Fake Unity, Fake Democracy

When the state feels more threatened by the citizenry who are invested in society’s success than they are by those who undermine it, that society is in big trouble.

What sort of treachery is that malicious grin masking?

As we’re now knee-deep into the summer, the temperature is rising, both literally and figuratively in this country. If you thought, as I did, that things were too quiet in this country, you were right.

Let’s discuss some of what the military intelligence calls “warnings and indicators.”

“Democracy Is When We Can Do Whatever We Want To You”

Nothing to see here, folks. It’s just President Joe Biden casually threatening Americans again:

Source

If we get out of line. Hmm. If you ask me, the federal government has been out of line for quite some time, but clearly, Biden is alluding to a potential incident where they step well over some red line, basically abuse of power or tyranny. As we approach another anniversary of our country’s founding, remember the United States was founded not in support of state supremacy, but in opposition to tyranny. Yet in the minds of people like Biden, we are at the complete mercy of the state and that’s the way it ought to be. They can abuse their power all we’d like and there’s nothing we can do about it.

No other president, Democrat or Republican, has threatened Americans as bluntly, as frequently as President Biden has. It’s something I’ve discussed frequently on this blog. Nobody should consider it any coincidence that as America spirals into an existential crisis, the man presiding over it also happens to be someone who has no qualms about telling Americans the government would crush them if it came to that. It’s a troubling sign of the times, to say the least, an indication that something ugly comes this way.

No matter what side of the political divide you’re on, Biden’s comments should alarm us all, unless you’re a hard-left Democratic partisan. First, threatening your own people for any reason has always been considered an anti-democratic practice. Recall four years ago, in June 2020, when President Donald Trump triggered a concerted joint condemnation by government officials, the media, and every other Regime loyalist after it was revealed he had called for regular military forces to deployed against the rioters who caused the worst civil unrest seen in America since the 1960s. Why was it wrong for Trump to threaten rioters, but Biden’s threats against gun-owning political dissidents isn’t anything worth getting worked up about? Where’s the “howl of protest” against Biden’s authoritarian rhetoric?

Which leads to the second problem: when has Biden ever threatened the people who truly do harm to society? I’m talking criminals, of course, along with the protesters who are hardly “peaceful.” In any healthy society, there exists a consensus on who exactly is the real problem, who is the one undermining good order and well-being. When the state feels more threatened by the citizenry who are invested in society’s success than they are by those who undermine it, that society is in big trouble. It’s headed for authoritarianism, collapse, or even war.

You may disagree with them. You may not even like them. But gun-toting Americans who stand in opposition to the Regime and President Biden aren’t the enemy. These are the people who fight our wars, police our streets, clean up after us, fix things that break, grow and deliver food to our grocery stores, and keep society running. They aren’t perfect people - nobody is - but they’re neither criminals nor insurrectionists. They just believe America to be a particular place and a people and are personally invested in its continuity. The idea they’re more of a threat to us and our way of life, more so than the common criminal, is preposterous. But again, we’re becoming an authoritarian state and under authoritarianism, political loyalty, not national loyalty, is what matters most.

I’m sure that if Biden had it his way, he’d replace all the hard-working, productive Americans whose only fault is that they don’t worship the ground he walks on or doesn’t recognize the federal government as the supreme authority in their lives with criminals, rioters, and migrants from all over the world. It’d make life much simpler for him and the Regime, though in the long run, it’d cause even bigger problems. But dictators aren’t known for thinking too far ahead. If it keeps them in power one more day, that’s all that matters. No wonder they rack up such high body counts in such a short time.

What are we supposed to about this as preppers? What exactly are we supposed to do about our own president threatening our lives? Unfortunately, not much. I discussed the concept of state monopoly on violence in my last essay; the federal government more or less possesses that monopoly. So when the president threatens the citizenry, he’s doing so knowing he holds an overwhelming advantage. Not to mention you’re not going to win over many supporters to your side by acting out; the public will turn against a violent dissident quicker than they’ll turn against a dictator. History has proven this time and again.

Neither history nor life provides a guide for how to survive a dictatorship, unfortunately. For the record, I don’t believe the U.S. will every become a full-fledged authoritarianism, it’ll just become one in our own unique way. More likely, we’ll become an anocracy, where public participation in politics is largely symbolic and where the regime often abuses its power. Think of what we have today, but much worse. It’s going to be difficult to navigate life in a system with so much inherent unpredictability.

How dictatorial are we becoming? For all the talk about press freedom, they have no problem punishing journalists who don’t do anything except promote their narratives. Look at what they’re doing to the journalist who obtained a copy of the manifesto of the killer who shot up The Covenant School in Nashville in March 2023:

Source

The shooter was a transgender man. The authorities spent almost a year trying to hide the manifesto they’d written explaining their murderous actions. Apparently, the free press is only free to report on stories the state tells them to report in the way they want it to be reported.

Here, you have a nurse being intimidated by FBI agents for blowing the whistle on Texas Children’s Hospital committing insurance fraud by billing Medicaid for sex-change procedures. For children, no less:

Source

Authoritarianism isn’t about personality. It’s about action. Can any honest observer say that the Regime or the Biden administration is adhering to democratic principles, to its own rules, no less?

So yes, the government is already well over the line and Biden is telling Americans, “What are you going to do about it?” Well, what are we?

I don’t anticipate direct clashes occurring between the federal government and the armed citizenry. The number of people who are actually willing and able to take up arms against the state are quite few in number. Social media is full of people who claim they can lead a rural revolt, but don’t let it fool you - in no way does it represent the average right-wing American, nor even the average ruralite. “Leave me alone” is the true animating principle of the Right. Unless the country really finds itself in a major civil war, Middle America, Flyover Country, nor the backwoods are going to become battlefields for any kind of insurgency.

This doesn’t mean the Regime wouldn’t take “gray zone” actions which are clearly hostile, but fall short of an overt provocation. This is what a monopoly on violence allows - they can poke and prod all they want without risking any kind of reprisal. Even if they triggered a violent reaction, the state still possesses the preponderance of force. The reality in conflict is that strength matters and it’s the insurgents who are going to be fighting the uphill battle, not the state, no matter how many casualties the insurgents can inflict.

Then again, none of it matters, because there won’t be a right-wing insurgency. Not at a meaningful scale, anyway. A few rebellious individuals or a group here or there are local problems, not national security threats. There are also limits to how much force the authorities can bring to bear against rebels; too much force and they risk damaging their legitimacy. It’s for this reason I think threats from people like Biden are, for now anyway, more hollow than not, meant for scoring political points than laying ground for any kind of war against the citizenry. Besides, the existing plan is working too well, why take more drastic, riskier measures?

The significance of the president’s threats isn’t that it portends civil conflict. It’s that it portends what kind of society we’re becoming, the kind of governance we’re going to have in the future, whether or not we see a war break out. People like Biden can call it “democratic” all they’d like until they’re blue in the face, but it’ll be a far cry from it. And frankly, as an American, I take it very personally when the president tells me he can do whatever he wants and there’s nothing we can do about it. I also take it very personally when he says, for as long as I live, I do so at the mercy of the federal government.

Wouldn’t you?

Hell No, We Won’t Go! We Won’t Kill For Democracy™️!

Another sign events in the U.S. are coming to a head is that the topic of conscription is coming up, once again. It’s a debate that emerges periodically, but it’s now happening at a time of a major military recruiting crisis and when America’s global power is in jeopardy. This is more than just a question of whether the military can staff its ranks; it’s a question of whether the country is capable of being a superpower any longer.

For the upcoming fiscal year, the Senate Armed Services Committee is proposing including women in any prospective future conscription effort:

Source

If implemented, this would be a profound shift on many levels. Before getting to that, however, it’s important to internalize some important realities regarding conscription in the U.S.

First, there will be no draft. Yes, the Regime is becoming more authoritarian. However, if it institutes a draft, everyone’s children, not just that of the political opposition, will be subject to it. Historically, it’s been the Left that’s been most opposed to the draft; to the extent they’ve ever supported it, it’s been for entirely cynical political reasons. A new round of conscription must be voted on by Congress; you can bet that the Left will stand in opposition, if not loudly so, with Democratic representatives and senators voting against such a bill.

Second, the reason men have historically fought our wars while women haven’t is, like most things, a matter of biology. Men aren’t only stronger and more aggressive; women can bear children. Men are productive, women reproductive. It’s against contemporary social values to say, but a society ultimately survives through women giving birth. No amount of feminist theory and anger will change this fact. It’s for these two reasons women have been kept out of the fight: because it doesn’t make sense to put them in harm’s way.

Third, if a draft were implemented now, it’d be to reinforce and supplement the ranks, not to fill them. Gone are the days of putting large numbers of rifle-toting troops through the proverbial meat grinder. Even in the era of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, the military prefers to have competent people on the job, whatever it may be. The armed forces spends a lot of money and time training the troops; it’s not a system conductive for conscripts, who are by nature short-term soldiers. Unless we got to point where literally nobody was joining the military, conscription today wouldn’t be the primary way of staffing the ranks.

That all said, have you ever wondered why our voting age is 18? It’s a long story, but the short version is that during the Vietnam War, young American men were being drafted to fight a war they had no right to cast an objection to (voting age was 21 at the time). It was a contradiction noticed by many, so the voting age was lowered to 18 to correct it.

Since any political power, including voting, is an exercise in violence, then women have, for a century, possessed a special privilege unavailable to men: participate in the implementation of state violence without having any skin in the game. We haven’t had a draft for over 50 years, but that’s besides the point - the risk of a draft has been ever-present for men, if only in theory. Women have never been exposed to any such risk.

This is a long way of saying: if women are truly equal to men, if they should have the same rights and access to the political process as men, then there’s no argument for exempting them from the draft. None. Maybe there’s a military effectiveness argument against it, but if that were the case, women shouldn’t be allowed to serve in the military, period. The social distinctions between men and women have been abolished, for better or for worse. There’s just no compelling argument for excluding women from the draft. Either they’re included or nobody is.

Does this mean a draft is on the way? No and I don’t find it likely either, due to the aforementioned pitfalls associated with implementing one. That said, we never thought they could lock us down until they found something that scared all of us enough to force us to stay indoors. If there’s any lesson from 2020, it’s that the government can impose just about any policy on the populace with the right incentives and justification. There’s a lot of chatter on social media about how any conscription attempt ought to be fiercely opposed, but like a rural revolt, the number of people who’d really put up a fight are fewer than social media implies.

A future draft would probably be limited to the point it wouldn’t impact most Americans and draftees still need to meet entrance requirements, something many would fail to meet. The military is still the one institution most Americans trust, even as that trust has fallen precipitously. During any political crisis, the military is the one institution all eyes turn to, as it’s the one giving the regime legitimacy like no other. Most Americans aren’t going to oppose a draft too loudly, not at first, anyway. If women are subject to the draft, they’ll probably embrace it, seeing it as a moment of empowerment, an opportunity to exhibit their superior patriotism, and the ultimate display of equality. There’s a reason why there’s been such a push in elite and intellectual circles to get more women into the military, including in combat positions.

What it says about our society, however, is that we are no longer interested or even aware that our ultimate goal as a collective is continuity. This is as much cultural commentary as you’ll get from me, but a society that places “choice” and “equal opportunity” over our survival as a people has lost its way. We’ve come to take it for granted that we don’t need to fight for our survival daily that we don’t even need to try. From the perspective of a human lifetime, that certainly makes sense. But if there’s anything I’ve tried to drum into everyone’s heads, the reason why we prep is because we don’t control the timeline. The West has lived through the most peaceful period in human history, but that prevailing peace is currently unraveling in real time. When peace does unravel, nobody’s ever prepared for it. If they were, would peace unravel?

This is a long-winded way of saying that the next time we draft young Americans into military service, we’ll do so without an understanding of why. What are we sending our kids off to war for? “Democracy?” I think I’ve made a convincing argument no such thing exists in the U.S. or the West, not any longer. Our freedom? It’s being stripped away from us bit by bit. So we may live another day? Please. Everything we do, from inviting millions of migrants worldwide, undermining social order, subverting our institutions, all of that is leading to self-destruction. Is that what they’re going to be fighting to preserve and defend?

If women are drafted, they’re going to be drafted during their peak fertility years. A society with any sense would do this only when there’s no other option, when the enemy is about to breach the gates. Maybe we’re there, maybe we’re not, but if we are, we sure don’t act like it otherwise. Which brings me to my admittedly nihilistic conclusion: since American women are increasingly choosing not to have babies, maybe it isn’t the worst thing in the world for them to serve in the military. Large numbers of young people who aren’t forming families and procreating has never been conducive for societal well-being, so eventually, we need to find something for them to do so they don’t become a self-destructive force. The economy won’t remain stable and plentiful forever. When it finally fails, the need to find something for young men and women to do will become apparent.

A lot of this is speculation on my part. But we need to understand that just because it doesn’t seem likely to happen today doesn’t mean it never well. I’m always cautioning against getting worked up over the “what-ifs?”, but there exists sufficient historical record as well as enough happening as we speak to start talking about what the future holds. As a civilization fades in prominence, one of the things it starts doing is sacrificing it’s young in a desperate attempt to remain viable. In a changing world order, conflict is an inevitability and someone will need to fight these wars, either here or abroad.

If nothing else, America will have a large number of young men and women, plus millions of fighting-age migrants, for the foreseeable future. Once the jobs and resources run short, they’ll all need something to do. Use your imagination and figure out what that might be.

Fighting Division Through… Division?

For those of you unaware, the quadrennial European Championship in soccer is currently underway in Germany. Kylian Mbappé, French superstar and one of the best players in the world, decided to get political during a press conference before France had even played a match:

Source

There’s a lot to pick apart there. Extremists that want to divide the country? Assuming that to be true, why do they want to divide the country? Are they just bored? Are they angry? If they’re angry, what are they angry about? Is there something going on that’s riling them up?

Mbappé mentions Marine Le Pen; how did her party, National Rally, perform in the recent European elections? Take a look - dark blue is either National Rally or Reconquête, both representing the right in France:

Source

According to Mbappé, that’s a lot of extremists! Is the French soccer wonderkid sure it’s not he who stands opposed to French consensus?

He also singles out the French youth, calling on them to vote the “right” way. Does the fact that such a large percentage of French youth voted for National Rally have something to do with it?

Source

I don’t want to get too deep into French internal politics right now, though I’ve discussed their overall internal situation previously on this blog. For years, it’s been said France is on the verge of civil war due to its deteriorating internal situation, primarily related to crime, demographic change, and immigration. Though it’s yet to materialize, France is headed towards towards not just the upcoming snap elections to determine the composition of parliament, but it’ll have another presidential election in a few years, on top of the Summer Olympics later this year. France is going through a transitional phase that’ll determine what shape the country will take for the foreseeable future, or whether the country will exist at all.

Mbappé also says he wants to be proud to wear the national team uniform, that he doesn’t want to represent a country that doesn’t represent his values. If he were truly French like he says he is, he ought to be proud because he’s representing his country, not because the country happens to align with his political views. What are his values, anyway?

Source

Tolerance. Tolerance of what, exactly? This?

Source

What, if anything, has Mbappé said about the problems caused by foreigners and other residents of France who are of African and Middle Eastern origin? The Islamist problem? Inquiring minds would like to know.

I’m not the “shut up and play ball” type, not reflexively. But Mbappé’s remarks underscore the risk professional athletes, any high-profile non-political figure, take when opining on politics. By virtue of having a high profile and representing the public writ large, you can’t afford to send the wrong or divisive message. At least, they should be prepared to handle criticism in response, but as America’s own Colin Kaepernick and Megan Rapinoe proved, this is seldom the case.

Spain’s goalkeeper, Unai Simón, explained why it’s better for athletes to stay away from politics and sensitive issues:

Source

Simón is correct; it’s safer if Mbappé stayed away from politics. However, if someone like Mbappé wants to chime in on the big issues of the moment, he needs to do so responsibly. Telling people who to vote for is way over the line. The value that people like Mbappé can offer the discourse is perspective and sanity. A simple, “We represent you all, we hope you’re proud of us” will do.

But maybe I’m expecting too much. As Mbappé implies, he’s not representing France; he’s representing himself, his political faction, and maybe his demographic. It’s part of the increasing crisis in the West: those who should be leaders and uniting figures during hard times are instead deepening divides by picking sides.

Maybe there’s no escaping it now. We’re divided and the only way forward is to pick sides. Just don’t do it while pretending like you represent any collective whole other than your own.

Feeling The Walls Are Closing In?

What are your thoughts on anything discussed? What are your thoughts on President Biden’s constant threats to the American people? Is it just him playing to his base, or will they eventually get out of line? Should women be included in a prospective future draft? Will the draft ever return? What do you make of Kylian Mbappé’s comments? Are national representatives like professional athletes better off not talking politics, even at a critical juncture like this?

Discuss it in the comments section.

Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.

If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!