Just before heading off to Ireland a couple of weeks ago, I linked to a discussion between John Batchelor and Stephen F. Cohen about the “Sovietization” of American political culture in recent years. By this term, Professor Cohen referred to the increasing use of social, political, economic, and legal pressure to cow and silence those who dissent from the accumulating theses of “Progressive” orthodoxy. (A particularly worrisome aspect of this is that those theses are in constant leftward motion, so that one never knows, based on what was sayable yesterday, what is unsayable today — the effect of which is to make it safest simply to say nothing.)
Writing at at PJ Media, Richard Fernandez has taken up this topic in a brief item about the possibility of a new kind of civil war. After listing some examples of deepening political viciousness, he brings up the idea of “hybrid warfare”:
While one explanation for the fractiousness is a reversion to our primitive natural tendency to mistrust outsiders, the other possibility is that it is now the way modern warfare is waged. The Russians have ascribed events unfolding in Venezuela to an American Trojan Horse strategy. It “would rely on ‘protest potential of the fifth column’ to destabilize the situation in the countries with unwanted governments … using the technologies of color revolutions.”
The Russians, whose Soviet empire was overthrown by the color revolutions, have been experimenting with similar strategies known as hybrid warfare. As the NYT reported:
General Gerasimov laid out in an article published in 2013 … which many now see as a foreshadowing of the country’s embrace of “hybrid war”… analysts see a progression from the blend of subversion and propaganda used in Ukraine to the tactics later directed against Western nations, including the United States, where Russia’s military intelligence agency hacked into Democratic Party computers during the 2016 election.
With conventional war rendered suicidal by the advent of nuclear weapons, a cocktail of lawfare, info war, deliberate population movement, and targeted physical intimidation is now the toolset of choice and the Russians, Chinese, jihadis, EU, and USA each have their versions.
“The idea that the Russians have discovered some new art of war is wrong,’ Mark Galeotti, a Russia expert at the Royal United Services Institute and the author of “Russian Political War,’ said of the general’s latest speech. “This is basically the Russians trying to grapple with the modern world.’ Hybrid war has long been a Western military term of art, analysts say, especially in the context of counterterrorism.
But since the resulting battlefields are waged inside the country, there is little reason why domestic political conflict should not resemble the international ones. Because victory is now attained by jailing opponents, silencing or financially sanctioning them, punitive prosecution, deplatforming, and universal surveillance are used alike in both cases and it is increasingly hard to tell them apart.
In recent months I’ve made frequent reference to military historian Michael Vlahos, who, as another regular guest on Mr. Batchelor’s nightly show, has been discussing the possibility of civil war in America. One of the points he’s made often is that it’s hard to say, except in retrospect, when civil wars actually begin; before the armies take the field there are years, or often decades, of deepening strife in which comity disintegrates and the two sides learn to hate and dehumanize one another. When, for example, did America’s civil war of the nineteenth century really begin? At Fort Sumter? Or was that merely the moment that a civil war already in progress for decades burst into flame? In hindsight, it’s clear that the bitter antipathy between North and South was already beyond all hope of reconciliation long before the shooting started. The evidence is plain enough: Bleeding Kansas, the John Brown atrocities, the caning of Charles Sumner, the Congressional brawl of 1858 — or even the Graves-Cilley duel, which happened all the way back in 1838, and became a rallying point for an already darkening North-South antagonism.
So: has our new civil war already begun? Mr. Fernandez continues:
If a civil war were actually underway it would take the form of hybrid warfare and look much like what can already be observed today. It would explain why, in an era obsessed with safe spaces and tolerance, there is little of either left; why no one is safe from offense, nothing is private; why everything is increasingly criminalized. That context would explain why each new restriction, whether on the use of cash, private transportation, or gun ownership can be perceived as a veiled threat. “Speaking to conservative pundit Laura Ingraham, diGenova summed up his best advice to friends: ‘I vote, and I buy guns. And that’s what you should do.'”
It might shed light on why so many people already feel like psychological refugees with the strange sense they have been evicted from their homes and wondering: what happened to my country? To the church on the corner? To family gatherings? Trust networks? Why have they been turned into battlegrounds? … Is America already in a state of civil hybrid war from which only one winner can emerge? The problem with Trojan horses and the reason they’re so effective is that they remain ambiguous until it’s almost too late.
How did we come to such a pass? For those of us on the Right side of this gaping chasm, the answer is clear: the ground under our own feet hasn’t shifted much at all, while everything to our Left has torn away at an accelerating pace. Cultural and political opinions that were shared, without controversy, by almost every American just a few years ago — opinions still held by half of the nation’s people — are now “right-wing extremism”, and their public expression denounced and suppressed as “hate speech”. Saying a thing that once was obvious to everyone can now cost you your reputation, your livelihood, and in many parts of the West today, your freedom.
In China, the government has built a “social credit” system to track every citizen’s life in granular detail, and examine it for conformance to political and cultural guidelines. A low score is to be punished by, among other things, blacklisting for jobs and bank-loans, restrictions on travel, and public shaming. How is any of this different, except perhaps quantitatively, from what is happening in America and the West? The consequences are the same: express forbidden opinions, and you can already lose your job, your social-media accounts, and your access to banking and financial services. The social-credit system in China is overseen by a group called the Central Commission for Comprehensively Deepening Reforms. Would this not be an accurate title for what the new Democratic Party, in conjunction with media and academia, have become?
In a related item at PJ Media (thanks, by the way, to Bill Keezer for both of these links), Sarah Hoyt describes our horror at this steepening slide into totalitarianism, and explains why so many of us support Donald Trump, despite his obvious flaws. Referring to the new Left, she writes:
They don’t realize how much they’re scaring most of this country. They don’t understand how much we fear and loathe the faces they’ve revealed for decades, and particularly since Hillary lost: the praise of socialism, their reluctance to condemn even Venezuela, their crazy desire for not having borders and being open to invasion, their general hatred of America and hatred of all Americans.
Even if the media soft-pedaled it, most of us understood perfectly that Mr. Obama loathed America to the point of hating our flag.
And most of us saw in his presidency the perfect example of what happens when you elect a president who hates the country he leads.
We knew that to elect Hillary was to put in power the rest of the program of our destruction and we didn’t want that…
For decades, regardless of the party nominally in power, our polity had been in the hands of those who at best thought America was uncouth and needed reform, and at worst hated us and wanted to bring us low among the nations of the world. Open borders, ever-multiplying regulations that stopped our economy cold and sent jobs overseas, destructive welfare policies that actively made it punitive to stay together as a family. It goes on.
And in 2016, when they thought us softened enough, they brought out the full panoply of “socialist this” and “Marxist that.” Hillary’s running mate, for instance. And since then? The mask has come off yet further.
So we can either allow them to destroy this country, the last great place on Earth, or we can vote for whosoever opposes them. Even if the person is not what we wish.
For anyone in that frame of mind ”“ and I think we have a majority of the country at this point ”“ it doesn’t matter if Trump slept with a sex professional or if she blackmailed him under threat of talking about sleeping with him (remember, whores lie).
Heck, if he were found with a live boy and a dead girl at the same time, most of us would go, “not before breakfast’ and keep on trucking on.
Because we’re desperate. Because a president who loves America is better than the one who hates it, and because the socialist/communist madness is so strong in the Democrat Party that anyone who opposes them is better than anyone they run. (Remember, the USSR called itself socialist. The difference is one of degree and the sort of fiddly proprietorship on paper stuff only they care about, just like only penguins care about penguin sex differences.)
Because the next Democrat president might be the last president of a free America, and then we will have to shoot our way out of socialism.
That’s it exactly: we are desperate. We know how close we are to the edge, to the dissolution of civilized order into chaos and tyranny. We can feel in our bones the implacable hatred of our would-be commissars for everything we believe is good and right and true — along with a growing understanding that their hatred doesn’t stop at our traditions and beliefs. As long as we live and breathe, we are a threat. If the blood-soaked history of the twentieth century can teach us anything at all, it should teach us that it will not be enough to see us displaced and destroyed. They will want us dead and gone.
One of the milestones along the road to civil war is the normalization of violence as a rational response to a dehumanized enemy, followed soon after by an eagerness for general conflict. This eagerness arises first in the breasts of those seeking radical change, who see violence as justified by the righteousness of their cause, and who are usually young and excitable people who have a much better sense of how to destroy what exists than to build and preserve a system that, however flawed, actually works. (This also reflects that the Right, almost by definition, moves toward order, while the Left is always entropic.) But the Right is eminently capable of reactive, or even proactive, violence when confronted by an existential threat to order, and is every bit as liable to the “othering” and dehumanization of its enemies in preparation for war.
There is, then, a spiral of mutual threat and provocation in the run-up to war, along the course of which a people can go from general comity and commonality, to political or cultural division, to rancorous debate, to increasingly bitter struggle for political power, to “othering” and dehumanization, to normalized violence, to bloodthirsty eagerness for war, to general armed conflict. We are already well into the latter stages, and even on the Right I see martial enthusiasm increasing: the hatred of the enemy, the idea that we are now so far beyond reconciliation that there is going to be a fight, and that we might as well get on with it (especially as we are the ones who will most likely win).
I’ve written before that only a fool would actually wish for civil war:
Where I think I part company with many on the dissident Right ”” in particular, those who call themselves “neoreactionaries’, most of whom are, I think, several decades younger than I ”” is that so many of them seem to have a kind of breathless excitement about all of this; it seems they just can’t wait for all the fun they are going to have watching the apocalypse, and then rolling up their sleeves to show everyone how it ought to have been done. This seems to me profoundly, childishly, foolishly, heart-breakingly naÁ¯ve.
If this Fall happens ”” slowly at first, probably, and then quite suddenly ”” it will not be fun, and it will not be exciting. It will be awful. There will almost certainly be terrible suffering and dislocation; chaos, violence, plunder, terror, and despair. A great many irreplaceable treasures ”” our children’s ancient birthright and heritage ”” will be forever lost.
Whether we will be able to build something worthwhile upon this rubble is doubtful at best, and even if we manage it, it may take a very long time. High civilizations, and in particular high-trust societies, do not grow upon trees, and they are by no means the default human condition. Whatever follows a general collapse, or a civil war, in the West will not be a swashbuckling plot from a Robert Heinlein novel; it is far more likely to be a time of brutality, poverty, suffering, uncertainty, and fear.
Others may snap their fingers at the noble experiment now coming apart in America, and may imagine, on no practical experience, that they will know how to do it better. Not I. I will mourn and grieve for the great Republic we have, in our great unwisdom, so recklessly destroyed. Perhaps, as is received doctrine amongst neoreactionary sorts, the American system was doomed ab ovo; it carried in its very democracy the disease that would kill it. I have often said the same myself. But the men who framed this system knew this all too well themselves, and they knew and named the essential qualities and principles that might have inoculated us: qualities that we not only have failed to cherish, but now actively despise.
What makes us think we will get it right next time?
Whether we wish for it or not, however, our next civil war may already have begun. I will say also that if the only alternative is tyranny, then as stewards of our civilization we must fight.
Either way, I grieve for the American nation.
23 Comments
One of the things I most appreciate about your posts, Malcolm, is that you’re clearheaded and sensible even when dealing with issues that bring out the emotional and sensational in many people. When calm and reasonable chaps like you are seriously wondering whether CWII has already begun . . . that’s a pretty sure sign to me that it’s already begun.
I’m not sure that I want a civil war. But I think I’m going to get one regardless of what I want. That being the case, I’m sure I want it finished, and the sooner the better.
You could even say I’m ‘eager’. I think a lot of the fellows you wrote about are feeling the same. We’d rather live in peace with our families and be left alone. But if that’s not an option, if we’re going to be forced into it by evil people who mean us harm, then let’s get this terrible swift sword business over with.
Before long, it’ll be too late. And I don’t see how we can logick, argue or vote our way out of this. Heritage America’s non-stop complaining about what the left are already busily and effectively doing to us, is not a strategy. So I’d be pleased to see more members of the dissident right discussing how to pull this off with the greatest long-term effect, while minimising collateral damage.
“So we can either allow them to destroy this country, the last great place on Earth, or we can vote for whosoever opposes them. Even if the person is not what we wish.” Sadly, voting will not save us from what they have planned for us. Remember, the GOPe and the Demonrats want the same thing. Evil NEVER stops. There is no voting our way out of this. Fight or submit to tyranny.
Well, as Aragorn said to the King of Rohan, “War is upon you.”
For an actual civil war to commence, someone or group somewhere must inflict large numbers of casualties via armed attack. For there to be war, a greater response will be required from the attacked people or group. These attacks will have to overwhelm available law enforcement so that the warring sides can operate with impunity. Local law agencies must see rank and file “throw in” with one side or the other—or split sides.
It depends on who acts first, intensity of combat, and how many casualties how fast.
Who will go first? How many average people can or will pick up a gun, point it at another person and pull the trigger? These three steps are extremely difficult for those who are not specially trained or mentally defective.
The (((left))) has kicked rightist butt in this country for more than 60 years. It never sleeps. It is purpose driven, highly organized, united in moral philosophy, both controls and is financed by billionaires-government-corporations, is sanctioned by law, and has plenty of POCs to use as cannon fodder. All we do is whine about leftist hypocrisy, atheism, and make knee-jerk responses like, “socialism” as we grow our beer guts and talk about muh principles, gubermint taxes, ‘n’ muh gun hobby. Between 10-20 years from now Boomers will begin their great dying off. Our children will become a despised minority. Civil war, should it come, will be an entirely one way affair.
What the author of the above piece fails to recognize is that at some point soon approaching–a matter of a few years… that there will be no voting your way out of this mess. Neither will sniveling and praying to your personal god of choice and hoping for some sorta’ divine intervention (not going to happen BTW) to save the day.
The radical leftists intend at some date load your butts onto rail cars for a vacation stay at the local gulag. The country is currently being flooded by turd-world, non-europeans who for the most part have trouble using toilet paper and flush toilets… and you think you are going to convince them to be a “conseeeeerrrrrrvative.”
Yeah-right… hey, the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale again!
At some point in time soon, no conservative type will ever be elected to national office and you will have absolutely no political power. You will be dispossessed in you own homeland.
And what are you going to do? Pray and snivel? Stand on a street corner waving American flags shoulting “Murica’?”
Uh-huh.
Better get used to the idea of what is soon to unfold.
Here’s a video to help you grok the current situation…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9s-L5MbjpM&t=231s
I suggest you watch the rest of John Mark’s videos to get your minds right.
I somewhat disagree Whitewall, though perhaps I ought mention I’ve been keeping up with JB’s and Professor Vlahos’ conversation from, pretty much, its beginning.
I just got into Malcolm’s archives fruitlessly but I certainly do recall placing this first link here:
https://www.city-journal.org/html/fractured-west-15611.html
Since that article’s appearance events have overtaken observations though:
https://www.city-journal.org/antifa-portland-16262.html
Living Systems Analysis, upon which I tend to depend, informs me “large numbers of casualties via armed attack” is not the requisite. What is rather, is that, ‘disorders’ on the peripheries press into the interior’s consciousness – and when sufficient compaction is reached:
Flashpoint.
Behind enemy lines, here’s one.
Roughly 100 men, split into three man teams approach a city. The team is sniper/spotter/security-explosives. First two days are spent shooting cars on the roads in and out. Stack up enough cars in a narrow spot and that road is shut. Hit and move. The idea is to starve a metropolis to death. Remember, there is only three days food in the typical city. Day three, attack power, water, fuel, sanitation. Just stirng things up and getting people rilled up. Day four, back to the roads. Shoot crews trying to unblock roads and some more cars for fun. Set ambushes for locals units trying to interdict.
Day four is panic day when people realize nothing works. And the future isn’t looking too bright. Sit back and watch the city eat itself.
Just 100’s of millions dead, sadly to include most of me and mine as we live in a good sized target.
What worries me is the move by both parties toward totalitarianism. Hope we don’t get there first.
A short novel by William Forstchen, “Dies Irae, the Day of Wrath”, while not dealing specifically with civil war, details a plausible scenario of a small group of Muslims, using low-tech weapons, bringing America to its knees in ONE day.
Realistic? Could a civil war come to mass violence as easily as that scenario?
It’s a quick read and will stimulate you. And the application to the topic of this thread is clear.
ST:
Thanks for your input (though of course I am very sorry to learn this). Until reading your comment I’d been confident that we could easily vote the problem away, or, failing that, could count on sniveling our way out of it.
Now I guess I’ll have to re-think everything.
Thanks, Trumpeter. I’m familiar with the Matt Bracken tactical plan. What I’m reaching for is a higher-level strategy which Bracken’s idea might (or might not) contribute to. That is, I’m looking for a higher-level whole-of-nation strategy that would have a hope of restoring stable government, for the benefit of Heritage Americans, after conclusively dealing with the TWANLOCs.
It’s not beyond me to put together some draft options for that sort of strategy. But I’m very, very interested in hearing what other guys think.
What I’ve been hearing includes things like (a) secession at state level; (b) the Benedict Option; c) prepare now to take small team action for when it all comes apart. What I’m not seeing is any serious conversation about how to take the initiative, wrestle power from the uniparty, and get the country back.
;-)
Rereading my first comment, I should add that my line about ‘non-stop complaining’ was a general observation about conservatism writ large, not a crack at Our Generous Host.
Brilliant essay. I too grieve for our Republic. Damn the socialists to hell for leading us to a choice between tyranny and civil war. And thank God for our founding fathers, who gave us the tools to fight back with the bill of rights, and especially the First and Second Amendments. The First permits us to call out these socialist would-be tyrants, and failing that (due to “hate speech” laws etc) the Second will at least permit is to fight for our continued freedom.
Our neo-Bolsheviks imagine they can dust off and use their old Communist revolutionary playbook, but those plans only work when the people are disarmed first. Our socialists are just winding up the catapult that will be fired back at them.
There are 2 reasons to keep voting. Maybe, by the grace of God we may elect capable leaders and stave off the bloodshed. Not likely, but we must try. Second, it is highly likely those who suddenly stop voting get a nice new flag on their file.
“These three steps are extremely difficult for those who are not specially trained or mentally defective.”
— people say this as if it were true, a natural law, and not something one writer took as his thesis and got a book from it.
ALL the evidence of history and the world says otherwise. There may have been POCKETS of Westerners who had some individual reluctance, but overall, as societies and cultures, we have no problem with killing. WWI had no problem killing millions. WWII had no problem killing millions. AFRICA has no problem killing hundreds of millions. In fact, they will cut the hands off their female victims before raping them to death to make it harder for them to fight back.
China has no problem killing millions. Japan had no problem. Che’ and his followers likewise. Nor did the Germans or the Russians.
Romans killed people FOR FUN as a society, and we are their cultural inheritors.
Gangbangers kill without compunction or remorse both people that look like them and others.
Youtube is full of contemporary video of people, ordinary people, killing without hesitation when circumstances call for it.
Jihadi’s do it as a sacrament.
MS-13 does it because that is who they are.
The world is full of killers. Humans have been killing each other since Cain and Able, and we’ve gotten better and better at it. To think otherwise is the most naive and wishful nonsense.
nick
A fine essay Malcolm. To me, and it would appear to others here, the $10,000 question is what it actually means to fight (or as I would prefer, “resist”), as well as the criteria for ethically fighting or resisting. Upon this much depends. We should have some concrete answers ready, I think, before a President Biden potentially assumes power just under two years from now. Especially important in my mind is to eschew hairy-chestedness, a knee-jerk desire to simply threaten violence or portend doom that is perennial in the Dissident Right blogosphere, as you seem to suggest. There may very well be more intelligent, pacific alternatives, that require not merely a nihilistic “We Are Doomed” shrug while reaching for the pistol or shotgun but responsible, prudent action. Especially vital is not to give up on democratic politics and persuasion, even if Democrats eventually come back into power (which is bound to happen at some point obviously). Resort to force should very much be a last resort, only after other mechanisms have been clearly exhausted. We really, really, really don’t want the Muses to become silent and the arms clash.
Anyway, you’re well advised to delve into this topic, which after all has been a constant through the ages. As it happens I’ve been reading a brief history of the Czech resistance, or lack thereof, to the Nazi occupation of Czechia during the war. The author, Vojtech Mastny, writes quite grippingly in his conclusion: “Even in today’s world, men should be prepared for situations where the need for resistance might arise. Still, whatever its techniques, these would always involve risk, humiliation, and suffering, with uncertain results.”
“people say this as if it were true, a natural law, and not something one writer took as his thesis and got a book from it.”
Your list pretty well backed up my contention: trained or mentally deficient. I can only speak from my experiences, not from reading history. Your experiences might be different.
“only a fool would actually wish for civil war:” Boy Howdy!
Unfortunately, it’s coming whether we want it or not. Was it Sun Tsu that said, “you may not want war, but it may find you anyway?”
There’s a focusing moment coming, and after that police supported ANTIFA display in Seattle, probably sooner than later. Here in WA, Ferguson and Inslee just threatened the Sheriffs that are standing up for the Constitution. Thing is, we have to stand up for the Sheriffs…supporting good behavior, breeds better behavior.
re: “Remember, there is only three days food in the typical city. ”
Points of Order (and before I begin, note that I’m only saying this because fantasy is not a way to conduct a counter-insurgency against a bunch of organized basement-dwellers with a ton of popular support among the local population…) So:
1) There is at least 10-14 days’ worth of food in any given city if not a month or more (stores, bodegas, in-town warehousing, restaurants and suppliers thereof, the typical urban refrigerator/cupboard, etc…) So, well, don’t be surprised if the city folk are still eating at day four, or day forty. See also the Bosnian conflict, where cities (and their residents) were shut down and kept shut down for months on end, yet they managed to keep more-or-less fed. Mind, it won’t be evenly distributed (nor could it be), but there’s plenty of eats to be had in the city – more than the typical SHTF-porner would be willing to admit.
2) I live outside of the area, but still within 100 miles of Portland, OR, so let me use it as an example: Most of the Antifa kiddies aren’t living downtown – they ride in from mommy and daddy’s house in the ‘burbs. Hemming in a city’s urban area with a 30-40 mile perimeter is one (useless) thing, but hemming in a 90-100 mile perimeter around, say, most of Portland Metro, given its terrain? That’s gonna be herculean for even a 500-person team – at least without air assets and some beaucoup serious mobility.
3) Now – Interdiction (which is what I assume your friend was aiming for) is another thing entirely – but that’s a lot more selective, requires a lot more intelligence (to be sufficiently selective), and will take a whole lot more effort.
4) Unless you have the state’s National Guard on your side, your mission is probably doomed from the start as soon as they realize what’s up, and then commence to hunting you down. Sniper rifles and sticks of explosive aren’t going to counter, say, a flock of Apaches with full ordinance loadouts who can see and shoot you long before you can get them anywhere close to the range of that sniper rifle (of course if you happen to have some decent AA man-portables, cool, but you’ll need a lot more of them than I think most folks realize. Why? Because war is really expensive on ammo, that’s why.)
There are three important books to read, the first being the most important related to our current miasma. “Suicide of the West—how the rebirth of tribalism, populism, nationalism, and identity politics is destroying American Democracy” by Jonah Goldberg. The introduction is profound and it gets better. The second is “How Civilizations Die” by David Goldman and the third is “The Strange Death of Europe” by Douglas Murray, a Brit.
What these three books will do is vastly expand one’s understanding about how close we are to losing what the Enlightenment bequeathed mankind and that America is the pinnacle of, and revert to what ALL of mankind’s past history has been—pain, slavery and disease and a very short life.
Out of the Enlightenment, Jonah writes, came the Miracle of wealth creation. “My argument begins with some assertions: Capitalism is unnatural. Democracy is unnatural. Human rights are unnatural. The world we live in today is unnatural, and we stumbled into it more or less by accident. The natural state of mankind is grinding poverty punctuated by horrific violence terminating with an early death. It was like this for a very, very long time.” Later he says that what is “natural” is tribalism and has been for thousands and thousands of years.
Homo Sapiens emerged about 300,000 years ago. The kind of society we live in emerged in only the last 300 years, a mere blink in history. Yet, we are blindingly ungrateful for that fact. And both the left and right are wanting us to return to tribalism. If we don’t fight against that, we will disappear in a spasm of unbelievable violence.
Understanding what it takes to be civil has been lost and if we don’t regain it, we will truly disintegrate into warring tribes, just like the Indigenous people’s of every other culture of mankind’s history. Life will become swift, brutish and short. Civility takes work, is not “romantic”, but leads to a peaceful life filled with opportunity.
Discoverer,
Thank you for commenting. I’m sorry to say, though, that I’ve very little respect for Jonah Goldberg’s political or intellectual opinions. He’s a bright guy, and a clever writer, but he epitomizes the naive, condescending, and pampered globalism that characterizes what has come to be known as “Conservatism, Inc.”
I linked to a review of the Goldberg book, by The Federalist’s John Davidson, in May of last year. (That post includes my own commentary as well, which I won’t duplicate here.) A day later, my friend Paul Gottfried published a review of his own, which I linked to as well.
I’d recommend removing Goldberg’s Suicide of the West from your list, and replacing it with the book by James Burnham that he swiped the title from. It is outstanding — and unlike Goldberg, Burnham makes a correct diagnosis.
The disease affecting the West goes far deeper than Jonah Goldberg understands, or is willing to admit.
There is a plan to restore the republic and Constitutional law. Q. I strongly suggest to check out https://qmap.pub/ and research the site. Much is being done behind the scenes by patriots. Have hope and continue to pray.
Yes, I’m familiar with Qanon. (I think most of us here are.) I hadn’t seen that website, though.
I’m not sure what to say about ‘Q’. I suppose there may be something to it, but I’m generally skeptical of cryptic oracles. Q generally seems always to be saying “just wait, something big is about to happen” — and then nothing ever does. I rather stopped paying any attention to it sometime last year.