How and Why the American Right Wing Will Resort to Violence Soon
Summary: We predict that the march to Civil War 2.0 will be short-circuited by peaceful secession. But we think targeted assassinations will be used to provoke a state to secede. We predict that the right wing will assassinate federal judges to create the right political climate for peaceful secession of the conservative states. We predict that the right wing will use gun violence against the ruling class to try to stampede the federal government into doing the kind of gun confiscations that would provoke the people of states such as Texas to get their states to peacefully secede. We discuss how assassinations will be justified.
Conservatives Don’t Accept Powerlessness in Shaping America’s Future
Conservatives are Doomed Without Secession:
As of 2019, every country in western and central Europe has been taken over by the Left, except perhaps the USA. This is also true of the “Anglosphere” (countries of English culture such as the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and western South Africa). In these countries, conservatives never fought back militarily to prevent all institutions of power from being captured by the Left, and now they are apparently to weak to do so, except in the USA. Parts of eastern Europe are starting to emerge from Leftism in some ways, but they had to suffer generations to get to that point.
Media, social media, K-12 education, and universities are the means of persuasion in the US, but the Left controls all of these. The Left will continue to win in the battlefield of ideas because it controls how much each idea is communicated. A list of institutions controlled by the Left is here:
The conservative movement is not strong enough to permanently keep open-borders politicians out of power. When Democrats regain control of DC, they will certainly give citizenship (and therefore the vote) to as many foreigners as is necessary to prevent someone like Trump from ever winning the presidency again. And they can’t be punished in elections if they bring in enough foreigners to win those elections. These ideas are discussed here:
Politics is the art of the possible. Within 24 years, America will not be majority white, if current immigration levels are not changed. The conservative movement does not have the reach to convince minorities and students that they are better off without reparations, socialism, and more immigration. After the US pulls down the Confederate statues, it will pull down our founding fathers, and the Constitution they wrote. Their judges and politicians have been ignoring the Constitution since FDR, or earlier.
What remains of American America is under an orchestrated attack by all of its institutions, which have already been captured by the Left. These institutions are conspiring to indoctrinate generations into their sick LGBT anti-American ideology, making it a state religion enforced by federal power, such as censorship of “hate” speech. Any dissent against their ideology is considered “problematic” or “hate” and will be punished. Even criticism of Islam will not be allowed.
Generation after generation, Americans have sacrificed their lives to preserve the sovereignty of their people. Did they do this so that popular sovereignty could be stolen by Leftist judges and insatiable Marxists? So that they might be ruled by a ruling class that hates them? The ultimate insult to our ancestors, who risked everything to give us a place where radical Protestants can live a holy life without oppression, would be to allow the Left to take over our government, because the Left would certainly force our schools to teach that our ancestors were immoral monsters.
Conservatives have a choice: use their power, before it is taken away, to preserve everything they value about the American parts of America, or watch the American-ness of America disappear. www.unz.com/freed/betting-on-gray-sludge-what-fun/
Conservatives are recognizing that federal judges ignore the Constitution, so the Constitution is no defense against the Left.
Christians Can’t Just Fold
Why won’t Christians just knuckle under? Why can’t they just broaden their coalition and keep moving left?
That’s not really possible for Christians because our religion is all about recognizing that the purpose and role of man is to serve and glorify God. There is nothing more important than obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ. This is why Christians were incompatible with citizenship in the Roman Empire until the Roman Empire accommodated itself to Christianity in the 300’s AD. Untold thousands of Christians were executed because they valued God’s law above Roman law.
So we would rather be executed than violate our conscience. Our ancestors recognized this problem was arising in England in the 1600s, so they created America to be a society that can accommodate the strict requirements of the Christian conscience. The purpose of America is to be a place where neither law nor society conflict with radical Protestantism. The Bible doesn’t change, so our belief won’t change that it is better to die than to disavow our Lord by condoning abortion, or participating in gay weddings which we consider to be a mockery of the creator and of marriage.
Normal Americans are getting squeezed out of the Union
Social justice warriors hate red-state cultures and rednecks and seem determined to eliminate us. We have to go somewhere. But we can’t even move to another country. There is no country that is more “red-state” than the red states. Although many countries are culturally conservative in their own way, they are conserving a culture that is foreign to us. America was founded by our ancestors to be an English society that is safe for radical Protestantism. There is no other developed country where Christians have the political power to ensure that the government leaves our freedom of conscience alone.
Conservatives are “dead-enders” in the sense that if given a choice between violating their conscience to bow down to the evils of the Left, or armed revolt, they will choose the latter.
The USA is Close to Civil War 2.0
It is estimated that US war veterans are committing suicide at a rate of 140 per week. They fought for Americanism, but the USA is being conquered by those who hate Americanism (the American creed). These are men who could easily find a purpose for their lives in liberating the American parts of America. “All of the fighting age men in the US have spent the last 20 years watching a third world insurgent force using almost entirely small arms go toe-to-toe with the worlds greatest military. Only difference over here is we have more trees,” wrote Luke Weinhagen.
Unlike prior generations, this generation was raised on first-person shooter games, and many are are on anti-anxiety drugs that reduce inhibitions toward violence: SSRI’s such as Prozac and Zoloft.
One might assume that people with positive net worth would fear civil lawsuits. But today anyone can learn to protect their assets by googling Asset Protection before they expose themselves to liability.
In the Spring of 2019, US residents were asked how close we are to civil war on a scale from 0 to 100. The average response was seventy one! 79% of US residents agreed that “I’m tired of leaders compromising my values and ideals. I want leaders who will stand up to the other side.” 85% of Republicans and 78% of Democrats agreed. 58% of US residents “strongly agreed”.
This is not surprising because the Democrats and the Republicans represent conceptions of justice (moral worldviews) that are incompatible, and fundamentally opposed. One is based on the unchanging Bible. The other moves farther and farther from the traditions of Western civilization each year based on the fads of psychology, sociology, and celebrities. Some ideas of morality can fit in the same civilization. Others can only be expressed in a fundamentally different civilization.
Since this poll shows that Americans on both sides won’t elect politicians who compromise on their conception of justice, then compromise can only be on WHERE these two moralities will have the power of law. One can have the blue states. The other can have the red states. This is the solution that has allowed various civilizations to exist on the globe simultaneously. Divide the territory between the two civilizations and guard the borders.
83% of US residents agreed that: “The political, racial, and class divisions in this country are getting worse and our national dialogue is breaking down.” 61% “strongly agree.” https://www.facebook.com/PeacefulRedStateSecession/posts/446884029217920
In a 2017 poll, one third of Americans said that there will be a civil war in America within 5 years. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2018/31_think_u_s_civil_war_likely_soon
Secession Will Become the Goal, Not A War of Attrition
Until recently, the right wing has been opposed to revolution because they felt that, in view of the leftward tilt of the voters and elites, a new order in the USA would be worse than the status quo. However, that’s changing. If the new order were confined only to the red states, the new order be more conservative. If the new order no longer had a means to stifle state sovereignty, the reddest states would each have an order that is certainly more conservative. The experience of leaving the USA would itself ensure that red states would not choose to join a federation that stifles state sovereignty.
Civil war can be prevented by using violence to achieve the political environment necessary to achieve peaceful secession.
Peaceful secession means declaring independence without attacking anyone. US history is unusual because South Carolina attacked Ft. Sumter before being attacked. Almost all secessions are peaceful, but some of them are followed by an attack by the mother country. In 1775 and 1861, secession caused war. But dozens of countries were formed by secession peacefully without any war, or to end a war. Here’s a list:
America is too divided now to pretend that it is one nation. If we endorse civic nationalism over ethno-nationalism, there must be some symbols and content to that civic nationalism. But the Left is rejecting the founding fathers because of their slaves. The founders were the last ties that bound our states together. Now there is nothing but inertia holding the Union together. A pledge of allegiance written by a socialist in the late 1800’s can not make us one nation.
In 1776, we had to choose between unity and liberty. The right wing is recognizing that it faces the same choice in this decade.
The blue states have a culture that can not sustain a free republic. But if the red states secede, conservatives would move into the red states, and leftists and people dependent on welfare would voluntarily move out. This would make the red states much more conservative, and more able to sustain a culture that can sustain a free republic. After the initial wave of conservatives into the red states, the red states as a whole, or even individual red states, could stop all immigration from other states and from foreign countries. They could use the power of the state to preserve a voice for conservatives in media and education. Some state government voter registration websites have a public list of which party each voter has selected in their registration. Some other states require that the list be purchased. These lists can be used to deny visas to out-of-state registered Democrats.
Any solution you might have for our situation will be easier to achieve in a federation of red states, because they are more conservative than the USA. The Left hates federalism. Any chance that the USA would retain states’ rights was destroyed when Lincoln took away a state’s only leverage against the central government. Even if Republicans re-instituted federalism, Democrats would violate it on things they care about. Roe v. Wade is proof of that.
If Texas (or Alabama, or Idaho) secedes, its red-state neighbors would a have a decision to make: to go with Texas or stay with the blue states. After a few red states leave, the rest would be forced to follow to avoid the obvious socialism of the remainder. Within a few years, Texas is expected to switch from leaning right to leaning left (because of the influx of Latin Americans). But if Texas secedes before it becomes known as a blue state, the influx of conservatives, entrepreneurs, and freedom-lovers, plus the voluntary out-migration of Leftists and people fearful of losing federal social services, will turn Texas into a deep red state. Also, Texas citizenship may exclude recent immigrants, etc (even if the recent immigrants already have US citizenship).
The ultimate goal is to prevent the whole USA from turning into an anti-American totalitarian socialist state. In other words, to ensure that there remains an English-speaking place on the globe that preserves traditional American values and liberty. The Leftists are more trouble than they’re worth- why try to keep them subjugated? Canadians are liberal, but we don’t need to attack them because they don’t vote in our elections. The same could be true of blue states after secession.
Our founding fathers fought the American War of Independence, but they were wise enough to be satisfied with revolting only in 13 colonies, not in the colonies to their north and south in Canada and Florida, nor in Great Britain itself. It would have been idiotic for George Washington to try to conquer London because the Americans weren’t numerous enough to pacify it. Similarly, it makes no sense for rednecks to conquer Los Angeles and NYC because we don’t need them, and we don’t want their voters. If you want to conquer the blue states, do you also plan to conquer Canada, Mexico, China, and Europe? We don’t need to. The USA is only 4% of the population of the world, and the Trump states are 2% of the world.
Civil War Should Not Be the Goal
Frequently in my conversations on Facebook, people reject peaceful secession because they would prefer civil war. Such people would rather eliminate Democrats than lose territory. But after a civil war, how would they prevent Democrats from continuing to win elections? There are only a few possibilities, and they would have to be carried out on a grand scale, since Obama won his first election by 10 million votes.
- Strip their right to vote by changing suffrage laws. But changing the voting age to 40 only changes the vote by a few percentage points. Restricting the right to vote to men is not sustainable because men have already shown their willingness to give the vote to women in practically every nation of the world, so American men would eventually give it back to them.
- Strip the right to vote from people who are on state voter registration lists as having been a Democrat. (This doesn’t prevent non-voters from becoming voters, and the next generation of voters).
- Make blue states territories instead of states
- Deport them and strip their citizenship
- Execute them
- Eliminate democracy
There are many problems with these ideas. First of all, Democrats are our hippy uncles, our wives, and our wayward daughters. And the right wing would need to get rid of 25 million of them to make enough difference, since they don’t know which Democrats voted for Obama and which stayed home. Plus they would have to be rid of the nonvoters who might be offended by these actions and vote against them or fight them- probably the vast majority of the US population. The number of people willing to commit these actions is far less than the number of people horrified by it and willing to work against it, even among gun owners, so it would be unlikely to succeed.
Deporting 40 million people to Mexico or Canada would result in the starvation of millions. They have no way of making a living if suddenly dumped into a nation unprepared to support them. Those would be many casualties getting them out, keeping them out, and re-deporting those who came back. It would also provoke war with foreign nations.
If there were a general civil war between Right and Left, the right wing would win a civil war because most of the Left would surrender. This means that the only way to reduce their numbers by the necessary amount is to execute prisoners of war and non-combatants. Would you fire on unarmed non-combatants with hands over their heads?
Most gun owners are not willing to allow extremists to commit the actions described above. And most gun owners don’t want to spend the rest of their lives pacifying millions who’ve been stripped of their right to vote.
The point is that secession is the easier solution. And if civil war does start, it’s best to end it by seceding. Separation of the combatants via secession can prevent millions of casualties.
If there were no hope of creating such a state, then lashing out and hurting the other side might make sense emotionally as a symbolic gesture. It’s the choice of someone who recognizes he’s lost. But if you still believe there is hope, then don’t spend your life in jail unnecessarily. Spend it bending history towards the creation of a new order.
Secession Is Unlikely Unless Something Changes
The Facebook page “Red-State Secession” was originally named “Peaceful Red-State Secession” because it was believed that peacefully splitting the country could be an idea that would take off. But two years later, it hasn’t taken off. Over the years, dozens of writers have advocated the idea in mainstream, corporate media. Polling has not been bad. Yet still very few activists are working to achieve this goal, and hardly any money has been contributed to it. Without activists or cash, there is no way to make secession happen, short of the actions that we predict in the next paragraphs, unless current events push a state in that direction. There seem to be more warmongers than peacemakers.
A YouGov poll showed that one third of US residents said yes to: “Would we be better off if Democratic and Republican parts of the country split apart to form their own separate countries?”
Some years, there are more in favor of secession than opposed in Texas or Alaska. Yet a major block of these voters are undecided, so the number in favor of secession has not been a majority. Alaska secession is problematic because the federal government owns most of the land and oil, and federal employees are a significant fraction of the economy. https://redstatesecession.org/unreported-2017-reuters-poll-shows-states-ready-to-secede/
One event that could push a state to secede would be if presidential election results are disputed. If a Democrat wins, Republicans won’t be able to check the records for hacking because we don’t use paper ballots anymore. Americans don’t trust each other or their news sources. If some states recognize Trump as president and other states recognize the Democrat as president in 2020, there could be mass violence that would change the political environment enough to make Texas want to secede.
Force Can Be Used to Make Secession Happen
It is not the US government that prevents secession from happening. It is the fact that there is not yet any state with enough activists or power in its secessionist movement to convince the state government to implement and declare independence. Our essay that explains why the US military wouldn’t attack a seceding state is here: https://redstatesecession.org/why-the-feds-wont-attack-a-seceding-state/
A rash of gun violence targeting the elite (the ruling class) could push the federal government to overreact with gun confiscation. The general sense of alienation of the populace against this confiscation could be adequate to make them secessionists. This could push a state (or a group of counties) to secede.
What to do about the fact that only a fraction of conservatives are ready to secede? If peaceful attempts to provoke peaceful secession have failed, is there a way to provoke peaceful secession via less-than peaceful means? What intermediate military goals would work toward the ultimate goal of preserving a place for traditional values and liberty?
One goal would be to show more Texans that the federal government is an aggressor by provoking a response from the feds. The ideal would be provoking a conflict between the feds and a governor that is willing to stand up to the feds. Another goal could be to prove to Americans that the Left of the blue states and the Right of the Red states can not peacefully share a federal government anymore. In other words, knowing that things will just get worse, instigate a preview of where history is heading. Civil resistance can dramatize what is at stake, and what is being lost as long as a state is in the Union.
In 1765, the Sons of Liberty could see that they only had two choices: a future of worsening oppression under the King, or secession. Yet even after the war began in 1775, many colonists still hoped to make peace with the King. How did the Sons of Liberty face the situation we have today? Because the Sons of Liberty provoked Great Britain, they forced the 13 colonies to make a decision. We forget that the 13 colonies were not decisive or bold enough to declare independence until 1776, a year AFTER the war for American Independence began. Today, avoiding war would be preferable, but some drama may be enough to lead to peaceful political divorce.
If the Sons of Liberty had tried to eliminate red coats one by one, the redcoats would have easily been replaced, and the Sons of Liberty would have been wiped out. Instead, they organized to use pamphlets and personal communication to increase their numbers. They not only wrote pamphlets to convince people that they needed to be ready to fight for independence or suffer an eternity of oppression. They also took action. The Sons of Liberty instigated public events, such as tar-and-feathering, that forced the independents to decide whether they were with the crown (a Tory) or with the American patriots (a Whig). It forced non-political people to become political. Eventually they provoked confrontations that forced mainstream American politicians and generals such as John Adams and George Washington to turn their backs on the crown. They decided to secede from Britain rather than try to win British Parliamentary elections.
In 1770, the New York Sons of Liberty harassed British soldiers by pelting them with rocks and insults until the troops to attacked them in the Battle of Golden Hill. This was followed by using a mob to provoke redcoats to attack the mob in the Boston Massacre. In 1773, the Boston Tea Party provoked the British government to issue laws which the colonists labelled the Intolerable acts.
The Intolerable Acts traded away freedoms to ensure “security,” similar to the trade we witnessed after Sept 11, 2001. But the majority of the public was mostly supportive of the reduction in liberties of September 11 because people like the majority of the public had been targeted by the terrorists. If the terrorists had established a proven pattern of only targeting federal officials, then the public would not have accepted TSA pat-downs or the NSA’s favorite law: the Patriot Act. If the terrorists had scrupulously avoiding casualties among normal Americans, these laws would have been rejected by the red states. And the laws would have provoked the red states to see the federal government as oppressive. Federal government actions would get the kind of media attention that can radicalize the masses across the whole country.
When the British government tried to implement the Intolerable Acts in 1774, the militia in every county of Massachusetts excepting Boston intimidated the government officials into quitting. The militias would form a mob and then extract a promise to quit from the officials. But the militia was helped by the fact that there was little energy in favor of the British government in those counties. The situation is different in the USA today.
There is a documentary on YouTube called 1916: The Irish Rebellion. In Episode 3, When Myth and History Rhyme, the right wing can find lessons for modern state independence movements. Radicals who are ahead of their time can sway public opinion. Their actions may seem unwarranted ahead of time, but they can force an over-reaction from the oppressor. This can dramatize (make visible and felt) the oppression, and force the public to choose sides. If the audience that the secessionists are targeting indeed choose against siding with the oppressors, the secessionists have won. The audience may be revolted by the overreaction, or learn to think in terms of us vs them, and learn to think that independence is valuable. The right wing will find the need to make the federal government, and blue-state voters in general, the bad guys.
We Predict The Right Wing Will Be Forced To Choose This Strategy:
The right wing should be careful in trying to apply lessons from other independence movements to the red-state independence movement. The British troops in the 1770s were foreigners. Today most US troops are allies of the right wing. Some argue that there needs to be a red line on allowing gun confiscation. If the red line is crossed, shooting starts. Who should be shot in their view? The law enforcement officer who shows up at the house? Or the one who sent him? Or the legislators who made the law… or the judge who upheld challenges to the law and other unconstitutional laws?
Will the right wing find alternative opportunities for action that are more likely to win hearts and minds? Resisting state law might be relevant to splitting a state, but it is irrelevant to secession from the Union. Clearly, for the purposes of achieving the secession of a state from the federal government, only resisting the enforcement of a federal law or federal order is relevant. If your state is unbearable, move to Texas, Alaska, Alabama, Louisiana, or Idaho and help that state secede.
Other countries, such as the UK, have disarmed their populace without trouble. But a sudden, overzealous gun confiscation in the USA seems likely to turn out differently. It makes citizens feel that their capability to prevent abuse of federal power is threatened. How will the right wing provoke the federal government to overreact, as overreaction is defined from the point of view of Republican and independent voters in red states? The right wing will achieve this by making the federal government feel much more need for gun law than these voters do. They will do this by never hurting Republican and independent voters, so that those voters feel safe, while inspiring anger and panic among the decision makers who determine federal policy. This anger and fear can be achieved by making them feel targeted by gun violence.
Targeting is everything. The right wing will choose targets which elicit the least sympathy from their audience. Their audience are the people needed to start and sustain secession. Secession could start in Texas (because it is already the most pro-secession), or Louisiana, or Alabama and then proceed to other red states. The audience will be red-state voters, especially Republicans and independents. If an action causes too much sympathy for the victims, the audience won’t be sufficiently outraged by the federal response, because the response won’t feel disproportionate enough. The militia movement fell apart in the Bill Clinton years after Timothy McVeigh’s Oklahoma City bombing. The Alt-Right was weakened by a single murder in Charlottesville. Al-Qaeda was eliminated in the most populous Muslim country in the world because some local Muslims died in two bombings against foreigners in the Bali Bombings.
Getting the federal government to overreact requires making the decision-makers feel angry and/or fearful, personally targeted, panicked, or at least protective of helpless minorities- much more so than red-state voters. Action locations closer to the homes of decision makers, and farther from red-state homes, helps achieve a great difference in perspective between federal decision makers and red-state voters. The targets should never be people in coastal red states that might lead the way for secession such as Texas, Louisiana, or Alabama. It helps to locate actions in famous big cities where the ruling class tends to live or visit rather than everytown USA. We expect that the right wing will prefer shootings in California, because this could cause Californians to push harder for California secession (so that they can achieve the kinds of gun control that the feds don’t allow). California is the blue state that shows the most interest in seceding, except for Hawaii. If California secedes, then any red state can follow its precedent. If the shooters are from outside California, then Californians will feel more alienated from other states. We predict shootings in San Francisco, Santa Barbara, and parts of Los Angeles such as Malibu, Beverly Hills, Burbank, and Santa Monica.
Decision-makers who would cause gun confiscation are not just Democrat congressmen and US senators, but also federal judges who will apply and allow their law, and the donors who contribute to the political campaigns of these congressmen and senators. Congressmen tend to do what their donors demand that they do. Donors to Democrat congressmen are not just rich people but also CEO’s of corporations and labor unions and NGO’s that donate. Donor lists and amounts are available with an internet search. Opinion leaders matter too. And Google has bragged that it will steal the 2020 election for Democrats ( m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/24/google-exec-project-veritas-sting-says-only-big-te ), so Google executives are a part of the problem.
However, some of these people are civilians, unlike the feds. The feds are the perpetrators of unconstitutional oppression who get less sympathy from the necessary audience. Targeting civilians would raise moral issues. We cover moral issues later in this essay. Most federal judges go way beyond the authority that is given them in the Constitution. Many federal judges ignore the actual, written Constitution in their rulings.
Here is a link to a short story: https://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/what-i-saw-at-the-coup/ In this story, the media are targeted because they are the propaganda arm for a coup. Whether the right wing will treat the media this way depends on whether they see the media as domestic enemies of the Constitution. Some lie. Some lie about what is constitutional.
The idea of provoking gun confiscation has risks. If gun laws are vetoed by the president, the whole approach has failed until the next president is elected (unless the veto causes him to be removed from office.) If not enough actions occur, nothing changes, except that the government might gradually introduce bad laws that the public will gradually accept, including state laws. So far, this is what has happened in New Zealand. The whole approach requires a sufficient amount of action and pace of action to force a sufficiently “intolerable” law to be passed… so intolerable that it inspires the first state to secede. This approach might fail, but the conservative movement doesn’t seem to have any other plan that could preserve popular sovereignty and traditional values.
Race war is counter-productive because the audience that secessionists are trying to persuade for Texas secession (which leads to red-state secession) is not all white. Only 42% of Texans are Anglos. 40% are Latinos, and 32% of Latino Texan voters vote Republican. Texas secession won’t happen unless Latinos are a part of it. Texas independence (TEXIT) is more popular among Latinos than among Anglos. African-Americans are an important part of the electorate in Louisiana and Alabama.
Attacking a synagogue is the kind of news that hurts right-wing movements, and it’s evil. Any violence is bad publicity if it seems to be uncalled-for, in the eyes of the parts of the audience that secessionists want to have on their side. A big part of the red-state audience are evangelicals, who love Jews ardently. Jews are one of the most-loved groups according to polls.
Attacking immigrants is not enough to dissuade them from coming to the US because the US is a much better place for them to live than their homelands despite the occasional shooting. Their homelands have more shooting. It is impossible for a few gunmen to make moving to America a bad idea. Targeting civilian Muslims can make the elite want to virtue signal (and a bit angry), but attacks on civilians pull on the heart-strings of mothers everywhere of all political points of view.
The problem with terrorism is that multiple groups could threaten to destroy the same city, making mutually-exclusive demands. If a right wing group threatens to bring down the electrical grid unless they get their way, but Black Lives Matter (or ISIS) makes the same threat unless the right wing doesn’t get their way, then the grid will go down with no good reason. Americans are still committed to majoritarianism. They won’t give in to a right wing minority demanding their way at the threat of destroying power lines. But they will accept secession if the majority in a territory wants secession. The governor of Texas is within his rights to embargo the 49 states. But not partisans. This is why we need to let the governor and state legislature represent us.
Force Can Be Justified Morally According to Just War Theory
How does a country transition from a situation where a killing is considered murder to a country where it is considered rightful 4th generation warfare? According to the tradition of Western civilization, if the legitimate leaders of “a people” authorize warfare according to the principles of Just War theory, then killing is righteous, not murder. This can not be a splinter group of a people. It has to be a representative group. This prevents hotheads from causing unnecessary damage, such as the hotheads who fired on Ft. Sumter. Lincoln used the excuse of that violence to cause millions of deaths until he obtained unconditional surrender. Because their actions led to success, history judges more favorably the actions of the Sons of Liberty, and the Irishmen of the Irish Rebellion in 1916. History does not judge favorably the Irishmen of more recent “troubles” in Northern Ireland, because their actions never led to success and disturbed the conscience of much of the populace of the Republic of Ireland.
The medieval Western Church came to a consensus on a list of four conditions that must be met if engaging in war is to be considered morally defensible. These conditions survived the test of time and are called Just War Doctrine. There is no authoritative document for the whole church of all time, but here is the doctrine as expressed in the current Roman Catholic Catechism point 2039. I’ve numbered them:
“The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
1- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3- there must be serious prospects of success;
4- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
5 The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.”
For a more complete explanation, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_ad_bellum
Before this doctrine is applied to 2019, it is instructive to apply it to 1775, using the numbers above.
Condition 1: Just Cause: The harms King George inflicted on the colonies were laid out in the Declaration of Independence.
Condition 2: Last Resort: The appeals to entreat King George to stop these harms were listed in the Declaration of Independence.
Condition 3: Probability of Success: In Common Sense, Thomas Paine explained why he believed that the colonies could win a war. It turns out that French help, and the ongoing war between France and Britain were key.
Condition 4: Proportionality: The colonists intended to fight a short war that would end the ongoing ills imposed by the King.
Condition 5: Proper Authority: Although the citizens of the colonies acknowledged that they were subjects of King George, each colony had practiced self-governance from the time of its founding in the 1600s or 1700s until the 1760s. The representatives that chose war (on the American side) in 1776 were selected by vote of the people of each colony. They were not officials from King George’s perspective. But as the Declaration of Independence makes clear, the peoples of each colony considered themselves a people, and therefore had the sovereignty to choose representatives for themselves.
Now let’s predict how the red states might apply Just War doctrine to 2019:
Condition 1, Just Cause, refers to the damage that can be prevented by war. Parts of the militia movement, and the Tea Party movement in general, identify the federal government as the aggressor because the federal government has violated the sovereignty of the states without permission. The federal government facilitates an invasion of foreign criminals, drug cartels, and terrorists across the border on an ongoing basis. Federal judges strike down abortion laws, intimidating state officials into allowing the abortion of 63 million infants so far. It’s clear that within a generation, the Leftward direction of the elite will severely damage the USA and its morals unless the red states secede.
Condition 2, Last Resort, is perceived to have been met, as states have failed to secede, and conservatives have become more and more outnumbered in the US. We discussed this at the beginning of this essay.
Condition 3, Probability of Success: we discussed this in the previous section of this essay.
Condition 4, Proportionality: Some commenters on Facebook have grown to hate the Left so much that hurting them is their primary motivation. This would not be a defensible motivation or goal according to Just War Doctrine condition 4. The purpose of the war should not be to reduce the number of Leftists alive. Neither is it defensible to deport tens of millions of US citizens to Mexico, where some might starve to death for lack of a way to make a living. The goal of the right wing will be to achieve a new peace with little bloodshed, as long as that peace includes securing a place where American culture, values, and liberty can survive. The right wing has been patient. It’s more likely to begin with targeted assassinations of oppressors long before it (as a group) would consider a war of attrition against civilians.
Condition 5, Proper Authority: In the 1760s, the Sons of Liberty worked without any authority, beyond their own convictions that they were on the right side of history. Men with much to lose, such as governors of colonies, would never have risked jail by such illegal activities. But in 1773, committees of correspondence were set up for each town, representing a sizable segment of the population of each town. They were a shadow government (an alternate government to the king’s appointees). The problem for the right wing is how to move the populace toward sympathy with their goals (like the populace of 1773) so that they can have authority, without using the violence that the Sons of Liberty committed to move the the populace? There doesn’t seem to be an answer.
When it comes to military action, Just War Doctrine seems to require that a state government be in charge, because in America, the people of each state are the fundamental unit of sovereignty. It is possible, according to the Declaration of Independence, for the people of a state to replace their government. But the governor was elected by them. It’s unlikely that they would choose a different person this year than they chose last year. Our goal should be to put courageous men into the offices of governor and state legislator in primary and general elections. Based on a speech we saw, the governor of Kentucky might be such a man.
Perhaps the right wing will be split between those who adhere to this view of Just War theory, and those who believe that they should not wait for a governor’s permission to begin operations. Or perhaps one portion of one state will secede from the USA. This idea is covered in a later essay published July 14, 2019.
Christians believe that Jesus, not the federal government, is king of kings. He has authority to put down rulers who displease Him, and most of the times that this has occurred, He has used people like you as His instrument to accomplish this.
Rick Joyner is a big name among Charismatic Christians, leading MorningStar Ministries (10,000 churches worldwide). He says that in December 2018, God gave him a dream in which God said “The Second American Revolutionary/Civil War is inevitable, it is right, and it will be successful.” Joyner says that God showed him that the civil war will be sparked by government confiscation of firearms. He saw cities devastated by fire, including Chicago and New York. “We are already in the first stages of the Second American Revolutionary/Civil War,” he wrote. “In the dream, I saw that we had already crossed that line and it is now upon us, so we must change our strategy from trying to avoid it to winning it.”
[subsequent to writing this essay, we wrote two others on the Christian response to the US situation here:
Force Can Be Justified By American History
The civil rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s was attended by quite a bit of organized violence. Today the civil rights movement is spoken of as the moral paragon of American political history. After the next American secession, will history speak glowingly of that secessionist movement even if it uses violence? That’s certainly how schoolchildren in that state will be taught.
Governments use armed men and violence to maintain their regimes. The US government does. It is only natural that armed men create the next regime.
The Declaration of Independence says “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
The founding fathers, who were Englishmen, sniped fellow Englishmen (redcoats) who served their king as they walked along roads. Were the founding fathers less oppressed than us? We can’t advocate violence, but we can predict it.
The US government protects federal judges with US Marshalls because of the belief that judges should not be swayed by threats. But the right wing won’t accept the idea that federal judges should have no fear of violating the Constitution as it was written.
Imagine states are not willing to secede, even after Sons of Liberty operations. What can the right wing do then?
[We consider this question comprehensively in the following essay, which we wrote later:
Here we consider a special case: ]
Currently, the political environment would not allow a group of counties to secede from the USA because they would be resisted militarily. Historically, “the people” of each state are the fundamental unit of sovereignty in America. If a civil war begins, state secession would be easy, depending on the balance of military forces that choose to side with the state, compared to the state’s value to the feds. But here let’s consider options if a civil war begins and yet a state doesn’t secede. Whether or not a group of counties can secede will be up to the local militias at first, and finally up to the winners of the war to decide. We can expect it to be considered treason against the state unless it gets approval from the state.
Let’s consider what group of counties would be most likely to secede if the US military were completely distracted or disabled (possibly by civil war, social breakdown, natural disaster, etc.). This is assuming no states secede, because state secession is superior to county secession.
It would have to be in an area that already polls well on secession. It should have direct access to international waters, so that it won’t be embargoed by the USA. The problem with being landlocked is that, even after getting independence, the USA could still close access to airspace and shipping without even violating international law. And the USA can make it too expensive to get supplies in and out by land. The USA will try hard to hold onto Alaska because the oil per capita is high, and the Alaska economy has a lot of federal employees. But east Texas is another story. In Texas, counties west or south of Houston could not add too much territory before running into Democrat strongholds of Houston, Austin, and San Antonio. Looking at a map, it seems that Chambers County east of Houston is situated well for territorial growth to the north. If Goat Island is added it would have a port on international waters. It has few Democrats. It is on the edge of a huge forested region of the USA, including various bayous and large nature preserves that are the home of the Cajun navy.
Don’t Go To Jail Unnecessarily
As you comment on these matters on Facebook, consider Facebook terms of service. We’re guessing any advocacy of violence is a violation. But we’re not advocating violence. In the essay above we am considering what the right wing, and what the red states in general will do if they follow Just War Doctrine.
18 U.S. Code § 2385 Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
However, Curt Doolittle says American case law allows all kinds of talk, as long as it doesn’t direct people to take action.
Fortunately there is nothing against predicting. We can write about what the right wing will do when it figures out it doesn’t have other options. According to the text of the law, we can’t say it’s a necessity or desirable, but we can predict that they (we) will think so, or observe that they already thinks so, and explain why.
The Constitution defines treason: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
The secession of a state from the Union, even unilateral secession, is not treason.
Most politicians were trained as lawyers, and most lawyers are trained to appease judges. It’s time to start reading authors who think in military terms because America is now in a power struggle, not a debate. This power struggle is being forced by those who want to institute a SJW “woke theocracy” to justify the financial predations of the ruling class and their dependents.