Kavanaugh and the Crux of a Cold Civil War

We are in the midst of a cold civil war. The crux? Realizing politics is part of life, one side believes America is fundamentally a good country requiring some prudent improvements upon which reasonable minds may differ. On the other side, the Left, thinking politics is life, believes America is a hopelessly unjust nation requiring “fundamental transformation” and this is a point on which no reasonable minds can differ.

The Kavanaugh confirmation evinces the political abyss between us; and the bathetic depths to which this divide drives the Left to “win.”

Employing the subjective term “credible” for an accusation that has no basis in objective reality, the Left has rationalized its inevitable rejection of the Supreme Court’s “credibility” and “legitimacy.” It will refuse to obey any rulings involving Justice Brett Kavanagh or Justice Clarence Thomas. It threatens to conduct a future Democratic Party-led investigation of one and possibly two sitting justices, and a possible impeachment trial. In so doing, the Left perpetuates the political intimidation of Kavanaugh and Thomas in the separate and equal branch of government that is supposed to reject political considerations and administer impartial justice.

No, it won’t work. But because they feel entitled to announce this; and, excused, emboldened, and empowered by their fellow leftists in the media, they will sadly continue to attempt to erode our constitutional safeguards of equal justice under law.

Further, we’ve witnessed and will continue to bear witness to leftists acting upon calls to publicly “confront” and “get in the face” of senators voting for Kavanaugh’s confirmation—most notably Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), who have been threatened with constant harassment by what are, in essence, political stalkers. This tactic will carry over into other fights. Sadly, we have already seen leftists resort to violence in similar confrontations.

Regrettably, there is the decided likelihood that the Left’s propensity for violence will continue to escalate in proportion to its rhetoric. When Collins is libeled viciously as a “rape apologist” and the entire Republican Party is defamed as “Rape-Publicans,” why would any virtue signaling narcissist resist (even if they could) the incited urge to attack such villains? If you think these people would always resist the lesser angels of their natures, feel free to acquaint yourself with the video of the young pro-life lady being kicked by the “feminist” left-wing goon.

Why does the fascist Left feel entitled to engage in sedition, slander, stalking, and violence to pursue it ends? Conflating politics with life and thinking America is beyond redemption absent a fundamental (and impossible) transformation to socialist Eden where everyone must think the same upon pain of ostracism and worse, the Left cannot believe that anyone who disagrees has good intentions.

In the insane, prog-whistle world of these self-anointed social injustice warriors, where words that challenge their leftist dogma are deemed “violent,” they feel entitled—indeed, compelled—to attack all dissenters in “self-defense.”

Yet the pressing question for those citizens of sound mind and stout hearts is not what will be the next manifestation of the Left’s vicious political paroxysm. To be forewarned and forearmed is, truthfully, all one can do. No, the question at hand is how, for the future good of our free republic, the Left can be constructively engaged and political civility, if not yet comity, restored.

In the wake of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, this increasingly is a question only the Left can answer, for it is their calumnies and lawlessness exacerbating the political divide and deepening the America’s cold civil war. Best the Left ponder and devise an answer soon.

If they do not, one day, historians will record that the violent Left had turned Steve Scalise into our Charles Sumner.

Yes. And we are far down that path.

Many parents, or even most parents in many locations are of the "Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States" believing sorts. They want their kids to be brought up with leftist history, leftist values, leftist ideals, and leftist heroes.

If you tried to change the curriculum in the California Public Schools to focus more on the founders (racist slave holding aristocrats), explorers (colonialists), inventors (capitalist exploiters), and great men and woman of our history (cisgender bigots) you'd have people throwing the stuff in parenthesis at you.

Mostly people have the schools they want in a lot of places.

So, while I agree with everything you say I don't think the fact that the schools were a vector of our dissolution can be reversed to restore a sane society. It wont' be permitted. Real power much be seized before the schools can be dealt with, at least in places like Los Angeles and every other Blue Hive you care to name.

It seems unlikely any traditional values Americans would ever be willing to do what is needed to put traditional American values back into the California public schools.

It would have to start with military occupation, citizenship tribunals, mass deportations, panels of inquiry commissions, martial law, citizenship revocations, etc.

All of which is very anti-liberty, and so traditionalist minded Americans would be appalled at suggesting or implementing those things.

So, separation is still the only option.

Thank you. The following may be of interest on this subject:

Hopefully, Trump is a leader who is not “imprisoned” in the “progressive” ideological mindset—especially when it comes to the inherent threats to liberty when children are propagandized by ideologues from K-12 through graduate school.

Perhaps the appointment of DeVos may be an indication of the possibility of inculcating a love of liberty and freedom in the minds of youth by freeing them from a one-size-fits-all mentality which highlights mediocrity, not excellence.

For instance, one can hope that Trump and DeVos may be able to look behind the numbers of citizens in prisons and examine the possible connections between Progressive control of the public “education” system and the number of youth in prisons.

Clearly, anyone who speaks out against the Dept. of Education and all of the other multitudinous Progressive bureaucracies that control the propagandizing of children over the past few decades in the name of “educating” them must be willing to be marginalized by the media and politicians; but in order to understand the increase in prison populations, one must look behind the numbers and the crimes and examine objectively contributing facts to the cultural changes which may have brought them to where they are today. Progressives seldom do that, relying, instead on whatever the current Progressive narrative seems to be.

Even as early as the Year 1886, serious efforts to make that link were treated badly by the political structure of the day. At that date, today’s self-identified “progressives” called themselves “liberals,” though not in the “classical liberal” tradition.

Examine the case of an accomplished man by the name of Zacharias Montgomery who was denied an important post in government for doing just that. You will read some of his words below.

With that said, those who love liberty must be willing to come forward to declare that it is better to be remembered for standing on and articulating enduring principles of right versus wrong, liberty versus tyranny, than to be praised by the mainstream media and so-called “progressives.”

Here are excerpted portions of the words of Zacharias Montgomery in his 1886 Book entitled “Poison Drops in the United States Senate . . . .” Although his treatise dealt primarily with the public school question, the following remarks might be helpful to those who, today, are concerned by what passes for “public education.”

Excerpts from Zacharias Montgomery:

“My countrymen, disguise the fact as we may, there is in this country to-day, and in both the political Parties, an element which is ripe for a centralized despotism. There are men and corporations of vast wealth, whose iron grasp spans this whole continent, and who find it more difficult and more expensive to corrupt thirty odd State Legislatures than one Federal Congress. It was said of Nero of old that he wished the Roman people had but one head, so that he might cut it off at a single blow. And so it is with those moneyed kings who would rule this country through bribery, fraud, and intimidation.

“It is easy to see how, with all the powers of government centered at Washington in one Federal head, they could at a single stroke put an end to American liberty.

“But they well understand that before striking this blow the minds of the people must be prepared to receive it. And what surer or safer preparation could possibly be made than is now being made, by indoctrinating the minds of the rising generation with the idea that ours is already a consolidated government ; that the States of the Union have no sovereignty which is not subordinate to the will and pleasure of the Federal head, and that our Constitution is the mere creature of custom, and may therefore be legally altered or abolished by custom.

“Such are a few of the pernicious and poisonous doctrines which ten millions of American children are today drinking in with the very definitions of the words they are compelled to study. And yet the man who dares to utter a word of warning of the approaching danger is stigmatized as an enemy to education and unfit to be mentioned as a candidate for the humblest office.

“Be it so. Viewing this great question as I do, not for all the offices in the gift of the American people would I shrink from an open and candid avowal of my sentiments. If I have learned anything from the reading of history, it is that the man who, in violation of great principles, toils for temporary fame, purchases for himself either total oblivion or eternal infamy, while he who temporarily goes down battling for right principles always deserves, and generally secures, the gratitude of succeeding ages, and will carry with him the sustaining solace of a clean conscience, more precious than all the offices and honors in the gift of man.

“History tells us that Aristides was voted into banishment because he was just. Yet who would not a thousand times rather today be Aristides than be numbered amongst the proudest of his persecutors.

“Socrates, too, in violation of every principle of justice, was condemned to a dungeon and to death. Yet what name is more honored in history than his? And which of his unjust judges would not gladly, hide himself in the utter darkness of oblivion from the withering scorn and contempt of all mankind?

“From the noble example of Aristides and of Socrates let American statesmen learn wisdom, and from the undying infamy of their cowardly time-serving persecutors let political demagogues of today take warning.”

So said Zacharias Montgomery in 1886. Read his complete work at HERE.

Anyone who reads his complete volume will realize the wisdom and farsightedness of Montgomery’s ability to see the consequences of what his fellow Americans were advocating in the area of education of youth.

Montgomery’s analysis of what he called a “parental” system of education versus an “anti-parental” system was backed up by analytical documentation from public records. Please review pages 19 through 43 for statistical summaries from those records. Make up your own mind about the validity of this official’s work.

Such an examination, conducted in 2018-19, might be enlightening.

So, I see three alternatives.

1. The Left continues to transform everything, all-the-time. It's commonly agreed in many quarters of the right that the "conservative movement" did not conserve anything.

As I've laid out above, more and more states will be over-run with 3rd world immigrants until they move from red, to purple, to blue. Even Texas is projected to turn blue by 2028, which essentially means no more Republican Presidents.

2. Civil War, which starts with a large crisis like a severe recession and then is set off by one or more dramatic events, like an assassination, or a police shooting, or something as yet un-imagined. This is the plot start up for many dystopian novels.

It's the nature of war that it is hard to predict. As Mike Tyson famously said "everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face". For sure it would be multi-faceted, with many simultaneous scenarios playing themselves out.

I'm not sure which pundit coined the CWII = Rawanda X Bosnia formula, but many see that there is a lot of pent up hatred in America and that something truly horrific on an epic scale will be the result.

On the other hand some suggest that something like the Chilean Dirty War Scenario would take place. With the Government secretly rounding up and imprisoning or executing dissidents. Of course this could go either way. In Chile the military took over the government and ran a dirty war against lefists. Something similar happened in Argentina, but under the civilian government's tenuous authority.

It could certainly be the Left purging the Right just as easily. As the 2016 election shows the institutional left is quite immoral and willing to use power ruthlessly.

Regardless you are talking deaths in the 10's of thousands to 10's of millions range if any of these happen.

3. Secession and Dissolution. Yes there are many problems with it, and there may even be violence and small scale wars once the process plays out. The Soviet dissolution resulted in the peaceful freeing of the captive nations, but then also the wars in Georgia and Ukraine. And of course Yugoslavia was uniquely unstable, and so you had a full on civil war there, but it too was ended with further political subdivision.

So why not skip the war and go straight to the end game?

State lines are imperfect lines for new borders, except they already exist, have borders, have legislatures, have national guards, and have Governors. So, they are much like Poland and Estonia and Czechoslovakia in the old Soviet Union.

Some states may follow up the dissolution of the USA by the further dissolution of their state. Perhaps Jefferson finally breaks off from California. Hopefully those can be peaceful like the "velvet revolution" that split Czechoslovakia in two, and not violent like the Yugoslavia break up into 5 or 6 countries.

You say it might be a logistical nightmare.

, and I'm sure it would be. A logistical nightmare is better than a second civil war with a million dead Americans.

You continue: There still are many conservatives in California, New York, and other places, and many libtards in places like Texas. Yes, and those will all have to be sorted out, again hopefully by cooler heads. And yeah, some people are going to be very unhappy with their place in the new country. Presumably a lot of these people would move. Another reason to have a voluntary legal breakup is that the new citizenship rules and population transfers could be formalized, with something like a 3 year window.

When you look at Yugoslavia mostly what you see is that people moved where they would be part of the majority group.

So, in answer to this question: Are thousands and thousands going to be required to move? I think the answer is "pretty much". Maybe not required, but will choose to. Imagine a newly independent Red State we are implementing our philosophy with these X platforms: 1) Abortion is now illegal. 2).Affirmative action, in all forms is hereby ended. 3). Welfare is hereby ended. 4). Gay marriages are no longer recognized or legal in the State of Oklahoma. All of these are effective Jan. 1`.

People would self-segregate pretty quickly. A opposite set of new laws for San Franciscostan would probably drive conservatives out right away.

I have a feeling the libtards would still try to invade the conservative states, and subvert them.They probably would, except for the States will be free to protect their borders, have internal controls and generally prevent what happened to the USA from happening to them again. Perhaps not everyone will be allowed to buy land or businesses in every state.

Up until this day Americans are not permitted to buy most property in Mexico. Whereas, in Seattle and California a huge amount of the land is already owned by foreign people.

I don’t think there are any easy answers to any of this, but I can’t see this going on indefinitely, without something busting wide open.

Neither do I. I'm sort of doing "what/if" scenarios here. Lots of ink has been spent on "how the right won CWII", but a lot less on "how we could avoid it, but still end up with someplace that is worth living in, and not a 3rd World Shithole.

But, the default is USA becomes Mexico North, and everything continues to be more Left oriented, including permanent rule by one or two Socialist parties, cronyism, basically what they have in Mexico.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.