists accusing black, Hispanic, or Asian conservatives of having “white supremacy”.

Once you understand the intersectionality mindset of the left, so many things start to make sense. Take Beto O’Rourke, for example. In the 2018 Senate race in Texas, O’Rourke challenged Republican Senator Ted Cruz, who is of Cuban descent. Despite Beto being of Irish descent – as white as you can be in the 21st century – media sided with him over the Hispanic Cruz. It’s simple to explain: Cruz is a Republican, and therefore abandoned his proper place in the hierarchy and became a devil. However, watch what happens in the next year or so as the Democratic presidential race gets going. When covering Beto’s battle against, say, Kamala Harris, the black Senator from California, his “whiteness” puts him in a worse position in the hierarchy. It has already begun – CNN published a piece just last week called “Beto’s excellent adventure drips with white male privilege.”

Intersectionality helps journalists as they write their stories. Rather than reading factual accounts or actually researching a candidate’s positions, intersectionality allows them to easily identify the heroes and the villains of a story. Journalists in the current year no longer simply aspire to accurately report the news. Instead, they go to journalism school in the hopes of changing the world. From grade school through college they are fed constant propaganda that includes generous helpings of intersectionality. This is their mindset, their worldview. They interpret everything through this lens. Understanding this lens is key to understanding leftists. This lens, however, is poisonous, as the Covington Catholic encounter has shown. When adult journalists are taking to a public forum to call for the expulsion, assault, and even death of teenagers because of the way they smiled, then they have crossed a dangerous line. White children are taught from birth that they are worth less than everyone else, and are constantly attacked in media as the villains of every story. Heaven help us all if the next generation of white youth decides to live up to that image.

If, as Carl von Clausewitz said, “war is politics by other means,” then politics is war without bloodshed. Mencius Moldbug agrees. “Democracy is like a poison,” he wrote. “The permanent contest for political power that democracy creates is an extreme case of limited war, in which no weapons at all are allowed, and battle is resolved by counting heads.” It seems inevitable that the faux-war of democracy will eventually evolve into a real war. “There are three and only three ways to reform our Congressional legislation,” said Stephen Decatur Miller in 1830. “The ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box”. A democratic republic ideally confines itself to the first two, but history shows that the third is inevitable in the long run.

The first US Civil War broke out when seven (later eleven) southern states voted to secede from the union on the grounds that the union itself was voluntary. President Lincoln sent troops to invade the South on the grounds that the union was inviolate. The question of whether southern citizens were engaging in their natural right to disunion or were instead rebels against their lawful government was not necessarily solved by the outcome of the war. Twenty years of military occupation of the South as well as laws and Constitutional amendments passed by the North moved the conflict from the battlefield back to the ballot box and jury box. However, there is no guarantee that it will always remain so. Democracy only works when the people believe it works. Secession and civil war happen when citizens see that the ballot and jury boxes are rigged against them.

Here in the 21st century, citizens have lost faith in their public institutions. Our media, which has long prided itself on its objectivity and role in holding government accountable, has gone completely insane in their opposition to the Trump Administration. Citizens initiatives are overturned by legislatures and unaccountable courts. The will of the voters is stymied at every turn. Even elections are no longer trusted, as ballot issues in Florida and California recently illustrated. Unelected bureaucrats wield tremendous power within our government. Unaccountable judges seem to wield unlimited power, whether by unilaterally reversing laws and executive orders, or by making up new laws out of whole cloth. Our country is more polarized than it has been since the 1860s. Scott Adams likes to point out that two sides of the country are “watching two different movies,” meaning that we are viewing current events very differently depending on which side we are on. Is the Mueller investigation a necessary look at how President Trump colluded with a foreign government to steal an election, or an attempt by deep state bureaucrats to marginalize and even oust a legally elected president?

I suggest that the situation our country is in today should be called a Cold Civil War. The Cold War was a fifty-year standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union characterized by animosity and competition but lacking in direct military conflict. The Cold War was fought with proxies in places such as in Korea and Vietnam; it was fought with economics, it was fought with politics, it was fought with propaganda. Had nuclear weapons not been in the equation, it is likely that World War III would have begun shortly after the end of World War II. But neither country wanted to escalate so far that they risked open war in the age of the atom bomb. Our current national situation is comparable to the Cold War. Two sides, which I characterize as Globalist and Nationalist, are at odds with each other, and have gone beyond simply using the ballot box to settle their differences. The Globalist Left has begun aggressively using boycotts, censorship, and deplatforming in order to silence their foes on the Right. Expressing even moderately conservative or nationalist viewpoints on social media can expose a person to threats of banning, loss of employment and income, to even physical harm. Students are suspended by their school administrators for wearing MAGA hats. Physical violence occurs when Antifa, the military brownshirt wing of the Globalist Left, disrupts conservative rallies and speakers. Respected media figures openly fantasize about violence against people they disagree with.

This Cold Civil War shows no sign of abatement any time soon. While the violence is not yet at the level seen in the 1960s, the rhetoric is off the charts. Unlike the 1960s, however, the fault lines of the Cold Civil War fall on many ethnic lines. Hatred of white people is the driving factor for so much political action today. The white person has become the “other”, the dreaded bogeyman to be feared, fought, and destroyed. A few weeks ago, a young black girl was murdered in a horrific shooting. When initial reports suggested a white suspect, national media went into overdrive, publishing pieces about how we need to deal with racism, white supremacy, toxic masculinity, etc. When the truth came out that the shooter was a black man, the story was quickly forgotten. Microaggressions by white people against any minority group becomes national news, while the all-too-common violence that plagues black neighborhoods is ignored, or even censored. Vox Day is not the only commentator to point out that in a multi-ethnic empire, political activity is simply reduced to ethnic headcounts. The issues become less important than the identity group that you belong to. Vladimir Lenin knew this a hundred years ago; that everything in politics can be reduced to “who, whom”. Who is doing what to whom? Is a minority spewing hatred against a white man? This is Good, according to prevailing wisdom. Is a white man criticizing a minority? This is Bad, according to the same people.

The Globalist Party’s constituency is a coalition of minority groups whose only common factor is hatred of the white majority. Note that outside of archaic racist societies like the Ku Klux Klan of a century ago, “white people” rarely identified themselves as such. The Founders of this country were of English background, and they saw themselves as distinct from the Germans, the Dutch, the Irish, and the Italians. Even as late as a century ago, these ethnic distinctions between European nationalities remained strong. Mainstream media recently attempted to paint President Trump’s desire for a southern border wall (as supported by half the country) as racist by quoting Georgia Governor Clifford Walker’s speech to a KKK rally in 1924: “America should ‘build a wall of steel, a wall as High as Heaven.” These media outlets – Salon, MSNBC, etc. – said that this rhetoric was about white supremacy in the face of immigration but neglected to add the rest of the quote where Governor Walker explicitly pointed to Italians as the “other” he wanted to keep out. Today, however, Italians are lumped in with the Irish, Germans, Dutch, and English in a big bowl of hate labeled “white”. Ironically, it is the “othering” of white people by mainstream media and minority identity groups that is likely encouraging white nationalism. If white people are taught that they are irredeemably evil because of their skin color, they just might decide they had better hang together rather than hanging separately. All politics is tribal in a multi-ethnic empire and white people are learning a harsh lesson: they too are a Tribe.

Last week on CNN, while Steve Cortes explained that illegal immigrants have killed American citizens, media gadfly Ana Navarro pulled out her nail file in live TV to show her dismissive annoyance of the other guest. Navarro is constantly referred to by Globalist media as a “Republican consultant” but it would be more accurate to say she is a member of the Globalist Party and a Hispanic Tribe. She has no loyalty to traditional America, or any community outside of her Tribe for that matter. She has disdain, even contempt, for American citizens who are murdered by illegal immigrants. Like many Globalists, she simply does not care, and one might suspect she even enjoys the thought of people in other Tribes being harmed. This is what a Cold Civil War looks like. People such as Navarro are not necessarily picking up guns and shooting their opponents, but they seem satisfied that someone else doing it for them. As comedian Sam Hyde said before the 2016 election: “When we win, do not forget that these people [referring to journalists] want you broke, dead, your kids raped and brainwashed, and they think it’s funny.”

The most recent salvo in the Cold Civil War occurred after the March for Life, an annual protest in Washington DC against the wanton slaughter of abortion. Despite dwarfing the Women’s March held the following day, the March for Life received only a tiny fraction of coverage from the mainstream media. Bias is not only found in how media reports on an event, but in what events they choose to report. Mainstream media presents a narrative, and that narrative is one side of the Cold Civil War. They ignored the March for Life until something happened that could serve their narrative. That something was an incident between some students from Covington Catholic High School, some black nationalists, and some Native American activists. To hear CNN and the New York Times tell the story, some evil white Christian boys wearing MAGA hats taunted the black men and then surrounded an innocent Native American who was just playing his drum. They screamed at him, yelling slurs, not letting him escape. Globalist media (including its right-leaning organs like the useless National Review) were quick to condemn the boys. Leftists wanted more, demanding expulsion of the students as well as their names so they could be publicly humiliated and destroyed. Some even made threats of violence and death.  As you might guess, unedited video shows that the narrative has no relation to the truth:

But the rest of the video—nearly two hours of additional footage showing what happened before and after the encounter—adds important context that strongly contradicts the media’s narrative.

Far from engaging in racially motivated harassment, the group of mostly white, MAGA-hat-wearing male teenagers remained relatively calm and restrained despite being subjected to incessant racist, homophobic, and bigoted verbal abuse by members of the bizarre religious sect Black Hebrew Israelites, who were lurking nearby. The BHI has existed since the late 19th century, and is best describes as a black nationalist cult movement; its members believe they are descendants of the ancient Israelites, and often express condemnation of white people, Christians, and gays. DC-area Black Hebrews are known to spout particularly vile bigotry.

Phillips put himself between the teens and the black nationalists, chanting and drumming as he marched straight into the middle of the group of young people. What followed was several minutes of confusion: The teens couldn’t quite decide whether Phillips was on their side or not, but tentatively joined in his chanting. It’s not at all clear this was intended as an act of mockery rather than solidarity.

One student did not get out of Phillips way as he marched, and gave the man a hard stare and a smile that many have described as creepy. This moment received the most media coverage: The teen has been called the product of a “hate factory” and likened to a school shooter, segregation-era racist, and member of the Klu Klux Klan. I have no idea what he was thinking, but portraying this as an example of obvious, racially-motivated hate is a stretch. Maybe he simply had no idea why this man was drumming in his face, and couldn’t quite figure out the best response? It bears repeating that Phillips approached him, not the other way around.

And that’s all there is to it. Phillips walked away after several minutes, the Black Hebrew Israelites continued to insult the crowd, and nothing else happened.

https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/20/covington-catholic-nathan-phillips-video

Truth does not matter in a Cold Civil War. All that matters is the narrative, and loudly identifying which side you are on. By condemning the MAGA-hat-wearing students, both the New York Times and National Review are saying “Anyone who is white, Christian, and supports Trump is the “other”, and should be mocked, expelled, assaulted, and killed. We are the good guys.”

For the past two years, conservative politicians and pundits have faced constant protests and assaults wherever they have gone. Congressman Steve Scalise was nearly killed by a Bernie Sanders supporter while playing baseball. Senator Rand Paul was viciously attacked in his own yard. Tucker Carlson was surrounded at a restaurant, and then his wife and children terrorized at their own home. The media has convinced half the country that President Trump and his supporters are evil Nazis, and what should be the proper response to Nazis? If you truly believed that someone was the next Hitler, then would you just use the ballot box or the jury box to stop them? Wouldn’t you break out the cartridge box to stop the next Holocaust? I truly believe that a conservative politician or pundit will be assassinated in the next two years and our media will share the blame for escalating their rhetoric to this point.

Another factor in the Cold Civil War is the breakdown in trust of the political system. In the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, the Democratic Party claimed that Donald Trump was not going to accept losing, and that he and his supporters would pull out all the stops to delegitimatize the election. When Trump instead won an improbably victory, the Democrats and their media friends (without any sense of irony) immediately began delegitimatizing the election. Just hours after the election, thousands of angry leftists poured into the streets, screaming and rioting. They tried to get the Electoral College to change the outcome of the election. They tried to disrupt the inauguration. They finally settled on a narrative that claims Russian spies somehow stole the election in favor of President Trump, who is repaying them by selling out American sovereignty. This narrative lacks any real evidence, but that has not stopped Globalist media and politicians from spending the last two years proclaiming that Trump will be removed from office as soon as all the pieces fall into place. The new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives promises to spend their entire term investigating the Trump administration, as well as any Republican who stands in their way. If you are a student of history, then this pattern is beginning to look familiar.

In the last years of the Roman Republic, people were losing faith in the political system. The mob of people, especially of the lower plebeian class that was barred from serving in the Senate, realized there was more power in mob riots than in the constitutional system of the day. One might call this an ancient version of the cartridge box. The Gracchi brothers used this box to gain power against the patrician Senate. Gaius Marius took it even further, using this power to become the most powerful man in Roman history. While Roman law prohibited one man from serving consecutive terms as consul, Marius simply ignored the law and served five. His rival, Lucius Sulla, attempted to restore the old ways but in order to do that he too ran roughshod over the laws and precedents of the Republic. When Marius ignored the results of a consular election that saw Sulla win more votes, Sulla took the law into his own hands. Raising an army, he marched on Rome and took the city by force. Each time they gained power, both men had created proscription lists – death warrants – for supporters and family members of the other side. After Sulla’s final victory, Marius and his supporters were executed or exiled. Sulla himself hoped that his actions would save the Republic, but instead they laid the foundation for the Empire. One of Marius’ relatives narrowly escaped the proscriptions but learned a terrible lesson: That one man with an army could change the course of history, no matter what laws and precedents stood in his way. That man was Julius Caesar.

There are numerous lessons and parallels to be drawn from this piece of history. One of them is escalation. Establishment Republicans hold out hope that President Trump is an outlier in history, and that if they can oust him then we will go back to normal, whatever that might be. But there is never any going back. The Gracchi led to Marius, Marius led to Sulla, Sulla led to Caesar, and Caesar led to Augustus and the establishment of the Roman Empire. Gladiator was a great movie, but its claim that defeating a corrupt emperor could lead to the restoration of the Republic was as naive as the NeverTrump idea that we can go back to the Reagan era. The world has changed, and our country has changed with it. Globalism has been exposed for the corrupt bargain that it is, and Nationalism is on the rise. President Trump did not start this movement, rather he had enough foresight to see it coming just in time to jump in, like a surfer catching a wave. The Roman Republic had proscriptions, while the American Republic has subpoenas. The Democratic Party did not accept the results of the last election and will do absolutely anything to win the next one. Expect the escalation to continue.

Another lesson from the story is that all republics eventually fall. The Roman Republic began as a single city in Italy, with a Senate drawn from the patrician class, an army made up of landowners, and leaders constrained by a constitutional system. By the time of Marius and Sulla, Rome was an empire in all but name, controlling land from Spain to Syria. The army was a professional organization, leaving landowners their villas without the need to personally fight to protect them. The Senate and patrician class were insulated from the daily lives of the people. Sound familiar? The United States in 1789 was made up of thirteen states which shared sovereignty with a small federal government. Voting was restricted to landowners, that is, men with a stake in the country. The Senate represented states, while the weaker House of Representatives answered to the people. For its first century, the United States had no imperial ambition, at least outside of the North American continent. Today the United States is a Globalist empire, with over three hundred million citizens increasingly separated by ethnic and cultural differences. Our elites live far removed from the issues that confront the average American citizen. Both houses of Congress are controlled by an increasingly-remote elite class. The constraints built in to the Constitution are ignored by all three branches of the federal government. Bureaucrats in Washington DC have far more influence and control over our daily lives than the King and Parliament in London had over Boston merchants or Virginia planters in 1770. Something that cannot go on won’t. Rome survived by reinventing itself, first as the Empire shortly before the time of Christ, and against as the Dominate of Diocletian at the end of a chaotic 3rd Century A.D. Will the United States reinvent itself, or collapse entirely?

The Cold Civil War will only get worse from here. Unlike the Cold War of 1945-1991, I believe this one will erupt into a hot war. The sheer hatred for anyone white, Christian, or male by the Globalist left and their media outlets is beginning to sound like Germany in the 1920s and 30s. Inflammatory rhetoric continues to increase every day, with more and more on both sides eagerly anticipating the chance to commit violence against each other. How can we back down from this, short of unconditional surrender? The posterity of the patriots of 1776 are finding themselves mocked, censored, and attacked at every turn. We are losing trust in the ballot box and the jury box. We really don’t want to resort to the cartridge box, but like our forefathers in 1776 we might soon find ourselves forced to defend our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

The Conservative Movement™ is constantly gearing up to fight the culture war. Establishment Republican campaigns are always asking for donations so they can fight the Left over abortion, gay marriage, small government, military support, and fiscal responsibility. Yet we see what happens when they are given the power they ask for. The GOP controlled the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives for two years but could not repeal ObamaCare nor even defund Planned Parenthood. These same conservatives fight harder against President Trump’s plan to withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan than they ever did against the Left’s assault on traditional American morality. Why is that?

If you have read any of my previous posts here you know my answer. The establishment GOP and the Democrats they claim to oppose are really two sides of the same Globalist Party. The Globalists infiltrated the Republican Party in the 1970s and 80s. Before it became a pejorative, “neoconservative” was an accurate description of this group, since they were literally “new conservatives”. These Globalists believed in foreign military adventures, increased migration, and low taxes. They never cared about traditional morality regarding abortion, homosexuality, marriage, or families. Yet in order to gain power within the Republican Party they needed to pretend that they did. By the George W. Bush Administration, most people had forgotten what conservatism was like before this infiltration. The infiltrators themselves, and their progeny such as Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, and Ben Shapiro, had successfully conflated their Globalist agenda with traditional American conservatism. They succeeded in advocating for endless war abroad, relaxed immigration standards, and lower taxes, all the while allowing unconstrained abortion, the redefinition of marriage, and now the success of the transgender movement. As Vox Day has said several times “the conservatives couldn’t even conserve the women’s restroom.”

Conservatives have already lost the culture war, yet they still ask us for time and money so they can prepare to fight it. The same Globalist infiltrators who believe the Conservative Movement™ is theirs to define as they wish will attack populist Nationalists such as President Trump or Tucker Carlson with more ferocity than they ever used on the Left. They often seem stuck in a 1988 mindset, as if we are just a few years removed from the glory days of the Reagan era, and massive military spending is needed to combat socialism and communism around the globe. Yet they either cannot see or cannot admit that the values of the Soviet Union are alive and well in the United States now. We won the Cold War from a military and economic perspective, but we lost from a social and moral one. Vox Day wrote about this yesterday:

The real battle is not conservatism vs socialism. First, conservatism is dead because there is nothing left in the West to conserve. Second, the real battle is nationalism vs global imperialism. The most recent offensive of the neo-liberal world order has failed, but its armies have not left the field and its leaders are actively developing new strategies, new tactics, and new false oppositions in order to attempt to pick up where the last attempt left off.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/01/fighting-last-war.html

The Globalists, or neoconservatives, or neo-Trotskyites as Vox Day calls them, are still pretending to be on our side. They remain a fifth column ready to stab Nationalism in the back. But their time is coming. People are beginning to see that the Globalists are not on America’s side, that they have always seen America like a parasite sees a host. What made America great in the first place was not diversity, or foreign wars, or crony capitalism, or a sheltered elite that has no concept of what life is like for the average family. If we are to make America great again we need to remember what made it great in the first place: Christian heritage, tradition, morality, and liberty. The Conservative Movement™ did not create this, and they did not conserve it. It is time for populist Nationalism: America First.

I believe that America is already in decline. It is inevitable that she will someday fall. The fact that all nations and empires someday fall is a truism of history. The questions that remain are “how” and “when”. One of the most likely options is some form of political disunion. Unlike many nations, the United States of America is a federation of fifty supposedly sovereign states. This makes dissolution somewhat easier than if it were a single united political unit. We have seen such federations dissolve in various fashions throughout history. Just two decades ago the multi-ethnic country of Yugoslavia broke apart into its constituent nations. Another multi-ethnic federation, the Soviet Union, collapsed just a few years earlier. The purpose of the nation-state is to provide security and government in the way its citizens deem best. When two or more groups within a country are at odds with each other and have no hope of compromise, then disunion is actually the best and most peaceful option. There was no natural law that said the Serbs, Croats, Albanians, Bosnians, and the other ethnic groups of the former Yugoslavia must live together under one government. I believe the United States is rapidly approaching a similar realization.

The United States has confronted this issue before, of course. Unlike today, continued union was not taken for granted in the first few decades of this country. Throughout the early 1800s various states threatened secession in response to federal laws they disagreed with. The tipping point came with the election of Abraham Lincoln as president in 1860, an election that radically split the country. Lincoln received no electoral votes from the slave-owning south, while his three Democratic opponents split the vote between moderate supporters of slavery and fire-breathing secessionists. A lot has been written about the causes of southern secession and the Civil War. Northern histories (which have become the norm in recent years) paint the South as disloyal racist slave-owners who got what was coming to them. On the other hand, Southern histories say the North was full of busybody tyrants who wanted to overrun the pastoral South with their industrialization and Puritan sensibilities. I believe both contain elements of truth. Of course the existence of slavery and its expansion into the western territories was a major cause of the conflict, but at its heart secession was an attempt to reclaim sovereignty from a federal government that had grown much too powerful and intrusive. The only real difference between Thomas Jefferson and Jefferson Davis was victory versus defeat.

Many today say that the outcome of the Civil War settled the question of secession. Yet this ignores Jefferson’s own words in the Declaration of Independence: that if a government ceases in its purpose of protecting the rights of its citizens then it is the inalienable right of those citizens to alter or abolish that government. One of the most basic universal laws of politics is that one parliament cannot bind another. For example, there is no law passed by a US Congress that a future Congress cannot repeal. If we take this concept a step further then we must conclude that the decision of the citizens of a territory to apply for statehood can be undone by the citizens of that state in the future. Why should the citizens of Texas in 2019 be tied to a decision made by their forebears in 1845? The Federal Government can pass a hundred laws against secession but that does not change the fact that the people, from whom said government derives its power, have the natural right to govern themselves. The Civil War did not settle the legal question, but merely the military one. The North overpowered the South and thus imposed its will. The same could have been said about the Thirteen Colonies had Great Britain successfully put down the rebellion of 1776.

Ideas of secession and dissolution are going to increasingly dominate our national conversation in the next decade. We see it on the right in Texas and on the left in California. We have arrived at a place where the federal government is incredibly powerful and has far too much influence over our daily lives. Whichever ideology controls Washington DC has a tremendous ability to foist its worldview upon the rest of the country. The initial conception of our system of government was that each of the states would have its own laws and citizens could choose to live in the state that most suited them. We would be able to see in real time which methods worked best. Today we have one all-powerful federal bureaucracy that two sides of the control fight viciously to control. Why must we continue this ongoing Cold Civil War? Why is a national divorce so verboten?

Stephen Moore at the Washington Times recently wrote an article that makes many of the same points. It is worth reading in its entirety. Whereas I believe secession is the best possible outcome at this point, Moore hopes we can avert it and remain united. Moore ends his column with this point:

“If it ever came to this, I suspect that conservatives would not have a big problem with blue states legally separating from red states. Liberals would greatly resist red states from separating from blue states. That is true a) because liberals believe in big centralized government having authority over the citizenry (they are more elitist and authoritarian), and b) because they know that the low-tax, less-regulation, right-to-work, economic-freedom model of the red states would economically crush a nation with socialist impulses ruled by Bernie Sanders or another Barack Obama.”

Left-wing movements have always been totalitarian at their core, and modern SJWs and Globalists are no different. While many on the Right simply want to be left alone to live in peace as we wish, the Left will not allow that. Abortion activists in California cannot abide the protection of the unborn in South Dakota. Anti-gun activists in New York will not stand by while citizens are allowed to defend themselves in Texas. Anti-Christian activists in Oregon won’t rest until every trace of traditional religion is stamped out of public spaces in Alabama. This is why peaceful dissolution is a noble goal. Rather than fighting for control of Washington DC, let us simply cut ourselves off from the Imperial Capital once and for all. There is no natural law that says Hawaii, Florida, Maine, Alaska, California, Montana, Texas, and Illinois must be a part of the same empire. Self-determination is at the core of the Nationalist philosophy. Let us live and let live, and go our own ways in peace.

Before he had even been sworn in as the latest carpetbagger Senator, Mitt Romney published an op-ed attacking President Trump for lacking leadership and character (but mostly for withdrawing US forces from Syria). A clear divide emerged between those who supported Romney’s statements and those opposed. This divide pretty neatly aligns with the emerging Globalist / Nationalist split within the Republican Party. Like many Republicans of the past thirty years, Mitt Romney is first and foremost a member of the Globalist Party. He believes that the United States should continue to flex its muscle as the world’s superpower, intervening in foreign affairs across the globe. Social issues such as family, marriage, and culture are less important to him than military adventures.

The most notable response to Romney’s op-ed came from Fox News host (and Nationalist Party standard-bearer) Tucker Carlson. Fox News has been a Globalist Party broadcaster from the beginning and has been moving leftward ever since Rupert Murdoch handed it to his children, so I have to think Carlson’s days on the channel are numbered. Yet his show remains highly rated by the viewing public, and he uses it to speak the truth in an age of lies.

Romney’s main complaint in the piece is that Donald Trump is a mercurial and divisive leader. That’s true, of course. But beneath the personal slights, Romney has a policy critique of Trump. He seems genuinely angry that Trump might pull American troops out of the Syrian civil war. Romney doesn’t explain how staying in Syria would benefit America. He doesn’t appear to consider that a relevant question. More policing in the Middle East is always better. We know that. Virtually everyone in Washington agrees.

…

Mitt Romney refers to unwavering support for a finance-based economy and an internationalist foreign policy as the “mainstream Republican” view. And he’s right about that. For generations, Republicans have considered it their duty to make the world safe for banking, while simultaneously prosecuting ever more foreign wars. Modern Democrats generally support those goals enthusiastically.

There are signs, however, that most people do not support this, and not just in America. In countries around the world — France, Brazil, Sweden, the Philippines, Germany, and many others — voters are suddenly backing candidates and ideas that would have been unimaginable just a decade ago. These are not isolated events. What you’re watching is entire populations revolting against leaders who refuse to improve their lives.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-mitt-romney-supports-the-status-quo-but-for-everyone-else-its-infuriating

Read the whole thing, or watch the video on the linked page. Carlson uses Romney’s op-ed as a gateway to discuss all the ways in which the establishment GOP (what I call the Globalist Party) has left millions of Americans behind in their quest for higher GDP and more foreign military adventures. The pursuit of free trade has become religious dogma for the establishment. The Cruise Ship Conservatives of National Review and other globalist Republican outfits have accused Tucker Carlson of parroting socialist talking points. But Tucker explicitly rejects socialism. In fact, he warns that if we don’t do something about the disintegrating families of rural white America, then socialism is what we are going to get. Rural white families have been shattered over the last generation. Out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed, dropouts and unemployment are rampant, drug abuse and overdoses are killing young people by the thousands, and suicide is rising. The establishment GOP has basically told these people to stop whining and die. The rising socialist Left is going to target these left behind families with promises of redemption. Why wouldn’t they turn to people who promise to help them?

A new right-wing is rising. This new movement is embracing nationalism and populism, while rejecting the Globalist Party’s invade-the-world/invite-the-world mentality. Tucker Carlson’s monologue can be seen as a manifesto for this new movement, which will continue to grow. We need a government that serves the needs of citizens and families rather than using them to prop up elites at home and military adventures abroad. Men like Senator Romney, the editors of National Review or the now-defunct Weekly Standard, and the rest of the Globalist Party swamp are the past. Our choice now is nationalist or authoritarian socialism. Hungary, Italy, Switzerland, Singapore, and even Israel are showing us one way, the nationalist way. The way of socialism leads to Cuba, Venezuela, more decay, more death. Either way, though, the Globalist New World Order is over. Mitt Romney and his ilk are whistling past the graveyard.

Biologist and outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins coined the term “meme” in his 1976 book “The Selfish Gene” to refer to an idea that spreads and grows, and like the concept it represents it has grown and changed as it passes through various cultures and subgroups.  Today the word is most often used to refer to a simple image, sometimes with some text, that communicates a deeper rhetorical idea. Long gone are the days of throngs of people gathering to hear Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas debate the merits of popular sovereignty for hours on end. Today’s political battles are waged with memes.

This is one of my favorites. In just a glance it captures the arrogance of the smug atheist that wants to use your own faith as a rhetorical weapon against you, despite having none himself. On any other day this atheist would be actively deriding your faith, your scriptures, and your God, but today he feigns respect because he thinks that appealing to your faith will get you to agree with his position (in this case regarding refugees and migrants). We see this phenomenon every day. Politicians and journalists bash Christianity and the Bible during debates on abortion or gay marriage but turn around and appeal to Scripture when talking about migration or welfare spending. Mainstream news publishes articles about how the Christmas story is just a myth but then turns around and uses the imagery of the Holy Family to push an anti-borders narrative. While most people used social media last week to wish a non-partisan “Merry Christmas” (or stayed off social media entirely), socialist media darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted this image:

Joseph, Mary, and Jesus are replaced in this telling with a Hispanic family. Rather than fleeing Bethlehem to Egypt this new holy family is presumably fleeing their homes in Guatemala or Honduras for the southern US border. I am reminded of the Jewish socialist character Perchik in “Fiddler on the Roof” who interprets the story of Jacob and Laban as a biblical screed against capitalism. For modern-day socialists and atheists, the Scripture is not about universal truth but is instead a canvas onto which they can project their own political and social views. Most of these people do not see the Bible as a source of authority for their lives, but they know that we do, and so they use it as a tool to further their own ends.

This is a tactic that the American left has been practicing for several generations. Socialist activist Saul Alinksy published his “Rules for Radicals” in 1971, which sought to guide the young socialist movement into power. His fourth rule commands the young activist to make the enemy live up to his own book of rules. In the 1960s and 70s these young socialists were on the outside of American society looking in. The establishment, while moving ever leftward, was still more conservative than these activists desired. They attacked their establishment enemies using rhetorical guerrilla tactics. One of their most insidious methods was to portray their tactics as being in line with traditional principles such as freedom of speech. America has traditionally honored and protected freedom of speech – it is enshrined in the first amendment to the Constitution, after all. When young leftist radicals demanded the freedom to speak their minds on college campuses, the establishment eventually agreed. After all, freedom of speech was a principle for them, which means they protect speech that they might find distasteful or even seditious. “I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it” and all that. Yet those same leftists who demanded free speech in the 1960s and 70s are now leading the charge to ban conservative expression by calling it “hate speech”. You see, freedom of speech was never their principle, only a tactic. Once they achieved the desired goal of cementing their power, they had no qualms about discarding it.

More than one conservative commentator has built an entire career on pointing out leftist hypocrisy. Unfortunately, while this tends to energize conservative readers it does little to change leftist behavior. Remember, we have principles while they have tactics. We think shaming the left for their hypocrisy will work because we find hypocrisy shameful. The left doesn’t care. They quite literally have no shame.

One of the reasons that this tactic of holding your enemy to his own moral standards while having none yourself works is because America’s traditional institutions are in severe decline. We, as traditional Americans, have lost confidence in ourselves.  Americans in civic society once prided themselves on being the best and brightest country in the world. Christians once had the confidence of knowing that despite their faults, they were on the side of good and truth in a world of evil and lies. Yet our enemies chipped away at this confidence bit by bit. Using our own principles against us, the globalist guerrillas took over mass media and the education system, using them to capture the minds of the next generation. Moral relativism taught that all cultures and religions were equal, and that whatever truth we believe might only be true for us. Our society stopped believing that there was a such thing as truth. Conservatives believed that the left was acting in good faith, and so they compromised. They actually believed the left when they said they wanted free speech for all, or that diversity was our strength. They allowed the left to use past injustices such as slavery as a constant club with which to beat us into submission.

It is time for traditional America to stop backpedaling and apologizing. It is time to stop letting the dyscivic globalists set the premises of our public discourse. Too many Christians and conservatives think that the globalist left wants to live in peace with us. On the contrary, like all totalitarians, they want us compliant or dead. They will use any tool they can to accomplish their goals, including trying to hold us to moral standards that they neither believe in nor understand. The only way to win at this game is not to play. Don’t let your moral principles become the gibbet on which they hang you.