Is there a way forward?There is a lot of chatter on social media—particularly on Twitter—about “CW2”....a 2nd Civil War for control of our political and social landscape. Our nation is more divided today than ever before in my 66 years, and this time it is a division between an ascendant progressivist left, and a retrenching conservatives and libertarians.
The left has emerged as a totalitarian movement, promoting violence against individuals who disagree, and passage of laws that crush the rights of the individual in favor of the imposition of collectivist values. They seek abolishment of the most basic of constitutionally protected rights - i.e. religious rights, free speech rights, rights of association, property rights, the right to keep and bear arms, and on and on and on.
There is no end to their avarice for the property and value produced by the labor of others. Freedom loving people are left with three basic choices:
- Bloody civil war.
Surrender is simply not an option. Surrender means to concede that all of great ideas of classical liberalism upon which this nation, indeed all of western thought, is founded, is over and done for...that it necessarily must be replaced by an entirely new system that overtly and deliberately places government in authority over every decision made by individual men and women. It means, quite literally, the death of individual liberty.
There is no value in acquiescence. The net result for those who oppose the deep state will be the same, whethey they fight or not - deliberate marginalization by the political and cultural power centers for those who secretly continue to hold onto the values of liberty, and gradual extermination for those who hold those beliefs strongly enough to actively resist the state.
A bloody civil war, while possibly unavoidable, is NOT desirable, no matter your personal politics. Only a fool would want such a thing. (Likewise, only a fool ignores the possiblity, and fails to prepare himself and his familiy for what might be coming.) Literally millions of people would die. By the end of the first Civil War, more than 655,000 American soldiers had died - and not all were combat deaths. "Only" 214,938 were combat deaths. Many more died much later from their wounds, and many perished in POW camps. Many, including civilians, died of starvation and disease. Total deaths from the first Civil War included about 50,000 free civilian dead, 80,000+ slave deaths (primarily from disease), for a total of somewhere between 650,000 and 1,000,000 total Civil War dead.
And that was a war fought at the very beginning of industrialized warfare. Technological advances in the intervening 150+ years have imparted a lethality to warfare that our Civil War ancestors could not imagine. There are other factors too. For instance, the average American infantryman is better armed than his Civil War counterpart, and is much more efficiently and lethally trained. The average armed American civilian is better armed than his Civil War counterpart. After all, the private sector has benefitted from technology advances too.
And then there is the difficult-to-measure influence of history. ANYbody - civilian or military - engaged in a civil war today, does so with knowledge of our previous history. Given our knowledge of the blood price paid for civil war 150 years ago, how much more or less likely are Americans willing to fight one today?
And one other factor exists, and that is the willingness of America’s all volunteer modern military to engage in total war against it’s own people. There are plenty of civil war theories, but I don’t think that anybody can definitively state whether a CW2 would be fought between the federal gov’t and seceding states, or between individual civilian political factions, or between the federal gov’t, representing one political faction, against a civilian political faction. Whatever the scenario, it leaves a huge chunk of the nation’s population dead, cities become barely habitable high risk environments ruled by gangs, and the countryside becomes a depopulated wasteland. Anyone ignorant of these things would do well to do some research on how the civilian population of the American south fared as the war rolled over them.
No matter how well armed or prepared individual citizens would be for such a calamity, this completely leaves out what could happen vis-a-vis America's place in the world. Would an embattled fedgov't, facing mass desertions as federal troops decide to abandon their posts to go home and take care of their families, ask for a UN resolution authorizing "peace-keeping" troops to invade the country? Would an emboldened North Korea, or Iran, or some other hostile nation-state, take advantage of the situation to unleash a nuclear firestorm on American cities, thereby forever removing the US as a roadblock to their ambitions? Would China put troops ashore in California, claiming it, Oregon, and Washington as the western boundary of their expansionist dreams?
There is NO version of this that does not end with the deaths of maybe as much as half of the population, and the subjugation of the other half under a rule lookng NOTHING like the Founders' vision.
That leaves “Exodus”. So what do I mean by that? First, it's not a physical exodus, but rather a cultural and emotional one.
I found this definition of "defoo":
DeFOOing means to cut off from members of your Family Of Origin (FOO).
I think it begins with a recognition by The People that there are fairly significant cultural differences between different regions of the country and they must defoo from one another to avoid killing one another. For instance, it seems obvious that Texas and Oklahoma have a lot more in common between them - both politically and culturally - than either state has in common with New York or New Jersey. People in these like minded states don’t need to physically leave. It’s not an exodus in the biblical sense. Rather, it’s a recognition by the people of the states in a given region that they have much more in common with one another, than they have with the people of culturally very different states/regions, and even less in common with a distant and grasping gov’t in DC which devotes all of its energy to placing burdens upon their liberties.
So far as I can tell, there is nothing in the Constitution which forbids individual states from making individual trade agreements between themselves and other states, which are not applicable to their trade with the remaining states. There is no Constitutional reason that Oregon and California can't make special trade agreements between themselves, dealing with lumber in exchange for minerals, that requires them to share those terms with all of the other states. There is no reason why Texas can't make an agreement with Louisiana, trading rice for cotton. Over time, these agreements can can gradually remove the need for these states to involve DC in their economies or their affairs.
As these like-minded regional states begin to coalesce into something different than what they were, the distant gov't in DC eventually loses all but the faintest relevance for the people who live in these regions. And why shouldn't it? At some point, there is very little that the DC gov't can do which has any effect on the lives of everyday people, living across the country. Residents of these states inclined toward military service, will begin to join their State Guards (many are suprised to find that their state has a State Guard, which is not part of their state's National Guard), or their state's National Guard units. Eventually, the fedgov't will try to call up a state's National Guard to make up for losses due to desertions, but we may see those Guard units mutiny at the state level, as governors and Nat'l Guard commanders refuse orders originating in DC. When that happens, look for state and Nat'l Guard units to seize the strategic assets in their states.
For example... Imagine a state like Texas, armed with B1-Bs packing nukes out of Dyess/Abilene, backed up by strike figher aircraft out of a half dozen other bases, not to mention air transportation commands, heavy armored brigades and infantry brigades out of Forts Bliss and Hood, etc., etc.; as well as millions of Texans who are either serving or have served as infantrymen, and who took their oaths seriously. And that's just the surface assets. A state like Texas would be very well situated to tell a distant Washington DC to go fuck itself if the DC gov't tried to call on Texan military units to follow unconstitutional orders. And the more distant and irrelevant that govt becomes, the more likely it would be that the governor of Texas, and the generals/colonels in command of Nat'l Guard or Active Duty assets would be to tell DC to go pound sand. In other words, these regional states need to defoo from Washtington DC, and when things get far enough, seizure of federal assets and a more formal recognition of that defoo-ing has to take place.
BUT THAT'S ON THE MACRO LEVEL; HOW ABOUT ON THE MICRO LEVEL?
It's not enough for regions to defoo from the fedgovt. This process has to take place within the states too. In a previous article (Why Being a Prepper is Not Crazy), I wrote some things about the population of Texas. Here's what I said:
I compare Texas to California quite often, because I live in Texas now, and I'm watching it get closer to flipping blue, and I used to live in California and I saw it flip blue. People forget: California used to be a republican majority state. They elected Ronald Reagan as governor - TWICE! California today looks nothing like the state that went for Ronald Reagan for 8 years, followed later by centrist republicans George Deukmejian and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Today, republicans in California are rare as hen's teeth, and the GOP in California has been reduced to the position of those Japanese holdouts who lived in caves and kept fighting for decades after the end of WW2.
That could happen here in Texas, and the way things are going, it's not that far off. And Texas, as much as I like to think of as a special place, is not a lot different from many other states with longtime conservative reputations, where the division between left and right is actually pretty close because of the concentration of leftist thought in large cities. Kentucky, long a bastion of individual liberty, the state that sent Rand Paul to the Senate, is facing the same thing. The bottom line is that within the states, people have to figure out how to defoo from the left.
To complicate matters, the left is actually talking about sending "missionaries" out into the "blood and soil" wasteland, to convince misguided American patriots that they need to sign onto the collectivist vision. A useful idiot by the twitter handle of "@delong" posted a series of tweets 3 days ago (emphasis in red mine):
Second, I at least regard your cultural-historical task as being to wean Republicans away from Trumpist neo-fascism as an orienting frame. Trumpist neo-fascism is, I think, a version of Kentucky-style American nationalism. Kentucky-style American nationalism is a species of 14/— Brad DeLong 🖖🏻 (@delong) February 25, 2019
standard blood-and-soil nationalism. People have moved to Kentucky because they want elbow room and do not like being forced by government and society to conform, and once people are in Kentucky they become the kinds of people who can build a log cabin with their bare hands 15/— Brad DeLong 🖖🏻 (@delong) February 25, 2019
in 48 hours, and bring down a squirrel for squirrel stew at 300 yards. Thus heredity and environment—blood and soil—produce a special kind of person. And those who come to the U.S. hoping to live in, say, a little Mogadishu or a little Kishinev or a little Cuzco cannot fit 16/— Brad DeLong 🖖🏻 (@delong) February 25, 2019
This blood-and-soil Kentucky neo-fascist Trumpist nationalism is, I believe, highly destructive, pernicious, and positively un-American. It needs to be fought against. In the center and on the left we fight it with the opposed "Massachusetts" picture of American nationalism— 17/— Brad DeLong 🖖🏻 (@delong) February 25, 2019
a community engaged in an Errand Unto the Wilderness to build a Utopia that will be a City Upon a Hill, and we are all in this together with no special authorities or leaders because of the Priesthood of All Believers. Never mind that John Winthrop would run screaming from 18/— Brad DeLong 🖖🏻 (@delong) February 25, 2019
Do you SEE that? He acknowledges that people move to the hills because they don't want to be fucked with by gov't, and that it is some kind of sacred obligation of Massachussetts liberals to conduct an "Errand Unto the Wilderness" to build the leftist utopia smack in the middle of Kentucky's "blood and soil" individualists, who are suspicious because they can build a cabin with their bare hands, and shoot a squirrel at 300 yards (HIGHLY improbable...and I'm a pretty good shot with a rifle). This is insanity. The left has no intention of leaving you alone, no matter how far out into the wilderness you retreat. They will pursue you into that wilderness, to impose their utopia on you. He ALSO misses the point that people who move to the Kentucky Hills have NO problem with people from Mogadishu, as long as they also are moving to the hills so that gov't won't fuck with them. AND, he cannot understand why an average American would NOT want a "little Mogadishu" in their town. It has nothing to do with Somalis, and everything to do with Somalia. There are the families of 18 Americans killed at Mogadishu, would probably NOT want their neighborhoods to become just like the place that killed their sons, and this fuckwit thinks they would be unAmerican for thinking so.
This is the mental illness of the left, and it's not just in politics. It's a behavior that is obssessive in most things. It's the most toxic kind of codependence when someone is not content to pester you everywhere about everything, but they have to pursue you to the ends of the earth. They cannot STAND it that someone would not only believe differently than they, but that this person would also be able to get along just fine without them. They seem to need to be able to justify their own existences by asserting that you need them, no matter how patently false that is. You canNOT coexist with such people. You can only defoo from them - not just collectively, but individually. How you do that depends on each of you individually. If it is family members, then you have to disengage from them to the extent possible.
I have two younger brothers, and a 94 year old mother. My mother and one brother are hard core leftists, and the other brother a not very engaged centrist. I can no longer discuss politics with any of them, as it is too frustrating. They all live in California. In the 13 years since I moved to Texas, I've been back to California to visit family at least 8 or 9 times, which has cost me many thousands of dollars over the years. Neither of my brothers has ever visited me here in Texas, and my mother has been here once. I'm done. I have MORE than upheld my share of the deal and have nothing to prove. If they want to come here, I'll be glad to see them, and even put them up and feed them, but I'm not bending over backwards any longer to make a visit happen. If they don't care enough to take some of that initiative on themselves, and come here to see me, then that is a fair indicator of how little they value those relationships. As a philosophical libertarian, I'm not into making people do what they don't want to do. If they don't want to keep in touch, then I'm willing to honor that. I am defoo-ing from them. If they ever change their mind's, I'll be right here.
I defoo-ed from a lot of other people by walking away from Facebook. I still have an account, but I ra-a-a-arely ever look at Facebook any longer, and I certainly don't keep up with what most of my friends or family is doing there. It's not that I do not like, love, or respect most of them. It's just that I don't feel the need to know how they feel about every little thing, and I don't feel the need to convert anybody to my way of thinking. I just ...don't ...care any longer. If something really important happens - a death, a birth, a marriage - they'll let me know. And all the smartest people I know already have a worldview similar to my own. That's not to say that everyone else who believes differently than myself is stupid, but I do think that some of them are like the proverbial grasshopper and the ant, fiddling their time away instead of having their eyes open to how the world around them is changing.
A person whom I once considered a "best friend" for a couple of decades defoo-ed himself from me a few years ago. I still don't know why for certain, other than he must have done a cost/benefit analysis, and decided that my friendship was no longer worth his time or attention. To the best of my knowledge, I've never done anything to offend him. But, I also know that he is a pretty liberal guy, and he maybe decided that having conservative or libertarian friends was an embarrassment. I don't know. All I know is that he hasn't returned an email or phone call from me in 5 or 6 years now. Too bad. He's a great guy. I still send him a Christmas card every year, mostly to let him know that I still think about him from time to time. But being defoo-ed taught me something: I don't need his friendship in order to validate my own existence.
And this is at the root of defoo-ing from family and close friends. If you are confident in your beliefs and your perception of the world, there's no reason to let other people have control over your satisfaction in life. The Heartiste blog has a blog post about defoo-ing. The author says:
Dangerous political rifts aren’t regional, like they were in the lead-up to Civil War I. Now, unbridgeable political and moral chasms separate cities from states, suburbs from towns, neighbor from neighbor, friend from friend, and even parents from children. Civil War II will have a different complexion than CWI. The front lines will be everywhere.
He goes on to quote a tweet from Stefan Molineaux:
Disown leftists.— Stefan Molyneux (@StefanMolyneux) February 26, 2019
Get them the hell out of your life.
Ostracism is the last hope to stop detention camps, starvation and totalitarianism.
Maybe the social shock of being shunned will waken them.
If they win, you’re going to be separated anyway.
Just on their terms
And THAT is really the point... if leftist totalitarianism wins, and you don't give up your "stinkin' thinkin'", you're going to be separated from them by iron bars anyway. So you might as well separate now, while it's a lot less painful. And if at all possible, make it a geographical separation. Remove yourself and your loved ones to a more rural and secluded location. Make it as hard as possible for some fussbudget from Massachussetts unburdened by either morals or testicles to run an Errand Unto the Wilderness for the purpose of convincing you to give up your soil....without a blood price.