As some of you may know, I don’t actually discuss politics much in real life, for a variety of reasons. However, there are several friends of mine who are aware of my writing here and ask me from time to time what my take is on the future, particularly in Western nations.
It’s difficult to provide any concise and accurate reply.
While there’s a clear trajectory towards more totalitarianism of a Leftist flavor (and a possible Reactionary response), history is less linear than it is cyclical. At some point, a return to the natural state of things will happen, but that could take many years. The Soviet Union lasted from roughly 1917 to 1991, even though its economic policies made it doomed from the start. The right global or national event may trigger a similar destruction of the heavily concentrated power found within Western countries today.
If that does not occur, one possible future is that of overt political warfare.
As I’ve discussed in the past, all politics is violent. There are no such thing as peaceful political solutions, because they ultimately rely on coercion and aggression to implement. As state involvement into ordinary life increases, these acts will multiple as well and its presence will be harder for people to ignore or dismiss.
Recall also that there is no such thing as being truly apolitical; sooner or later the state gets to something you care about. At that point, the otherwise nonchalant individual either submits out of cowardice or weakness; or, they become politically active in a way they weren’t before.
This is all relevant within the context of the modern states which govern countries such as the United States of America. It is a political jurisdiction that is too large, too diverse, and too divided in order to be anything that one might regard as united (or American, for that matter). In prior times, the degree of tension and conflict within the USA would have produced a revolution, rebellion, or secession movement well before now.
Yet, thanks to the outcome of the War Between the States, separation seems to be beyond the consideration of the average person. Instead, everyone appears to be contemplating a true civil war – where two factions battle for control over the same territory. Deescalating the situation through independent regions or restoring traditional states’ rights is simply out of the question.
What this means is that as the years go by, the power of political leaders is strengthened, and the divide between U.S. citizens/residents is decided by a handful of voters, the national focus will intensify on elections of every kind.
Since we have decided that war is not a plausible, viable, or moral option, all that energy will be channeled into its extension – as Carl von Clausewitz put it.
The Alabama Senate seat race involving Roy Moore and Doug Jones was a case study of what I refer to. There was an enormous investment of political capital on a national scale into destroying Moore’s reputation and character, not because of the seat per se would flip the Senate over to the Democrats, but because of the ramifications his election would have for both the region and the nation.
Living in the Pacific Northwest, I can’t begin to describe the incredible scrutiny and obsession that race received from media and lawmakers here, thousands of miles away. It’s because the race for that Deep South state’s Senate office symbolized a much larger ideological fight occurring nationally. When you are forced to associate with others (or insist on it yourself), you care very much for what they do in areas that would otherwise be unimportant.
Unfortunately, things from here could get much worse than character assassination.
Every political seat at every level will contested bitterly. Every race will be treated as a military campaign and treated with the same seriousness. Every registered voter will be seen as a soldier, and every unregistered voter as a potential fighter abandoning their duty to fight for the Cause.
In many respects, the treatment is appropriate. In a war, the losing side risked the destruction of everything they cherished.
When your political enemies intend to use state power to do the same, what difference does it really make in the methods used?
At the end of the day, barbarians raiding your house and taking your children to raise them as their own in their rival tribe after destroying your defending force is no different than CPS seizing the offspring of political dissidents and placing them in foster homes because the government offices overseeing the agency were won by the wrong candidate.
Nor are laws that treat homeschooling parents as suspects who must provide sufficient reason to let them raise their child as they see fit any different than laws by the British prohibiting the Irish from speaking their language, reciting their own poetry, participating in dances, etc. They are all mechanisms put in place to prevent opposition to the ruling entities.
When your enemies wins an election, you are under an occupation force. You are an occupied people.
Real Americans are a nation with no country and no government they can call their own; they are an occupied, conquered people – subjugated not through military force, but their own foolishness and subversive elements. Most of them are ignorant of this or in denial about it.
Of course, this is where the separation of war from politics will begin to blur, because many on both sides will be unwilling to let the process, with all of its perceived faults, determine the winner. All manner of intimidation, threats, harassment, and retaliatory behavior will be employed.
This happened years preceding the War Between the States in border states such as Kansas and Missouri, where pro-slavery and anti-slavery groups fought for control over the state government. It was a local fight that extended from a larger political debate, thus the outcomes mattered to more than merely the state residents.
Violent actions will be justified based on the importance of victory and severity of defeat. In an all or nothing scenario, where your rights are guarded by one candidate but stripped away by the other, elements on both sides will resort to “criminal activity” they conclude must be conducted for the sake of their respective peoples.
We can look no further than the persecution of bakers, florists and other business owners throughout the country over their refusal to create items for or participate in state-licensed same-sex weddings. They have nothing to do with discrimination, fairness, equality, love, romance, justice, or whatever rationalization is offered. These lawsuits are acts of political persecution against a weaker, conquered foe.
If you’re one of those business owners, and a local political candidate vying for a seat with relevant authority vows to stand up for your rights, the outcome is not inconsequential and you can’t afford to claim apolitical status as you sit home and pray your next local overlord is benevolent.
Further, should someone engage in acts that one might find unsavory to ensure that person is elected, you will be sorely tempted to look the other way.
Since D.C. is amassing the most power, the fighting will be greatest involving federal offices such as representatives, senators and the president. As we saw with last year’s presidential campaign, we can expect future political rallies to contain further violence, mobs, riots, and retaliation against attendees both at the rallies, in their professional careers and even in their neighborhoods.
The average person will be between a rock and a hard place. Political activism will potentially carry a heavy price. However, a similarly high price may be paid for doing nothing.
Having said this, an unforeseen, unpredictable event could cause a sharp turn in our present course, or people turn to highly passive aggressive, indirect ways of carrying out attacks on their enemies.
Eventually I will get around to some suggestions or thoughts on what people can and should do irrespective of what happens in the political realm. The truth is that we should carry on with our life mission, whatever it may be, in spite of or in direct defiance of opposition in our path.