The Conservative Movement is a Failure

Millions of conservatives throughout America are feeling disappointed, dismayed, and even demoralized in the wake of President Trump’s loss in the 2020 election. I say “loss,” of course, but we all know the truth: it was a coup, from beginning to end. Everyone wants to know what we can do now. Many on the right are already trying to figure out how to get our guy back in the White House in 2024, whether it is Donald Trump himself, or someone else. If we can elect a true conservative, they say, then we still have a chance to save our country. However, I suggest that the lesson we must learned from the presidency of Donald Trump is that our nation has already fallen too far for one man to fix. Furthermore, the so-called conservative movement shoulders much of the blame for the decline and fall of our nation.

Many on the right have long complained that the Republican Party does not know how to win. In October 2016, when Republican leaders began turning on Donald Trump after the Access Hollywood tapes were leaked, Trump tweeted, “Disloyal R’s are far more difficult than Crooked Hillary. They come at you from all sides. They don’t know how to win – I will teach them!” And teach them he did, winning a victory nobody thought possible. Even then, however, the Republican Party wasted another chance to fix our country.

While the Democrats use electoral victories to increase their own power, Republicans seem to have no idea what to do once they are in office. Sure, they speak boldly while they are in the minority – calling for term limits, repealing Obamacare, and challenging the progressive assumptions that guide our government. Yet the moment they are in power, they find themselves unable to put their money where their mouths are. A charitable explanation might be that as a small-government party, the GOP is naturally averse to anything that increases the power of government. But government power has grown inexorably no matter which party holds the reigns. The GOP seems to have little problem with government power for its own sake, they are just afraid to use it. For example, Senator John McCain campaigned for years on repealing Obamacare, but once the GOP controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress in 2017, he joined with his Democrat friends to kill that very repeal. Why?

I contend that half a century in the political wilderness killed the fighting spirit of the Republican Party. Before the Great Depression, the GOP was stalwart and confident. Afterward, they became so focused on militarism and the Cold War that they allowed the left to run roughshod through our culture. By the 1990s, Republicans had fully adopted the globalist agenda, and after 9/11 they replaced Cold War militarism with the Great War on Terror.

Even worse, they adopted the very premise of the left: that history is naturally progressive. Consider the language used by progressive leftists. They often accuse us of being on “the wrong side of history,” they warn that our policies will “turn back the clock,” and that we impede social progress. This language reveals their worldview. They believe that history naturally trends toward their preferred positions and that we must simply keep up with the times. For decades, the GOP has allowed the Democrats to set the terms of every discussion and set the limits of every debate. The Republican Party of today is unable to articulate any reason for its own existence, preferring to slow the spread of progressivism rather than return us to a point in history before leftist gains. It is as if they see so-called progress as inevitable, so they do their best to manage it rather than to oppose it outright.

Such so-called progress has led to enormous social changes in a very short period of time. Consider how quickly we lost the debate over gay marriage. In the late 1990s, even the most outspoken homosexual activists were claiming that they did not want to force their view of marriage on the country, they merely wanted the same economic and social benefits that our laws accorded to married couples. In 2008, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton claimed that they wanted marriage to remain defined as being between a man and a woman. Yet just seven years later, the Supreme Court imposed gay marriage on the entire country, and President Obama celebrated by lighting up the White House in the colors of the gay pride flag. Once the battle over gay marriage had been won, the left immediately moved to the next battle, and are now working hard to normalize transgenderism.

Rather than trying to return society to a place of sanity, conservatives instead simply defend the progressive gains of the previous generation. The same conservatives who once protested gay marriage now defend it. Charlie Kirk’s TP USA celebrated when the Trump Administration convinced the government of Botswana to decriminalize homosexuality. Some conservative organizations have proudly promoted a Trump-supporting drag queen, as if that is a sign of victory over the degenerate left. Herein lies the fatal flaw of conservatism: they can only defend the status quo. They have little will or ability to advocate for a return to a better time, because they agree with the left that the past was racist, sexist, exclusionary, and bigoted. By adopting the premises of the left, conservatism failed before it ever began.

In 1955, William F. Buckley founded the conservative newsmagazine National Review with the intention to “stand athwart history, yelling stop.” One can argue that the modern conservative movement began at this moment. The Cold War was in full swing and the world, as well as our country, was being divided between free market capitalists on one side and Marxist-Leninist Communism on the other. Buckley defined conservatism as opposition to Communism, belief in small government, and resistance to world government.

However, neither National Review nor the conservative movement in general have done a particularly good job of standing athwart history and yelling stop. Instead, they stand athwart history and speak of compromise, slowing down, and not changing society too fast. They try to manage our leftward slide, rather than stop it, much less reverse it.

By the 1960s, few Republicans were willing to criticize the New Deal, nor suggest that we should roll back its programs. By the 1980s, even Ronald Reagan was unwilling or unable to reverse the Great Society programs of the 1960s. One could argue that he was constrained by a Democratic Congress, but that only supports my point that the Republican Party had forgotten how to win. Conservatives tended to speak boldly while in the minority – they even suggested erasing several cabinet positions during the 1980s – but once in power they are unwilling to rock the boat. The GOP has had control of both houses of Congress as well as the Presidency only four times since the Great Depression: They had a very slim majority during President Eisenhower’s first term, but they frittered away their political capital on Senator Joseph McCarthy’s hunt for Communist agents in the government. (While McCarthy has, in my opinion, been proven largely right about Communist infiltration, the way he went about his investigation alienated his fellow Senators as well as many Americans.)

The GOP would not control both houses of Congress again until 1994 during the Clinton administration, when they won a surprise victory on the back of Newt Gingrich and his Contract With America. They briefly lost the Senate in 2000, despite winning the presidency, when Jim Jeffords of Vermont switched his party affiliation. However, President Bush was able to count on GOP control of Congress from 2003 to 2007. During this time, he just passed one piece of major legislation, a tax cut, but was unable to make any progress on other campaign promises such as Social Security reform or school choice, as the Great War on Terror took up all of the GOP’s political capital. Besides, the federal bureaucracy had grown far too large and resistant to reform, and the American people had come to count on entitlements such as Social Security. The Republican Party was completely unwilling to touch anything related to the Great Society, much less the New Deal. These things that had once been correctly seen as examples of tremendous government overreach were now taken for granted as part of the fabric of American life.

Finally, the Republican Party controlled the House, the Senate, and the presidency one last time in 2017. President Trump had a Republican majority in Congress, but he faced a party leadership that was unwilling to work for his agenda. By now, the GOP had evolved into the right-hand side of the globalist uniparty, and so they fought his attempts to secure the southern border, limit refugees and immigration, fight a trade war with China, and withdraw our troops from Afghanistan and Syria. The Republican Congress could not even agree to repeal Obamacare, an issue upon which many of them had campaigned. Instead, they passed another tax cut, and promptly lost the House in 2018, and then the Senate in 2020.

The Democrats now control both houses of Congress and the presidency, and I predict that they will not be so hesitant to use their power. Everything on their agenda for the next two years is designed to consolidate their control of our society. HR1, currently being debated in Congress, would bring control of our elections under the federal government, preventing states from instituting voter ID or other systems to prevent fraud. Many in the Democratic Party advocate for packing the Supreme Court and the District Courts, greatly expanding their power over the interpretation of our laws. They also plan to extend statehood to Washington DC and Puerto Rico, which would give the Democrats four more Senators, ensuring their permanent majority.

The Democrats are used to winning and consider themselves to be the rightful lords of our nation – they see power as their birthright. If they happen to lose an election, Democrats and their friends in the media operate on the assumption that the Republicans must have cheated. To them, “democracy” means “Democrats winning”. Recall that leftists in Wisconsin attempted to recall Republican Governor Scott Walker in 2012, only to see the governor actually increase his vote count from two years before. Rather than accepting the fact that they had been outvoted, leftist activists cried foul. One young man told a reporter that, “democracy died tonight!”

Much hay was made in the media over some Republican Congressmen and Senators objecting to the electoral vote count this year, but the Democrats had objected to every Republican presidential victory since the year 2000 with barely a peep from our media. The last Republican president that the left accepted as legitimate was George H.W. Bush, who was elected in 1988.

Why do elected officials on both sides of the aisle seem to think that the natural order of things is for the Democrats to be in the majority while the GOP remains principled losers? Why have conservatives implicitly adopted the premise of the left that history is naturally progressive?

Many of us on the right who study history consider Woodrow Wilson to be one of our worst presidents. I suggest that many problems America faces today were built upon the foundation of Wilson’s administration. The income tax, direct election of Senators, and the Federal Reserve all came about during his first term. He involved us in a European war, not because our own interests were at stake but because he saw it as an opportunity to shape a new world order. Wilson was the first American president to leave our country during his administration when he went to France to take part in negotiation for the Treaty of Versailles. He proclaimed that his goal was to “make the world safe for democracy.” He issued a statement containing the fourteen points upon which he intended to build his new world order, including the creation of a League of Nations that would have the ability to maintain peace in the world.

The Republican Congress back home saw things differently, however. Led by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, the GOP prevented ratification of the treaty and refused to allow the United States to enter the League of Nations. For all of Wilson’s high-minded talk, the Congress still saw themselves as American patriots, not citizens of the world. Their job was to protect and nurture the American people, not use their position to try to maintain peace in a world gone mad. Subordinating American sovereignty to any international body, no matter how well-intentioned, was unthinkable.

On the domestic side, Wilson indulged in every depraved characteristic that we have come to identify with authoritarian progressives. Using the war as an excuse, he censored the mail, imprisoned dissidents and journalists, and compelled private industry to shift production to military material. However, the Republican Party would not allow this tyranny to continue indefinitely. In the 1920 presidential campaign, Ohio Senator Warren Harding won a landslide victory after campaigning on a “return to normalcy”. This marked the first of three consecutive Republican victories, a record that has only been equaled once since. Under the Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover administrations, America returned to normalcy. The overreaches of the Wilson administration were erased, political prisoners were released, and the government stopped meddling in the economy. We even passed the 1924 Immigration Act, severely curtailing the number of foreigners allowed to enter to the United States. This pause allowed the previous three generations of immigrants to fully assimilate into a strong American culture that would persist for decades afterward.

The United States was able to survive the upheavals brought about by Wilson’s entry into World War I and his domestic tyranny because the Republican Party still had enough courage and political will to fight back. However, the seeds had been planted for many of the problems our nation faced over the next century. The 16th and 17th amendments and the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 had given the government tremendous power that could easily be abused during the next economic or political crisis. The 1930s provided both.

High school history textbooks like to contrast Herbert Hoover’s response to the onset of the Great Depression with Franklin Roosevelt’s by saying that Hoover adopted a so-called laissez-faire attitude of leaving the economy alone to fix itself while FDR used the power of government to fix the problem and save the American people. Reality was not so black and white.

Herbert Hoover was an engineer by trade. He had risen to prominence as a businessman during the Great War when he led a commission to provide food for millions of civilians left destitute by the ravages of war. He served as Wilson’s so-called Food Czar, then Secretary of Commerce under Harding and Coolidge. His background was not laissez-faire, rather he was one who thought that every problem had a solution. Contrary to what textbooks now say, FDR actually criticized Hoover in the 1932 presidential campaign for interfering too much in the economy.

The die was cast, however, and FDR won the White House in a landslide. The new president was determined not to let a crisis go to waste. Roosevelt’s New Deal completely redefined the role of the American government. The central planning that Woodrow Wilson got away with during World War I become the norm. The federal government went from being distant and rarely important to our daily lives to an ever-present help in our time of trouble. New technology assisted this transformation, as radio allowed President Roosevelt to speak directly to the American people. Despite the Depression continuing into 1936, he was able to convince the American people that he remained the only man who could possibly fix the problem and so won a second term with an even greater landslide.

The role of government was redefined from simply protecting our natural rights to taking care of our every need. FDR himself explained this new role when he spoke of the so-called “four freedoms” in 1941. The first two, freedom of speech and freedom of worship, were already guaranteed by the 1st amendment, but the other two, freedom from want and freedom from fear, required a government that had nearly unlimited power and authority to achieve. As many conservative commentators have pointed out through the years, a government large enough to give you whatever you need is large enough to take everything away.

The second great crisis of FDR’s administration was, of course, World War II. The American people strongly favored isolationism, and Congress passed a Neutrality Act in 1937 as war loomed ever closer on the European horizon. After Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, President Roosevelt convinced Congress to amend the Act for what he called “Cash and Carry,” which allowed the US to sell military equipment to the Allies. By 1941, with France on the brink of defeat, Roosevelt and his Democratic Party wanted to amend the Act even further, proposing something called “Lend-Lease” which would allow the US to “lend” military equipment, even warships, to Britain without payment. Republicans in Congress strongly opposed this measure, warning that it would inevitably drag the nation into the war, but after ten years of the New Deal the GOP was very much a minority party. Lend-Lease passed along party lines, and the US was drawn further toward an apocalyptic war.

Unfortunately for the American people, we never experienced a return to normalcy after the massive reorganization of our society due to the New Deal and World War II. The GOP took control of Congress in 1946, but their majority was short-lived. They won the White House in 1952 behind General Dwight Eisenhower, but by then the redefinition of government was etched in stone. At home, the government was now a benevolent caretaker for the American people, and in foreign affairs, the United States was the guardian of the new world order born out of World War II.

From 1932 through 1948, the Democratic Party won the White House five consecutive times. Even during President Eisenhower’s eight years in office during the 1950s he often had to contend with Democratic control of the House, the Senate, or both. I suggest that these long decades of being in the minority left a lasting mark on the psyche of the Republican Party. In 1937, for example, the Democratic majority in the Senate was an astounding 75 to 17. By the 1950s, few Republicans, if any, remained from the caucus that was willing to stand up to Woodrow Wilson’s globalist ideas. Few Republicans during the Eisenhower administration were willing to criticize the New Deal or suggest that it should be dismantled, nor were they were willing to stop the militarization of America and the new focus on maintaining the postwar world order. Ike himself warned of the growing power of the military/industrial complex in his farewell address in 1961, but both his would-be successors had campaigned on expanding the use of American blood and treasure to save the world from Communism. This position inexorably drew Presidents Kennedy and Johnson into the quagmire that was Vietnam.

The Vietnam War is where our current ideological battle lines were drawn, and the decisions we made then continue to echo more than half a century later. Whereas World War II remains the “good war” in popular culture, Vietnam is seen as unnecessary at best, and even by some as outright villainy by the United States. The Baby Boomers had grown up in the relative peace of the late 1940s and 1950s, hearing tales told of the great things their fathers had done fighting in France, Italy, and the Pacific, as well as the high ideals for which they fought. Many enlisted in the military out of sense of patriotism, of honor, and of loyalty, both to their heritage and to their country. What they found in Indochina was not the heroism of their fathers, and if they were lucky enough to come home, they were not given the heroes’ welcome of their fathers either. The reaction to the Vietnam War throughout the 1960s and 70s created the modern divide between conservatives and progressives.

During the Cold War, both political parties believed it necessary for the United States to intervene in nations such as Korea and Vietnam in order to stop Communism from spreading throughout the world. President Eisenhower did not want to get involved in another war, so he sent millions of dollars of foreign aid to the South Vietnamese government instead. Despite privately believing that involvement in Vietnam was bad news, President Kennedy continued sending aid, along with sixteen thousand American military advisors, hoping to bolster the South Vietnamese military and political leadership. After all, the Soviet Union and Communist China were sending money, arms, and advisors to the North Vietnamese and their Viet Cong guerillas, so what other choice did we have? The idea of simply leaving Vietnam to fall to Communism was considered unthinkable. The domino theory, which was the prevailing view of politicians and pundits on both sides, predicted that if South Vietnam fell to Communism, then they would continue into Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand, and eventually to Burma, Pakistan, and perhaps even India. Eventually, they warned, the forces of Communist revolution would be landing on our own shores. “We must fight them over there, so we don’t have to fight them over here,” they said. Does that sound familiar?

Battle lines were being drawn throughout our society. As American casualties mounted in the mid-1960s, an anti-war movement developed. However, that movement became strongly identified with other social movements of the time, encompassing ideas such as free love, drug use, and socialism. Richard Nixon won the White House in 1968 by promising to win victory with honor. To accomplish that, Nixon actually expanded the war, bombing targets in Cambodia and Hanoi even as he withdrew US ground troops. Thus, the conflict started by Democrats JFK and LBJ became associated with the Republican Nixon, and the antiwar movement became associated with the far left.

There was division within the antiwar movement. Some were truly pacifist, believing that war was wrong no matter what. Some loved America but believed that involvement in Vietnam was against our interests. However, many in the movement were outright anti-American, believing that our country was evil to the core, racist, sexist, imperialist, and capitalist. These were the protestors who did not just want the US to withdraw her troops, but actively supported North Vietnam and hoped for a Communist victory not only in East Asia, but in the United States itself. The most outspoken of the antiwar protestors often took this position, and terrorism by groups such as the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers made sure to keep these extremists on the front page of the newspaper. Many celebrities seemed to identify with the far left; recall Jane Fonda traveling to Hanoi and posing with North Vietnamese soldiers.

While most musicians supported the antiwar movement and wrote songs protesting the war, a few took the opposite position. In 1969, country singer Merle Haggard recorded two of his most famous hits. In “Okie From Muskogee” he contrasted the humble and hardworking people of America’s heartlands with the crazy hippies in San Francisco who did drugs and burned their draft cards. In “The Fightin’ Side of Me” he complained about protestors who criticized the Vietnam War, lumping them in with the extremists who sought to overthrow the US government and impose Communism in America. The political situation of the late 60s and early 70s demanded that you choose between those two sides. If you loved America, you had to support the troops, which meant you had to support the Vietnam War.

As the 1972 election approached, the divide in our country became even more stark. South Dakota Senator George McGovern ran for president on an explicitly antiwar platform, promising to immediately withdraw the troops if he was elected. It is interesting to look back on this era through the lens of popular culture, because so many of the people who create our culture were on the antiwar side back then. Movies, music, and popular history tend to emphasize the antiwar protests, and the unpopularity of Richard Nixon personally. 1972 was the first presidential election in which 18, 19, and 20-year-olds could vote, after the passage of the 26th amendment a year prior. Clearly this age group, who were at risk of being drafted and sent to fight in Vietnam, would oppose the president who was prosecuting the war, right?

Yet that is not what happened. President Richard Nixon had earlier appealed to what he called the “silent majority” of Americans who were still conservative and traditional, who did not support the drug use, free love, socialism, and everything else associated with the hippies and the antiwar movement.  In 1972, that silent majority made their voices heard as Nixon won a 49-state landslide, one of the largest electoral victories in American history. Just a few days after his second inauguration, Nixon announced the Paris Peace Accords, and the end of the Vietnam War. Soon his own fortunes would be tied up with the fallout from the Watergate break-in, and Vietnam would quickly fade into the past.

Yet the scars from that era persisted for a long time in American politics. The 1992 presidential election was a contrast between the incumbent President George H.W. Bush, who was a World War II hero, and Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas, who had avoided fighting in Vietnam by getting draft deferments in his youth. Republicans naturally made an issue out of this since they had long ago associated support for the Vietnam War with support for America in general. Yet Clinton won the election. The same thing happened in 1996, when the draft-dodging Clinton ran for reelection against Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, another bona fide war hero. Clinton won in a landslide.

Whether or not someone fought in Vietnam remained a campaign issue in the next three elections as well. In 2000, Vice President Al Gore claimed to be a better veteran than Governor George W. Bush of Texas, but both had fairly flimsy war records. Both Gore and Bush were scions of powerful political families, and both their fathers used their connections to keep their sons safe. Gore had indeed been to Vietnam, but as a journalist, and was somewhat safe from the harshest combat. Bush never went to Vietnam, completing his tour with the Texas Air National Guard. At least he served, however, which is more than could be said for Bill Clinton. Nevertheless, Governor Bush won a very close and contested election.

In 2004, the Democrats nominated Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. In contrast with the incumbent President Bush who spent the war stateside in the National Guard, Kerry had been decorated for his tour on a swift boat with the Navy. When he returned home, however, he joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War and accused his comrades of horrific war crimes. The Democrats tried to play both sides during the campaign, presenting Kerry to the far left as a principled antiwar protestor, while presenting him to moderates as a faithful soldier who did his duty. Some other swift boat veterans who served alongside Kerry in Vietnam collaborated on a book claiming to expose his shameless hypocrisy, accusing him of inflating his service record, even while he was in Vietnam, for future political gain. In any case, Kerry lost a close election and President Bush won a second term.

2008 saw the last time Vietnam arose as a presidential campaign issue, thirty-five years after the last combat troops withdrew. The Republicans nominated Senator John McCain of Arizona, who had not only served in Vietnam but had famously been shot down and captured, enduring torture as a prisoner of war in Hanoi. The Democrats, on the other hand, nominated Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, who was only a child during the Vietnam War and had absolutely no military service. Obama won, if not a landslide, at least a comfortable victory.

Considering the extent to which support for our troops has become equated with support for America on the conservative right, it is striking that in all five elections from 1992 to 2008, the “least veteran” candidate won all five times.

The Vietnam War faded from public discourse by the second decade of the 21st century. The 2012, 2016, and 2020 elections each featured candidates who had no military service. Today, the youngest Vietnam veterans are at retirement age, and for most voters, Vietnam is ancient history. But the dividing lines in our culture remain the same. After the September 11th terrorist attacks in 2001, President Bush declared that American military policy would be to preemptively strike any nation that could possibly threaten the United States or her interests abroad. He sent the military to Afghanistan to topple the Taliban, the Islamic extremists who had harbored Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Two years later, he ordered the invasion of Iraq, which had allegedly been developing weapons of mass destruction. Iraq, along with Iran and North Korea, formed what President Bush called an Axis of Evil.

Once again, our leaders told us that we must fight our enemy “over there” to prevent them from coming to fight us over here. Conservative Republicans by this point had firmly fused the ideas of patriotism and love of country with unconditional support for military adventurism. Support for the war became the biggest characteristic of the conservative movement. Three decades of pop culture taught us how badly our troops had been treated during and after Vietnam, so conservatives made sure to loudly and publicly express support for our troops fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. I recall patriotic conservatives decorating freeway bridges with yellow ribbons in support of our troops. Support for the troops became synonymous with support for the wars, and so criticism of the wars was considered by many on the right to be unpatriotic at best, and treasonous at worst. In retrospect, this proved to be a major distraction from the conservative charge to stand athwart history and yell stop.

I believe that something changed with the conservative movement in the decades after William Buckley founded National Review in 1955. A cadre of men and women who were once leftist, and even socialist, immigrated to this country and made common cause with American conservatives to take down international Communism. For many of these new conservatives (or neo-conservatives, if you want to be fancy) the social issues that motivated conservative Christians were not so important as defending the free market and free trade. They recognized that issues such as abortion and gun rights were important to their would-be allies, and so publicly adopted those positions, but I do not believe their hearts were ever in those battles. They wanted to harness American conservatism to defeat Communism, and in this they were extraordinarily successful.

The Reagan era, beloved by Republicans for the past thirty years, was all about defeating Communism. Unlike his predecessor, Jimmy Carter, President Reagan drew a hard line against Marxism-Leninism, calling the Soviet Union an “Evil Empire”. Reagan increased military spending, forcing the Soviet Union to bankrupt themselves to keep up. At the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, Reagan implored the Soviet Premier Mikael Gorbachev to come there and personally tear down the Berlin Wall.

On the economic front, the energy of the neoconservative leadership was directed toward tax cuts and deregulation. President Reagan’s economic team of Paul Volcker, Art Laffer, and Alan Greenspan unleashed the stagnant economy they inherited from President Carter and created the greatest period of American prosperity since the 1950s. Despite a couple of short recessions, momentum from the Reagan economy propelled America into the 21st century.

Despite success in foreign policy and economics, however, little progress was made on social issues. For all his greatness, President Reagan did nothing to roll back the New Deal or the Great Society. In fact, like the rest of the GOP he simply tried to slow the progressive takeover of our country. As governor of California, he signed one of the first no-fault divorce laws in American history. As president, he signed an amnesty act in 1986 that allowed millions of illegal aliens to remain in the country. The Democratic Congress had promised to work on immigration enforcement in exchange for the amnesty, but we all know how that game is played.

George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, despite representing opposite parties, both worked to transition the United States out of the Cold War and into an explicitly globalist future. Both supported the North American Free Trade Agreement, both supported increasing foreign aid, both wanted more openness with China, and both used the American military in foreign adventures – Bush in Iraq, and Clinton in the former Yugoslavia. The differences between the two on social issues, as well as between George W. Bush and Barack Obama, were merely window dressing in the end. Bill Clinton supported legalized abortion, while George W. Bush opposed it, yet abortion remained legal throughout their combined terms. Bill Clinton banned semi-automatic rifles, and while Bush allowed the ban to lapse, he did not reclaim any ground in the gun rights sphere.

In truth, the leaders of both parties had adopted the globalist perspective. Ever since the early 2000s, our presidential elections have presented a false binary choice. Parents and teachers know that a good trick for ensuring compliance by children is to present them with a false choice. For example, instead of telling your child to brush their teeth before bed, offer them a choice – do you want to brush your teeth now or after your book? If you want them to play quietly, ask if they want to play with the cars or the trains. By giving them the appearance of a choice, you get them to buy into what you want them to do in a way that simply commanding them will not. Our leaders treat us like small children. Every four years they give us the choice of a red globalist or a blue globalist. We argue over the margins, while the endless wars, free trade, and open borders continue to sap America’s soul.

There were few politicians willing to call for a return to nationalism and cultural conservatism. Former Nixon speechwriter Pat Buchanan was one of them, and he gained a loyal following in the early 1990s. After challenging President George H.W. Bush in the 1992 Republican presidential primary, Buchanan spoke at the Republican National Convention in Houston, Texas. In a speech that became famous, or infamous depending on who you ask, Buchanan exposed the social changes that were being engineered by the Democratic Party. Buchanan boldly warned that the left-wing agenda would bring about radical feminism, normalization of homosexuality, pornography, and abortion, indoctrination in public schools, pushing women into combat roles in the military, and environmental extremism that would “put birds and rats and insects ahead of families, workers, and jobs.” Buchanan said, “there is a religious war going on in this country. It is a culture war, as critical to the kind of nation we shall be as the Cold War itself, for this war is for the soul of America.”

Over the years the left has lambasted Buchanan for this speech, calling him sexist, racist, and homophobic. Many on the right, especially the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party, find themselves embarrassed by this sort of rhetoric. They would much rather ignore social issues entirely and focus on military adventures and the economy. It is obvious, however, that Buchanan’s warnings have all come true. Everything he told us would happen has happened. One can certainly blame eight years of Bill Clinton in the White House for the moral and spiritual decline that followed, but the truth is that our culture was already on the downslope by the 1990s. America was no longer Christian in any real sense, though organizations like the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition still had some political power back then.

In the early 2000s, the neoconservative establishment began trying to wean American conservatives away from social issues. They had successfully replaced the fight against Communism with a new fight against Islamic terrorism as the primary characteristic of conservatism and seemed embarrassed that many in the Republican Party still held to old fashioned beliefs about abortion, gay marriage, and other tenets of Christianity. Whereas the conservative movement once championed free markets as the moral alternative to godless Communism, capitalism had now become a god unto itself, with GDP the only measure of morality. Mitch Daniels, who preceded future Vice President Mike Pence as governor of Indiana, famously tried to move the GOP away from social issues and focus entirely on the economy. After all, “It’s the economy, stupid!” had been the slogan of Bill Clinton’s successful campaign in 1992.

The danger of focusing entirely on the economy and foreign affairs is that it becomes easy to take the American people for granted. Globalists, sipping champagne in their ivory towers, look down and see no difference between American citizens and everyone else in the world. We are all just interchangeable cogs in a vast economic machine to them. Once you abandon the moral framework of Christianity that this country was founded upon, how can you make a moral argument against outsourcing thousands of jobs from Detroit to China? Patrick Buchanan warned us not to forget the American people. Referring to Americans who were losing their jobs in the early 90s, he said, “These people are our people. They don’t read Adam Smith or Edmund Burke, but they come from the same schoolyards and the same playgrounds and towns we come from. They share our beliefs and convictions, our hopes and our dreams. They are conservatives of the heart.”

The conservative movement, however, did not heed his warning. When Donald Trump offered a hand to the downtrodden white working class in 2016, the leaders of the conservative movement scoffed at him. These people had seen their jobs exported to foreign countries, their communities gutted by the opioid epidemic, and their young men scarred by endless wars halfway around the world. Rather than showing compassion for these destitute people, writers like Kevin Williamson of National Review derided them. In March of 2016, Williamson wrote, “The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible.” Basing your moral worldview entirely upon GDP numbers is sociopathic, but that is exactly what our conservative leadership did over the course of thirty years.

In 2008, Senator John McCain of Arizona was running for president to succeed George W. Bush. McCain had built his political career on the image of a maverick, someone who was willing to break with the Republican Party if his principles demanded it. He was very pro-war, supporting intervention all around the world, yet as a survivor of torture at the hands of the North Vietnamese he opposed the harsh interrogation methods that had been approved by President Bush for use on Islamic terrorists. The mainstream media had promoted him for many years for these reasons, but in 2008 they savaged him as a far-right extremist in comparison to their golden boy Barack Obama. Now McCain was of course a globalist like Bush and Obama, but he still surely wanted to win. So, he decided to do something crazy, and picked a woman as his running mate. Former Vice President Walter Mondale had tried the same gimmick in 1984, when he knew he had no chance to defeat President Reagan. McCain’s campaign searched for a woman that would make the ticket look good without rocking the boat. Unfortunately for them, they picked Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska.

In the first Rocky movie, Apollo Creed’s trainer warns him that Rocky “…doesn’t know it’s a show. He thinks it’s a fight!” So it was with Governor Palin. She did not seem to understand that her place on the ticket was a gimmick. She did not seem to understand that the Republican leadership did not really believe in the social issues they sold to their voters. She thought she was really campaigning against a crypto-socialist in Barack Obama, so she attacked him. She boldly proclaimed her belief in the nuclear family, in the right to life for the unborn, and in an unabashed belief in the reality of Jesus Christ.

This was embarrassing the McCain campaign. Despite the fact that they were leading in the polls after Palin’s convention speech, campaign staffers sabotaged her, setting her up to look bad in interviews and leaking unflattering stories about her to the media. When McCain lost the election, the GOP establishment was quick to place all the blame on Palin, despite the fact that McCain was a terrible candidate himself. Steve Schmidt, McCain’s campaign manager, apparently absolutely despised Palin. It was no surprise when he reappeared as one of the leaders of the NeverTrump movement.

The campaign and presidency of Donald Trump exposed many of the neo-conservatives for the grifters they always were. For three decades they had led the conservative movement by paying lip service on social issues in exchange for our support for military adventures, free trade, and open borders. They grudgingly allowed Republican leaders like George W. Bush to make small efforts to restrict abortion in exchange for unleashing the military-industrial complex. Trump was the first president in many years who seemed to not only genuinely believe in the socially conservative positions he advocated during his campaign, but also to come out against the very things that the neo-conservatives valued the most.

Suddenly, all their lip service to social conservatism went out the window. They had demanded that we support politicians such as John McCain and Mitt Romney, even if we did not agree with them on much, because they would appoint conservative judges and promote small government, tax cuts, and cut regulations. When the tables were turned in 2016, and we demanded they support Trump despite their disagreements on militarism and free trade, because he too would appoint conservative judges, they took their ball and went home. Many conservative pundits and politicians openly denounced Trump, even after he officially became the Republican nominee. Some of them even went as far as to endorse his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Ironically, many of those pundits, chief among them Jonah Goldberg of National Review, had spent the last decade warning about the peril to our country of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

The NeverTrump wing surely believed that Trump himself had no chance of victory. They expected that we would all come crawling back to them on hands and knees after Hillary’s inevitable landslide, begging them to take us back into the conservative movement. That did not happen. Donald Trump shocked the world and won the White House in 2016. Some of the NeverTrumpers saw which way the wind was blowing and jumped on the Trump train – see Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Charlie Kirk, and even Glenn Beck. Yet many more refused to support a man who promised to bring our troops home, enforce immigration laws, and put the American people first.

To the globalists, there is nothing special about the American people. The purpose of the United States, in their eyes, is to service the international order and to provide blood and treasure for their various schemes. Working-class Americans were just part of the international GDP machine. President Trump was having none of that. He proudly called himself a nationalist. He said, as you hear in every podcast intro, “We will no longer surrender ourselves or our people to the false song of globalism.” This was completely unacceptable to the neoconservative globalist establishment, so they did everything within their power – legal or not – to destroy him.

The same neoconservatives who once demanded we stop worrying about social issues and focus entirely on foreign affairs and the economy loudly proclaimed that their principles demanded they work to effect President Trump’s defeat. Men such as Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, Rick Wilson, Steve Schmidt, David French, Justin Amash, and George Will found wealthy donors to finance new publications and political organizations that were dedicated to taking down Trump at all costs. The Dispatch, the Bulwark, and the Lincoln Project joined existing GOP establishment media like National Review in attacking the president, and even in endorsing his Democratic opponents.

As I record this, the Lincoln Project is on the verge of collapse in the wake of sexual harassment and assault allegations against one of its founders, John Weaver. Weaver was a top advisor to John McCain and helped manage his presidential campaign in 2008. It had been long rumored that Weaver would sexually harass young men in politics, hoping to trade them jobs in exchange for sexual favors. Ryan Girdusky broke the story, and when mainstream media picked it up, the other members of the Lincoln Project disassociated themselves from Weaver. Despite his predilections being an open secret for nearly twenty years, his colleagues feigned ignorance. These are the sorts of people who once led the conservative movement. These are the sorts of people who failed to conserve anything. These are the sorts of people who would be embarrassed by Patrick Buchanan’s culture war speech, and demand that we focus on the economy. These are the sorts of people who lost our country.

In 1992, Patrick Buchanan called upon the Republican Party to fight back: “…we must take back our cities, and take back our culture, and take back our country.” Rather than fighting back, we continued to surrender ground, to fall back. Despite the election of President Trump in 2016, the truth is that we had already lost the culture war. Every major corporation is firmly in the leftist globalist camp. Most major newspapers and other news outlets are left-wing. Schools, colleges, and universities are all engaged in left-wing indoctrination. Entertainment is rabidly socialist. Even many of our churches are bending the knee to the new woke religion – the Southern Baptist Convention, once the bastion of Christian conservatism, has now gone all-in on identity politics and Critical Race Theory. How was one man supposed to fix this? Maybe a Pat Buchanan White House in 1992 or 96 could have stopped our decline, but we were undoubtedly too far gone by 2016. For all his strengths, for all his populist and nationalist instincts, not even President Trump was willing to fight the culture war. He supported gay marriage, was ambivalent on transgenderism, and while he made a big deal of saying “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays” his Christianity seemed to be cultural rather than heartfelt. Trump did not share Pat Buchanan’s strong beliefs about the nature of American culture. In fact, in 1999 Trump strongly denounced Buchanan, saying:

“Look, he’s a Hitler lover. I guess he’s an anti-Semite. He doesn’t like the blacks. He doesn’t like the gays. It’s just incredible that anybody could embrace this guy.”

Donald Trump was basically 1990s Bill Clinton, albeit one who was pro-life. The absolute hysteria with which our globalist elites reacted to Trump’s administration shows how far our country has collapsed since the Clinton era. We are not the same people we were in the 1990s, much less the 1960s.

Speaking about the effect of the Vietnam War on American culture, historian James White said, “I think it demonstrated both some of the delusions of a postwar world that there was a sense that it was somehow our responsibility to deal with every problem everywhere, but also did represent a real strength and commitment on the part of a lot of Americans. We’re asked to serve our country, and we’ll do it.”

The generation of young men who volunteered to fight in Vietnam did so because they had inherited a love of country and trust in their government from their World War II veteran parents. Yet what of our society today? The war in Afghanistan is approaching its 20th anniversary later this year. Young men who signed up to fight after 9/11 completed their tours, came home, settled down, raised a family, and now watch their sons sign up to fight in the same place. Eight years of Vietnam was enough to break the psyche of America, but twenty years of endless war in the Middle East has become just a fact of life. Our military bases throughout the world are simply accepted as outposts of our Empire, as normal for our soldiers as basic training. A burgeoning antiwar movement during the Bush administration fizzled out once Obama came to power, and now both political parties and the mainstream media adamantly support the endless wars. Why is our Vietnam different than our grandfathers’?

For one thing, we no longer have a military draft. The armed forces have had no issues maintaining the troop levels necessary for their various missions, perhaps because of the high levels of benefits they offer to potential recruits. The draft was a hugely motivating force for the antiwar protests of the 1960s, as young people feared being forced to fight in the jungles of Indochina against their will. With no draft, there is less motivation to protest our current wars. Nobody is in Afghanistan against their will today – they all signed up, and they all presumably knew where they might be sent.

Second, our troop levels in Afghanistan and the other deployments of the Great War on Terror have never matched the numbers we sent to Vietnam. Half a million American fighting men were in Vietnam at the peak of the war, and we lost nearly sixty thousand of them over eight years. Twenty years in Afghanistan have resulted in a tiny fraction of that number – less than three thousand. As I record this, there has not been a combat death in Afghanistan in more than a year. While every death in these adventures is a needless tragedy, the relatively low number of casualties makes it easy to forget that these wars are still ongoing. World War II and Vietnam affected all Americans. Everyone had a son, a brother, a father, a neighbor, or a friend who served in those wars. Today, millions of Americans live their entire lives without any exposure to military families.

In the early 2000s, supporting the wars was synonymous with being conservative and patriotic. Division over the wars in the late 2010s was one of the major wedges between the old neoconservative leadership and the growing nationalist movement in the Republican Party. Representative Dan Crenshaw of Texas, who lost an eye in Afghanistan, has become one of the most outspoken supporters of the endless wars. Another supporter is Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney. Donald Trump’s tenure in the White House served to illustrate this growing division, as shown when Liz Cheney voted to impeach President Trump a second time, shortly before he left office on January 20th. Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, who ran for president in 2016, voted to convict Trump in his Senate trial, and also supports the endless wars. Do you see a pattern yet?

A civil war is brewing in the Republican Party. The same conservatives who conserved nothing are fighting to maintain control of the Republican Party and the conservative movement in America. The priorities of Christian conservatives are not the priorities of the neoconservatives. They want to define conservative principles to mean endless war, open borders, free trade, and low taxes. The writing is on the wall, however. More than seventy-five million Americans voted to re-elect Donald Trump not because he was an establishment conservative but because he was a populist nationalist who spoke for the forgotten men and women of America. These nationalists are not going away. Many of them recognize how useless the conservative movement has been. They hear pundits like Kevin Williamson telling them that they deserve to die, while populists like Donald Trump actually listen to them.

While our cultural dividing lines might have been drawn in the 1960s, today is a different time. The Baby Boomers grew up in the shadow of World War II and the subsequent American prosperity, but the following generations were not so lucky. Generation X grew up in the cynicism that followed Vietnam, Millennials grew up in the spiritually decadent 90s, and Generation Z is coming of age in the dumpster fire that American culture has become.

The anonymous blogger AntiDem recently wrote a great piece about how our society has changed since 1968. His premise is that America survived the turmoil of the 1960s because of a tremendous reserve of social capital that our country had stored away. However, that social capital has been depleted over the past half century. AntiDem defines “social capital” as “the bond that exists between people within a certain society; it is their sense of mutual trust, loyalty, obligation, and responsibility; it is what makes us say “We are one; we are all in this together”. These are the ties that bind a nation; that bind a people together. Once these bonds are severed – once the reserve of social capital reaches zero – then there is nothing that can hold things together but brute force. And this is where conflict begins.”

Americans of the 1960s still believed in themselves and believed in their country. They trusted their government, trusted the press, and trusted their neighbors. America remained bound by a common heritage, common beliefs, and common values. As Charles Murray explains in “Coming Apart,” the division between the upper and lower classes in America grew tremendously between 1960 and 2005. The two groups of people had once interacted, gone to the same churches, attended the same schools, belonged to the same fraternal organizations, and even served in the military together. Today, the lives of the rich and powerful bear no resemblance to the lives of the poor, or even of the middle class.

The divide between left and right has grown as well. Whereas most American politicians of the 1960s might have disagreed with each other on policy, they all believed in American exceptionalism and greatness. Today, the globalist left considers the United States to be a fundamentally racist and sexist country, whose supposed greatness was just white supremacist hagiography, which needs to be completely dismantled and rebuilt in a cultural Marxist image. Rank and file conservatives, on the other hand, believe that America remains the greatest nation in the world, and many are still convinced that it is not beyond saving.

The generation that fought in Vietnam grew up in a time of prosperity. They had heroes to look up to: presidents such as Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy; industrialists and philanthropists like the Fords and Rockefellers; classy celebrities like Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn, and athletes like Joe DiMaggio and Willie Mays. Even when these heroes had less than heroic privates lives, as was the case with JFK, the press considered their job to be to sweep such unsavory things under the rug so as to keep the image of the president larger than life. Most people assumed that their president and congressional leaders were serious men who could be trusted to do what was best for the American people. Trust in the press was high as well; most Americans believed that Walter Cronkite and his colleagues were telling them the whole truth about what was going on in the world.

Contrast that with today. Every president is despised by at least half the country, and mercilessly criticized and mocked. Congress has even lower opinion ratings than the president, and trust in the press is at an all time low. Celebrity culture is a race to the bottom, as they seem to compete to see who can live the trashiest public lives. Americans are depressed, neurotic, and either perpetually angry, or simply tuned out. What changed?

Vietnam itself obviously disillusioned an entire generation. The young men who came back from those jungles had learned the hard way that war is not all honor and glory. Unlike their fathers who fought in World War II, they could not even tell themselves that they had fought for a great cause. When Saigon fell in 1975, it made all those years of fighting, all those lives lost and destroyed, seem for nothing. That is enough to turn anyone into a cynic.

Watergate was another stop on the road to disillusioned cynicism about our society. While President Nixon might not have done anything differently than his predecessors, the press decided he was guilty, and both parties moved in for the kill. The Watergate scandal did not just take down a president, it destroyed the integrity of the office in the eyes of millions of people. Rather than reflecting the best of America, our leaders seemed to reflect its worst.

In 1992, FBI agents raided the property of a man named Randy Weaver, who lived with his wife and children in rural Idaho. Depending on who you ask, Weaver was either a villainous white nationalist who was plotting violence against the government, or simply a man who wanted to be left alone. When Weaver did not show up for a court hearing on a weapons charge, agents besieged his property, and ended up killing Weaver’s wife Vicki and fourteen-year-old son Sammy. An FBI agent was also killed during the siege. For many Americans, the Ruby Ridge siege was a wakeup call that the government did not necessarily have their best interests at heart.

Less than one year later, FBI and ATF agents besieged a compound in Waco, Texas. The government suspected the Branch Davidian cult of stockpiling weapons and possibly holding people against their will. After several firefights, the siege ended on April 19 when government agents assaulted the compound. A fire started – some say it was due to the FBI tear gas canisters, while others say cult members set the fire deliberately. Either way, seventy-six people were killed, including twenty-five children.

While the 1990s were, on the surface, a time of relative prosperity and optimism, the American people were becoming more jaded and cynical than ever. What was the conservative answer to this cynicism? What did the conservative movement offer people who were losing their jobs, their families, and their faith in America? Tax cuts and broken promises.

The conservative movement fully accepted the premises of the left that America was progressing toward a more globalist utopian future. Rather than heeding the warnings of Patrick Buchanan, they instead accepted the premise that America was fundamentally racist, sexist, homophobic, and xenophobic, and that it must not only change and progress, but forever apologize and atone for its past sins. In doing so, the conservative movement lost the ability to advocate for America itself. They cannot criticize anti-white racism; the most they can do is find a black person to speak out on behalf of white people. They cannot criticize the full-on assault on masculinity that our culture has engaged in. They have almost given up arguing social issues entirely, preferring to confine their discussions to “stopping socialism” in America, as if it was not already here. Conservatives could not even conserve the women’s restroom.

The conservative movement is a failure because it could never articulate a reason for its own existence. When the left is demanding we drive off the cliff at full speed, while the right meekly suggests that half speed might be more prudent, then of what purpose is the right wing? The left supports their extremists, while the right censures theirs. The left uses government to expand their own power, while the right uses it to constrict theirs. President Obama used his last day in office to pardon terrorists, while President Trump pardoned rappers who hate him. When Representative Maxine Waters of California urged her followers to harass Trump supporters in public, the media shrugged, and her party cheered her on. When Representative Steve King of Iowa urged us to preserve Western Civilization, the media attacked, and his party dutifully stripped him of his committee assignments and then supported a primary challenge against him.

The biggest example of the GOP’s failure to win was seen in the contrasting reactions to the Black Lives Matter and antifa protests of 2020 versus the MAGA protest at the Capitol on January 6th. All summer long, BLM and antifa rioters burned, looted, and even murdered their way through dozens of cities. They caused billions of dollars in property damage, and hundreds of small business owners lost their livelihoods. The response of the left? Celebration and promotion. Kamala Harris raised money to bail rioters out of jail. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said that the point of protests was to make people “uncomfortable”. Leftist media fell over themselves trying to be the first to repeat Martin Luther King Jr.’s statement that “riots are the language of the unheard.” Every corporation in America solemnly intoned that black lives matter, and they donated billions to far-left political organizations.

Republicans tried to thread the needle between denouncing the violence while not appearing to be racist in the eyes of the media. Many proclaimed their belief in the cause that the rioters were supposedly fighting for while also claiming that the violence was caused by a few outside agitators. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina sponsored a bill to reform the supposedly racist police. The truth that George Floyd died of a drug overdose, not from the actions of an allegedly racist policeman, was considered impolite, yet every Republican spoke his name.

Contrast that with the reaction to the Capitol protest last month. As I record this, the only death that we know of that was directly caused by the protest was that of Ashli Babbitt, an Air Force veteran and Trump supporter who was murdered for no apparent reason by a member of law enforcement. Nevertheless, Democrats called this protest an “insurrection” promoted by “domestic terrorists” and instigated by President Trump himself. They impeached the president, announced a 9/11 style commission to investigate, and prepared a bill to crack down on supposed domestic terrorists – that is, Trump-supporting conservatives.

How did the Republican Party respond? By echoing every Democratic talking point. No Republican stood up for their own people who were caught up in the events of that day. No Republican politician spoke the name of Ashli Babbitt.

The Democratic Party supports the most extreme members of their own constituency, even when they tear down statues and burn down buildings. The GOP, on the other hand, is embarrassed by their base. In fact, I think many in the Republican leadership actively hate their own voters. They would rather lose than have to face constituents that they consider to be too uneducated, too religious, and too patriotic for their own sensibilities.

The Republican Party and the conservative movement have failed to save this country, and in many ways, they have abetted its decline. The lesson of Trump is that our country has declined too far for us to save it through political means. The burgeoning MAGA movement must avoid the mistakes of the past. It is not enough to simply conserve the previous generation’s progressive gains – the American right must become explicitly reactionary. We must be bold enough to say that we have to go back to a better time, that the progressive gains of the last twenty years, the last fifty years, even the last century, must be reversed if we are to have any hope of reclaiming our country. We must reject the premise that history moves in only one direction. Instead, we have to go back.

C.S. Lewis had some thoughts on this premise many years ago. “If you are on the wrong road progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man. There is nothing progressive about being pig-headed and refusing to admit a mistake. And I think if you look at the present state of the world it’s pretty plain that humanity has been making some big mistake. We’re on the wrong road. And if that is so we must go back.”

We have to go back, folks. America has been going the wrong way for a long time. We can return to an era where men were masculine, women were feminine, and children were innocent. We can return to a time when a man trusted his neighbor, and where our leaders and journalists told the truth. We can return to a time when the American people believed in American exceptionalism. The conservative movement has neither the intention nor the ability to take us to this promised land. We must reject the progressive view of history and recognize that our ancestors, for all their human faults, were good people who knew a thing or two about life. We must reject the temptations of modernity and return to time-tested tradition. The new society we create must be explicitly Christian, explicitly reactionary, and full of people who believe in its ideals, and who are willing and able to defend them.

In his inaugural address in 1961, President Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” Let us return to an era when we had a country worth preserving.

Interview on The JJ Podcast

A few days ago, before the unauthorized tour of the Capitol Building this week, I had the privilege of chatting with John from Australia on The JJ Podcast. We talked for two hours about the general decline of Western Civilization and of the United States in particular, how we got here, and where we might be headed.

John divided the chat into two parts, so be sure to listen to them both:

Part 1

Part 2

Make sure to check out his other episodes while you’re there. I thank John and appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts with his audience.

No Standing

In the two months since Election Day, the Trump campaign has revealed tremendous evidence of fraud throughout the country. Ballots have been counted multiple times, signatures were forged, and voting machines skewed the results. Mail-in voting broke the chain of accountability for our ballots. The “pause” in vote counting on Election Night has never been satisfactorily explained. Yet every court challenge has been denied. Why?

While leftist NPCs claim that our justice system says there was no fraud, what has really happened is that courts have dismissed Trump campaign lawsuits without ever examining the evidence. Instead, they claim that the plaintiffs have “no standing” to contest the certification of votes. When the State of Texas sued several other states, claiming that their vote fraud violated the constitutional right to equal protection under the law, the Supreme Court again dismissed their suit for lack of standing.

What is standing? It means that a plaintiff has the right to demand satisfaction for a wrong that has occurred. If your neighbor cuts down a tree on your property, you have the right to sue for damages and compensation. However, if I live across town from you, then I do not have that right, as I am not the injured party.

Standing is an important part of American jurisprudence. However, these recent dismissals have made little sense. In some cases, courts have dismissed claims against mail-in voting or Dominion vote counting machines by claiming that plaintiffs should have filed their lawsuits earlier, when these things were first implemented. Of course, we all know that lawsuits at that time would have been dismissed as well, with courts claiming that plaintiffs must wait until actual injury – in the form of fraudulent votes – has occurred. What a useful catch-22 for the establishment.

The doctrine of standing has become a cheap excuse for courts to avoid difficult subjects. The State of Texas clearly had standing to sue the states, because fraud in one state clearly impacts the voters in other states. In fact, when one state has a dispute with another state, the Supreme Court is the only constitutional forum for them to argue their case. By dismissing the case for lack of standing the Supreme Court is clearly showing that they simply want no part in this disputed election. They surely know that the facts of the case would demand a ruling in favor of Texas, however they are loath to go out on a limb and overturn what our media has declared is a finished election.

The idea of using “standing” to avoid controversial issues is not new. Every American schoolchild has heard of the Dred Scott case. In 1857, the Supreme Court heard a case about a slave named Dred Scott whose master had died after moving with him to the north, where slavery was illegal. Since his master was dead, and he resided in a free state, should Scott not be a free man? This touched upon many of the controversial issues that would lead to Civil War within the next decade. Rather than taking a stand, Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled that Scott had no standing since black slaves were not citizens of the United States. He completely avoided the issue.

Most historians agree that the Dred Scott decision was one of the worst in the history of the Supreme Court. What will future historians think of the John Roberts court handwaving away the claims of Texas and others? Electoral fraud is a major problem. If American citizens do not have standing to contest a stolen election, then what good is American citizenship? Earlier this year, the ACLU filed suit against the Trump Administration claiming that the policy of excluding illegal aliens from the census was discriminatory. Rather than dismissing it for lack of standing, courts heard the case. It is a sad commentary on our society that our courts are able to find standing for illegal aliens and foreigners before they allow actual citizens to demand accountability in our elections.

Our soapboxes are being censored by Big Tech. Our ballot boxes are being defrauded by big city Democratic machines. Our jury boxes are closed due to “lack of standing”. Perhaps all this is why cartridge boxes are becoming so expensive.

The End of the Westphalian Nation-State and the Rise of the Global Technocracy

Imagine for a moment that a major American corporation, say Walmart or McDonalds, decided to enforce an official religion in its office. From now on, anyone working for these companies would be required to take the Eucharist every morning, recite Muslim prayers in the afternoon, or wear a yarmulke when on the job. Imagine that the government itself mandated that you must follow the tenets of one religion or another. That would be absurd, right? The very first amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a religion in the United States, and our courts have applied that to most employers as well. However, there a new religion that has taken over America in the guise of secularism. Call it wokeness, or social justice, or equity; whatever it is has become the de facto official religion of this country, and of the entire western world. Refusing to participate in its rituals and incantations can result in ostracism, unemployment, and censorship. Who is enforcing the tenets of this new religion? Who has established it as the new law of the land? Not our government. Not our elected leaders. No, the enforcers of this new faith are unelected, unaccountable, and they hold themselves above governments and nations. These are the technocrats, the rootless cosmopolitans who believe that their expertise gives them the right to rule. The very concept of the sovereign nation-state is being erased before our eyes in favor of a globalist technocracy based on the religion of wokeness.

While it is not true to say that religion is the primary cause of war, religious differences can contribute to strife between peoples. By the 17th century, the Protestant Reformation had torn at the fabric of medieval Europe by challenging the supreme authority enjoyed by the Roman Catholic Church for over a thousand years. The Thirty Years War initially began as a conflict between Catholics and Protestants within the Holy Roman Empire, but it eventually evolved into a bloody brawl that left millions of people dead. Europe would not see slaughter on such a scale until World War I nearly three centuries later. The series of treaties that concluded the Thirty Years War are collectively known as the Peace of Westphalia. These treaties did more than end a war; they established the very system of international relations that we take for granted to this day. Most importantly at the time, the Peace allowed kingdoms within the Holy Roman Empire to choose whether to be Catholic, Lutheran, or Calvinist, without interference from the Emperor, neighboring kingdoms, or the Pope in Rome. Furthermore, subjects who followed a different Christian denomination were guaranteed the right to practice their faith without fear of persecution.

The consequences of the Peace of Westphalia extended far beyond denominational disputes, however. For the first time, the kings of Europe agreed that nation-states were a thing. The borders of pre-Westphalian Europe were in constant flux as kings and nobles fought to control land and resources, and they all understood themselves to be under the ultimate authority of the Pope in Rome. Popes often used their authority to interfere in the affairs of kings and kingdoms, such as when Pope Innocent III excommunicated King John of England in a dispute over who could appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury. In another example, Pope Sixtus V induced Spanish King Philip II to invade England in retaliation for their embrace of the Protestant Reformation under Queen Elizabeth I.

Westphalia changed this paradigm. Now, European leaders recognized that nation-states were sovereign entities, neither bound to the authority of the Pope nor subject to interference from their neighbors. This concept of national sovereignty remains the cornerstone of international relations to this day. Our grandfathers took it for granted that the internal affairs of foreign nations were none of our business. The idea of invading another country to convert them to your religion or force them to accept your laws and customs became unacceptable in the new international order. Henry Kissinger describes the Peace of Westphalia as a situation where “…each state was assigned the attribute of sovereign power over its territory. Each would acknowledge the domestic structures and religious vocations of its fellow states and refrain from challenging their existence.”

While it might be too much to say that the Peace of Westphalia created the modern world, it certainly recognized the structure that world would take. The wave of independence movements throughout the 19th and 20th centuries was inspired by the idea of national sovereignty. If European nations were not supposed to interfere in each other’s affairs, then what right did they have to interfere in South America, Africa, or Asia? Slowly but surely, the Westphalian nation-state became the norm throughout the world. Sometimes this process went awry, such as when British and French diplomats tried to create nation-states out of diverse Arabic tribes in the former Ottoman Empire; the arbitrary borders that they drew a century ago are still causing strife today.

It was in the wake of World War I that the Westphalian system began to falter. US President Woodrow Wilson joined the war not so much to defend American territory as to “make the world safe for democracy”. If “democracy” was a religion, rather than an ideology or a system of government, then Wilson would not sound very different from the most zealous Crusaders of medieval Europe. Despite Wilson’s idea for a League of Nations failing to gain congressional approval at home, the leaders of Europe went ahead and formed the organization themselves. While the main purpose of the League was to make war obsolete, it utterly failed to do so; nevertheless, it laid the groundwork for the United Nations that was born out of the Second World War two decades later. The UN Charter claims that “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.” However, the very purpose of the UN is to establish a higher world authority than national sovereignty. Whereas our Founding Fathers appealed to heaven for the redress of their grievances against their sovereign lord King George, today we appeal to the UN Security Council.

As usual, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and a charitable look at the crafters of the postwar world order suggests they at least had good intentions. There must be some mechanism to stop the powerful from trampling over the weak, or some way of stopping sovereign nations from engaging in human rights abuses within their own borders. What is to be done if a sovereign nation engages in genocide? The leaders of Europe regretted not intervening in Germany sooner; perhaps they could have prevented the Holocaust. None of them wanted to let that happen again, so they went all-in with the United Nations. The first major use of the UN as a peacekeeping body was to intervene in the civil war in Korea. The Soviet Union and newly Communist China both intended to spread their ideology throughout the world, and so they supported communist North Korea with money, weapons, and training. What was the civilized world to do but intervene?

The new world order constructed after World War II was an explicitly globalist order. Whereas Westphalian nationalism held that each country was its own sovereign unit, postwar globalism instead held that certain concepts such as liberal democracy and civil rights were universal to all humanity, and therefore any nation that restricted such things lost the protections of sovereignty. In 1991, US President George H. W. Bush announced a war against Iraq, which had invaded and occupied the neighboring nation of Kuwait. In his speech that night, he said:

This is an historic moment. We have in this past year made great progress in ending the long era of conflict and cold war. We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order — a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful — and we will be — we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders.

Nearly every American and European leader since World War II has accepted the axiom that world peace requires international organizations that can, in some cases, supersede national sovereignty. Anyone who speaks approvingly of Westphalian nationalism, such as Patrick Buchanan, is derided as backwards and archaic. Conventional wisdom had long held that increased centralization of power was inevitable, the “arc of history” so to speak. The European Union, for example, was only expected to grow larger and more powerful, subordinating national governments to the new Tower of Babel in Strasbourg and Brussels. The idea of a country withdrawing from such a union was considered lunacy, until Britain did just that. The reaction to Brexit by the globalist class has been one of outright hysteria. They cannot believe that the citizens of a 21st century nation would seriously want some level of sovereignty. It goes against everything we have been taught for the past seventy-five years.

At some point, the United States ceased to exist as a sovereign nation-state and instead became, as Mencius Moldbug put it, an international free trade zone. We took the idea that America was a “nation of immigrants” to the extreme, coming to believe that there is no such thing as a core American nation. Capitalists and businessmen who once served the American public no longer feel any loyalty to this country. They incorporate in offshore havens to avoid paying taxes, they outsource manufacturing to developing nations whose citizens will work for pennies on the dollar, and when they claim to “give back” to their communities, it is generally in a way that diminishes the historic American nation in favor of immigrants and refugees.

Tax dollars are now prioritized for foreigners rather than American citizens. We began handing out foreign aid during the Cold War to keep other countries on our side rather than letting them become part of the Communist bloc. We were a rich country, and we could afford to share the wealth. Despite the end of the Cold War in 1991 and our own skyrocketing national debt, foreign aid has only increased in the past thirty years. We have been doing it for so long that nobody in Congress can even remember a time when we spent our money on the priorities of the American people. Like globalism itself, the use of American capital to prop up the rest of the world has become so ingrained in our political system that any criticism is looked upon as crazy talk.

President Trump recently signed a budget bill that was included as part of a so-called covid relief package, after spending a week denouncing the massive waste contained therein. This budget includes billions of dollars for foreign nations, or, more accurately, for the non-governmental organizations that claim to act on behalf of those nations. For example, the bill allocates $10 million to the country of Pakistan for something called “gender programs”. Like missionaries spreading the Gospel of Christ throughout the world in the 19th century, today’s NGOs spread the ideologies of modern America: feminism, globalism, and LGBTQ supremacy. The American people did not vote for this. We never held a referendum on spending money to promote feminism or homosexuality in foreign nations. We were not asked our opinion about sending half a billion dollars to Israel or hundreds of millions of dollars to Nepal, Myanmar, and Cambodia. In theory, the American people exercise control over our government by electing new leaders and representatives, yet there are few in Washington of either party who are interested in halting the foreign aid racket. No matter who we send to Congress, they continue to vote for these things without a second thought. America really is nothing more than a free-trade zone, and the purpose of the American worker is to fund the globalist agenda throughout the world.

Why do the American people seem to have such little control over the actions of our government? Why are our elected officials not accountable to us for how they spend taxpayer money? The logical conclusion is that they do not serve the American people, but instead take their orders from someone else. Who?

Big Tech and social media giants certainly exercise outsized influence in our society. Social media has grown into the de facto public square in 21st century America, but the companies that run these networks have become increasingly hostile to free speech. This kind of censorship began with provocative personalities such as Alex Jones, Laura Loomer, and Milo Yiannapolous, but it did not stop there. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube now routinely ban anyone who steps beyond the bounds of their nebulous community standards. Establishment conservatives and libertarians who haughtily proclaim that private companies have the right to do whatever they want are whistling past the graveyard. Like monkeys hoping that the crocodile will eat them last, these naïve conservatives think that they will be fine if they just agree to ritually denounce anyone to their right. They always seem so surprised when they find themselves targeted by the censors as well.

Twitter has censored or placed disclaimers on President Trump’s tweets more than five hundred times since Election Day, while Joe Biden has never suffered such an indignity no matter how crazy his statements. Twitter also censored the New York Post when it published damning information about Hunter Biden, information that likely would have swung the election in Trump’s favor had it been allowed to spread. Now that the election is supposedly over, mainstream news has suddenly found time to talk about the Hunter Biden story, despite claiming it was “Russian disinformation” just weeks ago. Twitter is surely preparing to ban Donald Trump from the platform the moment he is no longer President of the United States.

Google and its subsidiary YouTube are heavily engaged in censorship as well. Conservative YouTubers who have built their livelihoods on producing video content find themselves demonetized and banned with no recourse, simply for disagreeing with Big Tech’s positions regarding the elections, Covid, or vaccines. Big Tech claims to use so-called “authoritative sources” as the basis for their censorship, but these sources are often incredibly biased and dishonest. Google deliberately tweaks YouTube’s algorithm to hide conservative content while elevating mainstream or progressive content in its place. Google does the same thing with its search engine, which is the lens through which millions of Americans see the world. Some social scientists have estimated that Google’s influence is enough to shift 5-10% of the vote to the left.

Facebook also uses its influence to censor conservative thought. Many people, especially of the Baby Boom generation, use Facebook as their primary source for information about the world. Facebook’s supposedly independent fact checkers are, unsurprisingly, far-left activists. Even more insidious, however, is the way in which Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg chose to involve himself in the recent presidential election. In the guise of improving voter participation, Zuckerberg invested tens of millions of dollars in outreach, voting machines, and dropboxes – almost entirely in heavily Democratic regions. This too might have been enough to swing the election.

These three Big Tech companies, along with others such as TikTok, Nextdoor, and Pinterest, have tremendous influence over how the average American citizen sees and interprets current events, and they are using that influence to fundamentally transform our society. Republican politicians have made noise about reigning in the oligarchs of Big Tech, to no avail. The social media giants donate millions of dollars to politicians on both sides, ensuring that nothing of substance will happen no matter how many hearings and campaign promises to crack down on censorship they make. Google spreads millions of dollars to politicians and political organizations, including supposedly conservative organizations like National Review, ensuring that they enjoy favorable press no matter how evil they act. This is on top of Google’s near monopoly in the field of internet advertising. These companies have tremendous amounts of cash, pervasive influence in our society, and little to fear from government oversight.

These social media companies do not consider themselves beholden to US law; they see themselves as above such petty things as borders or patriotism. They span the globe, enforcing their community standards as a quasi-world government, much in the same way that the Catholic Church once did in medieval Europe. Our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but Big Tech will censor you if you engage in wrongthink. Our Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, but a teacher seeing a gun on a student’s wall in a Zoom class thinks she has the right to suspend him. Our Constitution guarantees us the right to due process, but Big Tech can eliminate your social persona and even your livelihood with no recourse. The telephone system has been regulated as a “common carrier” by the government for nearly a century, which means that companies such as AT&T or Verizon do not have the right to cut off your service if they disagree with what you say on the phone. Yet this is exactly what Big Tech companies do every day.

Twitter is the social network on which I am most active, so it is the one I am most familiar with. Over the past ten years, Twitter has become one of the most important methods of communication between politicians, journalists, and regular citizens. President Trump has used his Twitter account in the same way that Franklin Roosevelt used radio: to bypass the gatekeepers and speak directly to the American people. It is for this reason that Twitter is often the first social media battlefield between the new censors and advocates for free speech. In early 2019, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey appeared with Vijaya Gadde, the head of Twitter’s Orwellian “Trust and Safety Council” on Joe Rogan’s show to discuss the issue of censorship. While Dorsey seems to support free speech in the abstract – he once referred to Twitter as the “free speech wing of the free speech party” – It is the Indian-born Gadde that is the real power behind the censors. She and her team decide what to allow and what to ban not based on western ideals of free expression, but instead on a new quasi-religious paradigm.

I try to be careful with my own Twitter account, lest I find myself running afoul of the woke censors that make up their “Trust and Safety Council”. Yet when I did finally receive a ban, it was not for anything objectively offensive, but rather an innocuous comment about how Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben were being erased in the name of racial tolerance. Rather than serving a 24-hour suspension, I appealed, and was therefore locked out of my account for two weeks until they responded and upheld their original decision. If you do not obey, then the process becomes the punishment. Unlike American law, where we have a constitutional right to confront our accuser and have a trial by a jury of our peers, those targeted by the “Trust and Safety Council” have no recourse, and there are no specific people to whom we can take our case. The censors on this shadowy committee are nameless, faceless, unaccountable, yet all-powerful. To put it another way, Big Tech and the social media giants are imposing a totalitarian-style justice system on a people who have always taken American jurisprudence and English common law for granted. What happens when Big Tech becomes even more powerful than the governments that are supposed to protect our liberties?

If you will recall from my recent essay about the Great Reset, globalist technocrats are using the chaos of this past year as a mechanism for instituting their vision of the future. Big Tech is an important part of that vision. Rather than taking a principled stand to protect our American rights of free speech and freedom of conscience, they are cheerfully enacting a Chinese-style social credit system, deciding who can take part in society based upon their political opinions and views. The standard by which we are judged in this social credit system is not based upon the traditional Western ideals of freedom and liberty, but is instead a new secular religion based on wokeness, on social justice, on equity. The guiding principles of this religion are those of Critical Theory, and its demonic offspring Critical Race Theory, which demands that we tear down every structure of society to build a new inclusive utopia.

If an older and more established religion had come to America intending to control the daily lives of our citizens, they would have been stopped immediately. Forcing people to take the Eucharist, recite Muslim prayers, or wear a yarmulke would have been correctly seen as an immoral and unconstitutional establishment of religion upon a free people. However, forcing people to participate in rituals to denounce their own “white privilege”, to recite the tenets of Critical Theory, and to wear Black Lives Matter branded t-shirts is considered acceptable, and even laudable. By pretending that the new woke religion is not a religion at all, merely good manners, the technocrats have created a monstrous new universal faith, with its own priests, acolytes, doctrines, inquisitions, and even devils.

If you do not believe that wokeism is a fully-fledged religion, consider the following: In the weeks and months after the death of career criminal and drug addict George Floyd, his visage was painted on murals across the country, in the same manner as a saint in the old days. Pilgrims flocked to the street corner where he died, and some make-believe pastors even baptized people there. Consider that an ultra-left wing black church once replaced the bread and wine of the Eucharist with skittles and iced tea in worshipful memory of Trayvon Martin. Consider that schools, universities, and corporations have demanded that their employees obediently intone the holy words “black lives matter,” and anyone who refuses is summarily fired. Consider that employers from large corporations to the federal government itself have instituted mandatory training sessions based upon Critical Race Theory that compel white men ritually denounce themselves in the manner of Chinese Communist struggle sessions. If this is not a religion, it certainly looks like one.

The new religion of wokeness has its prophets and priests as well. Domestic terrorists like Angela Davis are given places of honor in this faith, and their every utterance is treated as the words of a god. So too are those of critical race theorists like Kimberlé Crenshaw, Ibram Kendi, and Ta-Nehisi Coates. There is a hierarchy at work here, one based upon race and other characteristics. “Intersectionality” is an absolute dogma of this religion. A disabled black woman has, by virtue of her ethnic and social status, secret knowledge that is unattainable by an able-bodied white man. This explains why they claim that two plus two does not necessarily equal four: we must be open to “other ways of knowing” besides the empirical tradition of Western Civilization. After all, what is observation and the scientific method compared to the “rich lived experience” of an “oppressed” person of color? I say this facetiously, but they take it very seriously.

Like most religions, wokeism has its own devils as well. The current chief demon is none other than President Donald Trump. In their eyes he is evil, racist, sexist, a dictator, and the source of everything that is wrong with the world today. The acolytes of wokeism dream of setting up formal inquisitions to judge and punish anyone who ever supported President Trump. They already control unofficial inquisitions in the form of social media mobs that demand blood whenever a public figure says something disrespectful about their faith, such as “all lives matter” or “it’s ok to be white”. These acolytes feel a thrill at the prospect of depriving American citizens of their jobs, their livelihoods, and even their lives.

In the end, wokeism is a perverse parody of Christianity, growing parasitically on the ruins of Christian America. In a piece for Humanitas this month, Michael Vlahos writes:

…today’s woke religion is a mocking, empty caricature of Christianity, like earlier, Marxist heresies of the last century.

So here we are. After four centuries of the Westphalian nation-state, international borders are once again becoming fluid and amorphous. Rather than a supranational Roman Catholic Church making itself the highest earthly authority, we have Big Tech implementing a religion of wokeness on everyone, no matter their citizenship. This alliance of globalist technocrats and Big Tech commissars has become more powerful than our elected government, and they answer to nobody but themselves. Or do they? It is time to talk about the ten-ton elephant in the room: The Peoples Republic of China.

The relationship of China to the West has always been complicated. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Chinese people chafed under colonial interference from western powers such as Great Britain. Throughout the 1930s they fought a long and bloody war with Japan that only ended when the United States dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Mao Zedong had previously launched a Communist revolution but was forced to work together with nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek to fight their common enemy. With Japan defeated, however, Mao resumed his revolution, defeating Chiang and establishing the Peoples Republic of China in 1949.

Nearly half a century ago, US President Richard Nixon traveled to Beijing to meet with Chairman Mao and his premier Zhou Enlai. This historic trip ended twenty years of isolation between Communist China and the western world. Nixon and his advisors believed that engaging with the Chinese communists would be better, in the long run, than allowing them to remain an isolated enemy. Every American president since then has agreed with this view. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter granted China “most favored nation” trading status, on the condition that they improve their human rights record. Despite the Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989, we continued to push for more openness. In 1994, President Bill Clinton rhetorically asked, “Will we do more to advance the cause of human rights if China is isolated?” In late 2000, Clinton signed a law that permanently normalized trade relations with China.

The idea behind openness with China has always been that our liberal democracy would prove attractive to the Chinese people, causing them to demand more freedom and liberty rather than authoritarian control. After all, this idea seemed to work with the former Soviet Union. In 1989, future Russian President Boris Yeltsin visited the United States on a goodwill tour and stopped by a Texas grocery store to see how the common people lived. In contrast with the sparse shelves and long food lines in Communist Russia, the American store was overflowing with food. When Yeltsin saw this, he knew that the Communist system was doomed. He said at the time, “Even the Politburo doesn’t have this choice. Not even Mr. Gorbachev.” Just two years later, the Soviet Union collapsed.

China, however, is not Russia. The China that President Nixon visited in 1972 was a mostly agrarian society, still reeling from the triple punch of World War II, the civil war between the Communists and the nationalists, and the Cultural Revolution, not to mention the failure of Mao’s Great Leap Forward. It was easy for Nixon and his advisors to see how western-style capitalism might appeal to a population of peasants and poor farmers. Yet China seems to have found a third way. Mao’s successors Deng Xioping and Jiang Zemin allowed a capitalist economy to grow under the supervision of the Chinese Communist Party. Businessmen are permitted to make money, and even to grow wealthy, so long as they obey the CCP. The cheap trinkets that have come to define American prosperity in the past four decades do not impress the Chinese, especially considering most of them are manufactured in China itself. China uses modern technology to effectively control its population in ways that the old Soviet Union could have never dreamed of. Facial recognition and AI maintain the social credit system, and dissenters are quickly and quietly dealt with. The Chinese Communist Party has an extensive propaganda system that extends from teams of young people making pro-China social media posts to organizations such as the Confucius Institute which has integrated itself in public school systems throughout the United States and Europe.

At the conclusion of President Nixon’s visit in 1972, the United States and China issued a joint statement outlining their differences that has come to be known as the Shanghai Communique. In this statement, the Chinese delegation stated that, “Wherever there is oppression, there is resistance. Countries want independence, nations want liberation and the people want revolution–this has become the irresistible trend of history. All nations, big or small, should be equal: big nations should not bully the small and strong nations should not bully the weak. China will never be a superpower and it opposes hegemony and power politics of any kind.” In 1972, it seemed obvious that China would never be a superpower; despite being the world’s most populous nation, they were still technologically and industrially backward compared to the United States, the Soviet Union, and Europe. Yet the first two decades of the 21st century have shown that China does indeed desire to be a superpower. The fall of the Soviet Union left a vacuum in the world, a vacuum that China hopes to fill. If the 19th century belonged to Britain, and the 20th to America, China is determined to make the 21st century the Chinese century. Whether they can accomplish this or not is still an open question – many experts consider the Chinese economy to be built upon smoke and mirrors. But they are undoubtedly trying. Xi Jinping appears to be the most ambitious of his country’s leaders since Mao himself.

Scott Greer pointed out on a recent podcast that China learned well the lessons of Russia’s failure. Rather than proclaiming their desire to impose Marxism-Leninism on the whole world, China has instead played the American game of capitalism, using money and investment to gain influence across the globe. China already controls a significant amount of manufacturing, especially in the medical and technology fields. US corporations discovered that it was cheaper to pay Chinese workers than their American counterparts, and so they began building factories over there instead of over here. The profit margins were so great that these corporations were willing to do whatever the Chinese Communist Party demanded in return for cheap labor. While American companies like Apple and Google feel free to criticize US government policy, to the point where they will boycott states that have laws that they consider to be “anti-transgender,” they are all too happy to bow and scrape before their Chinese masters. The same Big Tech corporations that enthusiastically embraced the Black Lives Matter movement have lobbied against a bill that would condemn China’s alleged genocide of the Uyghur people, fearing it might disrupt their access to cheap Chinese labor. I do not believe that President Nixon could have envisioned American companies simping for China while at the same time undermining American democracy back home.

China has also been quietly buying land and infrastructure all around the world. Chinese ownership of land and buildings in places like Vancouver BC is a well-known joke, and their management of factories, ports, and even military bases throughout Africa worries many international observers. Most troubling is their ownership of buildings and companies in the United States. We might consider these Chinese investors to be private companies, but there is no such thing when it comes to the Chinese Communist Party. Every corporation based in China or Hong Kong is made to serve the ultimate goals of the CCP.

In 2013, one of our largest meat processing companies was acquired by a Hong Kong holding company. This drew some attention during the initial phases of the coronavirus pandemic when they were forced to close several plants in the United States. One might be forgiven for wondering why we would allow a belligerent rival to control a significant portion of our food supply. In 2012, China-based Cosco (the shipping company, not the warehouse chain) signed a contract with the city of Long Beach, California to operate their port, one of the busiest in the world. This was part of what China calls the Belt and Road Initiative, a project to take over as much of the world shipping infrastructure as possible. While the Obama Administration had no problem with China taking over one of our biggest ports, the Trump Administration forced them to divest it from their holdings. However, even President Trump has not stopped all of China’s ventures. Earlier this year, a Chinese-based investment group purchased over a hundred thousand acres of land in Texas, ostensibly to develop a wind farm. Not only is this land near several military bases, but it is also quite close to the Mexican border. We know that China has been surreptitiously smuggling fentanyl and other drugs into the United States; allowing them to control a section of our border seems dangerously foolish. Yet our politicians seem to be inviting Chinese control. Republican Governor Brian Kemp of Georgia recently recorded a video begging China to invest in his state, complete with a Chinese Communist flag as a backdrop.

Victor Davis Hanson recently published an article for National Review explaining how China is looking forward to a more compliant America under the Biden/Harris administration. He writes,

Europe has been apologizing for its 19th- and early-20th-century imperialism and neo-colonialism for 75 years. Yet China proudly boasts of its new brand of exploitation, the Belt and Road Initiative, to develop abroad infrastructure, harbors, ports, rails, industry, power grids, and highways. The aims of such a vast $8 trillion project are multifarious. Beijing seeks to establish control over the world’s commercial choke points (from Suez to the Panama Canal) that will offer advantage in times of tensions and war.

The Chinese Communist Party is taking the fight for the 21st century very seriously. The aforementioned Confucius Institute teaches western grade school children about the glories of China, while their Thousand Talents Program has an unlimited budget with which to lure western scientists and researchers to work for the Chinese Communist Party. Oftentimes these researchers are persuaded to turn over their proprietary research to their new Chinese bosses as well. Some of these researchers are now in prison for this treason. After World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in a technological race to make the best missiles, computers, and spacecraft. Both nations were focused on victory; the United States had no problem recruiting Nazi rocket scientists to ensure we were the first nation to land on the moon. Today, we do not seem to realize we are even in competition. Our leaders show little concern about the prospect of China winning the AI or nanotechnology race, or of becoming the first nation to perfect quantum computing or genetic engineering. A Soviet satellite scared us out of complacency in 1957, but China’s single-minded determination to win the future does not faze us at all. We remain distracted while our leaders promise that Chinese hegemony is nothing to be feared. Even a recent leak that disclosed the identities of two million members of the Chinese Communist Party who had infiltrated institutions throughout the world barely made the evening news.

The same politicians and journalists who have found a Russian bogeyman under every bed for the past five years seem remarkably blasé about China’s constant interference in our society. Why is that? Could the answer be so banal as money? Hunter Biden received millions from several nations, including China, while his father was Vice President. Were they simply buying a major political figure, someone who had a chance to become President of the United States, at a bargain price? Maybe it is sex as well as money. Congressman Eric Swalwell of California, one of the most outspoken believers in the Russian collusion hoax, turns out to have had a relationship with a bona fide Chinese Communist Party spy named Christine Fang. Not only did she bag Congressman Swalwell, but she also apparently had relations with several midwestern mayors as well. While this story gained traction on right-wing websites, mainstream media sees nothing worth reporting, and as of this recording Swalwell retains his seat on the House Intelligence Committee. Remember when we learned that California Senator Dianne Feinstein’s longtime driver was a Chinese spy? The media quickly forgot about that story as well.

There is also the matter of American leaders and oligarchs who married into Chinese families. I would not suggest that the simple act of marrying a Chinese woman is inherently suspicious, of course. In some cases, however, it is enough to at least raise some eyebrows. Longtime Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell is married to Elaine Chao, who was born in Taiwan before emigrating to the United States as a child. That would not necessarily mean anything, but for some reason she was appointed to cabinet positions in not one but two Republican presidential administrations. She served as Secretary of Labor during all eight years of President George W. Bush’s term and has served as Secretary of Transportation for President Trump. In addition to that, Michelle Malkin has documented Chao’s numerous ties to powerful businessmen and oligarchs in China. Her father gave Mitch McConnell millions of dollars during the 2008 financial crisis, and the Chao family has also established a forty-million-dollar scholarship fund to send ethnic Chinese students to Harvard University. Again, none of this in isolation is evidence of anything, but it should provoke greater scrutiny by the American people.

As Victor Hanson points out, China has learned the language of Critical Theory and anti-racism and uses it to their own advantage. Any criticism of China’s actions or motives is dismissed as “racism”. Chinese ownership of American corporations is promoted, and even subsidized, as “minority ownership”. China will take its turn on the UN Human Rights Council next year and will surely use that pulpit to lecture us about our supposed racial sins even as they engage in a fully-fledged genocide of the Uighur people.

During the Cold War, the United States constantly undermined democracy in nonaligned nations. We often put our thumbs on the scales of elections in foreign countries, and even instigated coups at times, to elevate leaders who were friendly toward us rather than toward our rival the Soviet Union. In 2020, we discovered that the shoe was on the other foot. The story of 2020 is how the Peoples Republic of China unleased a global pandemic and then used that to install their preferred leader, Joe Biden. If they are successful, this would be the culmination of a long project by the Chinese Communists to gain influence over our government. I am old enough to remember the minor scandal of illegal Chinese donations to the Clinton/Gore campaigns of the 1990s.

A Chinese academic named Di Dongsheng recently said, “…we have people at the top. We have our old friends who are at the top of America’s core inner circle of power and influence.” If Joe Biden takes the oath of office as the 46th President of the United States, China will have carte blanche to do whatever they want, not only in the Asia/Pacific region but throughout the world. For example, the United States has guaranteed the safety of Taiwan against Chinese aggression since 1949, but do you really think that Joe Biden would take a stand against his Chinese masters? When Great Britain turned over governance of Hong Kong to China in 1997, they did so with the understanding that China would respect the rights and liberties of the people of Hong Kong. However, the world watched and did nothing over the past two years as China overruled those liberties and ruthlessly crushed dissent. Who is going to stop them? Like Hitler in the 1930s, China knows that their own will to power is greater than any will to hinder them.

Besides, globalism means not having to take a stand for anything. If we are all citizens of the world, then what does it matter who ultimately rules Taiwan, Hong Kong, or anywhere else? If borders are imaginary, then what does it matter if a factory is in China, Korea, Mexico, or the United States? The only thing that matters is that the elites maintain their wealth and power while we peasants are satisfied with cheap trinkets. If China is willing to pay Joe Biden millions of dollars, laundered through his worthless son, then why should he care about the plight of white Americans from Ohio? Proclaiming oneself above such petty things as borders or patriotism might sound good to the rootless cosmopolitans who write for Vox or the New York Times, but it is really just a cheap excuse to avoid caring about your fellow countrymen.

Victor Hanson concludes his piece with this:

China believes the current U.S. elite is unlike those who won World War II or sent a man into space. In their contempt, they believe instead that our best and brightest have grown naive, flabby, relativist, globalist, easily guilted, eager for repentance, decadent, and greedy — and can continue to be, and do, all that, while still becoming even richer with China.

For Chinese dissidents, whether in Hong Kong, Taiwan, on the mainland, or abroad, the 2020 United States presidential election has been vitally important. Donald Trump is the first American president to take a firm stand against the Chinese Communist Party, while Joe Biden is wholly owned by them. If you were a Chinese dissident, who would you rather have in the White House? I remember receiving an unsolicited copy of the Epoch Times newspaper earlier this year, describing in great detail how the coronavirus pandemic originated in China. They also recently published a documentary describing how the 2020 election was stolen from President Trump. It turns out that the Epoch Times is funded by Chinese dissidents and Taiwanese investors, some of whom have also partnered with former Breitbart editor and Trump advisor Steve Bannon. What is going on here? This election is existential for those in China who still believe in freedom and liberty. Why would they not do whatever they could to support the only American president who is willing to fight against our common enemy? It is ironic that the United States, the sole world superpower since 1991, has become a battleground in a Chinese cold civil war.

Openness was supposed to spread American-style liberty to China, but instead it has spread Chinese-style authoritarianism to America. Globalist technocrats use China’s controlled totalitarian society as a model for their would-be utopia. Every revolutionary knows that they have to erase the old system before implementing the new one. The French Revolution tried to erase France’s Catholic heritage in favor of a new society based upon rational secularism. The Chinese Cultural Revolution tried to erase traditional Chinese culture in favor of Marxist-Leninist socialism. Here in the United States, our own cultural revolution is already underway. It started with Confederate statues, but now even the names of American heroes such as Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington are being erased from public life. This is not about tolerance or inclusivity, but is instead a form of genocide, no different from the way the ancient Assyrians used to reduce enemy cities to rubble to show their dominance. We are being conquered from within and many do not even realize it. The unique heritage of the United States of America is being erased in favor of a new technocracy.

The future that our globalist technocratic overlords envision is one with no borders, no Bill of Rights, and a Chinese-style social credit system keeping the peasants in line. While most students of history look at the Chinese Cultural Revolution, with its show trials, children turning in their parents, and struggle sessions, with horror, the technocrats consider it a noble experiment and a good start. A doctoral student at Purdue University named Habi Zhang emigrated to the United States in search of the freedom she was denied in China but found that Chinese authoritarianism had already preceded her. In an essay for Law & Liberty last month, she wrote:

American schools increasingly resemble the authoritarian Chinese schools that aim at transforming human beings into an instrument that serves the state. What I find more chilling is that the American replication of the Chinese Cultural Revolution is engulfing academia, media, the schools, the tech sector, Hollywood, sports, and government—that is to say, everywhere in society. And I wonder: how long will it take before the revolution creeps into households and regularly has people turn on one another?

Zhang concludes her essay with a warning:

For a decade, the Chinese Cultural Revolution thoroughly wrecked the economy, uprooted traditions, destroyed social trust by turning family members on each other, and worst of all, killed well more than a million people. One can only wonder how far its American replication will go.

One might wonder why globalist technocrats would be conspiring with the Chinese Communist Party to undermine our liberties, but it makes sense. They are not so much conspiring together as they are working toward a common goal. The liberty-minded peoples of the United States and other places throughout the world must be brought to heel both to ensure Chinese dominance of the 21st century and to enable the technocratic utopia. If this alliance of convenience were to succeed, both sides would undoubtedly attempt to annihilate the other. Perhaps the globalist technocrats would work to undermine China in the same way they have undermined the United States and Europe; perhaps China would crush the technocrats once they gained worldwide hegemony. In any case, as far as they are concerned, Western Civilization must first be dismantled.

A Joe Biden administration will hasten the end of our national sovereignty. President Trump did his best to regain that sovereignty by withdrawing us from the Paris Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, drawing down our troops deployed across the globe, and urging our allies to take a more balanced share of the maintenance of NATO and the UN. Unfortunately, a President Biden can erase those gains on Day 1. Additionally, Big Tech will now have an ally in the White House, who will allow them to march unimpeded to the Chinese-style social credit system they have been building. Most pundits assume that Biden will step down at some point in his term in favor of Kamala Harris. I can think of no better demonstration of the subordination of the American Republic to an international technocracy than for a half-Indian, half-Jamaican anchor baby to occupy the highest office of our land.

For four hundred years the Westphalian system allowed people to form sovereign governments to, as Thomas Jefferson explained, protect their God-given natural rights. This is an impediment to the aims of the globalist technocracy. The technocrat does not consider himself evil, rather he looks at the inevitable problems of human life and decides that he can solve those problems if only he had enough power. Freedom means we sometimes make the wrong choices, and the technocrat believes that he knows better how to run our lives than we do. Despite dressing like a Sith lord, World Economic Forum president Klaus Schwab surely believes that his Great Reset will make life better for the seven billion people who live on earth today. The technocrat believes he can solve every problem in the world, and if it costs our freedom and liberty then so be it – most people would probably vote for ultimate security even at the cost of our last freedom. Those of us who resist are labeled as malcontents and wreckers who would never be happy anyway, and so it is necessary for the greater good that we be silenced, imprisoned, or otherwise destroyed. They look on us as helpless children who need to be guided and controlled by a government with unlimited power and authority.

There will be no hiding from the technocracy. We call them “totalitarians” for a reason – they demand total participation in their new world order. Like all totalitarian states, they will demand complete control of society at every level. They cannot allow children to be raised believing in a Christian worldview and individual liberties – wokeism will be the established ideology of all public schools, and alternatives such as private schools and homeschooling will be banned. They cannot allow true worship of a Being higher than government – wokeism will be the primary doctrine of our churches, and any that do not get on board will be persecuted. Chinese Christians have experienced this persecution for decades. Any dissenting voice will be censored. This will all be done, of course, for our own good. C.S. Lewis saw it coming almost a century ago:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against ones will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

The administration of President Donald Trump was only going to be a speed bump on the road to technocracy, whether he served four years or eight. With him apparently out of the way, the last brake has been released. How can we hope to stop this runaway train when even our Republican leaders think that the purpose of the American worker is to finance globalist NGOs? We cannot count on our government to save us, because most of them are in on the plot. We cannot count on the Constitution to save us, because it failed to prevent the problem from arising in the first place. The only way to preserve our freedom is to start with ourselves, our families, and our communities.

The goal of our cosmopolitan technocrats is to keep you atomized, isolated, and fully dependent upon government. You must not let them succeed. Build strong families. Form communities of like-minded people who will be there for you when the world comes crashing down. No matter what happens to our nation, to our world, it is communities like this that will be the building blocks of a renewed American nation. Take heart and keep the faith. Western Civilization and Christendom survives in you and in me.

America the Broken

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

So wrote John Adams, founding father and second President of the United States, in 1798. The Constitution, you will recall, was a compromise between proponents of a strong central government and those who wanted states to have the larger share of power in the new nation. The purpose of the Constitution was to establish a government that could protect the God-given liberties of the American people. The question before us as 2020 draws to a close is this: Do the Constitution and the government it created still serve that purpose?

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that the purpose of government was indeed to protect our God-given liberties, and furthermore that any government that becomes destructive of those ends should be altered or abolished. Jefferson later said that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed, from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” In 1776, the American colonists believed that King George and his Parliament had crossed the line from good governance and into tyranny through their excessive taxes, regulation, and violations of their rights as freeborn Englishmen. Today, however, we have multiple layers of government that make King George look positively libertarian by comparison.

Conservatives have complained about government regulation and overreach for years, while doing little to curb it. Whereas the federal government of John Adams’ time was a small and remote organization, its successor is a beast, a leviathan that devours billions of dollars of American capital while intruding into every relationship. Government is the silent partner in every business arrangement, a third party in every marriage, and the decision maker in every doctor’s visit. The government can tell farmers how much to grow, businesses what they can sell, and local schools what they must teach our children. The Constitution was unable to prevent the government from assuming this much power.

Federal laws are literally byzantine, with so many overlaps and contradictions that a talented prosecutor could charge you with crimes you have never heard of, forcing you to plea bargain to avoid length prison sentences. The government uses its discretionary power to refrain from charging certain people or interest groups, while throwing the book at others. Police can arrest mothers taking their children to the park while allowing violent rioters to burn, loot, and topple statues with no penalty. Activists and journalists who expose monstrous crimes by the federal government are prosecuted, while those in government who commit such crimes can retire with full pensions and million-dollar book deals. The Constitution was unable to stop the rise of this anarcho-tyranny.

Mayors, governors, and unelected bureaucrats are infringing upon our freedom of movement and assembly using the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse. Small businesses are being driven to bankruptcy by authoritarian lockdowns. Health departments are arbitrarily closing stores and restaurants and forcing people at the point of a gun to wear masks when out in public. Pastors of churches who defy the lockdowns have been arrested, while the governors who order the arrests enjoy lavish parties at expensive restaurants. The Constitution could not prevent this tyrannical overreach in the name of public health.

In the name of public health, our voting systems were compromised, allowing untold electoral fraud with little accountability to the American people. Mail-in voting allowed the Democratic Party to turbocharge their existing cheating operations, resulting in the brazen theft of the presidential election. President Trump’s campaign has filed suits in several states, but the odds of winning every single suit and overturning Joe Biden’s apparent victory are slim. The Constitution was not able to keep us from this precipice.

No matter if President Trump manages to pull a rabbit out of his hat and win reelection this year, the damage to our moral, social, and political fabric is terminal, and neither the president nor the Constitution can save us at this point. Boomer-aged Christians who post 2 Chronicles 7:14 on Facebook miss the point – our country was on its way down before they were even born. The Constitution was made to protect our liberties, but after nearly a quarter of a millennium it has utterly failed to do that. As President Adams said, the Constitution was made for a moral and religious people, and America is anything but that today.

The Constitution could not stop the severe decay of America’s morality over the last half century. Talk show host Jesse Kelly likes to point out that we are not fighting the culture war – we already lost. We put up very little fight as the godless left marched through our institutions. Gay marriage, which was considered absurd as late as 1995, is now the law of the land, and few Christians or conservatives are still willing to speak out against it. Prayer in schools was once an important issue for the Christian right, and now few people really care anymore – the public schools have been entirely ceded to the left. Of all the culture war issues, perhaps only abortion yet remains as a hill that Christians and conservatives are willing to fight and die on, but even that issue is receding. Many people have woken up to the fact that the Republican Party has been using abortion as a campaign issue for nearly half a century while doing little to stop it once they are in power. Scott Greer recently suggested that abortion has become a proxy for all the various issues that once animated the social conservative Right, but which we no longer feel comfortable speaking of in public.

Even Christian conservatives no longer speak of morality as a virtue. Chastity is a joke, even in churches. Few people take oaths and vows seriously, whether in marriage or in the courtroom. The average Christian conservative is too busy watching Netflix and football to lead his family or take a stand in his community. Rather than boldly preaching the truth, many churches simply say what their congregants want to hear, exactly as the Apostle Paul warned.

There are many conservatives who believe that an Article V Convention of States, called to rewrite the Constitution, is the answer to all our problems. This seems naïve, however. Rather than restoring America to the vision of our founders, rewriting the Constitution would open the door to all sorts of modern anathemas, because the left would have a say too. The same conservatives who could not conserve the women’s restroom would not be able to stand up to people demanding a new constitution that codifies diversity quotas and special rights for various ethnic and interest groups.

I do not have all the answers; however I am becoming increasingly convinced that some form of secession is the only way to save a remnant of Christendom in America. The fatal flaw of democracy is evident in America today, as tens of millions of people now support godless socialism. One thing is clear, however: the current system cannot go on much longer. America is transitioning from Republic into Empire; going back to 1950 (or earlier) is just not an option. President Trump might have slowed the decline, but the fall is inevitable. The tree of liberty looks mighty parched these days.


What happens when you push the most ambitious, clever, and powerful man of his generation into a corner? What happens when you close off all legal avenues to salvation and promise to destroy his livelihood, his family, and even his very life? Would you expect such a man to meekly submit, or to fight for his life?

Julius Caesar faced this very situation in January of 49 BC. He had made him some powerful enemies in the Roman Senate over the years, including his former friend and ally Pompey, but his positions as consul of Rome and later proconsul of Gaul made him immune to legal prosecution. However, his term as proconsul had come to an end, and Roman law required him to resign command of his legions and reenter the capital as a private citizen. Would such a man as Caesar submit to such a humiliation and possible execution in the name of maintaining traditional norms? Would you? Caesar, of course, refused. He led his legions into Rome itself, forcing Pompey and his allies to flee for their lives. Caesar started a civil war that left him the undisputed master of the Roman Republic, and after his assassination in 44 BC his nephew Octavian ascended to the imperial throne as Caesar Augustus.

One can never tell how things might have happened differently in history, but it is always interesting to speculate. What might have happened if Pompey and the rest of Caesar’s enemies had not threatened to destroy him upon his return to Rome? Could Caesar have returned and continued to work through the legal process without starting a civil war? Julius Caesar was ambitious, and might well have done so anyway, but we will never know.

The United States of America is facing a Rubicon moment of its own this year. The Democratic Party has clearly engaged in electoral fraud in order to recapture the White House after Donald Trump’s stunning upset in 2016. President Trump is pursuing constitutional and legal challenges to the apparent electoral results, however success is not guaranteed. Extraordinary measures might be required to save this country from those who wish to fundamentally transform it into a globalist province.

The alliance of the Democratic Party, the Republican establishment, and the globalist activists of the Deep State bureaucracy have been fighting President Donald Trump since before his inauguration in 2017:

  • They spied on his campaign, transition team, and his administration.
  • They pressured electors to pick someone else.
  • They ignored his authority over the Executive Branch.
  • They impeached him over a phone call.
  • They used the coronavirus pandemic to create the most elaborate electoral fraud operation in American history.

All the while they have threatened to destroy him, his family, and his supporters the moment he is out of office:

Democratic Congressman Bill Pascrell, who is chairman of the powerful House Ways & Means Subcommittee on Oversight, plans to prosecute not only President Trump but also his “enablers”:

Leftist activist posing as objective journalist Jake Tapper threatened that anyone who continues to support President Trump should be blacklisted from employment:

Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the rising star of the socialist left, wants to create lists of Trump supporters for future reprisals:

Former Clinton Administrator Labor Secretary Robert Reich wants to set up an Orwellian “Truth and Reconciliation Committee” to re-educate Trump supporters:

Is it any wonder that President Trump is fighting so hard to win this election through any legal means available? The radical left would love to see Trump hanged on the South Lawn of the White House while anyone who supported him is sent to the gulag. This fight is not merely political; it is existential!

The question remains: What if Trump fails? What if his legal challenges to this obviously fraudulent election are not successful? What if the mainstream media’s framing of the election convinces legislators and judges to accept the fait accompli? What if Trump campaign legal advisor Sydney Powell’s kraken ends up being more of a guppy? Will President Trump meekly step aside and allow the radical left to not only destroy him and his family, but the country he loves?

Alexander Macris argues that Trump can cross his own Rubicon without resorting to civil war:

Unlike Caesar, Trump can cross the Rubicon legally. He need violate no sacred law. He has all of the legal power he needs to act and win. Congress has given it to him. All he needs to do is invoke the Insurrection Act.

Macris’ argument is compelling, and it goes without saying that using the authority available to him in this matter would be just as destructive as personally leading an army into Washington DC to seize power. The American left already considered President Trump’s first term to be illegitimate, so using such extraordinary powers to ensure a second would drive them insane with rage. The thugs who have been terrorizing our city streets for eight months and counting would come out in force, and anyone with a Trump hat or even an American flag on their home might find themselves targets of the mob. Even though invoking the Insurrection Act is within the president’s authority, actually doing so would likely set off the very civil war that it is intended to avoid.

Macris agrees:

If Trump calls on the unorganized militia to save the Republic from voter fraud, a militia will come. So too would an anti-militia or resistance. In fact, lots of people who are willing to fight are fighting on the streets already. It seems likely that if Trump crosses the Rubicon, he will trigger a civil war, just like Caesar triggered a civil war.

Yet even civil war might be better than the alternative. We long ago departed a time of easy choices, and no matter how much the Mitt Romneys or Jonah Goldbergs of the world long to return to a pre-Trump “normalcy,” that ship has sailed. Pompey was never going to restore the Roman Republic of Cincinattus or Scipio by simply removing Caesar no more than we can restore the American Republic of Lincoln and Roosevelt by removing Trump. President Trump did not cause our current crisis; he was just the natural evolution of where our society has been moving for several decades. It made perfect sense for traditional and conservative Americans to turn to a leader like Trump who promised to fight for us, rather than simply negotiate our surrender to the left as countless Republican leaders had been doing for decades.

If the “resistance” is successful in stealing the election of 2020, the Biden/Harris Administration will use their executive power to ensure that they are never again threatened by a national populist like Donald Trump. They will fully commit the United States to the Great Reset, once and for all erasing the liberty and sovereignty that made America the greatest expression of the ideals of Western Civilization. If we do not fight now, we might not have another chance.

Macris concludes his piece thus:

This is not a drill. This is where we are. If Trump is standing on the banks of the Rubicon, it’s because the leftist machine has purposefully widened the Rubicon River until it reaches his feet.

President Donald Trump faces the same choice that Julius Caesar made more than two thousand years ago: Surrender and allow himself and his people to be destroyed, or fight. For the sake of his family, for the sake of his voters, for the sake of our posterity, we need him to cross the Rubicon and fight for America.

The Great Reset

In November of 2016, shortly after the election of President Donald Trump, the World Economic Forum published an article describing eight predictions for the year 2030. In their tweet promoting the article, they said “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.” The article goes on to suggest that we will also be tracked 24/7 for our own good, that America will have receded on the world stage, that meat will be a rare treat, that over a billion refugees will be integrated into western nations, and that western values will be diminished in a global society.

The WEF is at the forefront of several globalist organization working to transform society. A few weeks ago, TIME Magazine published a cover story about what they called “The Great Reset,” a reordering of society in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdowns. This story compiled ideas from various globalist organizations about what they want the world to look like in the coming decades. Chief among these was the founder of the World Economic Forum himself, Klaus Schwab, who wrote about how we need to “re-imagine capitalism” to create a “better economy”. The rest of the articles concerned climate change and racial justice. The overriding theme was that of building back better. Not coincidentally, “Build Back Better” was Joe Biden’s campaign slogan.

“Build Back Better” is the overriding theme of a large alliance of globalist activists throughout the world. In addition to Joe Biden, the phrase has also been used by Prime Minister Boris Johnson of the United Kingdom, who just imposed a harsh lockdown on his people. It has been used in Canada. The slogan was being used in the United Nations as far back as 2015, and by former President Bill Clinton as early as 2006. The fact that they have had it ready to deploy in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic this year is curious, no?

You must understand that they have been planning this so-called great reset for a long time now. The Frankfurt School developed Critical Theory in the 1920s, which demanded that we tear down every edifice of society to rebuild it in a modern, secular, socialist image. One can imagine the original philosophers of the Frankfurt School saying that we need to “build back better”. After World War II, the purveyors of Critical Theory made their way into positions of influence in western societies – this was the long march through our institutions that I have mentioned before. The post-World War II order created by the victorious Allied Powers was a globalist order, where national sovereignty was slowly but surely subordinated to international organizations. These organizations have little accountability to the citizens and voters in each nation. Our leaders told us that this was all necessary to prevent the nations of the world from falling one by one to an expansionist Communist state. However, when the Cold War ended in 1991 with the fall of the Soviet Union, our leaders doubled down on globalism rather than once again putting America First. President George H. W. Bush proclaimed the dawn of a “new world order” – you can hear his very words in the introduction to every podcast. Both Republicans and Democrats pledged billions of dollars and untold American lives to the globalist project, which ranged from ushering China into the World Trade Organization, to bombing Serbia in the late 1990s, to invading half the Middle East in the first two decades of the 21st century. All the while, we quietly surrendered our sovereignty to a new international technocratic order.

Remember that the globalist position is that national borders are obsolete, and that national sovereignty is an impediment to world peace. Despite all their talk about diversity in the abstract, globalists see different people and different cultures as entirely interchangeable cogs in a great big GDP machine. All the postwar international organizations such as the UN, the European Union, the World Health Organization, the World Back, the International Monetary Fund, etc. were built with the aim of ensuring greater peace and cooperation between nations, but in nearly every case they result in the erosion of national sovereignty and the rule by fiat of unelected technocrats.

These globalist technocratic elites have long been seeding their ideas into popular culture. Look through any fashion magazine over the past five years and see stories about happy Millennials living in tiny pods, eating bugs, and living entirely atomized lives. Just like the WEF’s predictions, these articles present a future where you will not own a car that you can drive anywhere you want, but instead use ride-sharing or mass transit to go where you need in your city. Instead of owning a house, you rent a bed in a co-living space, sort of like a sailor’s bunk on a battleship. Instead of settling down and building a traditional nuclear family of father, mother, and children, you will live with friends and colleagues. Hookups will have entirely replaced marriage and even dating. Any children born into this environment will be communal property. Mainstream media has been publishing articles glamorizing polyamory over the past few years, each one showing effete beta males sharing an overweight woman, trying to normalize this perverse arrangement.

This all sounds like a dystopian horror to you and me, but to the technocrats, it is the ideal society in their new world order. We will eat bugs and like it, while the elites continue to eat steak at the World Economic Forum headquarters in Davos, Switzerland.

The desire to remake the world to fit our modern ideas is hardly new. Perhaps the most obvious example comes out of the French Revolution, which kicked off shortly after our own war for independence in America. Whereas we established a republic in the New World, based on freedom and liberty, France’s attempt to do the same thing in the Old World ended in disaster. Men such as Georges Danton, Maximillian Robespierre, and Jean-Paul Marat wanted to start from scratch, wipe the slate clean, and build a new society without any remnant of the old. They reset the calendar so that the revolution was literally Year Zero, they renamed days and months, they forced Catholic priests to swear an oath of loyalty to the new nation rather than to God and the Church, and finally they replaced the alter in Notre Dame de Paris with a so-called “goddess of reason”.

Of course, this attempt at creating a new society quickly degenerated into mass murder. Anyone who did not agree with the direction of the Revolution soon found themselves facing the guillotine. Danton, Robespierre, and Marat each experienced a violent death at the hands of the vicious Revolution they had nurtured. We see this same effect in Soviet Russia, in North Korea, in Cuba, and in every other nation where all-powerful leaders attempt to wipe away the past and build a new society from nothing but their imaginations. Communist China attempted to do the same thing. Chairman Mao wanted to erase the old traditions and long memories of the Chinese people, because he felt they were holding them back from creating the perfect society. Families were torn apart as children were enlisted to inform on their parents. People who had done nothing wrong were forced to admit all sorts of guilt in public “struggle sessions”. Millions of Chinese people died, and in the end the Cultural Revolution was a failure.

For our globalist elites, the French Revolution and the Chinese Cultural Revolution are not warnings about what happens when you try to restart society from scratch, rather they are good-intentioned attempts to fix a broken world. Modern globalist activists do not look back at the millions of people who died in these experiments and say, “Let’s not do that again,” rather they say, “Let’s do it right this time.” Michael O’Fallen, host of the Causes of Things podcast, called today’s globalist technocrats the “new Jacobins,” after one of the primary groups involved in the French Revolution. His episode on the Great Reset is fantastic, and I recommend you watch the whole thing.

These “new Jacobins” are content to be patient. Slowly but surely, they modified the United States government after World War II, changing its primary mission from that of caring for its own citizens to one of outreach to the world. Nearly every governmental and non-governmental organization is now run by globalists. We still think of the State Department and the CIA as being filled with old white men in suits doing the dirty business of ensuring American hegemony. Today, however, these organizations are full of extreme leftist activists, the sort you would expect to see at the Berkeley student union building or the Harvard faculty lounge. They do not see their job as protecting American interests, but instead to export gay rights and transgender protections to foreign nations while subordinating America to a vague international order. They are missionaries not of the gospel of Christ, or even a secular gospel of American-style freedom and liberty, but of degenerate propaganda.

A prime example of the globalist mindset infecting American institutions is in the person of John Brennan, former chief of the Central Intelligence Agency under President Obama. Here is a man who was hired by the CIA despite being an out-of-the-closet communist. The CIA had been founded primarily to protect America from Soviet communism, yet it was so inept at that job that it was eventually run by an actual communist. Senator McCarthy was, if anything, too kind! John Brennan was involved with illegally spying on American citizens, as revealed by Edward Snowden nearly a decade ago. He was involved with spying on President Trump and his team, not only during the campaign but also in the leadup to his inauguration. To this day he considers himself a patriot of the real America, an America that exists only to serve the needs of a rootless cosmopolitan elite. To that end, he is feted by cable news.

Even though the United States was founded by mostly English people, we have long had a conceit that anybody from anywhere on Earth could become American. In the mid to late 1800s, immigrants came to America from Ireland, Italy, Russia, and many other places. For the most part, these immigrants assimilated into American culture. They learned English, they adopted American traditions, they left behind, for the most part, their old ways and became Americans. Not so the post 1965 immigrants. Many of these new Americans did not leave their old ways behind and assimilate into American culture, but instead carved out little enclaves of their former nations inside America’s borders. Rather than learning English, they demanded that government print signs, brochures, and ballots in their native language. Rather than adopting American traditions, they demanded that America change to fit their needs. It is this conceit that feeds into the globalist project. Globalists do not consider themselves to be citizens of a specific nation, but rather of the whole world in general. The United States of America does not have any special meaning to them, rather it is simply a rich and prosperous land that they can use to their advantage. If you have no loyalty to a people, or to a place, then there is nothing stopping you from simply strip-mining that place and enslaving that people to ensure your own wealth and power. America is like a dying hippopotamus on the savanna being slowly torn apart by hyenas, jackals, vultures, and anyone else who wants a piece. This is why globalist leaders have had no problem outsourcing America’s industry to China and other developing nations. What are a few million blue-collar jobs for American citizens compared to a bump in GDP?

Perhaps the most obvious exemplar of this rootless cosmopolitan mentality is found in Kamala Harris, who, depending on the outcome of this contested election, could well be one Joe Biden stroke away from the presidency. Harris’ parents were both foreigners: her father was a graduate student at UC Berkeley from Jamaica while her mother was an undergraduate from India. Harris was born in 1964 to these two foreign students – she was literally an anchor baby. Anyone born on US soil is considered to be an American citizen, no matter the citizenship status of their parents. This is due to a certain reading of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which established citizenship for former black slaves. The writers of the amendment excluded obvious cases such as foreign diplomats who have their children in the United States, and so they surely could not have imagined that foreign students, tourists, or guest workers would give birth to American citizens.

Kamala Harris has no loyalty to the United States of America. Everything we love about our country is simply raw material for her rise to power. She got her start in politics not by volunteering for a campaign, or by running for school board or city council, but by becoming the mistress of powerful San Francisco politician and kingmaker Willie Brown. While they were dating, he appointed her to several state boards, which served as a platform for her later run for San Francisco District Attorney. When Harris accused Joe Biden of being a “racist” during the Democratic primary debates, she had no experience of racism in her own life, or that of her parents, to draw from. None of her ancestors were slaves in the antebellum south, neither were they oppressed by Jim Crow laws. When Kamala Harris plays the race card, it is completely cynical, self-serving, and disingenuous.

Tariq Nasheed, a black activist who is no friend of conservatives, worries about the effects that someone like Kamala Harris will have on his own people. The descendants of African slaves surely have more claim on the United States of America than anchor babies like Harris, however they are often used as pawns in the globalist game. Reacting on Twitter this week to a report that a Biden/Harris administration will offer citizenship to Indian nationals, Nasheed said, “While Kamala Harris boldly told black people what she is NOT going to do for us. Kamala and the Biden just announced they are going to use our tax dollars to allow half a million immigrants from Kamala’s homeland to the US. And they are bringing their anti-black racism with them.”

Because of our history, Americans think that homelands and cultures can be changed as easily as a pair of pants. Yet that is not the case. Another Indian American, Republican Nikki Haley, has been very open to the idea of allowing millions of Indians to come to American for work, and eventually citizenship. Recall that Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, a key witness in President Trump’s impeachment trial, showed more loyalty to his homeland of Ukraine than to the United States – that nation was even considering making him their Secretary of Defense. How many Jewish elected officials have dual citizenship in the United States and in Israel? If they had to choose between the two, are you sure they would choose America? Kamala Harris surely feels more affinity to her native cousins in India and Jamaica than she does to the descendants of America’s founding fathers. She has no loyalty to us. If she becomes President of the United States, we will be nothing to her. In her eyes, we are just evil white racist Christians who deserve to watch our heritage be erased before our very eyes. She will have no sympathy for the hundreds of thousands of white men contemplating suicide or giving in to opioids, or for the millions of families feeling hopeless as the jobs that once sustained them are exported overseas, or given to cheap foreign workers. She will not hesitate to use the American military to play geopolitical games in the Middle East, or to launch a genocidal war against Russia to distract from problems at home. For all his faults, President Trump at least recognized the forgotten men and women of America, and that is why they have become so loyal to him.

President Trump’s election in 2016 was an unexpected setback on the globalist timetable. They thought that Hillary Clinton could coast into the White House after a mock campaign waged by globalist Republicans like Jeb Bush or John Kasich, then set about completing the job that US presidents had been working on since the end of the Cold War. President Obama promised to “fundamentally transform” our country, and he did just that throughout his eight years in the White House. The Paris climate deal, the Iran nuclear deal, our involvement in Syria, the way our intelligence agencies helped overthrow the government of Ukraine – all of these had pushed America further and further into a globalist future.

But President Trump put a stop to many of these globalist endeavors; in some cases, he even reversed them. In only four years, with only tepid support from Republicans in Congress, he refused to start any new wars in the Middle East, and in fact he withdrew tens of thousands of troops that were already there. It is telling that the only time President Trump ever received praise from mainstream media was when he launched an airstrike on Syria, after accusations that Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons on Syrian rebels. The same media figures that cheered when Obama promised to bring our troops home castigated Trump when he actually did it. In fact, many in our media and political class have been more vociferous in opposition to President Trump’s troop withdrawals than they were to President Obama’s troop deployments. Why? Because withdrawing the troops does not advance the globalist agenda.

President Trump nearly shut down the refugee racket, where NGOs and other supposed non-profits import migrants into our country in exchange for big government grants. He shut down the H1B pipeline, where US corporations were importing millions of foreign workers, mostly from India, to replace American employees. He worked with the Mexican government to significantly decrease the number of illegal border crossers. He used an executive order to shut down the use of Critical Race Theory in federal government offices, which forced white employees to sit through struggle sessions that said they were evil simply because of their skin color. President Trump stood up to China, imposing tariffs to stop them from undercutting the market for US goods.

China is the elephant in the room. China is not necessarily interested in the globalist aims of people like Kamala Harris or the World Economic Forum, but they will happily make common cause with them so long as it diminishes the power and influence of the United States. For their part, China has used international bodies such as the World Health Organization to expand their influence while curtailing ours. Remember how the WHO spent the early part of this year spreading Chinese propaganda about the coronavirus outbreak? President Trump was right to cut off funding for such a traitorous international organization. Yet even American institutions are not safe. Harvard University’s School of Public Health, which sets the tone for much of our national discussion on health and safety, was renamed in 2014 to the T.H. Chan School of Public Health following a massive donation from Gerald and Ronnie Chan. According to a recent article on the Harvard Crimson, while Gerald Chan was the public face of the deal, his brother Ronnie has numerous connections to the Chinese Communist Party. Several articles have detailed the way in which the CCP uses money to buy western scientists, researchers, and organizations – I even wrote one myself for the National Pulse. Now we have a compelling case that China bought one of our premier health foundations, one that has taken a leading role in the discussions about mitigating the coronavirus pandemic. When you hear pronouncements about masks, lockdowns, or anything else that is supposed to save us all from the pandemic, did you ever consider that you might be hearing Chinese Communist propaganda that has been laundered through elite American institutions?

President Trump was a real threat to the plans of both the globalists and the Chinese Communist Party, so they worked together to defeat him. China would be much happier with Joe Biden in the White House – after all, they were eager to work with him as Vice President, and spent millions of dollars on his son Hunter to curry favor and gain influence in the Obama Administration. While the American taxpayer was bankrolling a two-year investigation of how Russia supposedly interfered with the 2016 election by buying a handful of Facebook ads, the Chinese Communist Party has been pulling our puppet strings for years. Consider this: on Election Day, when it appeared that President Trump would coast to reelection, the Chinese yuan tumbled against the dollar. In the following days, when it began to look like Biden might win, the yuan skyrocketed. Investors know that a Biden White House is very good for the Chinese Communist Party.

China, in fact, has been the beneficiary of US foreign policy since the Nixon Administration. The philosophy of the American government towards China, even after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, has been that more openness will lead to more liberalization and human rights in that country. The opposite has proved true, however. Our openness with China has not made the Chinese people freer, but it has made the American people less so. Globalists look at the Chinese Communist system that controls every facet of society as an ideal to live up to rather than an evil to be dismantled. Hollywood, the NBA, and Big Tech have all prostrated themselves before China, helping them cover up genocides and atrocities, all the while signaling their virtue to American leftists by denouncing President Trump’s travel bans or boycotting states that enforce male and female bathroom rules.

China has been building something called a social credit system for their own citizens. Here in the United States, we have credit reports compiled by companies such as Transunion and Equifax that can be used by banks, mortgage houses, and credit card companies to determine our creditworthiness. The Chinese social credit system is the same thing, but it includes not only your financial habits but your political and social views as well. Combine this with China’s high-tech facial recognition system, and you have Orwell turned up to eleven. In China, publicly expressing the “wrong” viewpoint can get you blacklisted from everything from airline travel to public transportation. The worst part? Globalist technocrats want to bring the social credit system here.

Last April, law professors from Harvard and the University of Arizona published an essay in The Atlantic calling for Chinese-style social control. The headline says, “Internet speech will never go back to normal. In the debate over freedom versus control of the global network, China was largely correct, and the U.S. was largely wrong.” In the article they suggest that censorship, speech control, and surveillance are all inevitable, and that the government should use the coronavirus hysteria to impose more of these things rather than restrict them. They go on to say that, “Significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet, and governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with a society’s norms and values.” Of course, when they refer to “society’s norms and values” they do not mean the traditional values of Christian Scripture and Greek empiricism that have built and sustained Western Civilization for nearly two thousand years. No, they mean globalist values of libertinism and degeneracy for the common people, ruled by a global technocratic government of unelected and untouchable bureaucrats.

The authors of this article point out that this social control has been imposed in the west not by governments but by corporations, and this is true. While we still have a Bill of Rights in the United States, it is increasingly rendered meaningless by the globalist corporations of Big Tech. Sure, we have freedom of speech, but disparaging the Black Lives Matter movement on social media can get your account banned and can even get you fired from your job. Sure, we have the right to bear arms, but if your teacher or coworker sees a rifle on your wall during your Zoom meeting, you might get suspended or fired. Sure, we have a right to privacy, we are merely required to give it up if we want to engage in any form of business or commerce.

This is the technocratic future: atomized people dutifully following the rules laid down by unaccountable committees in Big Tech firms. President Trump and the Republican Party have complained about Big Tech censorship, but thus far they have not done anything about it. If Joe Biden prevails in this contested election, it will be too late. To paraphrase Orwell yet again, the future will be an algorithm stamping on a human face – forever.


The election of President Donald Trump was only a temporary speed bump on the road to globalist utopia. While some on the left lashed out in anger and despair, the new Jacobins at the World Economic Forum simply took a deep breath and planned their next move.

In Alan Moore’s graphic novel “Watchmen,” the ultimate villain is a former superhero turned entrepreneur who hatches a plan that will kill tens of millions of people but could also lead to lasting world peace. Before he leaves for his secret base to implement his plan, he leaves a memo for his marketing department to phase out his “nostalgia” products, which had people longing for a past golden age, in favor of a “millennium” series that influences consumers to look forward to a bright future. While the new Jacobins are hardly superheroes, they do play the long game, and I am completely convinced that they seed pieces of information into our culture to prepare the ground for their plans. Hence the PR blitz over the last two years for eating bugs and living in pods, among other things. They want to make their vision of the future look cool, hip, and trendy. We see pictures of happy Millennials on their laptops in their bunks and are supposed to think that the future is bright indeed.

Even the pandemic was foreshadowed. In 2019, Bill Gates hosted a forum discussing options for handling the next pandemic, which included lockdowns and mandatory vaccines. I do not necessarily believe that the globalist technocrats engineered the coronavirus pandemic, only that they were prepared to take advantage of it. Nasty viruses like SARS, H1N1, and Ebola come and go, so all they needed to do was have a plan in place for the next inevitable outbreak. China was a willing partner in the propaganda blitz – remember the crazy pictures coming out of Wuhan? We saw people dropping dead in the streets, whole cities being sprayed with disinfectants, sick people being welded inside their own homes. That was scary, wasn’t it? We certainly did not want that to come to our communities. So, we locked down. “Fifteen days to stop the spread,” they said. “Flatten the curve,” they told us. We dutifully did what we were told. After all, this could have been another Black Plague or Spanish Flu. Like the ancient Romans, we willingly handed our leaders supreme power to handle a crisis, expecting them to hand it back when the crisis was done.

Yet we did not learn from history. Rarely do dictators return power to the people, rather they make sure that the crisis never ends. “Fifteen days to stop the spread” has turned into eight months and counting. Some so-called public health experts are suggesting that we will have to remain locked down for years! We have also seen the rules unequally applied. Church services, funerals, and family gatherings were shut down, while Black Lives Matter protests were not only tolerated but encouraged, even by the “heroic” front line health workers who demanded we stay in our homes. The mayor of Washington, DC ordered that anyone traveling out of state quarantine for fourteen days, yet she exempted all the political leaders who left the city to attend John Lewis’ funeral.

Meanwhile, petty authoritarian governors like Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and Gavin Newsom of California abused their power to shut down whatever they felt like – department stores, restaurants, house parties, and more. Newsom went as far as to threaten to shut off utilities to John MacArthur’s church building. Tinpot totalitarian Mayor Bill De Blasio of New York City sent his gestapo to arrest orthodox Jews at synagogue, all the while calling President Trump the next Hitler.

In Australia, police are using drones to track your movements and cite you if you go further from your house than you are supposed to. They will also break down your door and arrest you if you disparage the lockdown on social media. The United Kingdom just enacted a draconian new lockdown that has police issuing fines and even arresting people for stepping outside their doors. The government laid out new guidelines for what social activities are permissible, going so far as to regulate conjugal contact between adults – not out of a sense of morality, but simply because they can.

It is insane how quickly western democracies shifted from taking their freedom for granted to accepting autocratic oppression over our freedom of movement and our right to peaceably assemble. Perhaps the most insidious public health initiative crafted in response to the pandemic is that of contact tracing. Under this system, our phones or smart devices would track our every move, and algorithms would determine if we came into contact with anyone who might have had the virus. Governments are promising millions of dollars to hire contract tracers to track us, and even to forcibly test us if they think we might have been exposed.

In a move that is surely a sign of things to come, Ticketmaster is considering forcing anyone who attends one of their events to carry proof of vaccination before being allowed entry. Should this trend continue, we might find ourselves unable to conduct any sort of business in the new economy without showing our digital papers. It sounds almost apocalyptic, does it not? Some of the same left-wing activists who have long protested government surveillance have turned on a dime and are now welcoming that very surveillance under the umbrella of public health. All our technocratic overlords had to do to get us to willingly give up our freedoms was to say that it is necessary because of the pandemic.

The most consequential effects of the coronavirus response are perhaps in the presidential election of 2020. Citing concerns about the pandemic, Democratic lawmakers pushed for mail-in voting. Unlike absentee voting, where registered voters manually request a ballot that they return before polls close, mail-in voting simply carpet-bombs ballots throughout the whole state, often without any verification. In the weeks before Election Day, social media was full of stories about ballots arriving at the wrong house, or people getting multiple copies of ballots.  Despite even mainstream media sources having once admitted that mail-in voting was prone to fraud, those claims disappeared down the memory hole when it became clear that mail-in voting was going to be the method by which the Democrats and the globalists could regain control of the American government. Twitter, taking a page from Orwell’s 1984, propagandized mail-in voting, even going so far as to ban users who suggested that mail-in voting was anything less than 100% safe and reliable. Democrats even tried to push all-mail voting on the entire country in an amendment slipped in to one of their COVID stimulus bills.

You could make the argument that Washington and Oregon, which shifted to all-mail voting several years ago, did not have any obvious problems. However, those states have had time to perfect the system, while other states such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have not, and their systems were clearly not prepared for the number of ballots they not only had to count but to verify. Besides, consider when was the last time a Republican won a statewide election in Washington or Oregon?

Recounts, audits, and court cases regarding the 2020 election are still playing out as I write this, and the ultimate outcome is very much in doubt. It is clear, however, that the pandemic, lockdown, and mail-in voting put the Democrats in a position to defeat President Trump. As of January of this year, Trump was on his way to a landslide rivaling that of Richard Nixon in 1972 or Ronald Reagan in 1984. Then the globalists and Democrats fired every weapon they had, and the only chance remaining for President Trump to win reelection will be in the hands of the Supreme Court.

Manipulating elections is not unheard of for the new Jacobins. During the Cold War, the CIA used to instigate coups in communist nations to install governments that were more friendly to the United States. During the 21st century, the CIA has been engaged in all sorts of shenanigans in foreign nations. These coups have become collectively known as “color revolutions,” as each one has its own colorful codename. The protests in 2009 against the Iranian regime were called the Green Revolution. The first revolt of the so-called Arab Spring was the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia. The uprising that forced out Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in 2011 was labeled the Lotus Revolution. In 2014, the CIA was surely involved in the overthrow of the pro-Russian president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych. Several Obama Administration officials were involved with the movement to depose the previous president and install someone who was more friendly to the European Union. It was these same officials who were involved with spying on the Trump campaign, transition team, and administration just three years later. The switch to mail-in ballots, which are easily manipulated, was all part of the same soft coup that our Deep State bureaucrats have been working on since before President Trump was even inaugurated. Former White House official Darren Beattie was warning all summer that the globalist Deep State was preparing its own color revolution for America, and what happened on Election Night seems to have proven him correct.

Beyond the election, however, the pandemic response has damaged our economy and the very fabric of our society. Tens of thousands of small businesses went bankrupt this year. The restaurant industry was hit hard, and only the national chains are going to weather the storm. Your local family-owned diner is gone, while Amazon and Walmart have reported record profits. Tens of millions of people are out of work, for no other reason than the government forced their employers to close their doors. This total economic control by an all-powerful central government is what we would have expected in Soviet Russia or Communist China, not in the land of the free and home of the brave.

Worse than the lockdowns themselves, however, is the response of the American people. Some, mostly on the right, are fed up, and have vowed never to wear a mask or take a vaccine, but the rest of America is slowly becoming used to the new normal. They have become acclimated to the point where they welcome further lockdowns and mask mandates in the name of public health. Anyone criticizing these mandates is derided as selfish, someone who does not care about his neighbors, and wants elderly people to die. Social shame becomes almost as powerful as the mandates themselves. The whole country is being conditioned to accept these outrageous intrusions on our liberty. New York state is instituting border controls and will refuse entry to American citizens who do not have proof of a negative COVID test. As soon as a vaccine is released, you can bet that presenting proof of vaccination will become necessary for all sorts of business, from employment to entry into a grocery store. We all thought that the dystopian nightmare of a masked policeman demanding to see your papers could never happen here, but it is about to, and half the country will welcome it.

Social trust and cohesion have been damaged as well, perhaps irreparably. The weekend before the election I was passing out campaign literature in my neighborhood. My Millennial and Generation X neighbors were mostly fine with that, but my Boomer and Silent Gen neighbors looked askance at me, as if I were a leprous pariah who had no business coming to their door. One elderly woman was panicked, refusing to even touch the paperwork I had in my hand, lest she be exposed to the Wuhan Flu. I have acquaintances who have become so anxious about COVID that they have canceled their usual Thanksgiving and Christmas get-togethers. All this for a virus that has a 99.99% survival rate – slightly worse than the standard flu.

Yet it is exactly this sort of social distrust that is part of the Great Reset itself. Traditional society is built from the ground up, as people form families, and families form communities. The bonds within these communities are the foundation of a nation, a civilization. Totalitarian regimes have always despised these bonds, which is why they have always hated rural communities and loved big cities. In a rural community, men can take care of themselves, and they work with their neighbors to do whatever is necessary. In big cities, everyone depends on centralized infrastructure and government social services.

In Soviet Russia and Communist China, people are moved around to break up potential resistance centers. Remember the propaganda from the World Economic Forum: atomized people living in pods, eating bugs, living in giant cities where they take mass transit to their jobs? Atomized people are easier to control than strong families and strong communities. The globalist dream is for all your needs to be met by an omnipotent, benevolent, government. Consumerism will replace community. Who needs community when you have a million followers on Instagram? Who needs a tribe when you can order toys from Amazon and have them delivered by drone? Who needs land to live freely on when you have virtual reality?

There is a racial component to the Great Reset as well. The TIME Magazine feature that I mentioned earlier has more than one article that talks about so-called racial justice. In the globalist worldview, white Americans and Europeans are an illegitimate people. We have no homelands, no heritage, no culture, and no rights to exist. We are made to apologize for slavery, for colonialism, for imperialism, for the holocaust, and even for our very existence. Critical Race Theory and the 1619 Project teach that every social structure in our society was built for the purpose of upholding white supremacy while oppressing anyone with a different skin color. These philosophies demand that our whole society be torn down in the name of racial justice. This too is part of their “Great Reset”. Our children are taught that they are guilty of the original sin of racism, and only by giving up everything their fathers bequeathed to them can they even approach absolution.

Earlier this year, the National Museum of African American History and Culture published a poster showing what they called aspects of white culture in the United States. Some of their many examples of so-called white culture include rugged individualism, the nuclear family, the scientific method, a love of history, the Protestant work ethic, planning for the future, and justice based on the English common law. One might be tempted to point out that all these things are good values that enabled our ancestors to build the greatest civilization in human history, but that would be racist. In this new anti-racist paradigm, lauding hard work is offensive and expecting justice to be blind is wrong. Recall that the founders of the Black Lives Matter movement once called for the destruction of the nuclear family, before bad PR convinced them to erase that bit from their website. This is not racial justice; this is the great communist reset wearing a racial costume, in the same manner that it wears a feminist costume or environmentalist costume. Underneath each one is the same desire to remake society, to remake human nature itself, no matter the cost.

Ironically, the black family in America was beginning to heal after centuries of slavery just as the welfare state came along to put the nail in its coffin. What was helping the black family were very things that are now being labeled as white supremacist – hard work, the nuclear family, and planning for the future. Welfare destroyed all that by kicking black men out of the home and replacing them with the government dole. Every attempt to reform welfare has only made the problem worse. Whole generations of black people are growing up entirely within the welfare system. For many of them, work is for chumps – you make less than you get while on welfare, and you have to follow all those white supremacist rules like showing up on time and having a good attitude.

More than fifty years ago, Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan drafted a report on the black family for President Johnson. In this report Moynihan warned that white families were preparing to go down the same road, and history has proven him correct. The nuclear family in America is crumbling, and children are being raised by single parents, or two mothers, two fathers, or no parents at all. This too is all part of the plan of the Great Reset. Whereas the Roman orator Cicero correctly identified marriage and the family as the first bond of society, globalist technocrats see the family as an impediment to their plans. Families are loyal to each other, while rootless individuals are only loyal to the state. Families change your perspective. A childless Millennial might be content to live in a tiny house, share his living space with ten other people, eat reprocessed bugs, and use mass transit every day. On the other hand, a man with a wife and children must think beyond himself. He must think ahead to what sort of world he will leave to his posterity. It is exactly this sort of forward thinking that creates civilizations and is therefore exactly what the Great Reset seeks to erase.

Look at the technocrats themselves and see what their own families are like. Kamala Harris is childless. So too are Angela Merkel of Germany and Emmanuel Macron of France. The Clintons have one child, who also has one child. These rootless childless Jacobins have neither loyalty to the past nor any investment in the future. They talk about making the world better for future generations, but that desire is entirely abstract; because they have no skin in the game, they end up leaving things worse instead.

Now look back at the year 2020 with all of this in mind. In January, President Trump was coasting to reelection on one of the best economies in American history. Nationalism is rising, not only in America but throughout the world. The forgotten men and women of America are coming together in a shared movement, exactly what the globalist left has been trying to prevent. President Trump promised that “we will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism,” and he was working toward that end.

With their long-planned revolution in danger, what is a globalist technocrat to do?

Along comes a pandemic. It turns out to be a very viral disease that can kill the elderly or people with comorbidities. Ten or twenty years ago we might have let it run its course, maybe do a PR campaign reminding people to wash their hands and suggest that people more at risk should take extra precautions. Instead, however, we locked down our economy, forced people to wear masks, provoked millions of layoffs, and introduced an entirely untested and vulnerable mail-in voting system. Weddings, funerals, and Thanksgiving dinners were discouraged or even banned, while BLM riots were encouraged. The country was left on a knife’s edge.

Many on the right are almost looking forward to a hot civil war, thinking we can finally defeat our enemies and take our country back once and for all. However, even a hot civil war can still be used for globalist aims. A civil war invites international intervention, and China – ever the globalist ally – stands ready to take one side or the other. Civil war or secession mean more international involvement in America’s affairs, not less.

So, what is a patriotic American nationalist to do?

First, we must be realistic. At the time of this writing, President Trump has filed lawsuits alleging voter fraud in several swing states. If he is successful in court, he wins the election and remains in office for four more years. However, there is no guarantee that he will succeed. As distasteful as it sounds, we must be prepared for a Biden/Harris administration that will undo many of the gains that Trump made on our behalf. We must be prepared for a return to Obama-era globalism, now on steroids. There is no hidden plan to save our country, there is no Q out there sharing hints about top secret information for those who know how to read his cryptic messages. There is only you, me, and the rest of the seventy-five million people who have supported President Trump in his efforts to return America to the forgotten men and women of this country. We cannot simply sit back and wait for someone to rescue us, as if we are a damsel in distress. Even if President Trump is successful, we still live in a nation more divided than it has been since the Civil War, and every political contest will be a battlefield for America’s future.

Next, we must be focused. The reason the left is so much better at organization and political action is because this is their focus, this is their life, this is their religion. Not so for most conservatives. We have families, we have jobs, we have church. Many of us would rather sit back and watch the football game than do the hard work of organizing. I have been heartened to see so many people come out to the Trump rallies, as well as the Stop the Steal rallies in the state capitols earlier this week. However, it is difficult to sustain this level of energy for long. Eventually our regular lives will beckon. We survived eight years of Bill Clinton, we survived eight years of Barack Obama. How much worse can Joe Biden and Kamala Harris be, some might ask. Remember, though, that these people have promised to finish the job Obama started in fundamentally transforming our society. The green new deal will destroy American businesses, and even driving a car might not be affordable in the near future. Wokeism will continue to infect everything, from entertainment to music to sports to your own job. Joe Biden has already promised to rescind Trump’s executive order banning Critical Race Theory struggle sessions from government jobs; in fact, he will likely find a way to extend it to all of us. We just want to be left alone, but the globalist agenda will not let us live in peace. They are interested in us, and in our children.

Further, we must direct our focus to the local level. We should hope and pray and do everything else we can to help President Trump succeed in this contest, but we cannot neglect our states, our counties, and our communities. One of the ways in which left was able to achieve so much power was by taking control at the local level. City councils, state legislatures, district attorneys, secretaries of state – these positions all exert influence over our daily lives, as well as the direction of our country as a whole. The reason that the McCloskeys were persecuted for brandishing firearms on their own property is because their district attorney is a left-wing extremist. The reason the Democrats were able to commit so much electoral fraud in big cities is because they control the state election boards. Run for local office. If you cannot run, then support like-minded people who can. Write letters to your council members, your legislators, and your governor. A Biden/Harris administration would be bad for America, but we have a tremendous opportunity to establish safeguards for freedom and liberty in our own states and communities.

We must be ready for anything. It is easy enough to say that we should be ready for a hot war, but it is easier said than done. Get out of the cities – they are bad for your soul anyway, and if a shooting war does start, they will not be safe. Move as far into the country as you can and learn to take care of yourself. Every one of us should know how to maintain a car, fix a broken pipe, make electricity work, use a computer, and communicate in an encrypted manner. We should all be getting to know our neighbors and know who will have our backs when times get tough. We must be in good physical condition – put down the chips and breadsticks, cut the carbs, and start lifting weights. We must be in good mental and emotional condition too. Turn off the TV, cut off your addiction to sports, stop giving money to people who hate you, who use it to demoralize you and propagandize your children, and pick up something useful. Read the classics. Read helpful non-fiction. Read your Bible.

We must also be prepared to take on the role of dissident. I believe God has a plan for our country, and for each one of us, but that plan might not be what we wish it were. God’s plan for us might be to be like the underground church in Communist China, having clandestine services and keeping the true Word of God alive beneath the nose of an oppressive government. It might be that of the Spanish Reconquista, to slowly win back the territory that Christendom has lost over the centuries. It might be that of the early Christians in the Roman Empire, who showed their faith even as they were mercilessly hunted down and killed. Whatever the case may be, it is clear that the time of living comfortably is over. A century of comfortable living in America has created a church that is fat and lazy, sloppy with the Word of God, and all too accommodating of modern immorality and degeneracy. The Church of God is due for a winnowing, and I pray that God will find us faithful, and allow us to be part of the remnant He always promises to leave.

Globalism cannot coexist with Christianity. Globalism is the religion of the builders of the Tower of Babel, who sought to capture heaven for themselves. The fact that the EU Parliament building in Strasbourg, France was deliberately built to resemble classical depictions of the Tower of Babel is no accident. We are witnesses yet another rendition of the same supernatural battle between good and evil that has been playing out on our world for untold millennia. The globalist aims of organizations like the World Economic Forum are the same demonic ideas that have plagued the people of God since time began. Like the French Revolution, like the Communism of Marx, and the Cultural Revolution of Mao’s China, the Great Reset is yet another attempt to erase the Christian heritage of our world, and with it all knowledge of our God.

We know that our God is greater than the god of this world and all his minions. We know that our God wins in the end. The question is, are you ready to step up and join the fight?

Parallel Nations

Scott Adams likes to say that the American people are watching two separate movies playing out in real time before our very eyes. Half of America thinks that President Donald Trump is a literal Nazi, who actively encourages white supremacist violence, who is owned by Russian intelligence, and whose evil is only matched by his incompetence. Conversely, half the country believes that President Trump has been unfairly targeted by a Democratic Party and media smear machine, which seeks to destroy him because he dared take a stand for the American people in the face of globalism and socialism. Both sides cannot be correct, yet both sides have persisted in their views for four years now.

I write this on the eve of Election Day in the United States. These two worldviews, these two movies, are about to collide with reality, and the side effects will be catastrophic and chaotic for the United States of America.

The left is one hundred percent convinced that Joe Biden is about to win a massive landslide. They are believe with all their hearts that President Trump is deeply unpopular, and that even those who supported him in 2016 are going to defect at the ballot box. They have spent the last four years listening to left-wing media repeat every possible accusation and innuendo against the President, and they have eaten up every poll that shows him losing this election. Some have even gone so far as to predict an electoral landslide of the sort not enjoyed by a Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. The average Democrat, however, sees a comfortable Biden victory that looks like the map below:

On the other side is the right, which believes the mainstream polls to be more of the same fake news that has plagued this country for years. They remember how in 2016 the polls said that Hillary Clinton was sure to win, only for Trump to surprise the nation with an upset victory. They see the massive crowds that the president draws to his rallies, the boat and car parades that have spontaneously broken out across the country, and the tremendous enthusiasm of Republicans to re-elect their leader. This side takes it for granted that Trump will defend the states he won in 2016, and perhaps even expand the map. Some have even suggested that Democratic strongholds such as California and New York are in play for the GOP! For these people, it is not Biden but Trump who is about to win a massive landslide, one not seen by a Republican president since the happy days of Ronald Reagan. Most Republicans are not quite so optimistic, but still predict a Trump victory. Their map looks something like this:

So what happens when reality picks one side or the other tomorrow? If Biden wins, will the GOP simply accept that as the will of the people, especially when we know that the Democrats have never been averse to cheating? If Trump wins, will the mass of people who have been “resisting” for four years accept that outcome and go home? We all know the answer to that. The mainstream polls that have shown Joe Biden with an insurmountable lead all year long might have failed to demoralize Republican voters, but they have laid the foundation for a narrative that any possible Trump victory must be illegitimate. Indeed, leftist organizations are already prepared to take to the streets even while the polls are still open. Stores in Democrat-run cities such as Washington DC are boarding up their windows in preparation for the inevitable riots. President Trump could win a 50-state electoral landslide tomorrow, but his enemies in the media and in politics will not accept this as the actual will of the people. Their “movie” will continue playing, no matter what reality has to say about it.

What does this mean for the future of America? No matter who wins tomorrow, we remain two separate nations, living in parallel within the same borders. One half of the country wants to normalize transgenderism, silence all opposing thought under the banner of “hate speech,” and open up our borders to make the United States simply a province of the world. The other half thinks that boys are boys and girls are girls, we respect the right of free speech even if we disagree, and we believe that the purpose of the American government is to serve the needs of American citizens first. These two wildly different worldviews cannot survive forever in a single country with a single government – either we will become entirely one or entirely the other. In 1858, Abraham Lincoln explained that the United States of his day could not continue to exist as a “house divided,” split between slave states and free states. Either, Lincoln explained, it would eventually become entirely slave, or entirely free. The 1860 presidential election was a contest between two radically different views of the world, and Lincoln’s election triggered a secession movement and a bloody Civil War that saw nearly a million Americans killed over the next four years. In the end, the United States became entirely free, as Lincoln foretold.

What will the presidential election of 2020 portend? No matter who wins tomorrow, the deep divide in American society has been exposed and festers like an open wound. Like a house divided, we must eventually choose one way or the other – or somehow work out an amicable divorce. A peaceful breakup of the United States of America will be distasteful and difficult, but it is the more preferable path if the other option is another bloody civil war.

Livestream 8: The History of Presidential Elections

For a change of pace, I talked tonight about the history of presidential elections in America going back to 1896. History builds on itself, so knowing our own history gives us perspective about our present. It is a bit wonky, but if you enjoy political history, maps, and numbers you might find it interesting.

(I did not record separate audio for this one, as it loses a lot if you cannot see the map.)

Permalink to video.

The Racist Racket

Last night, Yelp announced that they would begin labeling businesses that have been accused of racism with a warning sticker on their site.

I brought this up on last night’s livestream.Yelp has long been a racket, using their position to demand money in exchange for gaming the review system. If you do not pay for their services, then they will nudge negative reviews to the top of your business page while burying or even hiding positive reviews. They will even post ads to your competitors on your own page. On the other hand, if you purchase their services, they will generously allow positive reviews to appear.

This new endeavor goes further, however. By threatening to label businesses as “racist,” Yelp is giving a heckler’s veto to the most dishonest and vile activists in our society. If you have ever walked through downtown in a major city you see rainbow flags and BLM signs in every shop. Sometimes this is virtue signaling, but often it is an implicit plea to the rioters, looters, and arsonists that have plagued our cities all summer to leave this business alone. Imagine now if a group of leftist activists walk down the street of your city, or even of a small town, demanding that businesses post rainbow flags or BLM signs. If they refuse, then these activists go online or find a friendly news reporter to write a story on how this business owner is an unrepentant racist and homophone. They then send that story to Yelp, who slaps a big scarlet R on that business’ page for every potential customer to see.

This is nothing short of extortion on the part of a disingenuous movement that seeks to divide and destroy our nation. It is another marker on the decline and fall of America. The extreme left, which preaches black superiority, malleable genders, and intolerance toward the Christian heritage of the United States, enjoys the support of 95% of big businesses in this country. Nevertheless, they continue to portray themselves as the brave underdogs fighting a system of established oppression and white supremacy. Critical Theory demands this sort of narrative. Yet what happens when the oppressed become the oppressors?

I canceled my Yelp account last night after I saw the announcement. You should too. The only reason these converged businesses can still preach their anti-American rhetoric is because millions of conservative families still support them. Turn them off. Cancel your Yelp account. Stop shopping at stores that hate you. Stop watching sports leagues that denigrate your values before, during, and after every game. Stop paying for Netflix to distribute pedophilia. As sci-fi author and outspoken Christian Brian Niemeier says, stop giving money to people who hate you.

They do hate us. They want us dead and gone, our children brainwashed, and our very history erased. This is bad enough, but we should stop funding our own cultural destruction.

Addendum: Twitter user yoopermama pointed out that even supporting the police might be enough for Yelp to declare a business “racist”. Imagine a customer coming into a restaurant or store and seeing a blue line flag, hung in support of local police. They could report that to a friendly journalist or directly to Yelp and claim that it made them feel “unsafe”. Remember that the left has redefined racism to mean an original sin that every white person is guilty of. That is the core of Critical Race Theory, and Yelp is going to actively enable racial pogroms against white conservatives.

Media Appearance

This afternoon I appeared on The National Pulse TV show with Raheem Kassam to talk about Joe Biden’s tenuous relationship with the truth. Catch the whole episode here – my segment is near the beginning, but it’s all worth watching.

The Late Ruth Bader Ginsburg

“Things fall apart; the center cannot hold.” So wrote poet W.B. Yeats in the chaotic time following the First World War. In those days, Western Civilization was struggling to make sense of a conflict that killed millions of people with industrial efficiency, a global pandemic that killed millions more, new technologies such as the automobile, airplane, telephone, and radio that were changing their ways of life, and new ideologies that were destined to erase centuries of development of human liberty and freedom.

The world of 2020 is in some ways similar to that of 1920. News happens fast, and society is changing so rapidly it is nearly impossible to keep up. So far this year we have had the Democratic House of Representatives impeach President Trump over a phone call to a fellow world leader, a global pandemic that, no matter how deadly it will have been in retrospect, has been used as an excuse for all sorts of tyrannical overreach, a summer of constant riots in our major cities as the angry left seeks to tear down the structures of our society, and all this in the most contested presidential election campaign since 1860.

As if there has not been enough tinder piled on the bonfire, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away last night after battling several maladies over the past few years. Rather than retiring during President Obama’s term, which would allow him to appoint a progressive replacement, Ginsburg held on, planning to step down during the administration of the first woman president. Like many on the left, Ginsburg could not conceive of a scenario where Hillary Clinton did not defeat Donald Trump, yet here we are. Once that happened, Ginsburg’s only hope was to wait out the Trump Administration, however long that would take. Alas, she could not hold out, and now the 2020 election has its flashpoint.

The Supreme Court was already going to play a part in this election. The Democratic Party has openly admitted that they will stop at nothing to steal this election. Progressive judges in swing states such as Pennsylvania and Michigan have already ruled that mail-in ballots must be counted after Election Day. Hillary Clinton admonished Joe Biden not to concede on Election Night no matter the circumstances. Democrat and media wargamers have played out scenarios that involve blue states threatening secession if Trump is not removed from office. Just across the horizon sits the Supreme Court, waiting to be forced into the fray.

Recall that in 2000, a close vote in Florida between Governor George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore triggered a recount. The entire presidential election hung upon the outcome of this recount, as Florida’s electoral votes would make either Bush or Gore the winner. After the first recount confirmed Bush’s narrow victory, the Gore campaign sued, demanding hand recounts in heavily Democratic districts and also demanding that certification of the vote be delayed to allow these recounts to happen. After the Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Vice President, the Bush campaign appealed to the Supreme Court. In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that a hand recount in only certain districts violated the doctrine of equal protection under the law. In a further 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the vote had to be certified by the date written in Florida law. George W. Bush won Florida, and therefore the presidency.

In the succeeding twenty years since Bush v Gore, America has only become more polarized. If we face a similar situation, the Democratic Party will not accept the results the way Al Gore eventually did. Rather, they will call on their paramilitary thugs to riot in the streets, Democratic and NeverTrump Republican elected officials will call for a “bipartisan commission” to oversee the vote counting, and the left will urge military generals to arrest President Trump and force him out of office. We could already be facing a full coup this winter, and that was before Justice Ginsburg passed away. Now, a divided Supreme Court might only amplify the chaos. Judges across America will be making rulings about vote counting and the validity of mail-in ballots, and any Supreme Court decision that ends 4-4 means the lower court ruling will stand. This could create a patchwork of rulings across the country. Some states might end up with two slates of electors, one for each candidate, as is what happened in 1872. Both Trump and Biden could claim victory based on one court ruling or another, and there will be no arbitration that either side will accept.

The best way to stop this chaos before it starts is to make sure that the Supreme Court has its full slate of nine justices before Election Day. Despite what the Democrats and their media friends are saying right now, it is entirely possible and proper for President Trump to nominate a replacement justice, and for Senator McConnell to bring that nomination to a floor vote. Nobody doubts that the Democrats would do the same thing if they were in this position – they tried it in 2016 when President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to succeed the late Antonin Scalia. McConnell and the Republicans held firm, refusing a vote until after the election. This gambit could have failed utterly had Hillary Clinton won, in which case she surely would have withdrawn Garland in favor of a much more radical progressive leftist.

The Republican Party has 53 senators. Only 50 are required for confirmation – Vice President Mike Pence would break a tie. That means that the GOP could lose up to three senators and still win the confirmation fight. Mitt Romney of Utah will surely try to grandstand here, just as he did when casting a vote to convict President Trump during the impeachment earlier this year. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska also enjoys stabbing her own party in the back every chance she gets. Susan Collins of Maine can be unpredictable – it was her support for Brett Kavanaugh that pushed him across the line in his own contentious confirmation fight two years ago. Martha McSally of Arizona, Cory Gardner of Colorado, and even Lindsey Graham of South Carolina are all facing tough reelection bids, and could be tempted one way or another in hopes of saving their campaigns.

It has become a cliche, but this year is truly the most important election of our lifetimes – perhaps since 1860. If the Democrats win the White House and the Senate, they will radically reshape the government to ensure their permanent power. They will likely grant statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington DC, adding four senators to the Democratic majority. They will likely also pack the Supreme Court, adding as many justices as they can to make sure it stays a bastion of progressivism for all time. The silent majority of conservatives in America are looking for hope in these dark times. President Trump has shown us a way forward, but all too often the Republican Party and even Trump’s own administration have dashed those hopes in the swamp of our federal bureaucracy. This, however, is the moment we have all been waiting for. This is the moment when they can reward our trust in them, and show that they care about saving this country from socialism, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism. Will they step up to save America, or will they back down in the face of media pressure?

President Trump, at least, seems to understand the gravity of the situation:

Trump to End Critical Race Theory in Government

This week I published a podcast and an essay about the spread of Critical Theory in our society. This dishonest ideology teaches that white men are the source of everything wrong throughout history, and that we have built social structures that reinforce our racism and white supremacy. Christopher Rufo has been digging into the use of Critical Theory in federal government employment, and last week Tucker Carlson had him on his show. We all know that President Trump watches Tucker, so this is one of the best ways to expose the president to information that his staff might otherwise shield him from.

Tucker gets results. Yesterday evening, the Director of the Management and Budget Office Russ Vought issued a statement saying that federal agencies must cease spending taxpayer dollars to force their employees to sit through seminars based on Critical Race Theory and so-called white privilege:

It has come to the President’s attention that Executive Branch agencies have spent millions of taxpayer dollars to date “training” government workers to believe divisive, anti-American propaganda

The President has directed me to ensure that Federal agencies cease and desist from using taxpayer dollars to fund these divisive, un-American propaganda training sessions.

Read the whole statement here.

Cultural Marxists have been using Critical Theory to divide Americans and weaken Western Civilization for nearly a century, and the fact that it has become embedded in employee training programs throughout the federal government is an indictment on conservatives who should have nipped this in the bud decades ago. This is a great start, but the rot runs deep, especially in our K-12 and higher education systems. We have a long way to go.

Two Plus Two Will Always Equal Four

Last month, CNN aired video of buildings on fire in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Rioters had torched several used car lots and vandalized dozens of businesses, and several people were dead after clashes between antifa and those who were defending private property. Over the top of this video, CNN displayed a ribbon of text explaining that these were “mostly peaceful” protests. This now-common occurrence on cable news goes beyond the gaslighting that I have mentioned in the past; it is an assault on reason and truth itself.


The foundation for any rational discussion is the concept of truth. There can be no honest debate between one side which says that the sky is blue, water is wet, and fire is hot, when the other side disagrees with those basic truisms. Nearly twenty-five hundred years ago, the Greek philosopher Aristotle put it this way: “A is A”. It seems obvious, and something that goes without saying, but the idea that there it is possible for human beings to understand real concrete rational truths is at the basis of all philosophy, science, mathematics, and history. While there is room for debate about the value of money, the effects of increased taxation, or the relative greatness of Shakespeare’s works, there can be no debate that A is A, or that two plus two equals four. Yet it is exactly these fundamental truths that are under attack as a result of a generation of postmodern critical theory propaganda.


“Two plus two equals four” is one of the very first ideas we teach our children, because everything else builds from that basic truth. On one level, the ability to do higher math and to apply it to real world problems requires knowledge of basic arithmetic. On a deeper level, having understanding that certain things are always true no matter the context paves the way for understanding abstract things. Rational thinkers have long known how important it is to base empirical claims on solid truth and have often used this little equation to demonstrate that concept:

Catholic philosopher G.K. Chesterton:

“Two plus two must always equal four.”

English poet Rudyard Kipling:

“All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four.”

English author and political thinker George Orwell:

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two equals four. If that is granted, all else follows.”

It seems inconceivable that there could be any possible disagreement on such a basic fact.


Last week I reread Orwell’s famous novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four” for the first time in twenty years. When I read it in high school, I found it interesting but not very applicable to modern society. Indeed, in reading Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” at the same time I found Huxley to be the more accurate prophet. As Neil Postman wrote in “Amusing Ourselves to Death” in 1985, “What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley fears was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much those that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.”

Credit: Stuart McMillen

For most of the 90s and even the early 2000s, I agreed with Postman’s view that our world was more Huxley than Orwell. The fact that Orwell’s iconic Big Brother, the semi-mythical leader of the Party who watched your every move, had became the name of a reality TV show seems to have proven Huxley right. We did not need pervasive government surveillance, because we were held captive by our own devotion to mindless entertainment. Yet something has changed in the last five years. While information is still being diluted by mindless nonsense, the world of “Nineteen Eighty-Four” has been slowly converging upon us. Mass surveillance is indeed becoming commonplace. Corporations, rather than government, are unpersoning people who says things that are deemed hate speech. Yet the worst part is what Orwell feared the most: our very language, and even the concept of reality itself, is being redefined before our eyes.


Nearly a century ago, German philosophers at the Institute for Social Research, better known as the Frankfurt School, came up with a concept called Critical Theory. The driving force behind Critical Theory is a desire to tear down every philosophical idea in human society, deconstruct it, and rebuild it through a lens of oppression. In the 19th century, Karl Marx had redefined economics by reconstructing it as a constant struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat classes. What Marx did for class and economics, the Critical Theorists of the Frankfurt School did for everything; many on the right call the philosophies of Critical Theory “Cultural Marxism” for this very reason. By recasting every social interaction as based on oppression, Critical Theory not only identifies the issue but also proposes its solution, that is, that human society must be completely deconstructed and rebuilt from the ground up. That means every structure of our society that we take for granted – history, philosophy, science, math, language, the family structure, political systems, etc. – must be torn down in the name of freeing humanity from so-called oppression.


Over the past few decades, Critical Theory has become the foundation of higher education in America. It has even spawned spinoffs such as Critical Race Theory, which preaches that all human society is built on white supremacists oppressing people of color, and feminism, which preaches that all human society is built on men oppressing women. All of these offshoots are built around the idea that one group of people is oppressing another group of people, and that this system of oppression is at the heart of every social structure on earth. Intersectionality is the idea that all of these systems of oppression are intertwined, and so the end result of Critical Theory is the demonization of one particular group of people – heterosexual white male Christians – as the perpetrators of everything bad that has ever happened in human history.


I have mentioned the 1619 Project several times over the past year, because it is a perfect example of how Critical Theory is not only used to reinterpret the past, but also to rewrite it. The 1619 Project says that the entire American Revolution was all about maintaining slavery and white supremacy in the New World. Boston Tea Party? White supremacy. The Battle of Lexington? White supremacy. The alliance with France? White supremacy. The Declaration of Independence itself? White supremacy. This reductionist view of history is not only wrong but dangerous, as it teaches black children that they are justified in using violence to take back a country that was “stolen” from them, while teaching white children that they have no claim on the land their fathers lived and died to build.


The traditional historical view of American independence is that the thirteen colonies had developed into separate nations from the mother country of Great Britain. They chafed under British taxes and regulation and resented the rule of a King and Parliament half a world away who saw the colonies as nothing more than raw materials. The colonists initially desired reconciliation and negotiation, but once open war came to America, t hey declared their independence and founded a new nation. Contrary to what many people now believe, slavery was a huge issue. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson recognized that slavery was incompatible with their belief that “all men are created equal.” They knew that a reckoning would happen someday. But the Critical Race Theorists do not think too deeply about their positions, because they disagree about the fundamental concept of truth itself. It is hard for rational people like you and I to understand this, but the authors of the 1619 Project honestly believe that they are creating truth in their writing. They would say that what we consider to be the true historical record is just “our truth,” and that our truth is based on oppression and white supremacy, therefore we are morally bound to discard it in favor of their superior truth.


We on the right are accustomed to debating people with whom we agree on the fundamental truths of the universe. For example, when John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon debated in the summer of 1960, they both agreed that America was a great nation that was a force for good in the world, much less that two plus two equals four. Their disagreements were built on top of those premises. We have a hard time debating the modern left, because we find little common ground, even when it comes to empirical facts. The modern left not only believes that America is a bad country, and always has been, but they are even trying to convince us that two and two do not necessarily equal four.


A few months ago, mathematician and critic of social justice James Lindsay posted sarcastically about how Critical Theorists would dismiss two plus two equals four as a Western imperialist colonialist concept. This innocuous statement started a firestorm on Twitter, attracting hundreds of people who believe just that. A PhD student and self-described “teacher, scholar, social justice change agent” named Brittany Marshall tweeted “…the idea of 2+2 equaling 4 is cultural and because of western imperialism/colonization, we think of it as the only way of knowing.” She was not alone. Numerous social justice activists in academia and media jumped on the train, each one explaining exactly how two plus two does not have to equal four and that saying that it always does is an example of oppressive white supremacy in action.


Yet the idea that two plus two equals four is not, as these people believe, inherently western, colonialist, or white supremacist. Universal truths such as this are the foundation of all knowledge. How can we know anything if we do not know what is true? Without basic math, we could not build a horse-drawn wagon, much less a spaceship that can land on the moon. As Orwell said, “Physical facts could not be ignored. In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an airplane they had to make four.” Perhaps this abandonment of empirical truth is partly to blame for the shoddy engineering we have seen in our country over the past decade, from collapsing bridges to derailing trains to faulty airplanes. Like a Cargo Cult, we have forgotten how our ancestors built things, and just assume that is just happens organically.


Yet even a philosophy that says two and two can make five is doomed to failure as well, because it is built on a lie. In “The Soul of Science,” authors Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton argue that basic mathematics are necessary for understanding the deeper truths of the universe:

“In mathematics, it appears that we have access to truths that go beyond experience. Upon what, then, are they based? For Pythagoras and later for Plato, the answer was that mathematics is part of an ideal world – a realm of abstract principles that gives rational structure to the material world.”

Saying that two plus two equals four might be obvious to us, and heretical to Critical Theorists, but there is something profound contained in that simple phrase. Without it, we would lack any basis for rational thought at all!


I wrote a long post last year about how the United States has become a post-truth society. Nowhere is this more evident than in how Critical Theory has warped our education system. The same people dismissing the idea of concrete truth as just a “western colonialist perspective” are the ones teaching our teachers, the ones who ultimately decide what is taught to fifty million public school students every year. These poisonous lies have wound their way through every facet of our society. Public universities are forcing white students to sit through classes that berate them for the color of their skin. Government agencies are paying millions of dollars to corrupt consultants and forcing their employees to go to seminars where they deconstruct their “whiteness” and learn to take the blame for all the problems in our country. Television, Hollywood, and news media build their ideas on the basis of Critical Theory, without necessarily saying as much, so anyone who watches them is subtly and continuously propagandized.

The effect of dismissing empirical facts is becoming obvious throughout society. Words have lost all meaning, causing discourse between opposing sides to be pointless. Media calls left wing violence “free speech” while right wing speech is labeled “violence” that makes people feel “unsafe”. Our media constantly calls the massive riots that have engulfed our cities this summer – riots that involve vandalism, property damage, arson, theft, assault, and even murder – they keep calling them “peaceful protests”. President Trump gave an Independence Day speech at Mt. Rushmore about the greatness of America, and the New York Times called it “dark and divisive”. Iowa Congressman Steve King spoke in favor of western civilization and the media called him “racist”. These definitions are fluid, of course, being applied unequally depending upon one’s political positions. Joe Biden can call Barack Obama the first African American who was “bright, clean, and articulate” and rather than being accused of racism, the media laughs at good old Joe. On the other hand, people on the right are assumed to be racists and white supremacists by virtue of our very existence.


This systematic redefinition of words was explained by George Orwell more than seventy years ago. The heart of his novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four” is not necessarily the totalitarian government or constant surveillance, but the way in which the ruling party uses language to control thought. The Party is continually recreating language into what is called Newspeak, the object of which is to reduce the vocabulary of its citizens until they cannot even conceive of an unpermitted idea because there is no word to describe anything outside of Party authority. Orwell explains that Newspeak renders such ideas as “freedom” or “democracy” entirely meaningless, while a word such as “love” can only be applied to one’s loyalty to the Party rather than feelings of affection for family or friends.


See how this is happening in our culture today: Free speech by someone on the right is redefined by the media and the left to mean violence, while leftist violence is redefined as free speech. When Ann Coulter or even the milquetoast Ben Shapiro visited college campuses to speak, they were denounced by the left as having committed violence and making minorities and so-called marginalized people feel “unsafe”. Yet when mobs of antifa and BLM rioters torch a business and assault anyone in their way, our concerns about safety are dismissed as racism and white supremacy, and we are told that rioting and looting is the “language” of marginalized and oppressed people, and are therefore protected speech. This is literally Orwellian, and straight out of the Critical Theory handbook. Antifa and BLM activists have recently taken this to a new level, chanting that “silence is violence!” Even trying to stay neutral is not good enough for the vanguard of the socialist revolution.


As I record this, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden is accusing President Trump of “inciting” these nationwide riots. When we hear the word “incite,” we picture a rabble-rouser firing up his followers to commit acts of violence. Yet President Trump has done nothing of the kind. In fact, it is Trump’s followers who are on the receiving end of most of this violence. Indeed, the real incitement has come from people like Biden’s vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris, who said that the riots should continue, Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who called for her followers to confront and harass conservatives in public, leftist media outlet NPR which is promoting a book called “In Defense of Looting,” and professional blackface-wearer Shaun King who called for blacks to attack churches, deface Christian statues, and threatened every police officer in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Yet the left and our media blames Trump. This is literally blaming the victim. Saying that Trump has “incited” these riots is like when they said a cartoon “incited” Muslims to attack foreign embassies a few years back. This is no different from blaming a woman in a short skirt for being raped. By this logic, the very existence of conservatives, Christians, and unapologetic white people literally “incites” violence from the left, and we are to blame. This is Orwellian.

<img src=”; class=”alignnone size-full wp-image-952″ alt=” on November 1, 2017 in Washington, DC.” width=”1100″ height=”619″>

One of the most obvious redefinitions in recent memory has been the word “racism”. The idea of racism is fairly recent; before a century ago it was natural that people of different ethnic groups would have preferences for members of their own group. When the Baby Boomers were growing up during the Civil Rights movement, racism came to mean unfairness toward one group, or having negative stereotypes about other ethnicities. Most conservatives still hold to this definition. When they hear the word “racism,” they picture the Ku Klux Klan burning a cross to intimidate a black family, or some slack-jawed southerner using racial slurs to describe African Americans. Many of these good-natured conservatives do not realize how completely the left has redefined that word. There is a strain of virulent leftism that began in the Frankfurt School, was nurtured in college campuses across America, and has now taken control of most of our corporations, news outlets, and even government organizations. The official dogma of these people is that all white people are racist. They also say that black and other so-called marginalized people are incapable of racism, because they do not have “institutional power”. Even coming off of eight years of a black president, with a black attorney general, in a world where every major corporation obediently intones that “black lives matter,” even as being black in America opens doors to massive subsidies in the name of affirmative action, we are still told that we have white privilege. Simply existing as a white person makes one guilty of racism under this new definition.


James White of Apologia Church in Arizona has taken notice. On one of his recent livestreams he said, “Obviously we live in a day, once again, we all know it, 1984, completely fulfilled, take every word, redefine it to mean its opposite, but then use it amongst people who are still using the old vocabulary, with the new meaning, so as to create utter chaos in society.” This is exactly what the left has done. They accuse us of being racists according to their new definition while counting on rank-and-file conservatives of hearing the old definition. When they call Congressman Steve King, or Nicholas Fuentes, or Michelle Malkin, or anyone else who dares to notice something politically incorrect “racist,” too many conservatives assume that these people must be on the same level of the cross-burning KKK of a century ago, and they rush to denounce these horrible racists lest they too be tarred with the same brush. This is cowardice, plain and simple.


As I explained last year in my essay on the post-truth society, the left is always engaging in “motte and bailey” arguments. Remember that motte-and-bailey was a type of castle that was popular in Europe about a thousand years ago that consisted of a stone keep built atop a raised earthwork called a motte, surrounded by a walled courtyard called a bailey. The inhabitants of the castle lived and worked in the bailey, but when an enemy attacked, they could retreat to the relative safety of the motte. In a motte-and-bailey argument, someone can argue from a very liberal definition of a word or concept, only to retreat to the safety of the motte when defending their argument. You see this in the example of racism that I just mentioned. When on the attack, they define racism as white privilege, an original sin that all white people are born with. Yet if they ever have to defend themselves, they retreat to a linguistically conservative definition of racism, which is the same one that political conservatives have believed all along. This is not discourse, rather it is verbal sleight-of-hand. This is Orwellian wordplay.


Like Big Brother in “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” the modern left is redefining language to the point where reality itself is malleable. After all, according to Critical Theory there is no such thing as objective truth, only conflicting narratives of oppression. Without even realizing it, we are being conditioned into our own version of Newspeak that prevents any meaningful discussion of political or social ideas. We cannot talk about racism when everyone has a different definition of the word. We cannot have a national discussion about the root causes and possible solutions to this summer’s riots when we all have completely different views on the nature of incitement. This is the goal of the left, and of the Frankfurt School: to deconstruct language to the point where we have no ability to express thoughts that stray from the party line:

  • The word gay once meant happy, now it means homosexual.
  • The rainbow was once a symbol of beauty, and for Christians, a reminder of God’s promise after the flood. Now it means homosexual.
  • Conservative, reactionary, traditionalist, and nationalist all used to mean varying flavors of political theory. Now they all mean “racist” or “Nazi”.
  • For that matter, “Nazi” once referred to a specific political party in 20th century Germany that had very specific views, but now it means any white person more conservative than Bernie Sanders.
  • A liberal used to mean someone who believed in individual freedom, but now it is barely distinguishable from totalitarianism and socialism.
  • Even the words “male” and “female” have lost all meaning in the modern era. We are told that a big ugly man with makeup and a dress is just as female as a feminine woman, and if we disagree then we should be censored, fired, and maybe even imprisoned as punishment for our wrongthink.

Again, this is literally Orwellian.


In “Nineteen Eighty-Four, the protagonist Winston Smith is captured by the Thought Police and tortured until he conforms to their image of reality. His torturer explains:

“You believe that reality is objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident… But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes; only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be truth IS truth.”

In other words, reality is whatever we say it is.

One of the most striking characteristics of the Party in “Nineteen Eighty-Four” is the concept of doublethink. Party members are trained from birth to have the ability to hold on to contrary pieces of information and to recall each one at will, reciting and believing it with all sincerity. For example, early in the novel Winston is dismayed to have learned that the ration of chocolate from the government was going to be dropped to thirty grams per week. However, the Party later cheerfully announces that the chocolate ration would soon be raised to twenty-five grams per week. The citizens of Oceania, rather than noticing this obvious lie, buy into it completely, cheerfully thanking Big Brother for his generosity. The ability of Party members to engage in doublethink is called crimestop by Orwell:

“Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments…”

The American left has gone all in on doublethink. To be a Democrat today means:

  • Saying at one moment that there are no riots, merely peaceful protests, and the next, with a straight face, that the riots are all Trump’s fault.
  • Not only having been anti-war in 2006 but pro-war today, but pretending that you have had a consistent position the whole time.
  • Believing that homosexuality is genetic and unchangeable, while transgendered people can change their sex through drugs and surgery.
  • Believing that the Democratic Governor of Virginia Ralph Northam’s blackface picture in his yearbook is not disqualifying, but that former GOP Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott’s harmless compliment to centenarian Senator Strom Thurmond in 2002 was.
  • Being able to criticize the Chinese travel ban in February as racist and xenophobic and then turn around in April and say it did not go far enough.
  • Believing that masks were useless in March of this year, but required now, with no realization that you have switched opinions.

The left engages in Orwell’s crimestop every day. If you show a leftist a picture of a man claiming to be transgender beside a picture of a real woman, they will not be able to articulate a difference. Perhaps they are not even pretending – crimestop comes as naturally as doublethink once you have trained yourself. This is why arguing with the left about crime statistics, for example, is so difficult. You can show them plainly that blacks commit a disproportionately higher number of violent crimes per capita than whites, and they will act as if you are talking gibberish. No matter what facts you employ, their answer is always the same: You are racist.

Graph - Interracial Crime Rates

Doublethink is a natural side effect of the erosion of truth. Once you discard truth as a foundational concept, and replace it with competing narratives, then there is no reason to be bound by any one idea. Switching between contradictory premises is as simple as changing the channel on the TV. Like the Party members in “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” many of our elected officials and media figures have so completely internalized this modern doublethink that they do not even realize they are doing it. They have zero cognitive dissonance. Truth is whatever we say it is at any given moment.

The final component of the thought control in Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” is in the way the Party constantly rewrites the past. The main character of the novel, Winston Smith, is a worker drone for the Ministry of Truth, which is (as he says) concerned with lies. The job of the Ministry of Truth is not only to broadcast daily propaganda, but also to continually go back and “fix” past newspapers, books, and other media to make it match current doctrine. For example, if Winston’s nation of Oceania goes to war with Eurasia, then Winston must go back and alter records to say that Oceania was always at war with Eurasia. Eventually they make peace and go to war with the other superpower, Eastasia, at which time Winston has to go back again and change things to match the new situation. “Who controls the past controls the future,” the Party says. “Who controls the present controls the past.” Without any documentation to back up their memories, citizens are forced to accept the new reality and alter their thinking to match. Anyone who disagrees is obviously insane, right?


This too is going on in America today. The 1619 Project is one example of rewriting the past to fit today’s narrative. Even recent events are being memory-holed. The truth that Michael Brown was shot after assaulting a shopkeeper and attacking Officer Darren Wilson has been replaced with the lie that he had his hands in the air when he was murdered by a racist policeman. The truth about the virtues of our Founding Fathers is being replaced by a narrative that they were all horrible people because of the existence of slavery. On the other hand, the truth about black criminals such as George Floyd and Jacob Blake are also being erased in favor of a narrative that paints them as innocent and wonderful human beings who were attacked by racist police simply because of their skin color.


It is not only facts that are being reinterpreted. Everyone has an inner sense of beauty and aesthetics, but those too are being twisted by our cultural content creators. Truth, beauty, and love are all being perverted. In “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” Orwell explains that in the ultimate socialist utopia, “There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness.” In America today, marvelous marble statues of our heroes are torn down by angry mobs, while graffiti and vandalism are promoted as authentic art. Former first lady Michelle Obama, who is… homely by any objective measure, continues to appear on fashion magazines, while First Lady Melania Trump is blacklisted, despite being a literal supermodel and one of the most objectively beautiful women on earth.


Traditional feminine beauty is despised, while three-hundred-pound land whales are held up as a new standard of beauty. White nuclear families are called Nazis, while dysfunctional homosexual relationships are put up on pedestals. The great works of Rembrandt or Michelangelo are dismissed as white colonialist culture, while the farce that is modern art is praised. Modern architecture seems deliberately made to kill your soul, while classical buildings make one feel proud to be human. The difference between ugliness and truth was displayed during the competing National Conventions last week. The Democrats trotted out aging drug-addled rockers and disgusting young pop stars who seem obsessed with bodily functions, while the Republicans capped off their convention with a magnificent performance by an Italian opera singer. Do not let anyone tell you that beauty is purely subjective.


Once you dismiss empirical truth, all you have left is narratives, and the left believes that their narrative is superior. Many on their side truly believe this, that there is no such thing as truth, and so when they see us arguing for what we call “truth,” all they see is a narrative of oppression. In their minds, the only reason anyone would promote such oppressive narratives is out of selfishness and greed. St. Antony, a Christian monk of the third century, once said, “A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, ‘You are mad; you are not like us.’” Postmodern discourse is utter madness. Critical Theory is working to remove all traces of truth, facts, and even beauty from society and replace them with their preferred narratives.

G.K. Chesterton saw it coming a century ago:

“We shall soon be in a world in which a man may be howled down for saying that two and two make four, in which people will persecute the heresy of calling a triangle a three-sided figure, and hang a man for maddening a mob with the news that grass is green.”

Yet this is not just about propaganda. They are not just seeking to convince us that we are wrong, and they are right. English writer Theodore Dalrymple explains:

“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.”

If we accept the lie that George Floyd was murdered by racist cops, then we are divorcing ourselves from the truth. If we go along with the absurd lie that a castrated man is a woman, then we are killing part of our own souls. We become complicit in the insanity, and eventually we become part of the system itself, turning and pointing at thought criminals and demanding they be punished for not joining us in the big lie. A perfect example of this phenomenon is superstar NFL quarterback Drew Brees, who tweeted out support for the American flag last spring. Brees, a white man, father, and patriotic American, did not realize that the paradigm had shifted this year and was quickly attacked by the left for daring to oppose the BLM movement. He retracted his statement, gave an apology, then did penance by attacking President Trump for continuing to support the flag.


Like Winston Smith, we torture our brains until we actually believe that two plus two can equal five, if we want it enough. During his mental reprogramming, Winston cries because his logical mind cannot conceive of two plus two being anything but four. His torturer responds, “Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”


George Orwell did not get everything perfectly right. He thought the government would ban sex to control people, but today we are flooded with sexual imagery. Huxley was more correct here – sex is not banned, but rather is made meaningless. Orwell also thought the government would control all information, but today information is controlled and manipulated not by a central government but instead by a multi-headed leviathan consisting of government departments, so-called hatewatch groups like the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Big Tech monopolies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google. It is these Big Tech companies that are the modern-day Ministry of Truth. During the panic over COVID19, these companies appointed themselves the arbiters of medical truth and banned anyone who suggested treatments such as hydroxychloroquine that were considered politically incorrect. After a young man named Kyle Rittenhouse shot two antifa thugs in self defense in Kenosha, Wisconsin last week, both Facebook and Twitter banned users for expressing support for Kyle, while allowing or even promoting support for the violent antifa rioters. While these companies are not the government, they have become nearly as powerful, and can easily ruin one’s business or one’s life without a second thought.


What Orwell got right, however, is the way in which Critical Theorists are redefining language so as to control our thoughts. The endurance of “Nineteen Eighty-Four” is a testament to how accurate Orwell’s observations of the socialist mindset have been. Consider that words and phrases that I have used in this essay such as “Thought Police,” “Newspeak,” “unperson,” “memory hole,” “wrongthink,” “doublethink,” and the “Ministry of Truth” were all coined by Orwell in his book; yet they have become common in our vernacular.

Truth exists and it matters. Two plus two will always equal four, no matter what Twitter, Facebook, Google, Harvard, or the SPLC say. The lesson of “Nineteen Eighty-Four” is that human beings are easily malleable. If we do not have a foundation of truth, we can be made to believe anything. We must maintain that foundation. Build a library of old books. Download copies of articles and videos before they are inevitably altered or destroyed. Teach your children the empirical truths of the universe. Our fathers built the greatest society in the history of the world because they believed in truth. We are the heirs of a civilization that was built upon the twin pillars of Greek empiricism and the capital T Truth that God revealed through His Scripture. Those pillars are under heavy attack today from the socialist left, the Critical Theorists, and all the other enemies of God and truth. When the dust settles, truth will still be truth. A will still be A. Two plus two will still equal four.


What We Have Lost

Everybody has heard the parable of the frog in hot water. Supposedly, if you toss a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will feel pain and jump out. However, the story goes, if you put a frog in cold water and slowly raise the temperature, it will continually acclimate itself and not realize that the water has become dangerous until it is too late. A real frog would probably notice the increasing temperature and leave the pot before being scalded to death, but human beings often lack that sort of foresight.


Consider the changes that we have experienced in the United States of America over the past century. If Rip Van Winkle fell asleep in 1920 and awoke today, the world would be nearly unrecognizable. Technology has changed, for sure, but even greater changes have happened at the cultural level. Society’s views on marriage, family, religion, immigration, foreign policy, the value of work, and basic decorum has undergone tremendous shifts over the last hundred years. Sometimes public opinion and morality evolves naturally, but sometimes it is pushed with purpose. Consider that just twelve years ago a large majority of Americans were against gay marriage, so much so that even the Democratic primary candidates all agreed that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. This was followed by a massive propaganda barrage coming out of politics, media, entertainment, and academia, to the point where a majority of Americans today support so-called gay marriage.


We, the frogs in the pot of water, often do not notice these changes, or the speed at which they take place. We are distracted by our daily lives, the tremendous amount of entertainment options before us, and the minutiae of day-to-day politics. Sometimes it is helpful to step back and see exactly how much has changed, to compare today with a picture of yesterday. Only by being honest with ourselves about the state of our culture can we seriously prepare to restore it. Come with me on a journey back in time:

Imagine for that it is the year 1955. You are a young family man, a veteran of World War II, living a quiet and happy life. Television is just entering the zeitgeist, and you are considering purchasing a set for your family. You sometimes worry about nuclear war, considering the Soviet Union is testing their own atom bombs, but that is a distant care. You go to work each morning in a factory putting bolts on car frames, then you come home to your modest suburban house and spend the evening with your wife and three children. On Saturdays you mow the lawn, repair minor household issues, and play with the children On Sundays you take the family to the local Methodist church and spend the afternoon with friends and family. Life is good.


Science fiction books and movies have really become popular lately, and you cannot get enough of them. You fondly remember seeing War of the Worlds in the theater just a couple of years ago, and The Day the Earth Stood Still before that. You have a stack of books by Asimov, Bradbury, and Heinlein that you read before bed each night. The future looks amazing – in just a few years, humans will surely discover space travel, computers, new medicines, and by the end of the century they would no doubt be colonizing other worlds. Human potential seems limitless.


Some of the books you have recently read suggest a more depressing future, however. Robert Matheson’s “I Am Legend” was just published a few months ago, telling the story of a sole survivor of a global pandemic. Reading that had left you shaken. You wonder… what if things go wrong? What if technology proves too powerful for mankind to control? What if the old human vices of greed, anger, and envy override our desire for a better world, and plunge us back into another genocidal war? What if a new disease destroys 90% of the population? What if a totalitarian government comes to power and uses modern technology to oppress their people? What if the good times are just a temporary aberration in the long human history of poverty and conflict? It seems far-fetched, no?


Imagine you pick up a new science fiction book written by a famous author. This book takes place 65 years in the future. In this telling, mankind has not yet colonized the stars; rather we turned our attention toward making life as convenient and comfortable as possible for the people of earth. Technology in this book is amazing – men, women, and children all have handheld devices that connect them to a global information net, allowing them to instantly recall any piece of data, from song lyrics, to historical pictures, and even to live video of events happening on the other side of the world. Cars are sleek and fast, with computer-controlled autopilots and satellite-assisted navigation. Washing machines, refrigerators, coffee makers, thermostats, and doorbells all connect to the worldwide info net to operate as automatically as possible. People can order any product that is manufactured anywhere on earth and have it dropped on their doorstep the next day. You think about the vacuum cleaner that you just bought for your wife last Christmas. In the novel, those have gone out of style and now everyone owns a robot that cleans the floors all by itself during the night.


Work has become simpler in the future. As you crack your knuckles, sore and raw from turning wrenches all day, you read about how most Americans work behind desks now, or even from the comfort of their own home. The info net makes it so a man can earn a living from anywhere, carrying an impossibly tiny computer screen with him wherever he goes. Many Americans do hardly any work at all. Some go to school for years upon years, others do odd jobs as taxi drivers or food couriers, and some are just paid by the government simply for existing. You wonder how such a culture could come about – after all, none of the other men you know would be shameless enough to give up working for a living.


As you continue reading this story, you are struck by how soulless this future world has become. The government requires everyone to wear face masks, even in the privacy of their own homes. They say it is to protect people from a deadly virus that is sweeping the globe, but some characters wonder if this is actually true. The author himself does not seem to come down on any solid position. Yet most people dutifully follow the rules, making grocery stores look like hospital wards. Everywhere they turn, characters are reminded to maintain a certain distance between themselves and others. The result is a sterile public square, where you are unable to see facial expressions, and people fearfully keep their distance lest they catch the virus, or worse, be admonished by government agents and shamed by millions of people watching live video. This sterile, antiseptic world feels like the far future of Clarke’s “Childhood’s End,” where humanity has made enormous technological advances but lost any reason for living. You suddenly feel a new appreciation for the warm social interactions that make up your day – the firm handshake of the pastor at church, the smile on the faces of children you pass in the street, the hugs from family members visiting from afar. We would never allow things to go that far, you think.


You remember feeling unnerved by the idea of the ubiquitous Thought Police after reading Orwell’s “1984” a while back. This novel seems to have the same idea, without the catchy name. People are told to watch what they say, not only in person or in print but also in the millions of messages that are passed back and forth across the info net. Saying the wrong thing can get one banned from the net or even fired from his job. Huge corporations maintain an ever-shifting list of thoughts that are considered wrong, and if you are found to have ever had one of these wrong thoughts you are blacklisted from society. The net remembers things you said years or even decades ago, and specially trained informants will often dig through your history to find something incriminating. This leads people to guard their thoughts carefully, and it is often difficult to determine what someone genuinely believes. For many people, socially approved slogans have completely replaced independent thought, and breaking this conditioning is nearly impossible. Public discourse has been reduced to discussions about television shows and sports games, while any subject of value has been made off-limits.


The family is unrecognizable as well. You look around at your household – you, the husband and father, are the breadwinner, while your wife keeps the home, raises the children, and takes part in social events in the community. Your three children attend a good school where they learn science, math, history, and grammar. Yet the hypothetical future you are reading about has discarded that structure, calling it backwards, racist, sexist, and wrong. Men and women both go to work, often leaving their children with a nanny or in a centralized care center run by other women. Few men and women even bother getting married anymore, rather they have sexual relations with whomever they please, and sometimes live together before separating. The few who still live in the traditional manner are sneered at as backwards and prudish. Children now grow up in families of two mothers, or two fathers, or even three or more people. They often have numerous half-siblings, or sometimes no siblings, as many parents specifically want only one child. Children are taught that sex is just a social construct, and that if they want, they can take drugs or have surgery to change themselves into the opposite sex, or something in between. Parents have little control over what their children are taught, sending them to schools that force this new and modern worldview on them starting at age five. You shudder at the thought of your children’s school turning into the nightmarish propaganda machines that you are reading about. Thankfully, it seems impossible that such a world could ever come to be.


News media is unreliable in this future world. According to the author, the United States triumphed in the Cold War without resorting to nuclear annihilation, yet American journalism became its own version of the Soviet Pravda, where the only way people knew something was true was when news media officially denied it. Citizens instinctively distrust the news, and they only read and listen to stories that support their existing biases. There are hundreds or even thousands of channels on the info net delivering news and entertainment, but the line between those two things is blurred. You would think that in a future where everyone has the ability to record and to watch live video at any given moment that the truth would be easy to discern, but the opposite is true: media spends much of their time telling you not believe what you just saw.


You are confused about a few things. The author said in the introduction that America won the Cold War in this timeline, yet there are outspoken politicians in America pushing for socialism. The author said that black people gained equal civil rights in the 1960s, yet racial strife seems to be a driving factor in for future strife. Future citizens have instantaneous access to the sum of all human knowledge, yet the process of learning, philosophy, and science has degenerated into name calling, accusations of excess privilege, and endless deconstruction. None of this makes any sense.

Activists March To Trump Tower On International Workers' Day Calling For Immigrants' Rights

The streets are not safe in this future world either. Big cities, which in your own time are places full of wonder, demonstrating the heights of human architectural ingenuity, are now broken down, dirty, strewn with trash and feces and leftover hypodermic needles. At night, roving bands of angry young people come out and burn down buildings and fight with police officers, who seem powerless to stop them. Sometimes a character in the story makes a wrong turn while driving through the city at night and finds his car surrounded by these feral youths, who surround him, hit his vehicle with rocks and clubs, and demand he stop and allow them to beat and rob him. Panic runs through his body, and he wants to floor the gas and escape, but he remembers the story of the last man who did that – he went to prison for life. Where are the police to keep order, you wonder? Where is the government?


Government in this world is entirely broken. You think of your own government – President Eisenhower is a calm and fatherly influence on the country, and despite being of the opposite party, Senator Johnson and Speaker Rayburn work together with the president to maintain peace and prosperity. Despite their disagreements, Congress is full of serious adults. Not so in the novel you are reading. Politicians are childish and vain, going on the info net and calling each other infantile names and using gross profanity and vulgarity. Politicians abuse their authority to investigate and undermine their opponents rather than engaging in serious debate. Politics in the future is full of hatred and violence, and it feels like open warfare is primed to break out at any moment. You are almost afraid to turn the page. Is the author already planning a sequel where America is plunged into a second civil war?


You think about how far humanity has come in your own lifetime. You remember growing up in the Depression – times were hard, but families stuck together and helped each other, and they made it through okay. You remember marching through France in 1945, seeing the depths of human depravity in war and even genocide. That was behind you now, and both you and the world were recovering from the experience. Why would anyone choose to go backwards, to return to a time of violence, of wanton destruction? Why would anyone want to read about such a depressing future?

You have had enough. You close the book and toss it in the trash can. None of the conveniences of life promised by this vision of the future are worth the soullessness and social destruction that has been wrought upon the country you love. Why bother reading this garbage when all it will do is depress you? You look out your bedroom window, feeling wistful. The last hints of sunset are fading on the horizon, and the stars are beginning to appear in the sky. You can still hear children playing in the summer twilight, children without a care in the world. It is 1955, and America’s best days are ahead of her. She has conquered tyranny, created unlimited prosperity, and there is nowhere to go but up.


Now, return to the present day. Take a look around. Check the headlines. Take a walk to the grocery store and look at the faces of the shoppers. Drive through downtown Portland, Detroit, or San Francisco – if you dare. Do not bother asking if such a situation can happen here – it already did. What would have been a dystopian horror in 1955 is our reality today. Consider the world that we have lost; the world that was taken from us. Consider how we can build that world again.


America Under Judgment

This post has been a long time coming. It has been sitting in my drafts folder since January of 2019, just a few weeks after I first created this blog. I have long believed that a blind faith in the continued existence of the indivisible United States of America is a weakness that prevents us from doing what is necessary to prepare for her eventual fall. The message of this blog and podcast is not hopelessness, but preparation. Those who do not read history are condemned to repeat it, while those that do are condemned to play the part of Cassandra.

Nearly two years ago I had the idea to start a blog and a podcast that chronicled the decline and fall of the United States as it happened in real time. I remember reading stories about bridges collapsing and trains derailing and I wondered how future encyclopedias would write of this era in American history. I realized that they would sound just like our own entries on the end of the Roman Empire, or the Ottoman Empire, or many other bygone civilizations. I was not the first to notice this trend, of course. Aaron Clarey wrote his magnum opus “Enjoy the Decline” nearly a decade ago, and many other pundits and thinkers have been writing about the downward trajectory of American culture for even longer than that. Vox Day famously predicted that the United States will have collapsed in some fashion by 2033. I have humbly tried to add my voice to the chorus, to create a contemporary record of the decline and fall of a once-great nation, and to give whatever advice I could to those who would preserve her memory when she is gone.

Every empire, every great civilization rises and falls. Sometimes that fall is gradual, as when the Western Roman Empire slowly collapsed, leaving Europe a patchwork of formerly barbarian tribes that eventually grew into the kingdoms of the medieval era. Sometimes it is sudden, as when the French Revolution toppled the ancien regime seemingly overnight. Sometimes it is gradual, then sudden, as when the Austrians – the successors to the long-lived Holy Roman Empire –found themselves unable to keep pace with the great powers in World War I and were picked apart by the victorious allies. Sometimes a shell of the old empire remains, as with Great Britain after World War II. Sometimes a civilization collapses, only to be reborn as something different, as when the Roman Republic transformed into the Empire. It remains to be seen which form the ultimate fall of America will take.

Despite these examples from history, there are many in America who, even today, believe that it cannot happen here. The United States of America is special, they say, and the regular patterns of history do not apply to us. Some believe that there is an exceptionalism about the American people that will save us from the same historical forces that have destroyed other empires in the past. Some even suggest that there is a magical quality in our very dirt that makes us different. Many conservative Christians believe that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are inspired by God Himself, just a step below the level of Holy Scripture, and that the American people are a modern-day version of biblical Israel – chosen by God to spread the gospel throughout the world.

After all, many of America’s founders saw something uniquely divine about the way this country was born. How else can you explain how a ragtag band of colonial soldiers defeated the greatest military power on the planet? By any rational account, George Washington and his army should have been finished several times over, but they nevertheless claimed a final victory at Yorktown. How else can you explain how the United States rose from obscurity to become the greatest industrial, economic, and cultural power the world has ever seen? In the blink of an eye, our country went from exploring the continent to exploring the moon. It is clear that God has blessed America throughout her history.

In 1938, as war loomed on the European horizon, Jewish American songwriter Irving Berlin revised his 1918 version of “God Bless America” with some new words:

While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us swear allegiance to a land that’s free.
Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer:

God bless America, land that I love,
Stand beside her and guide her
Through the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans white with foam,
God bless America,
My home sweet home.

One could argue that this prayer on behalf of the American people worked. While Europe and Asia were devastated by war, the United States thrived, coming out of the conflict with the greatest economy in the world. As the Cold War began, America stood for Christianity and freedom, while the godless Soviet Union stood for secular atheism and slavery. God blessed America indeed. Yet what did we do with those blessings? We sent tens of thousands of young men to die in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. We fomented revolution throughout the world, ostensibly for the sake of freedom. We threw off the shackles of Christian morality in the 1960s. We outsourced the very manufacturing economy that once provided good jobs to millions of American families. We won the Cold War, then imported the very socialist ideas that doomed the Soviet Union in the first place. While the eastern European nations that suffered the most under the yoke of Communism have come out of the crucible with renewed Christian fervor, we used our freedom to engage in all sorts of degenerate ideas and practices.

The song “God Bless America” became popular again after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, being sung everywhere from baseball stadiums to the US Capitol Building. As we watched foreign agents using our own technology against us, killing three thousand people in a single morning, we once again united as a nation to implore God to bless our country and to keep her safe from the dark night. Yet that unity did not last long, and it is difficult to see exactly how God has blessed us this time. Sure, our economy quickly recovered, and we have not suffered any further attacks of that magnitude, but now we face internal and external pressures like never before. America needs God more than ever now, but does God still want America? The question few on the conservative Christian right dare to ask is “Why should God bless America?”

Despite what some conservatives believe, the American people are not the capital-P People of God. That distinction belongs to the worldwide capital-C Church, which is the Body of Christ. The United States might once have been useful to God for the furthering of the Gospel, but that utility seems dubious today. Later in this piece I will take a discuss some of the reasons why God might not be inclined to continue blessing America as He once did, but first, let us walk through the history of God’s original chosen people.

The book of Genesis teaches that the people of the world built the Tower of Babel in order to reach and perhaps even conquer Heaven, so God scattered them by giving them each a different language. Out of the chaos He picked one man, Abram, and called him to come out from the pagan tribes and follow Him alone. Calling the man Abraham now, God promised that he would be the father of many nations. Three generations later, however, Abraham’s descendants were forced to leave the land of the promise for Egypt due to a famine. Their Egyptian hosts eventually decided to enslave them, and for four centuries the people of Israel toiled in a land that was not their own.

Consider that – four hundred years of servitude. That is nearly twice as long as the United States has been an independent country. Four hundred years ago this year was when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. That is a long time. The Israelites thought God had forgotten them, but God operates on a different timetable than humanity. The Apostle Peter said, “…do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” God had a plan for His people, and in due time He used Moses to lead them out of Egypt and eventually back to their promised land.

For several centuries, the people of Israel lived in a sort of theocracy, where God raised up judges to administer the people, but without a strict hierarchy. The book of Judges says it this way, “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” It was the very sort of anarcho-libertarian community that many desire today, an ancient CHAZ, if you will. Yet this form of society did not hold up. The people demanded a king who could consolidate authority and raise Israel to the same level as other regional powers such as Egypt and Assyria. Israel’s final judge, Samuel, warned the people that a king would send their sons away to war, make their daughters into servants, and confiscate their goods as taxes. He warned that, “…you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.

The people persisted, so God decided to let them have what they wanted and let them have it good and hard. Their first king, Saul, was everything a king should be – tall, handsome, strong, charismatic – yet he ended up going mad. The second king, David, did not initially look the part but eventually made Israel into a regional power, despite his own personal failings. David’s son Solomon ruled over a golden age for Israel, building a magnificent Temple and expanding their borders to their greatest extent. His son, however, could not maintain control and the kingdom fell into civil war. The House of David ruled over the Southern Kingdom of Judah after the Northern Kingdom of Israel split away.

Throughout the Old Testament, God continually promised Israel that He would protect and nurture them as long so long as they did not worship other gods, yet Israel could never seem to hold to that bargain. Immediately after the civil war, the northern kingdom began worshiping idols due to their isolation from the Temple in Jerusalem. God delayed His judgment for several centuries, however, continually giving them a chance to repent, but eventually He allowed the bloodthirsty Assyrians to conquer the northern kingdom and scatter its people throughout their empire.

The southern kingdom fared somewhat better, but eventually they too met the same fate. The story of the kingdom of Judah is of apostasy followed by restoration followed by apostasy again. A wicked king leads the people into idolatry, then a good king restores the Law of Moses and proper worship, only for another wicked king to undo it all again. God eventually had enough. He allowed King Nebuchadnezzar to lay waste to Jerusalem, demolish Solomon’s Temple, and carry away the people of Judah into slavery in Babylon.

In a verse that you often see posted on Facebook by conservative Christians, God says that, “…if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” Yet repentance and restoration are not something that a people can do once and then call it good. Each generation must make their own choice to either follow God or leave the path of righteousness. Once a people fall into idolatry and apostasy, it is extremely difficult to return to the narrow way. As Ronald Reagan said in many speeches throughout the years,

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

Rather than using our freedom to honor our Lord and follow His ways, we squandered it on libertinism and degeneracy. Perhaps we are not so different from ancient Israel after all. Like America in the year 2020, God had extended His grace to the people of Judah because of the faithfulness of their fathers. Yet the patience of God is not eternal. Eventually He will exact judgment. The books of Isaiah and Ezekiel depict God’s message of doom for the people of Judah. In these prophecies, God explains not only how His people will be punished but specifically why they are being judged. Like an unfaithful wife, the people of Israel continually left their first love for the temporary pleasures of the world. God gave Israel its just deserts by allowing it to be plundered by the very foreign powers they envied all along.

Yet the love of God is greater than we can comprehend. Despite their sin and idolatry, God allowed His people to return to their promised land. King Cyrus of Persia, after conquering the decadent Babylonians, allowed the Jews to go home and rebuild the Temple. There they stayed for several more centuries. The Persians eventually fell to Alexander the Great, whose generals ruled vast territories after his death. Judas Maccabeus led a revolt against King Antiochus, and for a brief time, Israel was a free nation again. In the year 63 BC, Roman general Pompey the Great was on a tour of conquest in the east. Two rival claimants to the Israelite throne approached Pompey, each offering bribes to secure his support against the other. This was short-sighted, however, as Pompey besieged Jerusalem and established Roman hegemony over the land. By the time of Christ, Israel was now Judaea: just another province of the vast Roman Empire.

It was in this place at this time that God chose to introduce His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This was the event that all human history had been building to, and it was the entire reason that God called Abram out of the paganism in the first place. The prophets of God had been telling of the coming Messiah, or Savior, for two thousand years. After Christ’s death and resurrection, many Jews heard His message and followed Him, becoming the first Christians. Yet the Jewish establishment resented Christ, denouncing Him as a liar, a charlatan, and a rebel. They had expected a Messiah who would free the Jews from Roman oppression, not one who would die for their sins. They persecuted the early church, but soon had bigger things to worry about. About thirty years after the Resurrection, the people of Judaea revolted against the Roman Empire. Titus, son of the Emperor Vespasian, laid siege to Jerusalem and eventually took the city by force. Like Nebuchadnezzar before him, Titus destroyed the Temple and carried off its riches to a foreign capital. Our Lord Jesus had known it was going to happen and had wept over Jerusalem before His death.


Several decades later, Simon bar Kokhba raised the remnant of the Jews in rebellion yet again. Some Jewish rabbis even proclaimed him to be the long-awaited Messiah who would finally throw off the Roman yoke. Yet it was not to be. The Romans once again took Jerusalem, this time forcibly scattering the Jews into what would become a two-millennium diaspora that only ended in 1948 with the establishment of the new State of Israel.

For a long time, the Christian Church believed that the destruction of the Second Temple and the scattering of the Jews were God’s judgment on the people of Israel for rejecting Jesus Christ, in the same way that Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of the First Temple was judgment for their idolatry. This view has become politically incorrect today. After the Holocaust, many Christian leaders have been hesitant to condemn the historical Jewish people for much of anything out of fear of being labeled anti-Semitic. That is a discussion for another day, however. My point is that if God allowed such destruction to be visited upon His Chosen People back then, what hope do we have in America? If God does not judge America for our evil choices today, then what can we make of His justice? Ruth Bell Graham, the wife of the late evangelist Billy Graham, once said, “If God doesn’t punish America, He’ll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.”

When the Visigoths sacked Rome in AD 410, it was the first time in eight hundred years that a foreign army had breached the gates of the eternal city. A century after Constantine, many Christians had already begun to associate the political power of Rome with the spiritual power of the Church. Watching their holy city on fire shook their faith tremendously. St. Augustine had to remind them that the true Kingdom of Heaven was not geographically located in a specific place on earth. God was bigger than Rome, and the sack of Rome did not mean the end of Christianity. In fact, it was only the beginning. Many conservative Christians, especially evangelical Protestants, see the United States of America as the New Rome, the modern political center of the Christian Church. We tend to ignore anything that happened between the Resurrection and the American Revolution. Like the 5th century Christians, however, we need a reminder that God is bigger than our national borders. Jesus Christ is not American. The Christian Church existed before American was founded and will endure long after America is gone. We must have the right perspective.

What of the United States of America in 2020? What have we done to deserve God’s continual blessings?

The great sin of the people of Israel was idolatry – abandoning the worship of the one true God in favor of idols carved by hand. We tend to think of idolatry as an ancient sin that does not affect us today, but consider this: How many times have you gone to a Sunday church service and seen men and women wearing football jerseys? How many parents have outsourced the teaching of truth to their children to mass media? How many so-called Christians place so-called “social justice” above the truth of the gospel of Christ? As I speak, a new secular religion is developing in America. This religion is based on racial division, on socialist economic theories, and it makes government our new god. Is this new American religion any different than when Israel turned to Baal and Asherah?

While our media makes headlines out of every death from COVID-19, our nation is still quietly murdering more than 200,000 unborn children per month. Even our conservative Christian elected officials find it difficult to muster the political willpower to stop government funding of abortion mills like Planned Parenthood, much less ban the barbaric practice entirely. Even when undercover video revealed that Planned Parenthood literally sells baby parts, most of America could not care less. Since the Supreme Court imposed legalized abortion on America in 1973, more than sixty million unborn babies have been brutally killed. That is more than ten Holocausts worth of human beings. Do we seriously expect God to bless America after all that?

Our media and public schools are pushing sexual propaganda on children as young as five years old. Pedophiles, homosexuals, and transgender activists have gotten themselves put in charge of curricula in our schools and are using their position to groom our children. Libraries host demonic-looking drag queens to propagandize children in the name of tolerance. Even cartoons are used to sexualize young children. One of the most grievous sins of ancient Israel was offering up their own children in sacrifice to the pagan god Moloch. Today in America, too many Christian parents offer up their children on the alter of inclusivity and tolerance, allowing them to be brainwashed and turned into broken degenerates. Even some conservative leaders tell us that transgenderism and drag queen story time are ok, just alternate lifestyle choices that we have no right to criticize. Our society castrates our boys and mutilates our girls, and when we speak out, we are called intolerant and hateful. Is God going to bless this America?

The United States could once have been called a Christian nation. Our founding documents all paid proper homage to God as the source of morality and justice in the world, and God was still a reality in media, in politics, and in schoolrooms as late as the 1960s. Today, nearly any public acknowledgement of the reality of God is denounced and censored in the name of tolerance. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, written to keep the federal government from establishing a specific denominational church such as the Church of England, has now been used to erase Christianity from the public sphere altogether. Courts force cities to remove crosses from public memorials, and schools go out of their way to pretend that Christmas and Easter do not exist. We have been propagandized to believe that traditional religion is something best kept to ourselves, even as the secular social justice religion is pushed down our throats at every turn. Should God bless an America that has explicitly rejected Him?

Public morality is a joke nowadays. Before the 1960s, people still committed fornication and adultery, and they were still covetous and deceitful, but everyone agreed that there was an objective moral standard. Today, not only have we erased the standard, we have inverted it. Chastity and faithfulness are mocked. Honesty is ridiculed. Whereas Christianity traditionally preached that there were seven especially deadly sins, the modern secular religion has turned those sins into virtues. Pride is now celebrated, especially pride in the most degenerate practices. Envy is at the heart of socialism, which is becoming more popular each day. Lust is promoted all over mass media. It would be one thing if Americans were simply falling short of a moral ideal – nobody is perfect. However, today we glory and boast of our great sins. Do you expect God to bless an America that calls good evil and evil good?

Charitable organizations take your money to make their CEOs rich. Government taxes us to death in order to fund foreign wars and promote gay rights in Africa. The conservative movement could not even conserve the women’s restroom. Churches skip the gospel in favor of meaningless pablum and social justice nonsense. Tens of thousands of young people are dying from hopelessness in our cities and rural towns while we send missionaries to China. American Christians are too busy watching sports on television to care that their nation is rotting away. Young people are leaving American churches because they see through the façades, never realizing that that the capital-C Church is more than this pale imitation, and that the real Jesus Christ is more than they can imagine. Why should God bless an America that has allowed all these things to go on?

Thomas Jefferson once said, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.” Do you expect God’s justice to sleep forever, and His grace toward the United States to remain in place for all time? If God judged Israel, then surely God will judge America.

If you are wondering what God’s judgment might look like in the future, I have some bad news for you: It is already happening.

In the book of Isaiah, God warns his people what judgment will look like: “And I will make boys their princes, and infants shall rule over them. And the people will oppress one another, every one his fellow and every one his neighbor; the youth will be insolent to the elder, and the despised to the honorable.” Sure, we can see some of this in every generation, but it has certainly intensified in America over the last few years. Just look at the immature spectacle of Congressional Democrats haranguing Attorney General William Barr the other day as an example of this verse. This is the scriptural version of the saying that strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create bad times.

Dr. James White of Apologia Church mentioned in one of his recent livestreams that one of the effects of being under God’s judgment is the placement of weak and unscrupulous judges over the people. Look at what our courts are doing today: District court judges are making things up as they go, abusing their authority to turn this country away from its traditional legal foundations. Rich, powerful, and politically connected people get away with most anything, while the average Joe is punished. Anarcho-tyranny reigns in this country, from the highest levels of government down to the local district attorneys. Over the last fifty years, the Supreme Court has foisted upon us abortion, gay marriage, and transgender rights. Just last week they ruled that the State of Nevada could open casinos while closing churches. Is being ruled by such capricious judges a sign of God’s blessing or of God’s judgment?

The culmination of God’s judgment upon Israel was when He allowed Assyria and Babylon to carry them away to exile, far from their promised land. In America today, the opposite is happening. Rather than being carried off to foreign lands, our lands are becoming foreign to us. The posterity of America’s founders is being drowned out by new immigrants who have no loyalty to our fathers or their philosophies. In fact, many new Americans are outright hostile to the heritage of the very country to which they came. The Israelites had to watch as pagan foreigners tore down their monuments, even the glorious Temple of Solomon that was the center of both their religious and cultural life. Here, we too are forced to watch pagan foreigners tearing down our monuments. The statues of Robert E. Lee, Christopher Columbus, and Teddy Roosevelt are only the beginning, mind you. It will not be long before the woke faithful are sandblasting Stone Mountain and Mount Rushmore, toppling the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial, and bulldozing Mount Vernon and Gettysburg.

The United States of America was the greatest nation in the history of the world, which makes our fall ever more tragic. The gospel of Luke says that, “Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required.” In 1630, Puritan preacher John Winthrop looked ahead to the potential greatness of America, and how God would hold them and their children to account:

The Lord will be our God, and delight to dwell among us, as His own people, and will command a blessing upon us in all our ways, so that we shall see much more of His wisdom, power, goodness and truth, than formerly we have been acquainted with. We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when He shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, “may the Lord make it like that of New England.” For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. We shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God, and all professors for God’s sake. We shall shame the faces of many of God’s worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us till we be consumed out of the good land whither we are going.

Nearly four centuries since Winthrop’s sermon, we look back and see the truth of what he said. America did become the city on a hill, an example of greatness and godliness to all mankind. Yet it also has become the “by-word throughout the world” that he feared. “God is not mocked,” the Scripture says, yet America is mocking God every day, and there will be a reckoning.

President Ronald Reagan invoked Winthrop’s sermon in his Farewell Address, suggesting that America was still a shining city on a hill. However, Reagan’s “morning in America” was only a brief respite on the road to judgment. Like King Josiah of Judah, who rediscovered the law and rededicated his people to the proper worship of God, President Reagan might have bought us a few more years of grace. Nevertheless, he could not stop our inevitable decline and fall. Perhaps the tenure of President Trump will be seen in the same light someday.

Roosh V, the former pick-up artist turned Orthodox Christian, said on Twitter this week that, “It is coming to an end that we live with ease and comfort from the inheritance of the greater men who lived before us.”

America is already under judgment. It is too late to go back and fix things now. Empires rise and empires fall and asking God to bless America in her current state is farcical. The same God who allowed Israel to be wiped off the map is not going to save an even more decadent America. If God would not stop the Goths and the Vandals from sacking Rome in the 5th century, why should He stop the ongoing sack of America in the 21st?

There is a silver lining to all of this, however, and that is that God always saves a remnant of His people. When Babylon sacked Jerusalem and carried the people of Judah off to exile, a remnant returned and rebuilt the Temple. When the Romans sacked Jerusalem and scattered the Jews to the four corners of the earth, a remnant believed in Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah. When the Muslims overran nearly all of Spain, the tiny Christian kingdom of Asturias survived and began the long Reconquista. When God finishes judging the United States of America, be assured that a remnant will survive to continue living out the gospel of Jesus Christ. This remnant will be purified by the fires of judgment – they will not be lukewarm like the modern American church has become. Following the zeitgeist is always the easier road than standing up for eternal truth, but a reckoning is coming. “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”

Pray that you and your family will be part of the remnant. Raise your children in such a way that they will be prepared to lead that remnant back to the hard and narrow way. Do not let yourself become too attached to creature comforts, cheap trinkets, or nostalgia about the America that was. Do not be like the Jews who were looking for the wrong Messiah because they longed for a return to the golden age of yesterday. There is no going back, only forward. Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war; with the cross of Jesus going on before.

We have grown soft over the past few decades. Our future is not likely to be so. It has been incredibly easy to be a Christian in America up until now. Think about the life of a Christian in 2nd century Rome or 8th century Spain. Picture the life of a Christian in Communist China or Iraq today. That is the future that surely awaits the Christian church of America in the coming decades. Last weekend, Pastor John MacArthur of Grace Community Church held services against an explicit ban by the governor of California, who threatened to shut off their water and power if they proceeded. It was a bold stand, but it is nothing compared to the courage that will be needed in the future. Yet it is in persecution that the Church is forged and refined. At the close of his sermon on Sunday, MacArthur proclaimed that, “This is not a problem to be feared. This is a triumphant hour for the Church to be the Church.”

Let us close with a prayer that God bless America once again. Remember, though, that America is not just a place, and it is not merely an idea. America is a nation; it is a people – specifically the people who came to these shores hundreds of years ago. Remember that one of the reasons our fathers came here in the first place was to worship God outside the constraints of both Rome and Westminster. Let us pray that God bless our families and our communities, that God bless our children and their children, and that God preserve in us a remnant of Western Civilization and the America that was, and perhaps will be again. May God will find us faithful when having faith is difficult. May we be the remnant that will endure the hard times to come.

May God bless you all.

From the Ground Up

Throughout the month of June 2020, a motley group of black activists, antifa rioters, and lazy bums occupied half a dozen city blocks in Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood. This Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, or Capitol Hill Occupy Protest, depending on who you ask, stood for weeks as a symbol of inspiration for the socialist left and of derisive mockery for those on the right. The day after protesters claimed the streets and put up barricades, Seattle’s extreme left-wing mayor Jenny Durkan tweeted, “The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone is not a lawless wasteland of anarchist insurrection – it is a peaceful expression of our community’s collective grief and their desire to build a better world.” A month later, after several people were murdered in street fights in the CHAZ and the protesters made their way to her house, Durkan began singing a different tune. Finally allowed to do their jobs, the Seattle Police Department quickly cleared the occupation.


The CHAZ was an example of left-wing localism, and like most left-wing attempts at community autonomy it failed spectacularly. Some people in the CHAZ started a garden, but it was clear from most of the pictures that they had no clue as to what they were doing. If not for the pizzas delivered from a nearby Dominos, the denizens of the CHAZ might well have starved long ago. These people had absolutely no plan for self-sufficiency. The city of Seattle generously provided them with portable toilets – I hate to think about what it would have smelled like without them, much less with them. The modern socialist conception of community is a bunch of activists holding hands, singing songs, speaking truth to power, spraying graffiti on other peoples’ property, and marching for some vague and undefined concept of justice. However, they have no plan for food, water, waste, electricity, or the other things that separate humanity from the animal kingdom. Many of us on the right at least share the desire to escape the system. We envy our forefathers who left Old Europe for the New World, and then left the crowded east coast for the Old West. Many of us dream of escaping the rat race and building a cabin in the woods or a ranch in the prairie.


The socialist believes that human nature can be changed, with greed and ambition able to be removed from ourselves so that we can live in perfect cooperation. Left-wing communities are built upon this idea, relying on the cooperation of its members to survive. We all know that human nature is in fact unchangeable, which is why these experiments inevitably fail. Conservatives know that mankind is greedy and ambitious, and so our communities are based on the idea that we all contribute to society by doing what is best for ourselves and our families. Most right-wing experiments in self-sufficiency are never heard of because they quietly succeed. Only in cases where something goes horribly wrong, such as at Ruby Ridge or Waco, do they make the news. On the other hand, left-wing experiments usually fail, as the CHAZ did. The Oneida community in New York was a proto-socialist commune that existed for a few decades in the mid-19th century, which was still more successful than the hippy communes that have been tried ever since. It is ironic that, for all their socialist pretensions, the people of the CHAZ developed social structures such as walls and barricades, armed security, and strict vetting of visitors – the same things for which they call President Trump “fascist”.


The left-wing socialist worldview is of a nation built from the top down. They believe that the ideal government is one where all the smartest people are in charge, micromanaging the entire country from a distant capital. This sort of central planning means that government bureaucrats will decide how much money you earn, what goods and services will cost, what your children must learn in school, and how the land in your city or town is used. Government officials will decide what is allowed on television or YouTube, and what you can say on social media, in print, and even in person. Many leftist pundits and politicians in America look longingly at Communist China, where the government can decide to raze a village to put up a new factory, run freeways across any piece of land they please, or force millions of people to move across the country, all in the name of industrial progress. Here in the United States we have pesky things like property rights that get in the way of these utopian dreams. Many leftist pundits also envy the ability of the Chinese Communist Party to censor speech and control thought, and want to bring that to America as well.


It was this very idea of a distant tyranny that our founding fathers rebelled against in 1776. King George III and his Parliament had tried to micromanage the colonies from across the Atlantic Ocean. Many of these colonies had developed from the ground up – creating their own charters and representative governments – and they naturally resented the control exerted by their faraway monarch. They declared their independence, not only from Great Britain, but eventually from the idea of monarchy altogether. The new United States government would be one in which power ultimately resided with the people, growing from the ground up rather than the top down. The very words of the Declaration of Independence speak to this idea: “…to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This was indeed a revolution against the idea that kings were chosen by God to rule a people, or even that kings derived their powers from the consent of their lords. America was a populist nation from the very beginning.


The original thirteen states met together as sovereign bodies to form a confederation, joining themselves together under one flag for the purposes of defense and organization. The question of whether these sovereign states had the right to ever leave this confederation was not firmly answered until the Civil War. For the first century of the United States, the government in Washington DC was not interested in micromanaging the lives of its citizens, but instead remained focused on big picture issues. It was not until the progressive revolution of the early 20th century and the enormous expansions of federal power through the New Deal and Great Society that the federal government became interested in your personal life.


Today we find ourselves in an essentially totalitarian society, where a central government influences almost everything in our lives, and there is no way to escape its reach. The federal government has become an invisible yet ever-present third party to nearly every interaction and transaction within our communities. Every industry has mountains of federal regulations that businessmen must navigate lest they be fined out of existence, and that is on top of regulations at the state and city levels. Because our national bureaucracy has grown so powerful, activists on all sides spend a lot of time, energy, and cash to take control of that beast of a federal government. More than two billion dollars was spent in the 2016 presidential race, while more than ten billion was spent in House and Senate races in each of the last two election years. Every two and four years we fight like mad to see who controls the whole thing, while mostly ignoring what is happening at the local level. Too few Americans can name the president, vice-president, and their state’s senators and congressman. Of those who can, how many can name their own mayor and city council, or county commissioners? This is surely not how our founding fathers intended for this country to work.

United States Capitol Building east facade - Washington DC Unite

The strongest civilizations in world history were always built from the ground up. The Roman orator Cicero summed it up over two thousand years ago: “The first bond of society is marriage; the next, our children; then the whole family and all things in common.” A man and a woman join themselves in marriage, which is the lowest and strongest bond in society. From that marriage come children, a family. These families join with people of the same background, the same beliefs, and the same common heritage to form communities. These communities form cities, and then states, and then a nation. Former House Speaker Tip O’Neil was fond of saying that “all politics is local.” The place where you can exert the most influence as at the lowest level – first in your own family, and then in your community, and then in your state.


A community is a group of people who trust each other. When a group of people shares a common culture and heritage, trust is high. There are still small towns in America where people do not feel the need to lock their doors at night, and where a man’s word is still his bond. A community where everyone knows everyone else, speaks the same language, goes to the same church, and trusts each other is one in which people do not fear being taken advantage of, or accosted by strangers and criminals. These are small remnants of what once made America great in the first place. Think about life before telecommunications were invented: A man’s community was everything to him. The life of a solitary mountain man was not for most people. A man and his neighbors shared and traded with each other, often went to the same church, and belonged to the same fraternal organizations. If there was a war to be fought, all the men of the community would join up together, and even fight together. For the pioneer and the city-dweller alike, community was life, but solitude was death.


Telephones and automobiles began the process of scattering communities across the country, while jet airplanes made it possible to go anywhere in the USA in less time than it took a man on foot to walk to the nearest town. Today, the internet enables a man to live in a cabin in the woods and still make a decent living working from home. The modern world has dissolved our old communities, leaving more than three hundred million Americans each with our own individual connections to the central government rather than to each other. Whereas atomization and solitude were deadly in the old days, now it is almost encouraged. Turn on the news, or social media, and you can join with millions of other spectators in watching the daily life of politicians, celebrities, actors, and musicians, while remaining blissfully unaware of what is going on in your own neighborhood. Such an atomized society is in danger of becoming entirely dependent on a central government to meet their needs, rather than trusting our own local communities. As our connections with the rest of the country have grown, we have gone from being a high trust society to a low trust society. We have become familiar with the national news stories and personalities while fearing the unknown in our own neighborhoods. Hence, we lock our doors.


While many conservatives were focused at the top – the White House, the Senate, the Supreme Court – the left slowly and surely took over our communities. Over the past few years, various left-wing groups – many of whom are funded by George Soros – have been spending a great deal of money to get their candidates elected to local positions such as District Attorney and Secretary of State. What the right realized perhaps too late is that people in these positions have much more opportunity to influence or even ruin our lives and our communities than do the people in Washington DC. We have all seen the stories about rioters being released from jail with no charges filed by Democratic prosecutors while law-abiding people who host a church service or open a hair salon in violation of the coronavirus lockdown face prison time. Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard, a black man running for reelection amid his own scandals, charged the police officer who killed Rayshard Brooks last month with felony murder, even though the officer was just doing his job. Just this week, a California couple was charged with a hate crime for painting over a giant “Black Lives Matter” mural that was stenciled into a city street. The District Attorney charging the couple is Diana Becton, who was elected in 2018 with support from a George Soros-funded political action committee. Elections matter; local elections matter!


I often lament the anarcho-tyranny that is going on throughout our society, but in a way, we have let this happen. While we were distracted by the national stories and the political horse races, the left just walked in and took control of our cities and towns. We tend to grow complacent during good times, taking for granted our local elective offices and figuring that they will continue to operate as they always have. We look at the presidential election map, see that our state has been red for the last fifty years, and figure everything will be okay. Then one day we wake up and see our local prosecutor is charging a driver for failing to allow themselves to be beaten by an angry mob. We see our local elections officials certifying obviously fraudulent votes. We see our local Republican leadership suddenly full of progressives who took over the party because they were willing to spend the time and energy to do it while we sat at home posting on Twitter. We look at the electoral map and suddenly realize we are living in a blue state.


A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to represent my community as an alternate delegate at my state’s Republican Convention. Political conventions are one of the few remaining expressions of pure American tradition, along with county fairs, rodeos, and high school football games. (Is it any wonder that these are the things are being canceled by extreme left-wing governors?) It was at this event that the state party platform was finalized, that party officers were elected, and that measures were drafted to be sent to the GOP representatives in the legislature. This is where the direction of the ship of our state was decided. Over the next few months, the engine of that ship will be revved as party volunteers work hard to get out the vote for Republican candidates.

IMG_8859 (1)

I know that the Republican Party is far from perfect. They tend to pander for minority votes, they are far too quick to apologize, and they often attack our own side with much more vigor than they spend fighting the left. However, elections in America are usually a binary choice, and the Republican candidate is almost always going to be the better option for liberty and freedom. Third parties in America simply do not work. At the presidential level, a third party has not won a single electoral vote since 1968, when Governor George Wallace carried the South. Libertarians and Greens sometimes gain ground at the local level, but like most of us their attention is usually diverted by the national elections. Whatever political capital the Libertarians gain at the local level is always wasted on quixotic campaigns by candidates like Gary Johnson or Jo Jorgenson. The best way for American patriots to fight for the cause of liberty is to work within your local Republican Party. Local politics are important, but 99% of people simply go to the polls for the big elections and assume that everything else is in good hands. It is up to you to be those hands.


A great example of this is the 2012 Republican presidential primary. Mitt Romney became the nominee, while outspoken libertarian Ron Paul came in a distant third. However, many young people were inspired by Paul’s stance on liberty and so made the time to gain influence in their local parties. They pushed for more liberty-minded positions in the party platform and took over many party officers’ seats. Actions like these are not as exciting as presidential rallies, but they make a difference over time. One could argue that the groundwork for President Trump in 2016 was at least partly laid by the Ron Paul faction in 2012. We tend to think about party leadership being comprised of a brahman class of Ivy Leaguers sitting around making rules in distant smoky rooms, but like America herself, the parties are built from the ground up. One day you go to a local party meeting, the next you are at the convention, you volunteer to knock on some doors, and in a few years you are a Precinct Committee Officer, or a District Chairman, or even the State Chairman. The future belongs to those who show up.

2012 Republican National Convention: Day 2

In general, the Right wants to be left alone, while the Left wants to impose a totalitarian socialist state. This puts us at a disadvantage right off the bat. Many on our side did not even realize we were under attack until it was too late. Astoundingly, there are some who still do not take the left’s war on America seriously. Some on the right still give the left the benefit of the doubt, assuming that we can all peacefully disagree over policy. Some still believe that we can vote our way out of this mess, or that the courts are going to save us. Many on the right assume that when the shooting starts, our side will easily win. None of these things are guaranteed. The left is organized, while we are not. The left has a vision of what their America could be, while we cling to rose-colored memories of the America that was.


No man is an island. As much as we all fantasize about retreating to our wilderness redoubts and holing up in our guarded compounds to wait out the coming storm, that is not realistic for most people. Security will not be found in mountain hideouts but in your local community. We must regain the sense of community that our forefathers took for granted, before telephones, the internet, and 24/7 cable news directed our attention elsewhere. As the entropy of our nation increases, the importance of maintaining close ties with your neighbors grows. When the federal government finally collapses under its own weight, then it will be up to governors and legislatures to lead their sovereign states again, as it was before the Civil War. If the socialist left completes their revolution and takes over Washington DC, then the strongest resistance will be from solid red states such as Oklahoma, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, and West Virginia. In states that have already fallen to the progressive revolution such as New York or California, remember that many counties in these states remain solidly conservative. Once secession starts happening – and mark my words, it will, one way or another – these red counties will find themselves united as lines on the map are redrawn.


As the decline and fall of the United States continues accelerating in the coming years it is important to know who will have your back. All politics is local, and America is built from the ground up. The time to start building community is today. You can find allies all around you: in your local political party, your local Chamber of Commerce, gun clubs, homeschool groups, and even neighborhood associations. If you look around and find that you are the only conservative in your city, then perhaps it is time to move. Remember, though, that our media has a vested interest in convincing us that we stand alone. They fear a united conservative citizenry in America. Even in blue states and blue cities, there might be more on our side than you think. Perhaps they are waiting for you to reach out and build the bonds that will form a new community. Just as it was three hundred years ago, solitude means death, but the tribe, the community, will live. The lone wolf dies, but the pack survives. Build your pack today so you can survive what is coming tomorrow.


Banned From Twitter

I assumed that I would eventually be banned from Twitter. They eventually come for all truth-tellers: Milo Yiannopoulos, Zerohedge, Laura Loomer, Katie Hopkins… they will surely ban President Trump the moment they think they can get away with it. This week, the priestly censors came for me.

Oddly enough, it was not for my viral tweet suggesting that, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions, that President Trump should rule like a king. It was not for my habitual use of the “drooling retard” meme. It was not even for my retweets of notorious thought criminals like Nick Fuentes, Ann Coulter, or Jon Del Arroz. No, it was for an entirely innocuous tweet reminiscing about the boxes of food that graced my kitchen counter as a child:


Perhaps an algorithm went overboard looking for any mention of Aunt Jemima, after the Quaker Oats company inexplicably bowed to mob pressure to remove the character from their artificial syrup products. Rather than deleting the tweet and serving my twelve hour sentence, I appealed, because this ban was capricious and absurd.

Thirty-six hours later, no response. Sure, it would have been quicker in retrospect to simply give in. But that is what they want us all to do. They want us to simply accept their arbitrary and capricious rules, granting them the moral authority to determine what speech is acceptable in the public square. I do not wish to grant them that legitimacy. Twitter, Facebook, and Google have captured a near-monopoly of social media discourse, and are now using their power to decide what we are allowed to discuss. It is long past time for the government to treat these companies as common carriers. The phone company is not allowed to disconnect you because you said something they disagreed with; so it should be with social media.

I am just a small person in the grand scheme of things; a writer and thinker with a few hundred followers. This (hopefully temporary) ban does not impact my ability to pay the bills or provide for my family. What if it did, though? What if I had a business that relied on Twitter or other social media outlets to gain and maintain clients? What if I sold books or other content through social media? Social media companies should not have the power to ruin someone’s livelihood on the whim of some low-level social justice warrior employee. I know of many content creators on YouTube who were making a good living, only for the company to suddenly demonetize their entire library without explanation. This is wrong, but this is also a warning that we should be careful about relying on companies that hate us.

I have learned a few things from this short vacation from Twitter. First, I did not realize how much I had come to rely on Twitter to keep up on breaking news. I do not watch TV, and I generally stay away from big news websites. I follow a wide enough variety of people on Twitter that if something important or interesting happens, I hear about it fairly quickly. For the past two days I have felt like I am living in a bubble, blissfully unaware of what is going on in the wider world.

Second, there exists an entire alternate universe of people who have been banned by mainstream social media. The problem with finding free speech replacements for Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube is that there are so many options. The reason Twitter is the modern day public square is because that is where the public is. No other platform has as many people, from President Trump himself to CEOs, journalists, professors, authors, movie producers, and millions of regular people like me. Every alternative platform bills itself as the new and better Twitter, but how do you choose? One exile might choose Gab, another chooses Parler, another chooses Minds, and another chooses Mastadon. Scott Adams recently promoted Locals, while Ramzpaul has moved over to Slug. If you want to keep in touch with them all, you have to sign up for half a dozen new services. Nobody has time for that.

In any case, I signed up for Parler and followed a few people. It looks like Twitter, but many of the people who post there are exiles from Twitter. Conservative activist Laura Loomer, for example, was banned from all the mainstream social media sites years ago, but she has a prominent presence on Parler. She is currently running for Congress in Florida and seems to be the frontrunner. Yet she is not allowed to speak on most social media platforms. That sounds like election interference to me.

Finally, with so much happening in the world I was hoping to do another livestream soon, but I realized that most of the people who would be interested in watching are on… Twitter. That is where most of my audience is. Streaming without Twitter would be like talking to myself in an empty room. Clearly I need to diversify my presence on the web.

Again, I am just small potatoes here. I doubt I was targeted in any way; most likely an algorithm was too aggressive and Twitter just drags their feet on appeals as a matter of policy. My story, as well as those of the much more prominent writers and thinkers who have been summarily banned, shows that we need regulation of this new public square in order to ensure our speech remains free. Libertarians can argue all they want about how Twitter, Facebook, and Google are “private companies” but the simple truth remains that these companies have enormous power over what can and cannot be discussed in public. In an age when schoolchildren are being doxxed for not sufficiently supporting the Black Lives Matter movement, and where public figures are being fired and blacklisted for holding beliefs that run counter to the social justice zeitgeist, the need for free speech is greater than ever. We, who hold truth as a virtue, must fight for the right to speak that truth in public. The alternative is to give in to the persecution; to become an underground resistance to the totalitarian thought police.

I hope to have my Twitter account back soon. I will not give in, unless they force it, but I will wait out the appeal. In the meantime, find me on Gab and Parler, and maybe a few more alternative platforms soon. I also encourage you to visit and subscribe to the blog’s Telegram channel for updates and discussion.

Barack Obama, Not Donald Trump, Broke American Politics

Dan Carlin is one of the best podcasters in the business. While it takes him six months to put together just a single episode of the Hardcore History podcast, it is always worth the wait. He tells the story of what happened in history like few others can. In addition to Hardcore History, he has another podcast called Common Sense where he discusses current events within the context of history, sort of like the one published here. He presents himself as a centrist, which works well for teaching history, but listening to Common Sense makes it clear that he has a left-wing worldview. On a recent episode, Carlin was talking about why he thought President Trump was different than his predecessors, pointing out his Twitter account, exaggerated rhetoric, and executive orders as things that were not normal for the office of the Chief Executive. His point seemed to be that the unprecedented resistance to President Trump – from news media, both the Democratic and Republican party establishments, and even from within the federal government itself – was fomented, even justified, by Trump’s apparent perversion of normal politics.

With respect and trepidation, I must disagree with Mr. Carlin. I suggest that it was Barack Obama, not Donald Trump, that broke presidential politics.

Let us go back to the beginning. The peaceful transfer of power is one of the defining characteristics of American governance. Throughout world history, succession has always been a flash point for conflict. Medieval societies codified the rules of monarchy and primogeniture precisely to avoid a civil war every time the old ruler died. You can see that kind of chaos in 3rd century Rome, where a new emperor rose every couple of years in the midst of nearly constant conflict. Even with these rules, conflict still arose at the margins. When King Henry I of England died, he had no sons (his son and heir Henry the Young King had died in a shipwreck.) He had named his daughter Matilda as his heir, but a woman succeeding to the throne was not one of the commonly agreed upon rules, so conflict followed. The lords of England supported a cousin of the royal family, Stephen, and this led to decades of conflict called the Anarchy. This is also why King Henry VIII was so obsessed with producing a son: his dynasty would fall into chaos if he did not ensure the succession.


In 1788, George Washington won a unanimous vote of the electors to become the first President of the United States. He was reelected in 1792 but chose not to run for a third term in 1796. This is important: had he run, he would have easily won again, and likely would have died in office. This would have established the precedent that the presidency was a life term, and future presidents would also have stayed in office until they died. Instead, Washington stepped down, establishing the precedent that presidents should not seek more than two terms in office. His successor was his Vice President, John Adams. When Adams ran for reelection in 1800, something remarkable happened: he lost. Adams was challenged by his Vice President Thomas Jefferson, a one-time friend who was now a fierce rival. In many nations throughout history, even to this day, when an incumbent leader loses an election he does not go quietly into retirement, but instead uses his remaining power to invalidate the election and remain in office. Sometimes he uses the military to arrest his opponent. Yet Adams did none of these things. Though stung by the rejection of his country and the ascendance of his rival, he did not throw a national tantrum but instead simply packed his things and went home to his farm in Massachusetts.


This too established a precedent. Every four years, the American people had an opportunity to replace their leader with someone else. In 1824, when no candidate received a majority of electors, the House of Representatives selected John Quincy Adams, despite the fact that General Andrew Jackson had received the most popular votes. Rather than raising an army and marching on Washington, as a jilted Roman general might have done, Jackson instead traveled the country speaking out against what he called the corrupt bargain made between President Adams and Congress. Four years later, Jackson was overwhelmingly elected to the presidency, and continued his populist campaign for two terms.

Imacon Color Scanner

Even the election 1860 was not a departure from the doctrine of a peaceful transfer of power. When Abraham Lincoln was elected president, the southern states who feared his abolitionist aims did not raise their militias and set out to stop him from occupying the White House. Instead, they voted to leave the union. While northerners considered this an act of insurrection, it was not violent – they simply chose to leave rather than trying to work with a leader that they detested. It was Lincoln who raised troops and invaded the South.


Franklin Roosevelt was the first to break the two-term precedent. He was first elected in 1932, taking power early the following year. Little did the American people know that they had just elected a president-for-life. By 1940, the Depression was nearly over, but war loomed on the horizon. Hitler had invaded Poland in September 1939 and was threatening France and Britain. President Roosevelt was committed to supporting the Allies, but isolationist sentiment in the United States prevented him from too much outright support. As the election of 1940 approached, Roosevelt decided that he himself was the indispensable man in America, and that nobody else could possibly have the knowledge and experience to handle the coming crisis. Note that this is the same rationale used by every dictator throughout history.


Roosevelt won a third term in convincing fashion, partly by campaigning as an opponent of American involvement in the escalating war. Pearl Harbor changed that, and Roosevelt led America into World War II. With the war going well and Roosevelt’s popularity sky-high in 1944, Roosevelt saw no reason to step down, easily winning a fourth term. Party insiders were well aware of the president’s ill health, but rather than admitting this to the American people, they instead made sure that Vice President Henry Wallace was replaced on the ticket by their preferred man, Senator Harry Truman of Missouri. Roosevelt would die just weeks after being sworn in for his fourth term, and Harry Truman would be forced to deal with the ramifications of the war, including having to make the decision to use nuclear weapons against Japan.


In his hubris, Franklin Roosevelt had given in to the temptation that George Washington had wisely resisted. George Washington was called “the American Cincinattus” for following in the footsteps of the famous Roman dictator who laid down his power when the crisis was over. Roosevelt, on the other hand, could rightly be called the American Caesar. Many dictators throughout history start off as democratically elected leaders, only to consolidate their power and remain in office until they are deposed or die in office. Adolf Hitler, in fact, became Chancellor of Germany the same year that Roosevelt became President, and died just a few weeks after Roosevelt did. There will always some new crisis or problem that necessitates the suspension of the normal precedents and rules. Roosevelt cited the ongoing Depression and the outbreak of war in Europe as reasons to abandon the old norms. Hitler had used the Reichstag fire as an excuse to grant himself emergency powers. Just this year we have had governors and mayors using the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to exercise invasive powers at every level of society, while the civil unrest of the past few weeks will surely lead to ever more expanded government powers. It is the same playbook every time.


After the death of President Roosevelt, things mostly returned to normal in the White House. American voters, concerned about the another FDR coming along someday, gave the Republicans a large majority in both the House and the Senate who proceeded to pass the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution which prohibited future presidents from serving more than two terms. While President Truman decried this as an unconstitutional constraint upon the will of the voters, he retired in 1952, his prosecution of the Korean War leaving him deeply unpopular. Every president thereafter left office and entered a quiet retirement. Rather than continuing to fight political battles, former presidents instead worked on cementing their legacy, building their libraries, and engaging in non-partisan work for various charities. In the latter half of the 20th century, former presidents rarely criticized their successors. We resumed the tradition of the peaceful transfer of power. For example, after a contentious election in 1960, the losing candidate Vice President Richard Nixon dutifully attended the inauguration of the incoming President John Kennedy. In 1976, Jimmy Carter defeated President Gerald Ford, yet Ford graciously attended Carter’s inauguration as well. It is important for the American people to see their leaders, who might have viciously attacked each other on the campaign trail, come together and engage in the same rituals that have accompanied our presidential transitions ever since the time of George Washington.


The contested presidential election of 2000 was the last great stress test of our political system. When the ballots were counted, Governor George W. Bush of Texas had defeated Vice President Al Gore by a few hundred votes in Florida, giving Bush just enough electoral votes to win the presidency. A general recount in Florida confirmed this victory. The Gore campaign sued in order to keep counting past the deadline, as well as to do extra hand recounts in pro-Democratic counties. The Supreme Court voted 7-2 that recounting only blue counties violated the equal protection clause, and 5-4 that Florida could not continue counting past the deadline. George W. Bush was duly inaugurated president on January 20, 2001. To his credit, Al Gore did not raise an army and march on Washington, though some of his supporters surely wished he had. The Democrats complained and stewed for the next four years, but they allowed the system to work. I am not so sure that this same situation would have had the same outcome if it occurred in the contentious time we live in today.


When Donald Trump was inaugurated president in January of 2017, President Barack Obama sat nearby, as is tradition. What appeared to be the usual peaceful transfer of power was actually cover for a secret coup that had already been set in motion. Nobody knew at the time that Obama had been secretly working with the FBI and the Justice Department to spy on the campaign and transition team of President-Elect Trump. Nobody knew that Obama, Susan Rice, Sally Yates, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and even Vice President Joe Biden were all involved in a plot to wiretap the Trump campaign and to fabricate evidence that they were somehow colluding with the Russian government to steal the 2016 election and subvert American democracy. This conspiracy makes President Nixon’s coverup of the Watergate burglary look petty by comparison. While not quite on the level of using the military to prevent an opposing leader from coming to power, this was darned close. A president who abuses his authority over the law-enforcement and counter-espionage entities within his government to covertly attack his successor has absolutely no precedent in American history.


The purpose of this investigation was to prevent President Trump from having authority over the Justice Department, to winnow away his supporters from political positions, and to eventually oust the president himself, whether through impeachment or by forcing him to resign. Trump had appointed General Michael Flynn, a thirty-year veteran of military intelligence, to the post of National Security Advisor, which would have had authority over the very investigation that the Obama Administration was secretly conducting. Rather than allow this to happen, the conspirators fabricated a charge of lying against General Flynn which forced him to leave office and spend the next three years fighting bogus charges. With Flynn out of the way, the conspiracy was allowed to continue unchecked, leading to the Mueller investigation, the so-called whistleblower report about the Ukraine phone call, and more. This is exactly the sort of behavior you expect from a banana republic, not the Executive Branch of the United States of America.


Anyone who paid attention to President Obama’s tenure in office should not be surprised that he would engage in such deceitful actions. People like Dan Carlin, well-meaning but invariably left leaning, do not see the many ways in which Obama broke presidential norms because they generally agree with the outcomes. When a president is pushing an agenda that you believe in, you are less likely to call out the ways in which he is bending the rules, cutting corners, taking advantage of loopholes, or ignoring precedent. You are just happy to see “progress”. Nevertheless, Barack Obama was unprecedented in many ways. Let me be clear, however, that his skin color has absolutely nothing to do with any of the following points.

Unlike every previous president, Obama grew up outside of traditional American culture. I am not a birther – I believe he was born in Hawaii – but he was raised in a much more international manner than our previous chief executives. The Bushes and the Kennedys were born into American wealth. Bill Clinton grew up in a poor family in Arkansas. Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer in Georgia. Yet Barack Obama was born in Hawaii to a globe-trotting mother who had studied at the East-West Center in Honolulu. His father was a Kenyan nationalist that he would barely know. His mother moved to Indonesia and married Lolo Soetero, an Indonesian Muslim who worked for the government. Obama’s childhood then was somewhat chaotic, being spent in Hawaii, Indonesia, and sometimes with his grandmother in Kansas. He did his undergraduate studies at Occidental College before moving on to Columbia and Harvard. While in college he alternated between portraying himself as a regular American named Barry and an exotic foreigner named Barack. He entered politics in the Illinois legislature, but his first attempt to attain higher office was thwarted by longtime Democrat powerbroker Bobby Rush. When Obama challenged him for his House seat in 2000, Congressman Rush accused Obama of not truly representing the African American community. This accusation was undoubtedly true: Obama was not descended from slaves, and he was born just as Jim Crow was ending. Neither he nor his family had the same experiences as the African American families that had come out of the south to cities such as Chicago.


Steve Sailer suggests that Obama was raised and groomed to be a diplomat or State Department bureaucrat, someone who could bridge the divide between the United States and other cultures. After all, his mother was educated at the East-West Center in Hawaii, which was explicitly created to find common ground between the United States and  Asia. This is what brought Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, into contact with foreign men such as Barack Obama Senior and Lolo Soetero. Yet something strange happened. Rather than shuffling off to an unremarkable career in bureaucracy, Obama rocketed to the White House with breakneck speed. How? Why?

Obama’s rise to power was in part due to his skin color. While conventional wisdom about the United States suggests that we are biased against non-white people, the very fact that Obama was half black meant that he could step into the role of “first black president”. A white Barry Dunham who followed the same career path would probably never have made it to the US Senate, much less the White House. As the first serious black presidential candidate (Jesse Jackson’s 1988 primary run notwithstanding), Obama was a blank slate upon which all of America could paint their aspirations of achieving the dream of Martin Luther King Jr. The fact that he had very little political experience, and absolutely no executive experience, actually helped him here, as he could become whatever people wanted to see.


Barack Obama has never been shy about playing underhanded if it helps him win. In 1996, the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners invalidated the signature submissions of every other Democratic candidate except for Obama, who then won the primary unopposed. In the 2004 Senate race, his cronies got a court to unseal divorce records for his Republican opponent Jack Ryan, which caused him to withdraw, allowing Obama to win once again essentially unopposed. (The GOP flew in Alan Keyes to run in Ryan’s place, but that carpetbagging attempt failed spectacularly.) Before he had even won his Senate race, Obama gave a speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that had media figures tingling. He was immediately anointed as a future president, despite having nearly zero real accomplishments to his name.


During his long campaign for the presidency, Obama always portrayed himself as a uniter, someone who could bridge the divide between blue states and red states, blacks and whites, liberals and conservatives. Once in office, however, his tone changed drastically. He used his filibuster-proof majority in the Senate to pass Obamacare, making promises he could not keep to moderate Democratic Senators in exchange for their support, and then ramming the bill through reconciliation without regard for congressional rules. This naked partisanship resulted in a huge Republican victory in the 2010 midterms, regaining the House of Representatives only four years after losing it in the Democratic landslide of 2006. When President Clinton faced this same situation in 1994, he engaged in political triangulation – moving to the right on some issues in order to compromise with the new Republican majority. Obama, however, chose the opposite tactic. He simply ignored the Republican House, proclaiming that he had a pen and a phone, and did not need to work with Congress to enact his agenda. And enact it he did. Just after the 2012 election, he issued an executive order to cease prosecution of hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens.


Despite campaigning as a uniter, Obama was most definitely a partisan fighter. He told a crowd of Hispanic activists that they could punish their enemies by voting for him. His first Attorney General, Eric Holder, proclaimed himself “the president’s wingman” and promised to use his position to help “our people,” meaning African Americans, not Americans in general. While media today would have you believe that President Trump is controlled by Putin, it was Obama in 2012 who was secretly working with the Russians. At a conference with Putin’s right-hand man Dmitri Medvedev, Obama was caught unawares by a hot microphone saying,

On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space. This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

Imagine such a hot-mic moment like this for President Trump.

The fact that Obama used his authority to spy on the Trump campaign should not have been a surprise. This is the same President Obama that weaponized the IRS to attack conservative non-profit organizations, while lavishly distributing federal grant money to progressive organizations. This is the same President Obama that surreptitiously wiretapped reporter Sheryl Atkinson’s computers because she was working on stories that the administration did not like. Like third-world dictators, Obama was never shy about using his powers to elevate his friends while attacking his enemies. Only in the west is that behavior universally condemned. In many cultures, the entire point of political power is to reward your friends and attack your enemies.


Obama has not followed the traditional path of a former president either. Rather than sitting back and tending to his legacy and finding charitable projects, Obama has led the charge in criticizing President Trump and his Administration. Shortly after Trump’s inauguration, Obama set up a new office in Washington DC where he could continue to coordinate resistance against the new president. Again, this is not like American politics as usual; this is like a banana republic.

My point with all of this is to say that it was really Barack Obama who changed things. President Trump is the natural Hegelian antithesis to the excessive partisanship of the Obama Administration. If Obama had governed from the left-center like Bill Clinton, or had stayed above the fray like George Bush, then the Republicans would probably have gotten away with nominating another milquetoast establishment figure like Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney. Instead, we saw the naked will to power on the part of the left in general and Obama in particular, and voted in someone who promised to fight for the forgotten men and women of America against the deep state bureaucracy that had taken over our government. Trump is not the outlier; he is the natural follow-up to a man like Obama.


I believe that the 2008 election will go down in history as the last time America saw a peaceful transfer of power. Obama beat the feckless John McCain fair and square, and not a single Republican took to the streets, rioted, or tried to undo the results of the election. Even in 2012, after four years of recession and embarrassment, Obama was reelected, and again not a single Republican threw stones or tried to burn down buildings. Yet when Trump won in 2016, the left was unleashed. They rioted in the streets. They demanded recount after recount. They tried to pressure electors to change their votes. They used the last few moments of power in the Obama Administration to begin a bogus investigation that sought to hamstring and eventually oust the new president. They used impeachment. Now they have military leaders writing editorials denouncing the president, with some on the left demanding a military coup. Imagine what November of 2020 will look like. Imagine 2024, and 2028.


If President Trump wins reelection this year, all hell will break loose. The Democrats did not accept the results of the 2016 election, and they surely will not accept them in 2020. The street fights and political battles will make the last four years look calm in comparison. On the other hand, if Trump loses, then few on the right will believe it was done without rampant fraud. Many states have already switched to mail-in ballots, using the pandemic as an excuse. We know Democrats cheat at the polls, and mail-in ballots only make their job easier. If the Democrats do win, however, they will immediately set to work making sure that they never lose again. Say goodbye to the electoral college. Say goodbye to the Supreme Court. Say goodbye to the separation of powers. Say goodbye to the integrity of our elections.

No matter what happens this year, hindsight will show that American democracy ended a long time ago. Our political process has been irrevocably broken; we just do not realize it yet. In their lust for power, Barack Obama and the Democratic Party set us on a course for chaos, and there are no brakes on this train.