Bundy Ranch Standoff
The 19th century Russian playwright Anton Chekhov famously remarked that if a gun made an appearance in the first act of a play, it had better shoot somebody in the second. They say life imitates art, but of course it is the other way around; great art is transcendent precisely because it faithfully reflects life. It tells us something profound about the human condition, about how things really are in the world, not how we wish them to be. Once the American military has been deployed to the Mexican border to stop the invasion of Central American migrants, it became a certainty that an American soldier would shoot a migrant. This shot will be the second “shot heard around the world” and the opening salvo in the Second American War for Independence. Unlike the 18th century War of Independence, but very much in line with wars America fought in the post-WWII period, the Second War of Independence will be fought in the arena of public opinion rather than on the banks of the Rio Grande or in the Southern California desert.
Similarly to the First, the Second War of Independence will be simultaneously a war for independence against a foreign enemy and a civil war among fellow Americans. In the late 18th century, only a fraction of American colonists wished to be divorced from the British Empire; many saw such a divorce as treasonous and, to say the least, unwise. Tempers ran high and when their side lost, many loyalists had to leave their ancestral homes in the newly independent United States and seek refuge in the British dominions in the Americas, primarily in Canada and in the Caribbean. Today, America is similarly divided; about half of the population, primarily white, primarily Christian, primarily having deep roots on American soil, mostly living in rural and less populated areas, wants America to chart its own course in world affairs, independent of the so called “globalization” movement. A big part of this desire, both practically and symbolically, is complete control of America’s borders, primarily as a check on unbridled immigration, but also as an outward symbol of independence. The other half of Americans is more ethnically and religiously diverse, is made up of more recent first or second generation immigrants, and, being made up of the more affluent part of the population, is more shielded from the effects of unchecked migration from poor countries such as increased crime, communicable diseases, and higher stress on community services. This part of America aspires to be not only a part, but a leader of the Globalization movement, leading by example by opening America’s borders to streams of migrants from South and Central America, the Middle East, and every other impoverished part of the world.
Had this new war been fought mostly in the military theater of operations, it would be a rout for the independence side. America’s military and law enforcement, primarily the lower and middle apolitical ranks, are made up almost exclusively from the, for lack of a better term, patriot part of the population. Furthermore, America’s military might is such that it can easily defeat any external challenge. But this is not reality. This new war will be fought, is indeed already being fought, almost entirely on the battlefield of public relations, a battlefield which had long since been ceded by the patriots to be controlled entirely by globalists. America has already fought and lost, at a great cost to itself and the rest of the free world wars that were fought on the PR battlefield, most notably the war in Vietnam. That war, in the military theater of operations, was entirely winnable by America and should have thus been won. At the very least, South Vietnam could and should have been protected from becoming a communist client state of China and the USSR. A victory in the Vietnam war would not only have made its enormous cost in blood and treasure more bearable, it would have advanced the fall of the Soviet Union by a decade or more and prevented the seemingly endless Middle Eastern wars that started with the Yom Kippur war between the Israel and its Arab neighbors and the OPEC-driven oil crisis of the mid-1970’s. Had America not lost in Vietnam, had it maintained the aura of invincibility it paid so dearly for in the two world wars and in Korea, there would have been no oil crisis, no Palestinian terrorism, which gave rise to the Islamic terror threat we face today, no Jimmy Carter “malaise”, no double-digit inflation, no Mullah rule in Iran, no 9/11. The loss in Vietnam taught the world that America was vulnerable, that it could be beaten. And the world has been trying, not without success, to hurt America ever since.
How could America lose such a winnable war? The answer is not hard to find. Walter Cronkite went to Vietnam with the firm opinion that the war SHOULD NOT be won by America, because such a win would be immoral. His reportage, of course, said no such thing. What it said was that America COULD NOT win; that America was losing and should cut its losses and get out. Middle America was in the habit of believing Walter and so they did. Jane Fonda took care of the coasts; openly siding with America’s enemies, she weaponized the hippie movement against the war and used it to make the country all but impossible to govern. The Vietnam War was not lost in Indochina. It was lost in the bicoastal PR machine of the Washington Post, and the New York Times, and Hollywood. The same people that lost the Vietnam War by making it impossible for America to carry the fight to victory, the same people that thus made America vulnerable to oil blackmail and Islamic terror, then pushed America into never-ending military adventures in the Middle East, further weakening America’s might and its independence. Of course, that was their plan all along.
Today, we are in the late stages of this decades-old game, a stage of mass unmasking. The enemies of American patriots no longer bother hiding behind the old masks they had found so useful in the past four decades or so. Neocon Never Trumpers, many of whom are Jewish and (supposedly) ardent supporters of Israel are openly joining hands with Islamofascists like Louis Farrakhan and his newly minted faction in the US House of Representatives. The likes of Bill Kristol have no problem being called “termites” or throwing Israel under the bus to face alone the rising threat of Islamic fascism, as long as they can put down the Trump-led rebellion of American Patriots and sell America out to globalist interests. In this he is enthusiastically joined by the most influential Jewish Senators: Feinstein, Schumer, Sanders. Termites? No. Traitors? Yes. These people do not have “divided loyalties”, as the notable Islamofascist Linda Sarsour accused them (as part of American Jewry) of having. Not at all. They have only one loyalty: to the globalist enemies of both America and Israel and by extension the Jewish people everywhere, both at home and in the diaspora. The truth is that the interests of American Patriots and the State of Israel have always coincided. American Jews can easily choose to be both American and Israeli patriots. Alas, many of them choose to be traitors to both their country of citizenship and their historical homeland.
American patriots are faced with catastrophic inadequacy in the battlefield of public relations, a problem entirely of their own making. Until only a few years ago, patriots have ceded the PR battlefield to the enemy without a fight. Even today, they occupy only a few redoubts along its periphery, small bastions that are being picked off, one by one, by Silicon Valley tech giants whose interests are entirely at odds with an independent America and who have nothing but contempt for the American Constitution with its limited government and equal treatment under the law.
The word “villain” in the English language comes from medieval French, where it simply meant “villager”, “peasant”. As such, it denotes the contempt in which the so called “gentle” classes of medieval Europe held their serfs. This contempt, its linguistic longevity notwithstanding, pales in comparison with the utter disdain with which the tech giants, from the CEO to the lowest programmer, feel for regular American patriots. European nobility well-understood that the bread on their tables came from the hard labor of the peasants and that they thus owed them their very existence. The coastal tech elites would be quite satisfied and in fact gratified if every American patriot ceased to exist; after all they are only delaying their death by planned obsolescence and slowing down their replacement by docile lower-cost Central American migrants, themselves a mid-lifetime system update only necessary because fully automated agriculture and manufacturing is still a couple of years away.
Image by Fibonacci Blue
Tea Party rally- signs about Obama being a tyrant
The odds facing the Patriot side in this new War of Independence are extremely poor, worse, in all likelihood, than the odds that faced them in 1776. The forces arrayed against them are much more powerful than the island empire of Great Britain had ever been and they are starting the struggle barely hanging on to a few far-flung corners of the battlefield. And yet history shows time and time again that free people win. They win because they are fighting for something more precious than life; more fundamental than mere physical existence. Liberty, for those who have experienced it, is indispensable; life without it is not worth living. The army of slaves that is arrayed against us, be they migrants who were promised a few crumbs of bread or Santa Clara cubicle dwellers enslaved by their six figure salaries paying for their seven figure mortgages, stands no chance against people who refuse to be enslaved. They just don’t know it yet.