America in 2016 is a tinderbox waiting for a spark. The two sides have divided up nicely and there seems no room for compromise. The inevitable conflict, which draws closer with each passing day, will not be a strictly regional one as we had in the 1860s. While there will be a regional element to it–meaning, for instance, that the South, the rural Midwest, and the mountain West will be allies–the conflict will be based more on worldview and race/ethnicity predicated largely on a rural-urban divide. One might do just as well to call it a general traditional-progressive divide.
On the urban/progressive side you have most of the basic American institutions, including nearly every level of government, especially the federal; all of the mainline and even some of the evangelical churches; the academy; the elite media; big business; the foundations; minority groups (especially Jews and blacks); and a host of anti-white whites. The strength of this faction lies in the large urban areas and other centers of education and government. They control the current “system” that runs the USA regime.
On the rural/traditionalist side are a scattering of government officials and personnel (including military and law enforcement), particularly on the State and local levels; the old-line Protestant churches, many of the Orthodox churches, and renegade pre-Vatican Two Roman Catholics; homeschooling families; right-wing internet news sources; small business owners; and what we call “normal” white people whose ancestors were counted among America’s founding stock. The geographic strength of this faction lies in the rural and some “conservative” suburban areas. This group is currently out of power but still controls a large amount of wealth, including skills and productive real estate. This group is also more religious, self sufficient, and has a tradition of gun ownership and military service.
There are a large and growing number of divisions upon which compromise is neither possible nor desirable: immigration, abortion, homosexual and trans-gender “rights;” gun control; crime and punishment; the minority question; foreign policy and war; Christianity in the public square; among many others. Urban progressives want to use the US regime to force their worldview upon their opponents and curtail dissent and opposition to the enactment of their worldview. Heretofore, rural traditionalists were content merely to be “left alone” to pursue what they defined as the “good life”–an unfettered pursuit of the “American Dream” of freedom and prosperity for themselves and their posterity.
But when one side–the urban progressive, who slowly gained control of the institutions of power and influence–began using the force of law and government to dispossess the other, that “other”–the rural traditionalist–began slowly to rouse itself as an act of survival. This process has gradually played itself out over the last half century, from the mid-1960s to the present.
At the heart of the urban progressive arsenal were three primary weapons: political correctness (aka cultural Marxism); non-white immigration (beginning with the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act); and the civil rights movement, largely writ to include feminists and homosexuals. All were designed first and foremost to foster that paralyzing and diabolical monster called “white guilt.” Indeed, white guilt has served as an effective retardant to traditional whites organizing for their own self defense over the past fifty years. Now, however, the evil spell is being broken as the urban progressives can no longer disguise their intentions. Even politically disinterested whites are beginning to see the proverbial hand writing on the wall.
So here at the beginning of 2016, another presidential election year but one that is shaping up to be anything but normal, we stand on the verge of open conflict, awaiting only a match (or as I used to hear old men say, a “lucifer”–quite an appropriate name!) to set it off. Both sides have stored up sufficient anger and hatred for the other. When the conflagration does come, it will be, I believe, hellish . . . and thorough. Much too much has been written, said, and done on both sides to expect much mercy either way. Those who allow this genie out of the bottle had best be sure of their course, for once she’s out she will stay out until the task is completed. One side wins and one loses. No quarter asked and none given. The black flag flies. When the dust settles and the carrion crows have picked the last bones clean, America’s future will have been decided: She will be in the hands of those descended from the founding stock or she will be in control of an alien power. My question to the urban progressives is this: are you ready to unleash this hell and take the consequences?
I have been accused before by those on the left of “wanting a race war.” I want neither a race war nor a civil war; I would prefer a peaceful separation, a divorce of the contending parties, secession. Our goal in The League of the South for the past two decades has been a free and independent South. We have stated many times our sincere hope this can be accomplished peacefully. But I am a realist; if war comes, we will be ready to fight for our people and our lands.
In my opinion, the urban progressives will start this conflict. Why? Because as one of their heroes, V.I. Lenin, once insisted, all avenues are open if they advance the “revolution.” This includes lies, deceit, theft, and murder. In other words, the left has no moral compunction against doing whatever is necessary to destroy their enemies and enact their objectives. We on the side of the rural traditionalists are bound by a moral code and the concept of “just war.” However, our reluctance to start a conflict ought not be mistaken for our inability to finish one. As the great Jackson said, once my sword is drawn, I throw away the scabbard.
My advice to the leaders of the urban progressive faction is simple: back off and do not start this conflict. Your leftist utopia is not worth the cost in blood, destruction, and human misery. Let’s have a peaceful “divorce” and be done with each other.
Your guess is as good as mine as to what might provide the actual spark for this American tinderbox. But in a presidential election year with major candidates (Trump, Sanders, and Hillary the Unindited) far outside the mainstream of “normal” electoral politics and a persistent threat to destroy “politics as usual,” who knows? Keep your eyes open and your powder dry.
Michael HillNo Tags