Past The Point Of No Return

Unfortunately, where we are going is to a deep, dark place.

I sure can. Do you?

I don’t know about you, friends, but I sure can’t shake off the feeling that we’re not so far away from a major blow-up, crack-up, whatever term you want to use. The amount of pressure being built up in the system in such a short time seems extraordinary. In the past, I predicted that we’d see a phase of mass civil unrest around the 2027-to-2028 time-frame (the “quasi”-war, as I call it), followed by a civil war in the early 2030s, but who knows if we even have that long?

In a recent Substack entry by

Rod Dreher

:

As I told you in this space, when I was in France recently, so many people I talked to said they expect civil war there between Muslims and migrants on one side, and français de souche (native-born French) on the other. As Betz says about the UK, it’s not going to be a matter of one army lining up against another, but something more like a campaign of sabotage and violence along the lines of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Not one of the French said it with the least enthusiasm; they said it as a matter-of-fact truth, as something that they have to prepare with withstand. They know that something is going to blow at some point. As David Betz said of Britain, the question is no longer “if”, but “when”.

Dreher lives and spends most of his time in Europe these days, so he definitely has his ears to the ground. You can dismiss a lot of this as elite opinion, but know that elite opinion on the other side of the spectrum totally rules out any prospect of civil war in Europe. If one side is being alarmist, the other side is oblivious.

A Modern-Day Peasant Revolt

Dr. David Betz of King’s College London continues to make the rounds on the podcast circuit. Here’s the latest interview he did, this time with the Fire at Will podcast with Will Kingston:

Betz reiterates many of the same points he made in prior interviews, going back to the one that started it all with

Louise Perry

. He does go into far more detail in this latest interview, emphasizing the vulnerability of cities, the level of disruption to daily life that can be caused through attacks on infrastructure.

He also mentions that there is lots of what he calls “brainstorming” about possible acts which could be carried out as part of an insurgency, taking care to note that it’s not just the nationalist right that’s thinking this stuff up, but also the far-left, who may also see themselves at odds with the British state (mostly for being insufficiently radically leftist), but are nonetheless aligned with the multicultural leftist British regime.

Betz lays out the belligerent sides; he identifies three factions which are the nativist, nationalist element, the religious Islamist element, and the British state. What’s interesting about this is an anonymous active-duty French Army officer said the same thing in 2021 about his own country’s impending civil war.

He said:

• the “Left Bloc”: representing racial minorities, those who want the riots to be only a beginning to bring down the old system and go even further; they use this argument to demand reforms with a speech that consists in saying “you have seen what we are capable of, if you don't give us what we want, it will start again”.

• the “Center Bloc”, representing the status quo, whose political line consists essentially in saying “never again”, in promoting even more the “living-all-together” diversity doctrine, in talking about renewing the ‘social contract’, in calming down the situation... The avowed goal being to avoid a new conflict.

• the “Right Bloc” : which gathers the most radical French, who call for not giving in to the rioters or to the Left, which tries to lead the self-defense groups.

I expect this to be the pattern to unfold in the West: two opposing factions, plus an establishment faction - this is who I mean when I speak of the “Regime” - which may be left-aligned, but must nonetheless side firmly with one of the other factions, unless it wants to be rendered completely powerless.

Critical to understanding the nature of the coming civil war: while it’s ultimately an ideological struggle, not every faction is ideologically-motivated. Only the leftist, multicultural side is purely ideologically motivated. Though ideologically captured, the Regime is driven by more pragmatic concerns: staying in control, staying in power. As for the right-wing, nativist, nationalist faction, they actually aren’t ideologically driven. Betz compares the coming right-wing revolt as similar to a peasant revolt, and not only have most revolts throughout history been carried about by peasants, most have been reactionary in nature. It’s a reaction to the belief that the rules of the game have been changed without their consent.

Consider: in America, post-Civil Rights, an agreement, however unspoken, was reached. We would be a colorblind society, or at least, race wouldn’t be a central aspect of our identity as Americans.

Though not entirely accurate, this tweet encapsulates how many Americans once felt within living memory:

Source

Academic Wilfred Reilly explains the sentiment is at least partially based on fact:

This is largely true, and a thing that can be measured.

In 1996, at the peak of that Jordan/Bird era - get out of here, OJ - 70% of whites and 65% of African-Americans thought race relations were “very good.” I might be off by a point or two; I might even have flipped the two groups after a long flight. But this^ was what it was.

12 years later, we elected a Black President - just as social media took off.

Downhill ever since.

Again, the 1990s weren’t some post-racial paradise. Far from it. However, it wasn’t until 2008 and the election of Barack Obama did race suddenly become the center of… well, everything. Nobody, no matter which side of the debate you’re on, thinks it’s a good thing that race is still such a social fault line 40 to 50 years after the Civil Rights era. Many Whites, especially, feel as though they’ve been baited and switched. We went from at least paying lip service to judging one another on the content of our character to rather bluntly judging each other on the basis of race. Except it’s only White people being judged in this fashion. There are many rules the Western “peasantry” feel have been changed without their say-so, but race is arguably at the top of that list. Immigration and religion are all tied into that broader question of identity, what America is, what the Britain is, what the West is.

Call it whatever you’d like, but this isn’t an ideological thing, not on the Right. It’s quite natural, reasonable, and, honestly, primal. To call it ideological suggests the stakes are the same on both sides, which they’re not, and that both sides have legitimate grievances, which they don’t. Ideological movements are basically attempts at making reality fit their sense of how things ought to be. Calling both sides ideological means we have two opposing forces trying to alter reality. That might’ve been true during World War II, in the struggle between the communists and fascists, but what’s happening today in the West is about matters more fundamental: who are we? Whose civilization is this?

This is critical to understanding why a civil war is coming. We live in an age where both current and historical events are viewed through an entirely ideological lens, i.e., “Democracy vs. Fascism,” even though, for most of history, conflicts were and still are the result of more pragmatic concerns. It’s also borne of the application of “equity” to the study of current and historical events; if the Left is ideologically motivated, surely, the Right must be too? An honest look at history shows it’s not that simple.

It’s Going To Happen. Then What?

I did some digging into Betz’s past work and discovered an essay he’d written in 2023 about the coming of civil war in the West. It appears to be the follow up to his more well-known essay from earlier that year, and goes into greater detail about what he thinks the coming civil war will look like. It’s an academic paper, so it’s lengthy, but I strongly recommend you make the time to read it. Betz has an awful lot to say, all of it great significance.

His bottom line up front [bold mine]:

I shall not conclude with thoughts on what might be done to prevent the occurrence of the civil wars that are coming because there is nothing that can be done about it. The unfortunate reality is that society has already passed the tipping point after which prevention of the eruption of violent civil conflict is impossible. The best that can be hoped is that, equipped with the forewarning which follows, we can recognize what is occurring, why, and perhaps mitigate and shorten the period of societal pain that must be endured.

Obviously, this is not what anyone wants to hear. But the fact is, the only way to avoid civil war is for one side to capitulate. There’s no compromise possible because the two sides are at odds with one another at such a philosophical level. We are attempting to answer fundamental questions about the nature of reality through the political system, only to discover that governments weren’t meant to answer such questions. The only option left is to separate, or fight it out. As I’ll discuss later, for some strange reason, everyone seems to prefer the latter option. It probably explains why civil war is inevitable.

Though our divide is an ideological one, nominally speaking, as I explained earlier, it’s really only one side that’s ideologically motivated. Overall, the conflict is about who gets to have the West.

Betz explains:

What is lacking from the picture so far is a sense of what the coming civil war will be fought over. The answer is obvious and yet generally unmentionable in polite company, probably because it is horrifying and there is nothing much that can be done about it. It is as Merkel, Cameron, and those twenty French generals pointed out: Western society, in which ‘identity’ is now the dominant frame of organisation in politics and life generally, has already fragmented into affinity groups whose pre-political loyalties are not to their titular nation.

Identity politics may be defined as politics in which people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group. It might as well be described as ‘post-national’ politics for, in effect, the important thing about it is the way that national identity is superseded by other identities. For the time being, this is evident in voting patterns, studies of ‘national feeling’, and proxy measures such as willingness to fight for one’s country, as well as social segregation, and so far, low-level (albeit widespread) intercommunal violence.

There’s still not enough of a reckoning over the consequences of identity politics, how corrosive it was to the social fabric. The only groups in the West who didn’t engage in the practice were Whites and Christians. Yet, these are the groups singled out as responsible for all of society’s ills. The lesson appears to be that tribalism is very much a survival mechanism. The less tribal a group, the more vulnerable they are.

Betz explains what will kick off the civil war:

The metaphorical pot is already near to the boiling point. What is likely to set it to boiling over are two things. The first is the aforementioned sharp economic decline which will curtail the ability of government to maintain domestic peace through subsidisation and wealth transfer via debt. Being unable to borrow, governments will have to negotiate the division of a diminished and insufficient-to-satisfy-everyone stock of public goods to increasingly fractious identity groups. The second is the acceptance of white populations that the precepts of identity politics as described above apply to them the same as they do other groups.

The connection between economic trouble and war is indirect, but it has the effect of exacerbating existing social tensions, which can then lead to armed conflict. It’s not really about the poor rising up against the rich, either, not always. It can also be about the rich feeling threatened enough to wage war on the underclasses. In the American context, the college-educated professional class - the bourgeoisie - which leans left, may feel so threatened by the increasingly assertive non-degreed commonfolk - the “peasantry” - that the former may further opt for policies intended to harm the latter, such as higher taxes, tolerance of criminality and anti-social behavior, and open borders, thereby intensifying both social tensions and the peasantry’s sense of vulnerability.

Betz cites my scholarly hero, the late Dr. Samuel Huntington [bold mine]:

Critics of Huntington’s now 30-year-old thesis of a coming ‘clash of civilisations’ turned out to have at least one excellent point (Huntington 1997). They often argued that it was practically impossible to draw a line around these civilisations on a map. Unfortunately, this does not mean no clash of civilisations will occur; it means, rather, that the coming clash represented on a ‘national’ map is going to look like a flaming and bloody jigsaw puzzle with the lines tearing through cities and towns and neighbourhoods.

This is where the comparisons with the Balkans and Lebanon don’t fall flat, not entirely. America isn’t a fully-integrated society; people mostly live with others of their own class or demographic background. We don’t live completely segregated from one another, either. In an urban metropolis like Los Angeles, predominantly White neighborhoods are separated from predominantly Black or Brown neighborhoods by a freeway. At a state level, all that separates majority White counties from more diverse counties is a line drawn on a map. In fact, I’d argue that the more diverse a locale is, the more violent the conflict will be. Even homogeneous areas will be tranquil only to the extent political views are widely shared within communities. We’ve found, however, that even in deep “Red” rural areas, all it takes is one assertive leftist to disturb the tranquility.

Betz sees “urbicide,” or the killing of cities, as the primary manner in which this civil war will be waged. The thing about cities is that they, by their very nature, cannot be self-sufficient. They need to be fed constantly via supply chains, energy, water, and services constantly provided at all hours in order to function. An interruption to any of these critical elements can cause serious problems if not quickly addressed. Constantly placing the cities under stress and strain, exacerbating social tensions and disorder, will eventually lead to cities collapsing, or so goes the logic behind urbicide.

The centrality of the rural-urban divide is, in many ways, the biggest part of the story, both in a cultural sense and a practical sense. Cosmopolitan urbanites don’t understand the extent to which the cities, along with broader metropolitan areas, are dependent on the peripheries, where the “trailer park Nazis” live, and this plays a big role in making them believe they live in two separate worlds, instead of a single, co-dependent eco-system, and rural areas as a place to get away and stay away from, or a place to transform.

Betz explains:

Moreover, consider the merit of the contrary thesis which, at the present time, has two primary propositions. The first is that heterogeneity is an unalloyed good which leads to greater social stability, ingenuity, quality of well-being, and so on. The second is that the contemporary megalopolis can detach from and survive without the support of its local environs—this being the essential idea of the ‘global’ city. The latter view was perhaps epitomised by the responses of some Londoners, including the current London mayor, to the results of the Brexit referendum which suggested that the city, which voted to remain in the European Union, ought to secede from Britain, which voted to leave.

At the same time, cities are complex systems, and complex systems are more resilient than given credit for, a point Betz also makes. The purported goal isn’t to completely destroy cities, however. It’s about making city living unbearable, to make them places where armed conflict is the norm. Betz talks about violence between Hindus and Muslims in the city of Leicester, England back in 2022, proving that inter-ethnic, inter-religious violence is already occurring in the West.

Back in 2020, during that crazy summer, America saw international violence. Armenians brawled with pro-Azerbaijani groups in the streets of West Los Angeles, an affluent area of the city, over an ongoing war between the two countries. The violence later included stabbings, along with an attack on a Turkish restaurant in upscale Beverly Hills (Turkey supports Azerbaijan against Armenia). This was against the backdrop of the ongoing George Floyd protests, as well as life interrupted by anti-COVID policies, proving that it doesn’t take much to exacerbate existing hostilities in our urban areas. It’s precisely this sort of violence, these kinds of conflicts, that tomorrow’s insurgents will attempt to either ignite or exploit.

By the way, notice the common thread in these inter-communal conflicts: the belligerents have assumed an identity other than that of the country they reside in, the country they are supposedly the citizens of. Being Armenian, Hindu, Muslim, whatever, that all matters more than being American, British, etc. These groups are loyal not to their titular nation, but to their ancestral, ethnic, and religious identities, suggesting that multiculturalism has already failed, as no unified identity exists as the Regime often claims.

Betz elaborates:

The most frequently talked about tactics amongst anti-status quo groups are quintessentially asymmetric. They do not rely upon main force; rather they work on a kind of Judo logic of finding points of extreme unbalance in a system and striking there with the intent of causing it to collapse under its own weight. Thus far I have been talking about imbalances, vulnerabilities essentially, in social organisation, specifically the configuration of identities that are increasingly antagonistic, and a parallel now many-decades-long draining of reserves of social capital. These are intangible, somewhat abstract targets, though they are targetable, nonetheless.

They also intend, however, to hit physical targets according to the same kind of thinking, in particular the electrical energy grid as well as gas networks. The reasons for this are generally straightforward. A great deal of critical infrastructure is practically unguarded (likely un-guardable), its location is perfectly obvious public information, it is relatively easy to damage, and the knock-on effects are potentially very severe. Electrical pylons for long-distance high voltage transmission, for example, can be brought down with small amounts of simple explosives, transformer stations can be shot up or just as easily set alight.

He goes into great depth in the essay, but based on what I’ve shared here, the sense you get is that the next civil war will involve a gradual self-destruction of our society, the infrastructure which sustains it, building insurmountable pressure on the authorities to further threaten their legitimacy, and just make life plain miserable for people, specifically in the cities. It becomes a purely nihilistic venture, aimed not at achieving a political result such as independence, but at just hurting the other side as much as possible.

Betz concludes that Britain doesn’t have enough security forces to restore order should the war pop off. This is an assessment similar to conclusions arrived elsewhere and I’d say the same of the U.S., as well. Betz also asks the question: would the security forces take sides? Or would they remain neutral? He notes that the political bent of a plurality of those serving in the military and police is right-leaning, but also that the question is very tough to answer. It’s also a topic deserving its own treatment, a very important one, since, as Betz says, “there is probably no more important factor in the outcome of revolution than the response to it of the regime army.”

In the end, what sort of future are we staring down? For really the first and only time, we have a reputable academic willing to share with us what it’s all going to look like when it all breaks down:

What, then, is the answer to what future civil war might look like in the case of a very serious breakdown of government and in a context where all belligerents were of a mind to escalate punishment and provocation of their domestic opponents to the maximum of their capability and ingenuity? The simple answer is awful. More specifically, with history as a guide, we can look forward to compelled population movements on the scale of the partition of the Raj after Britain’s departure from India, combined with highly urbanised intercommunal violence rather like the Yugoslav civil wars but on a continental scale, and likely something of the genocidal horridness of the Congolese civil war.

Still too many are convinced it could never happen here, but I doubt anyone truly believes that. We are all already predisposed to believe our political enemies are soulless monsters, capable of horrific acts they’ve yet to commit. Whites are considered to be genociders-in-waiting, even as Blacks not only commit more crime and practice violence more habitually, but Whites are more likely to be victimized by Blacks than the other way around. If we already believe the worst of others, then thinking that something like the communal violence and genocides of the Balkans and the Congo could never happen here doesn’t make much sense.

One last excerpt from the essay:

Civil war is ‘political war’ par excellence. John Paul Vann famously observed that the best weapons in a political war were the gun and the knife, not the airplanes and massed artillery of a conventional war (As recounted in Prochnau 1996). Admittedly, Vann was a counterinsurgent, not a revolutionary, but it seems to me that the logic holds from either perspective. The coming civil war will combine the knife and the gun, the bolt-cutter, the sledgehammer, the IED, and every other means available applied with the ‘utmost discretion’ not to limit casualties but in a manner aimed precisely at well-known and widespread points of vulnerability that will lead to mass effect.

The fact is, every society possesses the means to wage civil war. We all do. That’s what makes it all most worrisome.

Is There Really No Solution?

There is, actually. The problem is, everyone has ruled it out without even giving it a fair shake. It’s what you do in every other situation where two parties are increasingly at odds, unable to form any kind of consensus on anything, and are increasingly at one another’s throats. It’s called separation.

One of the reasons I’ve become so vocally supportive of separation - call it “segregation,” if you must - is because the more I study history, the more I study life in general, the more I understand: separation is the only thing that prevents wars. Just think about it: if two people you know can’t get along despite your best efforts, what do you do? Do you force them to keep engaging one another? Or do you separate them? Do you spend money and time trying to arrive at “root causes?” Or do you just nip it in the bud, and put each person somewhere they cannot interact with one another?

Western society’s allergy to segregation is based not on any serious examination of the policy’s merits and demerits, but solely on the fact so many bad things happened while segregation was in place. The fact there has been comparatively next to no critique of the negative consequences of integration means our society isn’t looking at itself honestly, nor is it interested in actually fixing anything. Integration is a religion; you simply don’t question God’s will, do you?

The Regime’s insistence at making integration work at all costs is a big reason why our societies are headed towards civil war. It doesn’t matter how many people die, how many lives are negatively impacted. The costs are worth it, either way. If integration fails, it’s only because White people, specifically, couldn’t help but be racist. No other racial group had a hand in its failure. It’s an unfalsifiable premise.

All of us generally agree that people have a right to associate with whomever they want to. The problem is that our society and state doesn’t recognize a similar right to not associate with people we don’t want to associate with. At least, we can’t do so openly, not on the basis of race, religion, sexual identity, etc. It doesn’t make sense - if we are allowed to openly associate with those we want to associate with, why can’t the reverse be fully permissible as well? If nothing else, it prevents entirely avoidable conflicts from occurring.

Whether it’s to prevent a civil war from happening in the first place or bringing it to a stop once it starts, separation is going to have to be an option on the table. Countless conflicts throughout history have been resolved in this manner. Bosnia has not been at war for over 30 years because Bosniaks and Serbs lead separate lives while sharing the same spaces. In the U.S., Indian tribes are allowed to occupy their own spaces of semi-autonomous territories and haven’t been at odds with the American state in over a century. There are an endless list of examples of how civil wars have either been resolved through separation or inevitably led to separation.

And that’s just it: we’re probably going to need to live through a civil war for Americans, along with the West as a whole, to understand why forcing integration was a bad idea. For now, integration remains an important part of the prevailing narrative, of the way Americans have been told to see itself in the mirror, of where we’ve been and where we are going. Unfortunately, where we are going is to a deep, dark place.

Western Europe: Muslim Caliphate By 2050?

John Michael Greer, mystic and one of he most astute observers of our time, makes a dark prediction:

My prediction: by 2050 or so, most of Western Europe will consist of overtly Muslim states, and the Christian minority — and it will be a minority by then, as a Muslim takeover is usually followed by a fair amount of conversion — may not be treated especially well. Yes, I know the Quran mandates tolerance of Christians and Jews; I also know how spottily that has been enforced in the Dar al-Islam down through the centuries.

It’s worth nothing Grok, X’s own AI, doesn’t agree, citing demographic trends, which, as we all ought to know, tough to beat:

Even in the most extreme scenario—high migration—the Muslim population would still be far from a majority (50%+). To reach a majority, Europe’s Muslim population would need to exceed 250 million by 2050, requiring an increase of over 225 million from today’s numbers in just 25 years. This would demand unprecedented migration (hundreds of millions) or fertility rates far beyond what’s observed globally, neither of which aligns with current trends or realistic projections.

There’s a scenario where a Muslim majority could emerge in places. However:

Longer-term projections (beyond 2050) suggest a Muslim majority is possible in some countries centuries from now if trends persist. For instance, a 2019 study in PSU Research Review estimated that under a “mid-point migration” scenario, countries like Cyprus (2085), Sweden (2125), and France (2135) could see Muslim majorities—but that’s 60-110 years out, not 25.

Bottom line:

So, by 2050? The likelihood is very low—think single-digit percentages, not 50%. The Muslim share will grow, likely landing between 7% and 14% continent-wide, but Europe will remain predominantly non-Muslim, with Christians and the unaffiliated still far outnumbering Muslims.

Is there any way to reconcile what Greer says with what the facts say? There is, actually. While Muslims may not be a statistical majority by 2050, based on current trends, they’ll continue to increase in political power. By 2050, it’s very possible Muslims, despite remaining a minority, will act like they’re the majority, due to the outsized power they’ll possess. Think of the social dominance Black Americans have achieved, despite being only 13 percent of the U.S. population. The same dynamic is playing out in Europe, except with Muslims.

Of course, this is all based on present trends. There’s this thing called the Fourth Turning, however, and history says every Fourth Turning comes with a war. The Fourth Turning is primarily an America-centric concept, but what happens in America doesn’t stay in America, and vice-versa. The West as a whole is dealing with the same problems, just each country in their own unique way.

Point being, there’s a lot of history to cover between now and 2050. It’s 25 years away. Just look at what’s happened in the last 25 years. Still, the reason why “demographics is destiny” is because demographic trends are incredibly sticky.

X account “9mmSMG” says:

The reality is that Europe is incredibly White. For some reason, in America people believe it’s become completely overrun by Africans and Arabs. Demographics would be close to Maine or NH in many countries when you venture outside cities intentionally flooded with immigrants.

It’s jarring because it’s so heavily concentrated. You see places like Dublin or London online and think, “Wow, all the Europeans are gone!" It's absolutely not true. Don't get me wrong, they're doing their best to flood as many immigrants into these countries as possible, but much of what you see is demoralizing slop.

Hearing a guy living in Texas yell, “Europe has fallen!!” is hysterical. Any criticism should be cautionary and not apocalyptic. Accounts like Radio Genoa just recycle the same 15 videos over and over.

Cities like London, Dublin, etc, are pretty overwhelmed with immigrants. The vast majority of Europe simply isn’t yet, despite their best efforts.

He goes on to argue against “blackpilling,” that there’s still hope for Europe, since it remains overwhelmingly White, at least outside the cities.

The problem is, he left a very big part of the story out:

The White population in Western Europe skews on the older end, more than the non-White population. Old populations cannot put up much of a fight. Not only that, old populations cannot reproduce, not at the rates necessary to reverse demographic change. It’s amazing to me how people continue to ignore the age structure of Western populations, as though it’s merely a buzzkill ruining their good time.

You can ignore the aging of the population all you’d like. It won’t ignore you.

In The Air Tonight

As I’m putting the finishing touches on this piece, I’ve started watching yet another interview with David Betz:

Betz is undoubtedly the most reputable figure to speak on the topic of civil war coming to the West. The more exposure he receives, the better, because I can’t think of a more qualified person to deliver the message than him. In many ways, he’s taking a big risk to his reputation in talking about this, because I think the Overton window hasn’t shifted enough to where it’s considered appropriate to more seriously consider the likelihood of civil war in the West, even as it’s definitely become less taboo a topic.

Betz says in this latest interview that he puts the chances of civil war, at least in Britain at 50 percent in the next five years. If you doubt that, just listen to the interview. He may be wrong, but I appreciate his honesty. If he’s right, it’s past time to start getting ready. It’s not too late, but we are certainly past the point of no return.

Finally, there’s apparently a second season of Adolescence, the Netflix program which has ignited a moral panic over a manufactured crisis and mobilization of the British state, in the works. All I can say is, don’t pussyfoot around, you bloody wanks. If you want to raise the temperature in the country, go all the way and depict an airliner hijacked by White far-right nationalists flying into a building or something.

With another essay complete, let’s discuss - has Dr. David Betz sold you yet? Do you feel a civil war in the air as I do? What do you think it’ll look like? Is there anything Betz says you disagree with? Are any of you able to argue against the likelihood of civil war? What are your thoughts on anything covered in this essay?

Talk about it in the comments.

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!