Coming Unpleasantness is…unpleasant.
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?
I’d say so, yeah. It’s my belief that any Point Beyond Which Etc has been passed, probably longer ago than many might imagine. Certainly the brazen lawlessness of the Obama junta could be said to have amounted to a Rubicon of sorts; the metastasizing unbending fanaticism and batshit lunacy of the fascist Left after Trump’s election, along with the now-obvious malevolence of the Deep State, makes where we now stand plain enough to any with eyes to see. Thus:
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.
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.
Oh, rilly. You don’t say.
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).
If you ask me, the Right’s “hatred of the enemy” is not merely understandable; it is justified. In fact, I’ll go ya one further: it is necessary, a matter of survival. No, we don’t want a Civil War v2.0, or anything resembling one. All we ever wanted was for them to leave us the fuck alone. But the Left long ago took that option off the table, and we were NOT consulted about it.
Those of us on the Right tend to be a lot better educated when it comes to history than our enemies. We know already what will be the inevitable upshot of their ascension to total power over us: gulags, killing fields, death camps. Holocausts. Holodomors. Great Leaps Forward. That sort of thing.
They’ve become unabashed about threatening us directly and unequivocally, about declaring without the least reticence that they want us dead. So regret and deplore it all we might, we’re still left with only just the two choices here: bow our heads and take whatever they decide to deal out, or…this:
They are going to have to be not just beaten back, but utterly destroyed. All memory of them wiped from human reckoning. Not just their army destroyed, but their women killed, and their babies’ heads smashed on rocks, and all those who cheered them on eliminated to the last man. Their livestock slaughtered, their temples of error pulled down until one stone lies not upon another, and their fields sown with salt, that nothing will ever grow there again. Like Carthage after the Third Punic War, which policy ensured for all time that there never came a Fourth Punic War.
And their calling cards are the same ones throughout history.
They want to shut you up.
They want to disarm you.
And then, free of your arguments and your arms, they want to kill you.
That’s why they now openly proclaim the outright plan to strip the clear acknowledgements of the First and Second Amendments, and muse before God and everybody how joyful and pleasant it would be to come and round you up, and kill you.
Take such thoughts and such people exactly at their word.
Some historically-minded wonder what it would have been like if only someone had strangled Hitler in his crib. It would never happen, for the same reasons you aren’t doing it now. You have half a Congress full of would-be führers, gruppenführers, and gauleiters, openly telling you what they want, and will do given the slightest chance, and yet nobody’s fired so much as a single shot. And likely, nobody will. They wait until the columns march into whatever suffices for Poland these days before they’ll recognize they let things go too far, and only pay attention too late. Pray the response is not too little.
As Aesop elsewhere says, they think they want this. But there’s a slight problem: they know not what they do. And as always the case, the absolute worst thing that could ever happen—to Leftards and to everybody else—is for them to get it. You average white male American is a very peaceable and forgiving sort. He’ll endure whole backhoes full of shit being dumped over his head with little in the way of retribution beyond angry complaint…right up until the moment he won’t. Force him to admit that, as Aesop says, it’s necessary for him to take his enemies at their word, that his way of life, his family, his home, his very life itself is threatened, he will buckle down with a quickness.
And then? A few historical reminders might be useful at this point: Hiroshima. Nagasaki. Tokyo. Dresden.
Those last two should be particularly noted. White Male Americans were so absolutely, positively determined to defeat utterly their last batch of existential foes that we actually came up with the idea of the fuel-air bomb—a bomb so vicious and evil that it works by quite literally sucking all the oxygen from the surrounding area to feed itself. Whereupon the enemy is confronted with two highly unpleasant options of his own: he can burn to death, or he can suffocate. Oh, all right, all right; he can also be crushed under the rubble of buildings leveled by the initial blast wave, too. Or torn to shreds by said blast wave his own self, should he be in its path.
By the way: did I mention that we hit Dresden with this hell-weapon more than once?
In four raids between 13 and 15 February 1945, 722 heavy bombers of the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and 527 of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city. The bombing and the resulting firestorm destroyed over 1,600 acres (6.5 km2) of the city centre. An estimated 22,700 to 25,000 people were killed, although larger casualty figures have been claimed. Three more USAAF air raids followed, two occurring on 2 March aimed at the city’s railway marshalling yard and one smaller raid on 17 April aimed at industrial areas.
The attack on Dresden quickly became controversial, which is subject to popular debate into the 21st century. Immediate German propaganda claims following the attacks and post-war discussions on whether the attacks were justified have led to the bombing becoming one of the moral causes célèbres of the war. A 1953 United States Air Force report defended the operation as the justified bombing of a strategic target, which they noted was a major rail transport and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the German war effort. Several researchers claim not all of the communications infrastructure, such as the bridges, were targeted, nor were the extensive industrial areas outside the city center. Critics of the bombing have claimed that Dresden was a cultural landmark of little or no strategic significance, and that the attacks were indiscriminate area bombing and not proportionate to the military gains. Some in the German far-right refer to the bombing as a mass murder calling it “Dresden’s Holocaust of bombs”. According to other critics, given the number of civilian casualties and a claimed paucity of strategic targets, Dresden’s destruction was unjustifiable and should be called a war crime. They claim the city could have been spared, like Rome, Paris, and Kyoto, though both British and American militaries defended the bombing as necessary.
Large variations in the claimed death toll have fuelled the controversy. In March 1945, the German government ordered its press to publish a falsified casualty figure of 200,000 for the Dresden raids, and death toll estimates as high as 500,000 have been given. The city authorities at the time estimated up to 25,000 victims, a figure that subsequent investigations supported, including a 2010 study commissioned by the city council.
So to recap, then: the German authorities have only in the last decade been able to finalize the official body count from these truly nightmarish attacks…which were launched against a city of no real strategic or military importance at all. Because we WANTED TO, that’s why. The Germans are still complaining about the inhuman ferocity of them, and they ain’t entirely wrong. Our response? Meh; don’t start no shit, won’t be no shit. Start some shit, God have mercy on you. Because WE sure won’t.
I’ve said it a bunch of times already, even though I have no expectation at all that any such thing will be happen. But Proggy REALLY needs to think all this through.