No Minister

Posts Tagged ‘Civil War

No Hillbillies wanted

with 9 comments

J. D. Vance first became a public figure back in 2016 with the publication of his book, Hillbilly Elegy, which became a best-seller and was even turned into a movie, which I covered in the post, The Power and the Glory.

Vance himself got almost as much praise as his book, which told the tough story of his upbringing in Ohio and his family connections in Kentucky. A working class background sent him into the US Marines, thus into the Iraq War and back to the US where he graduated from Yale Law school. This caused a lot of Democrats to go all gooey on him and he even got a contributor slot on CNN, although The New Republic criticised him as “liberal media’s favorite white trash–splainer”. Criticising Trump didn’t hurt either.

It was therefore entirely predictable that as he began to move towards the GOP, the Leftie love would die, and the closer he’s gotten to an actual political career – culminating (so far) with his winning the GOP primary to run for the US Senate seat in Ohio held by a retiring Republican, Portman – the more that former love has turned to hate:

In case you still harbored the faintest hope that the party has some moral red line, its unquestioning affirmation of Vance ought to dispel it.… Politicians who wish to defend democracy ought to draw a line at supporting allies who pose a threat to democracy. J.D. Vance is an authoritarian. Granted, this charge is difficult to prove without first handing him power, but the authoritarian nature of his beliefs is established as clearly as it can be without a pile of corpses.

That’s the faithful and prominent Democrat journalist mouthpiece Jonathan Chait, and his main objection seems to be to Vance’s increasingly unwoke opinions, something you’d think Chait might have re-thought given the hits he’s taken from the same sources for identifying many of the same things as Vance. Of course it could also be that Vance being endorsed by none other than the Great Orange One sent Chait into his shallow and hysterical rant.

Other Democrats are piling into Vance as well, but that may be simple partisanship, since they had been eyeing Portman’s seat and thinking they had a shot with their guy Tim Ryan, even in what looks to be a tough year for them. I think they can kiss that goodbye now against a hometown boy with name recognition, solid money backing, a life-story and opinions that fit perfectly with the times, in a state that Trump won by 8 points in 2020.

But it’s not just the Democrats bringing the hate, and after winning the primary Vance went on Tucker Carlson’s show and unloaded on those other people:

“I mean, look, if you think of some my biggest enemies in this primary, you know, the slime ball Karl Rove who shipped a lot of American jobs overseas, got rich in the process, and also sent a lot of Americans to die in stupid conflicts,…. Karl Rove spent a lot of money. He wrote a lot of op-eds criticizing my candidacy. He was even calling my donors after Trump endorsed me, encouraging them to drop my campaign.

So you know, in a lot of ways, what this revealed is that you do have some very corrupt political consultants in the Republican Party who despise their own voters. It was crazy, Tucker. I mean, a couple of days before the primary after I … I think we’d already kind of locked it up. We were way ahead in the polls. A Republican donor group put $2 million on TV to attack me, which really didn’t hurt my candidacy against the other Republicans. It actually just hurt me against the Democrats. So actually the candidacy — my candidacy revealed an incredible amount of corruption in our own party, and I think that’s one of the things that I do have to fight against.

Hoo boy. I’d bet that most Democrats have described Karl Rove as a slime ball and worse (It was GW Bush himself who labelled him “turd blossom“), but to have a Republican go after him so viciously tells you something about the struggle going on inside the GOP even as they look towards a thumping victory in this year’s Mid-Term elections.

One of the things I appreciated about the Trump Presidency was how many of these bastards were forced to pull their masks off, and there are turning out to be quite a few Karl Roves in the GOP, as I pointed out in this post, and which is noted far more forcefully here by the inimitable Ace from Ace of Spades:

  • The Lincoln Project, supposedly a bunch of “True Conservatives” who were only against Trump in 2020, are supporting Democrat Tim Ryan against Vance.
  • Texas Governor Abbott’s chief of staff just signed on to be a lobbyist for the leftwing Soros-controlled Tides Center.
  • Steve Schmidt, McCain’s 2008 campaign manager and the guy who supposedly selected Palin and ran Alito’s confirmation process for the Supreme Court, has now come out supporting abortion.
  • [National Review’s] David French used to pose as rootin’-tootin’ sixgun-shootin’ Severe Conservative himself for years and years before Trump’s embrace of actual rightwing culture war issues caused him to show his real belief system. [He] is no longer pretending he’s against the GOP’s push to get CRT out of the schools because he worries that it might cause suburban PTA Moms to desert us. No, he knows that suburban PTA moms hate this CRT poison and want to get it out of the schools themselves. He supports CRT because, get this, he just supports CRT. And he says you’re not a Christian if you oppose it.
  • Even on a small scale, in one heavily Hispanic Texas District where a GOP guy who’s door-knocked all the Hispanic areas and leads in the Hispanic vote by 5 points over the Democrat, is being opposed by the GOP Establishment (GOPe) guy who loses that vote by 11 points. Gosh, it’s as if the GOPe wants to lose.
  • Even though the GOP is killing the Democrats on the issue of illegal immigration, Senator Thom Tillis and his gang of liberal “Republicans” is back negotiating with Democrats to amnesty illegal aliens and give the Democrats one less thing to worry about in November.

Remember, guys: the permanent DC “Republican” Swamp Dwellers of the Lincoln Project are and always were “True Conservatives” Fighting For You.

He also points out that this is not new:

When Mark Levin entered the Reagan administration, the chief obstacle to implementing the agenda Reagan had run on, and which the public had, with full informed consent, voted for, was not the scattered and battered Democrat Party, but the resistance from the liberal Establishment GOP, the northeastern George Bush Republicans who came into the Administration with Reagan’s conservatives. They were the Disloyal Internal Opposition who thwarted Reagan at every turn, coordinating with Democrats, leaking to the media to block conservative policies, etc. They were Democrats in all but branding.

Sounds familiar.

In another post he quotes a Twitter thread from John Hayward (aka Doctor Zero, whose waspish commentary I’ve long enjoyed) talking about prissy side of the US Right Wing:

For these timid elements of conservatism, the worst offense of the Right is questioning the motives of the Left. Nothing makes them spring into action against other conservatives faster than insinuations of bad faith or sinister motives against the Left. The Left must always be regarded as the loyal opposition, good people who want the best for everyone, but are simply mistaken about how to achieve these noble ends. Accusations of malevolence or hidden agendas against the Left are denounced as ugly conspiracy mongering.

This attitude holds among timid conservatives even as the Left wages all-out war and loudly asserts there are no honest, sincere, good-faith arguments against its agenda. Is there a political argument on the Left that doesn’t begin with denying the good intentions of opponents?

Run through the list of top issues: if you want border security, you must be a xenophobe. If you oppose abortion, you must be a blind religious fanatic or misogynist. If you want smaller government, you’re cruel and greedy. Question global warming? You’re a tool of Big Oil.

But Ace disagrees with Hayward’s take on such Conservatives, arguing that they’re not “prissy” about fighting wars, but are bad faith actors who are actually on the other side, and he then describes how this “fight” goes using the example of illegal immigration, starting with this point about Vance from, of all places, National Review.

The Open Borders contingent did not want to admit they’re open borders – they’re dishonest, craven, shifty motherfuckers who do not confront arguments honestly and fairly by head-on engagement, but by subversion and innuendo and sidewinder collateral attacks – but they did want to kneecap the border hawk position.

So they just began making a series of basically-insincere attacks on Trump. Oh, there was some sincerity in the attacks on Trump – they genuinely disliked him. But the attacks were made in place of the real attack, which was: “He’s ruined the Comprehensive Immigration Reform sell-out we were just about to broker!”

So they began offering up collateral attacks. “Say, you Rubes like Morality, don’t you? Well this Trump feller’s been divorced twice, doesn’t that just steam your beans?! This Trump feller’s had four business bankruptcies! What a lout! And look at all this rubbish he says on Twitter! What an absolute heel! So unchristian!”

You’ll notice they never talk about immigration, whether to support Trump or to oppose him. That’s because they’re sneaky, cowardly rats who do in fact oppose him, and support Open Borders – Oh, I’m sorry, I mean, Comprehensive Immigration Reform that Welcomes Undocumented Americans with Love and Kindness – but they know they can’t win on that so it’s just this constant series of dishonest attacks on side-issues about “character.”

They’ll talk about “Free Trade” as a stand-in for what they won’t talk about, which is Open Borders. But when they say “Free Trade” – understand, they also mean Open Borders.

And they will not stop subverting us and throwing elections until we submit and give up and agree to their Comprehensive Open Borders schemes. This isn’t even just an economic corporate play at this point – though it is that too – it’s a holy, racial-redemption religious point for them at this point too. This is how they prove they’re #NotRacist to their liberal friends, wives, and lovers.

And now they’re proving it by trying to take Vance down. If that means losing a Senate seat to the Democrats that’s an acceptable short-term loss for a long-term policy gain.

The fate the Left would love for all Trump supporters

with 5 comments

American investigative reporter Julie Kelly has done sterling work reporting on the aftermath of the January 6, 2021 “Insurrection” and the reaction of America’s security state to the rioters.

But even her reports of the lengths the US State has gone to in destroying these people has not been exceeded by this latest:

Matthew Perna did nothing wrong on January 6, 2021. The Pennsylvania man walked through an open door on the Senate side of the building shortly before 3 p.m. that afternoon. Capitol police, shown in surveillance video, stood by as hundreds of Americans entered the Capitol. Wearing a “Make America Great Again” sweatshirt, Perna, 37, left after about 20 minutes.

Less than two weeks later, Perna was ensnared in what the former top U.S. prosecutor called a “shock and awe” campaign to round up Trump supporters and deter them from demonstrating at Joe Biden’s inauguration on January 20, 2021. After he discovered his image on the FBI’s most wanted list for January 6, Perna immediately contacted his local FBI office and voluntarily submitted to questioning; on January 18, six FBI agents arrested Perna at his home.

His life from that point turned into a nightmare. Perna was indicted by a grand jury in February 2021 on four counts including obstruction of an official proceeding and trespassing misdemeanors. Despite his nonviolent participation in the events of that day — he did not assault anyone, carry a weapon, or vandalize property — Biden’s Justice Department and local news media nonetheless made his life pure hell. Whenever his hometown paper, the Sharon Herald, published an article on its social media account about Perna, the majority of replies were “horrible and brutal,” his aunt, Geri Perna, told me on the phone Sunday. After more than a year of legal and public torture, Perna saw no way out.

On Friday night, Matthew Perna hung himself in his garage.

“They broke him, they mentally broke him,” Geri said through racking sobs as she explained why her loved one ended his life. “He had run out of hope. I know he couldn’t take it any more.”

Who needs Putin when you’ve got the FBI and the Department of “Justice” in your own country.

I’d forgotten this but here it is, courtesy of Liberal law professor Ann Althouse’s US blog post on the subject:

“As a nation, we began by declaring that ‘all men are created equal.’ We now practically read it ‘all men are created equal, except negroes.’ When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ‘all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.’
When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”

Abraham Lincoln

Written by Tom Hunter

March 2, 2022 at 6:00 am

Leadership

with 4 comments

It seems that there are some new books about the life and times of US President Abraham Lincoln, so it looks like I’m going to have to add to an already overwhelming backlog of reading that I’m churning through. It’s amazing how there’s almost always more history to be squeezed out of the past, even a past as well documented as that of the American Civil War.

There are apparently three recommended in some WSJ column, but that’s likely paywalled so here’s the link to an overview of them from the good folk at Powerline, Lincoln and Chase. Chase was of course Lincoln’s Treasury secretary and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

I was especially struck by this excerpt from one of the books, Lincoln and the Fight For Peace:

On April 8, 1865, Lincoln visited Gen. Grant’s headquarters near Richmond and consoled wounded Union soldiers in a field hospital. When he began walking toward a tent separated from the others, a doctor tried to stop him. Those, the doctor said, were for wounded Confederates. “That,” Lincoln replied, “is just where I do want to go.”

There, too, the president spoke peaceably to the wounded. Years later one of the sick rebels, Col. Henry L. Benbow, recalled Lincoln extending his hand. “Mr. President, I said, ‘do you know to whom you offer your hand?’ ‘I do not,’ he replied. Well, I said, you offer it to a Confederate colonel, who has fought you as hard as he could for four years. ‘Well,’ said he, ‘I hope a Confederate colonel will not refuse me his hand.’ No, sir, I replied, I will not, and I clasped his hand in both mine. I tell you, sir, he had the most magnificent face and eye that I have ever gazed into. He had me whipped from the time he first opened his mouth.”

I’m trying to think of any world leader now or in recent decades who matches up to that. But then our culture increasingly does not value forgiveness, even of past “sins”.

This is a start. If she keeps going like this she’s not going to be an “interim” leader.

Written by Tom Hunter

February 21, 2022 at 11:56 am

The Stasi Agent next door

with 8 comments

In early 2020, one of the two contributors to the Kiwipolitico blog site, Lew, made a Twitter comment about how the C-19 pandemic had led to the rise of what he called, “curtain twitching Fascists”, people in New Zealand spying on and informing on their neighbours breaching of the Lockdown rules and regulations.

This post is about something far worse rising in the USA.

I’ve covered some of the discussions about a new US Civil War in two previous posts, A second American Civil War and a A Civil Break, not a Civil War.

This talk seems to have started around the time that Trump became President, waning as Orange Man Bad left office, but now waxing as the Democrats stare down the gun barrel of electoral defeat in this year’s Mid-Term election (funny how the discussion rises in fever pitch whenever the Democrats are out of power nowadays).

Most of these discussions focus on the traditional aspect of citizens rising against a State they feel is represented only by other citizens. Although there is occasionally a semi-technical discussion pointing out that it would be more like a guerrilla war than the almost formal conflicts of the past, even that doesn’t get to grips with the fact of two American populations that increasingly cannot stand the sight of each other. In both Democrat and Republican circles there are those who play this down: the traditional appeal to “the better angels of our nature” and so forth, also pointing out that living different lives is what America has always been about.

But today comes news of an opinion poll conducted by one of the reputable pollsters in the USA, Rasmussen, which asked Democrats some key questions. The results are both startling and frightening:

  • 55% of Democrats support fines for the unvaccinated (the Austrian solution).
  • 59% of Democrats support the unvaccinated being confined to their homes at all times except in an emergency.
  • 48% of Democrats support fines or prison for people who publicly question the existing COVID-19 vaccines on any platform.
  • 45% of Democrats support putting the unvaccinated in temporarily designated facilities.
  • 47% of Democrats favour a government tracking program for the unvaccinated.
  • 29% of Democratic voters would support the unvaccinated losing custody of their children.

While the survey showed solid majorities of all American citizens being against all of these ideas, the fact that such huge proportions of Democrat voters support them is a terrifying fact that seems far worse than any discussion I’ve seen so far about a civil war. This is about something far worse than just having two large groups of people who increasingly have little in common. This suggests that your life really could be under threat from people like this if their numbers swell only a little more and they have their hands on the levers of power when you’re in opposition to them – on any number of things.

Note also the percentage of Republicans supporting such ideas: it’s a lot lower but frankly it should be zero.

At best one can argue about errors from sample sizes, but this survey was done along the same conventional lines as other polling. It won’t be that inaccurate as to enable these large numbers to be dismissed. Although the title of this post names agents of a state, the better term here for these people is Inoffizieller Mitarbeiter.

Who could continue to live amidst Democrat voters after seeing this? Moreover, what does it portend for the future in a country where power is still evenly split, where such things are perhaps just one election, one swing state away from becoming reality.

Written by Tom Hunter

January 21, 2022 at 3:44 pm

The Mutual American Repulsion deepens

with one comment

I only just finished writing a post on the subject of America’s growing gap between the Progressive and Conservative populations (A Civil Break, not a Civil War) when this article pops up from the Brookings Institute.

How seriously should we take talk of US state secession?

Since we’re still talking of this theoretically they’ve put it as a question. But the article sure as hell makes it sound not like a question:

One troubling sign of our deteriorating civic mood is the shocking breadth of support for secession in the United States. At a time of widespread polarization—where people are arguing over a supposedly stolen election, vaccine mandates, mask-wearing, and the reality of climate change—a September 2020 Hofstra University poll found that “nearly 40 percent of likely voters would support state secession if their candidate loses.” This was followed by a YouGov and Bright Line Watch survey last June that revealed that 37% of Americans supported a “willingness to secede” when asked: “Would you support or oppose [your state] seceding from the United States to join a new union with [list of states in new union]?” Support for doing this was highest in the South and among Republicans.

But liberals are interested, too. In a July 2021 University of Virginia poll, 41% of Biden supporters (as well as 52% of Trump voters) were at least somewhat in agreement with the idea “that it’s time to split the country, favoring blue/red states seceding from the union.”

Those are big numbers that won’t take much more to push over 50%, and the Trump voters are already there.

But obviously this is about far more than Trump or Biden. They’re just symbols.

The thing is that the USA has survived an actual civil war. But back then the main differences between the two sides were on the issues of slavery and the argument that states amounted to something almost equal to the entire nation (states’ rights). The Confederate Constitution differed from the US one in having a six year Presidential term and an executive line-item Budget veto. That was a good example of the fact that in almost all other matters there were only minor differences between the people fighting against each other. There were many things that they had in common with each other that could be called upon to unify the nation after that dreadful conflict, and they were. Probably the most vivid were in Lincoln’s two inaugural speeches, in 1861:

Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

… and in 1865:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and a lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

I’m not hearing anything close to that right now from any American leader. Worse, I’m hearing, reading and seeing – in many cases from American friends of mine – passions delivered with malice that are intended to break the bonds of affection with their fellow citizens. Those are not fleeting things either, but built upon an increasing lack of common belief in almost every aspect of America: culture, history, the direction of the future.

See also:

A second American Civil War
Secessionitis and Greater Idaho

Written by Tom Hunter

December 15, 2021 at 6:54 pm

Posted in US Politics, USA

Tagged with , ,

A Civil Break, not a Civil War.

leave a comment »

… “we don’t eat the same breakfast cereal anymore. We don’t read the same newspapers. We don’t consume the same news. We’re divided in every way, shape, and form in our culture, and thus it translates downstream into our politics”. 

In this post a few months ago I took a look at the growing talk about a possibility of second American Civil War.

But a second take on the matter has begun to emerge in the wake of the results of two criminal trials. The first is for young Mr Rittenhouse, who was found not guilty on all charges for having killed two Antifa members attacking him, plus wounding a third who aimed a pistol at his head. The second was for Mr Smollay, who was found guilty on all but one charge of faking an attack on himself by “racist, homophobic MAGA deplorables”.

Both trials have revealed that the split in the USA between two populations that has been observed at least since 2008, is growing wider. This is explored in a couple of articles. America on the Verge, and One Angry Nation, Two Wildly Divergent Explanations, both written after the Rittenhouse trial. In the first the writer looks directly at the context of the Rittenhouse shootings in 2020:

Political violence was worse in the 1960s and 1970s, but yesterday’s extremists lacked institutional backing. Today’s left-wing racial radicalism is different from the outbursts of the Vietnam and civil rights era. The inner-city explosions of the 1960s were ugly and destructive, but also unplanned and unapproved by those in power.

Compare then and now, when the most widespread and destructive urban violence in 50 years was cheered on by the mainstream media, the Democratic Party, and activist groups funded by corporate America. In 2020 alone, Black Lives Matter got $12 million from Google, and $10 million each from Amazon and Facebook. The organization received millions from video game companies, retail companies, manufacturers, hotels, sports leagues, celebrities, and wealthy individuals. 

U.S. embassies and federal agency headquarters unfurled Black Lives Matter flags as cities burned

That is a huge change between the two epochs of civil violence. It’s as if the various institutions of the USA want themselves to be destroyed. Given how many of the contemporary ruling class have marinated in decades of Leftist education whose analysis of the US is of a nation wracked by unforgivable Original Sins, that should not be a surprise. It’s why almost all of the same people jumped on the Smolley story to proclaim him as a victim and then Rittenhouse as the oppressor. They also likely think they can escape the destruction.

America still stands on the precipice of a dark abyss. The fact is, we live in a society where mass political violence has been normalized, and because it’s being used as a political and ideological bludgeon to threaten and intimidate the people of this country, the authorities have abdicated their responsibility to protect life and property. The people who have created these conditions are the same baying for the blood of Kyle Rittenhouse for defending himself from three of their own.

The second article is an analysis by one Peter Wood of a book recently published that tries to explain what’s going on in the USA, the author having interviewed a lot of Trump supporters

We Americans have become an angry bunch. On that Evan Osnos and I agree. Osnos is a staff writer for the New Yorker whose new book, Wildland: The Making of America’s Fury, surveys some of the same territory as my new book, Wrath: America Enraged. But on why we are angry and what it all means, Osnos and I diverge.

Osnos apparently wrote a very flattering book about Joe Biden and his campaign for President so that, plus being a writer from The New Yorker, gives a taste of where his latest work is going. According to him it’s all about irrational fear, starting with the 9/11 attacks:

Trump, the Tea Party, the NRA—they all made use of that rising unease of Americans who could not quite put a name to the anxieties they felt about the disordering of their world, about the puncturing of American invincibility, the browning of America, the vanishing of jobs to automation, the stagnation of their incomes. The language of force gained ground, Sarah Palin, in her appearances at Tea Party rallies and online, made frequent use of metaphors from the Revolutionary War and the world of guns. ‘Don’t retreat, reload,’ she liked to say.

Wood thinks this is merely the usual explanation that the Left loves…

… to psychologize away the dissatisfactions of the tens of millions of Americans.. who can’t quite put a name on their anxieties are the easily manipulated dupes of demagogues such as Palin and Trump…As Osnos puts it, those “already stewing in economic or racial resentment,” were not in possession of an ideology but had “a rootlessness of the mind—a loss of purpose, inspiration, and community.” 

Wood sees two things instead. First, that outbursts like this are a familiar part of American history and that the seeds of the current decay started a lot further back than 9/11 with the decline of admiration for self control and the rise of a new permission to display anger working its way into the broader culture. Second, that there are real reasons for the anger of the people that Osnos “analyses”:

Somehow missing in his 400-page plus account are the words that are seared in the memories of a great many Americans… Deplorables and bitter clingers are touchstones for almost every working-class Trump supporter I have ever talked with, and it seems odd that Osnos never mentions those words, despite quoting copiously from Hillary and Obama, and despite his interviewing a fair number of working-class Trump voters.

It’s notable that Obama’s contempt was actually aimed at Democrat voters who chose Hillary Clinton over him in the 2008 Pennsylvania primary, and that Hillary attacked him for his “arrogance” as well as being “elitist and out of touch” – before doing the same thing in 2016. Those voters likely still voted for Obama in 2008. In 2016 many must have voted for Trump when he won that same state.

[Had Osnos heard them it] would cast doubt on the idea that the Tea Party and the populist movement that followed it were rooted in “fear.” The roots of that movement were righteous fury, not baffled distress or unfocused anxiety. People understood perfectly well that a new governing class had arisen determined to overturn democratic norms and our self-governing republic and to replace them with domination by self-serving “experts” and a globalized elite.

English ex-pat writer (and North England Working Class boy) Clive Crook, had spotted this in 2016, Donald Trump, Class Warrior, which is very much worth re-reading together with these pieces.

Apparently Osnos thinks that things will calm down after a while and these people “will settle down to enjoy the normalcy of American life. The normalcy he has in mind, of course, is the dispensation of permanent progressive government.

Woods does not agree and explains why in both the article and in his own book, Wrath. In this he would no doubt be interested in the following two comments. The first one from the Chicago Boyz blog, written a year ago:

We’re already at the split. We read different books, watch different movies and television shows – those of us who still watch movies and television – follow different celebrities, earn a living in different ways, educate our children differently. We honor different things, different heroes and heroines, have wildly different aspirations and hopes for the future. We are already split.

The second almost identical one made just the other day by a Pearl Harbour historian while being interviewed about that attack:

“[Andrew Breitbart] once said, very adroitly, that politics is downstream from culture. Our culture, we don’t eat the same breakfast cereal anymore. We don’t read the same newspapers. We don’t consume the same news. We’re divided in every way, shape, and form in our culture, and thus it translates downstream into our politics. I personally think — and not that I’m hoping, I’m just an observer — but I think the United States is heading toward a breakup. It’s already happening.”

That means the numbers on this map may mean something more than just an escape from Democrat areas of high taxes, over-regulation, high crime and poor government – and the eventual result being much more than just Red states continuing to gain House seats from Blue states.

See also Secessionitis and Greater Idaho.

How Civil Wars start – France

leave a comment »

There are myriad reasons that are unique to each nation, but one feature common to all is a gap that steadily opens up between at least two or more parts of society and which cannot be resolved by politics.

In this respect there are two nations that have such gaps, France and the USA.

In the case of France it can be seen most clearly in the announcement by one Éric Zemmour, conservative columnist, historian, writer and television pundit, that he is running for President in 2022. I don’t expect him to win but he will not be ignored, least of all by the ruling class of that nation, of whom he is one. In this Claremont Review article is a lengthy look at Zemmour and it starts with this rather remarkable bit of information:

Emmanuel Macron, frequent butt of Zemmour’s on-air contempt, was calling to commiserate. Zemmour had been accosted by a thug that afternoon while walking home from a fruit stand on the rue des Martyrs. The whole of political Paris was talking about it. For decades Zemmour, 63, has warned the public that France is being submerged by Muslim immigration and smothered by political correctness. In so doing, he has been acclaimed as a historian and author, and revered as a truth-teller. He has also been reviled in the press and hauled into court for inciting racial and religious hatred. Now he was being harassed in the street. That alarmed even Macron.

Macron, once the “golden boy of the Socialists” had left years ago to lead a new party, La République en Marche (“Republic on the Move,” or LREM), and had sold himself as the alternative to Marine Le Pen, who had inherited (and renamed) the National Front (F.N.), the populist and nationalist party founded by her father (the article goes into that history also). But even Macron has started to feel strange and frightening new pressures:

Faced with an increasingly anxious public, Macron has sought to strike a populist tone. His interior minister Gérald Darmanin, and his education minister Jean-Michel Blanquer, are both conservatives of a sort. In the wake of the George Floyd riots and demonstrations in the United States, Macron made a forthright announcement that France “will tear down none of its statues.”

That pressure had already shown up in the the 2017 campaign which saw the collapse of France’s two establishment parties, the Socialists and the Républicains and in that now-famous phonecall with Macron:

In the course of 45 minutes of passionate back-and-forth, Macron told Zemmour that a president who spoke like that would drag the country into civil war. Zemmour cut him off. “I told him that if we continue to follow his policies we are headed for civil war in any case.”

In the case of France the pressures relate to several things. There is a growing disconnect with the EU, which basically overrides the French Constitution, thanks to none other than France’s own former President Sarkozy, who quietly committed France, by treaty, to the very EU arrangements that had just rejected at the ballot box by the French people.

Then there is the growing Islamic population:

Last summer, Causeur magazine released a set of maps that the government consulting group France Stratégie had been using. They showed a growth of immigrant populations in all French cities that was almost incredible. In vast stretches of Seine-St-Denis, burial place of France’s kings and queens, 70-80% of the children under 18 are born of immigrants from outside of Europe.

The maps sent shock waves through France when they were published, but what is most striking is that the outrage took the government consultants by surprise. They had been using the maps for two years to develop plans to fight residential segregation. It had apparently not occurred to them that, in the public’s view, the main problem was not the distribution of the immigrant population but the sheer size of it.

Furthermore, nobody apparently has much confidence that laïcité – the system of secularism imposed at the turn of the last century to topple the Catholic Church from its position of cultural and educational dominance – will also tame Islam.

But there’s also this, and it connects directly to the USA:

On one side are the “winners” of globalization—the super-rich and protected minorities. On the other are globalization’s losers—the newly precarious middle and working classes.

By 68 to 32, members of LREM and top executives believe globalization is good for France. Members of all other parties and people at all other income levels disagree. Only 26% of French people trust the media. Only 16% trust political parties.

It is this overall loss of faith in the institutions of a nation, perhaps even in the nation as it is conceived by Macron’s ruling class – a class duplicated in every nation across the Western world – where the greatest danger lies. But I can see what Macron meant about Zemmour’s talk when held in public:

“The first thing you need to understand about France,” he said in September, “is that we are the country of civil wars. We’ve always had civil wars: the wars of religion, the French Revolution, the Commune of Paris, the battles between collaborators and résistants after World War II.”

The reason France has civil wars, according to Zemmour, is that it is, like the United States, a created nation. It is a place where people dispute principles, and conflicts can end when disputes over values are settled.

This past October, Zemmour passed Le Pen in the polls. Read the whole thing.

Written by Tom Hunter

December 9, 2021 at 9:09 am

Secessionitis and Greater Idaho

leave a comment »

In the last twenty years, every time a Republican has been elected President, there has been a squall of voices from Lefty celebrities about how they’re going to move to Canada or some other clime more hospitable to the Left.

Because of their lightweight nature, few people take any notice of them, especially since it’s been heard three times now (2000, 2004, 2016), but with no appreciable followup actions on their part, aside from crashing the Canadian Immigration website on election night 2016.

Still, the calls are growing louder with each subsequent Republican victory. After the 2016 election no less an august personage than Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, reflected that she might have to retire to New Zealand. I’m sure she would have appreciated our lack of a written constitution since she never seemed overly impressed by the US one.

But these calls have often applied to individual states, and it does go the other way, though in a more joking form. Hence the occasional cracks from Texans when a Democrat gets elected President. In their case they have more history behind them, since Texas stood as an independent nation for a few years before joining the Union.

More often, and more seriously, California is regarded as the state that could secede. It’s the world’s fifth largest economy on its own, it has long regarded itself as quite different to the rest of the USA (and vice versa – even the Lefties of Chicago and New York consider California to be “weird”), and given its natural resources and gifts it could theoretically stand on its own. I say theoretically because its government and people seem determined to screw their gifts up with government policies.

The thing is that while the Californian Left may talk of this occasionally, there actually have been plans made by their fellow Californians for a different proposal; for parts of the state to secede from California and form new states:

Frankly I can’t see “Northern California” doing too well with San Francisco and all its insanity still embedded. Better to let that belong to the coastal state, along with LA. It’s what most people think of when they consider the current state anyway. One billionaire venture capitalist has taken that into account with his proposal for six states to be carved out of California:

Admittedly getting six rather than three states is a tougher deal, but for various reasons none of this is likely to happen, as with this proposal for the state of Oregon, although it’s counties themselves making the push, and they’re hoping to pull in surrounding neighbours to Greater Idaho:

The grassroots group Move Oregon’s Border for a Greater Idaho wants to move Oregon’s mostly rural eastern and southern counties into Idaho, believing they’d be better served in the neighboring state’s more conservative political environment.

That would leave a small portion of Oregon, including Portland, Salem, Eugene and Bend.

Phase 2 of the plan would bring in parts of southeast Washington and northeast California. The California counties under consideration, the group says, are Siskiyou, Shasta, Tehama, Modoc, Lassen, part or all of Plumas, and parts of Butte and perhaps Sierra.

The California area includes Redding, which would become Idaho’s fourth-largest city.

There’s always a boundary that cannot be crossed and such was observed by a South Carolina politician during the increasing arguments over secession prior to the Civil War:

“South Carolina is too small for a Republic and too large for an insane asylum”.

But the real stumbling block to all this is that the originating state has to approve of such things. This has happened in the past, perhaps most notably with West Virginia. It was originally part of Virginia until it was admitted as a new state in 1863 after the General Assembly of the “Restored Government of Virginia” (heh, heh, heh) magically consented to the request in 1862. Now you may wonder how Virginia consented since it was one of the Confederate states. What happened was that anti-secessionist Virginians formed a government in exile during the Civil War and were recognised by the Federal Government, which then approved the state’s partition.

I doubt the Democrat leaders of these states, nor their partners in crime in Washington D.C. will allow this to happen to them again, especially since it would lead an influx of new, and decidedly. non-Left Wing senators. However, since such accommodations were made in the past perhaps several such things could be negotiated across the nation so that things are kept even at the Federal level.

But further down in the grassroots of the US left it turns out that these proposals may actually get some traction:

Basically they think it’s a great idea for their Democrat Controlled One Party cities to detach themselves from all those useless rural areas that create no IT billionaires and other Super Smart People but produce food, oil, gas, timber, and minerals, as well as being fiscally conservative along with having healthy communities and little crime.

Nothing would make me happier than to divide all urban areas from all non-urban areas and separate entirely.

Let’s do it.

Written by Tom Hunter

May 26, 2021 at 6:00 am