The Inevitability Of Nothing

The violence is certain to increase, but barring some serious breakdown that destabilizes the foundations of our civilization, it’ll be a long time before a major fracturing occurs.

Will this become the mugshot heard around the world?

Apologies for the light posting. I’ve been struggling to decide on what to write about, as well as suffering a bit of writer’s block at the moment. I’ve also been working on something on the side, a bit of a personal project, and it’s consumed much of my mental bandwidth. This personal project may see the light of the day, or it may just remain something I indulge the dark recesses of my mind with. Either way, you’ll see bits and pieces of the thinking involved in this project here on this Substack, so I hope you’ll stick with me, no matter how light my posting gets!

With that, to the topic at hand…

As it stands assured former President Donald Trump will face both prosecution and conviction, talk of civil war has resurfaced. Right at the top, I want to reiterate that I don’t see a civil war coming any time soon for any reason, certainly not over someone I regard as little more than an aging stand-up comic on the verge of losing his audience and stage time forever. Trump’s ability to mobilize the masses was always more limited than imagined by both sides, nor are conditions in this country bad enough for people to regard his prosecution as a reason to revolt.

That said, I want to make my feelings clear - while it’s quite likely Trump has broken the law and should answer for his transgressions, his prosecution is, ultimately, a political prosecution, not a criminal one. Anyone who thinks the Regime sincerely believes in upholding the rule of law has no idea what’s going on. At this stage of the game, I harbor contempt towards anyone who honestly believes Trump is the only corrupt person to be president or thinks establishment politicians have never done anything that’d qualify as a crime. The fact that the Hunter Biden laptop story, which the media attempted to bury initially late in the election year of 2020, was not only 100% true, but with time has also revealed there’s quite a lot to it that implicates the sitting president engaging in much of the same transgressions Trump was accused of committing. Only a fool believes our politicians conduct themselves beyond reproach until Orange Man showed up and defiled the hallowed, immaculate halls of Washington.

I’m not ready to adopt some of the more nightmarish predictions many others seem to be indulging regarding the prosecution of Trump, but the political weaponization of the legal system at the highest levels of governance is certain to have adverse consequences. Though Eugene Debs and Lyndon LaRouche ran presidential campaigns from prison cells, we’ve never had a party front-runner nor a nominee do so. We’ve certainly never had someone elected president while imprisoned.

If Trump somehow managed to be re-elected while sitting in jail or mired in legal problems, it’s not clear what would happen, as the Constitution doesn’t exactly provide a solution for this. We’d be in uncharted waters and potentially a constitutional crisis. If you thought 2016 and 2020 were crazy, 2024 could very well be the one to top them all. Ultimately, I think the outcome will be quite boring and nowhere near as dramatic as some of us anticipate, but the bottom line is that we just don’t know.

You can see why civil war talk persists and I expect it’ll continue to be a hot topic of discussion going forward, if only on social media. One of the problems with talking about it is doing so in a practical sense: since it’s entirely speculative at the moment, it’s difficult to get people thinking about it beyond merely being an interesting topic of discussion.

There are, however, people of fair prominence who take it seriously, maybe too seriously, and not just on social media, either. Take a look at this expose on one Charles Haywood, someone who once made his fortune in shampoo manufacturing:

The founder and sponsor of a far-right network of secretive, men-only, invitation-only fraternal lodges in the US is a former industrialist who has frequently speculated about his future as a warlord after the collapse of America, a Guardian investigation has found.

Federal and state tax and company filings show that the Society for American Civic Renewal (SACR) and its creator, Charles Haywood, also have financial ties with the far-right Claremont Institute.

SACR’s most recent IRS filing names Haywood as the national organization’s principal officer. Other filings identify three lodges in Idaho – in Boise, Coeur d’Alene and Moscow – and another in Dallas, Texas.

SACR’s public-facing presence is confined to a slick one-page website advertising the organization’s goal as “civilizational renaissance”, and a society “with strong leadership committed to family and culture”.

The site claims SACR is “raising accountable leaders to help build thriving communities of free citizens” who will rebuild “the frontier-conquering spirit of America”. It condemns “those who rule today”, saying that they “corrupt the sinews of America”, “[alienate] men from family, community, and God” and promising to “counter and conquer this poison”.

It also prominently features SACR’s cross-like insignia or “mark” which it describes variously as symbolizing “sword and shield” and the rejection of “Modernist philosophies and heresies”.

Lots going on there. But first, what else do we need to know about Charles Haywood?

Rod Dreher knows him well:

If you read me back on The American Conservative in my final months there, you might remember that the writer and blogger Charles Haywood laid into me viciously for my role in exposing Thomas Achord, a closeted white nationalist, racist, and anti-Semite who carried out this secret hateful life online while serving as headmaster of the classical Christian school that my kids attended. Haywood said that we have “no enemies to the Right,” and that I ought not to have said a thing about this. He also said a lot of extremely nasty things about me, personal things … which is a shame, because a few years ago, I met him at a TAC gala, and he thanked me for helping him find Orthodox Christianity through my writing. Sounds like Haywood’s poor priest has his hands full.

Dreher continues:

Of course I think that the Left, broadly speaking, is wrong about many things, and actually evil about some things (e.g., trans ideology, racialist ideology). But that in no way, shape, or form justifies people on the Right — especially Christians — allying with evil. If the Charles Haywoods came to power in this country, a lot of us Christians and others on the Right would be shot or imprisoned, just as the leftists would be. Haywood is a very smart man, but not a very good one, based on his writing.

And:

I said Haywood is a very smart man. I suppose that only ego explains the stupidity of advertising your seditious fantasies of being an anti-government warlord, while at the same time trying to build a clandestine network of extremist lodges. Every single man in those lodges is almost certainly now on the radar of the feds, because El Maximo Líder can’t stop bragging about wanting to live as some kind of Lebanese big from the 1980s, hunkered down in the Chouf Mountains, making deals and shooting enemies.

Twitter is full of these LARPers (Live-Action Role-Players), but Haywood seems to be attempting to put his money where he mouth is. I don’t anticipate he’s going to see much success, if only because someone someone like him is most definitely going to be placed under the watchful eye of the federal authorities, maybe even infiltrated or informants bought out.

If you want to know more about Haywood and whether there’s any steam behind his efforts, read this thread by Josh Buice, a Christian pastor and president of G3 Ministries. Within my own circle of trust, the assessment according to some is that Haywood is more like a cult leader than a leader of an emerging political movement, but we’ve seen what cult leaders are capable of, even if they can’t take over a country. I suppose time will tell whether Haywood’s a real player or not. I don’t think he is, but I also think we’re going to see more like him in the years to come.

In many ways, the prospect of civil war has become something of an article of faith - people not only really believe it’s going to happen, but become emotionally invested in the idea. They point to all sorts of historical parallels to create an atmosphere of inevitability. Yet we don’t seem any closer to a civil war today than we were a year ago. Why is that? Maybe it’s because nobody really wants it, hot rhetoric aside. And it might surprise people to discover who want it least.

It’s behind a paywall now, but in an entry earlier this year, I made reference to an essay written by “Iraqveteran888” who has a Substack of his own. One of the more interesting arguments he raised was the following:

They have a lot to lose and are likely a lot more worried than they will ever let anyone know openly. You’ve got an entire microcosm of society that relies on the Federal Government to remain operational because their job depends on it. In a lot of ways, they are their own unique political party unto themselves and likely only view the right vs left paradigm in a way that allows them to most effectively preserve and solidify their power, and ultimately, their livelihoods.

It’s interesting because conventional wisdom, at least on the Right, says the federal government is aligned on the Left. What Iraqveteran8888 says is that’s more an alliance of convenience. The federal government harbors a bias towards the Left and against the Right because the Left controls our culture and institutions, not because the federal government’s inherent ideology is leftist. This implies that the managerial state ultimately follows whoever is in power, but we’ll leave that talking point aside for now.

I bring this up because of something a Twitter account named “CatGirl Kulak,” who has a great Substack of his own titled Anarchonomicon, said a few weeks ago:

I know things are getting hot and heavy, but bear with me. If Iraqveteran8888 was explaining why the state can’t afford to have a civil war, CatGirl Kulak is explaining why it can’t, period:

The gist of his argument is this: there aren’t enough law enforcement officers or troops in this country to seriously bring the hammer down on the populace, even with a full-scale mobilization. Because they can’t, they won’t. But they have plenty of other people who can do the job on their behalf.

This is where the dreaded anarcho-tyranny comes in:

The final point he makes makes for a whole different conversation altogether, but don’t let it distract you. The most important takeaway here is that the Regime will likely double-down on its current strategy because it works. Leveraging the administrative, bureaucratic state, engaging in lawfare, employing “cancel culture” to enforce the Regime’s norms and values, while leaving direct violence up to criminal class to carry out. Any regime is taking a risk when it gets involved in employing direct violence against the people, even under totalitarianism, since there’s only one source of violence in such a system and it comes from the state.

But under anarcho-tyranny, or even inverted, “soft” totalitarianism, the fact the state exercises little direct violence against the citizenry permits it a strong measure of plausible deniability. There’s just no way to appeal to the state when the state is the one permitting the violence while also being the only entity in a position to handle the problem with legitimacy. In some ways, it’s the best of both words, since the state can control the citizenry without getting its hands dirty and it can also never be directly blamed for the violence, either.

How do you break this system? I’m not sure you can, since most people would feed its legitimacy by virtue of simply going along and about their daily lives. Even if a civil war did occur in this country, you’d still have at least half the population supporting the government if only out of hopes they can stop the violence and restore order. Either way, the administrative state is too big and too powerful to just let things devolve into chaos and disorder. At some point, they would need to intervene because when things get totally out of control, it’s their own survival which is at stake.

President John F. Kennedy once said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” I think many, particularly on the Right, feel this way at the moment and I don’t think they’re wrong to do so, either. Though I most certainly can’t and won’t endorse violent revolution, I’ll say that even if it’s inevitable, that day is nowhere near. Why? For one, the Regime is very much in control of the situation. In addition to the indictment of Trump, one of the more significant events of the past few weeks are the convictions and sentencing of those who participated in the January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

It should come as no surprise the rioters couldn’t get away with what they did that day, but it’s the disparity in how the 1/6 participants were treated versus the way the 2020 George Floyd rioters were treated that’s the real story here:

In many major cities, participants in the Floyd riots were actually paid off as part of settlements for supposed excessive force on the part of police. Frankly, I don’t understand how one is supposed to deal with riots without using overwhelming force, but the point is that the Regime very casually takes it easy on transgressors within their political coalition while bringing the hammer down on those outside of it. This sort of disparity makes it understandable why people think violent revolution is inevitable, but I’d also argue it shows why violent revolution will fail.

Short of an all-out shooting war, armed conflicts are ultimately aimed at securing a political solution, not a military one. Typically, military solutions (a.k.a. annihilating your enemy) are pursued when a political solution is impossible. So even if a violent revolution occurs, a certain amount of political support is necessary to sustain it. It’s not like either side, including the Left, has the ability to wage all-out civil war anyway and if we get to the point we seek the annihilation of the other, we’re probably at the literal end, so it’s not something useful to consider.

Whether one seeks peace or violence, organizing and cultivating “soft” power is very important. Lost in their loudness and violence is the fact the Left is very good at organizing and building soft power; this is how they came to dominate the institutions. They certainly didn’t do it through force of arms. When the Left does employ violence, it either gets away with it or is at least able to minimize the consequences for its side. Though there was really no question Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense when he killed two of his attackers during the Floyd riots, his fate came down in large part due to a judge who didn’t stack the deck against him. Institutional power matters, otherwise, you’re left exposed to those who not only give you no room to peacefully challenge the system, but who also possess overwhelming means of violence and, more important, the legitimacy to use it.

There’s a lot more I can say, but I’ve been sitting on this piece for a while and we all know this won’t be the last time I talk about civil war. For now, I think I’ve said enough and I do need to get something out there - I owe it to my subscribers.

I’ll close with this tweet by account @blitziod:

I think this is 100% correct. The violence is certain to increase, but barring some serious breakdown that destabilizes the foundations of our civilization, it’ll be a long time before a major fracturing occurs. If only begrudgingly, the Regime’s own power will eventually decline and they’ll have no choice but to give the opposition some room to de-escalate tensions. There’s plenty of time for things to get worse, but this also means there’s plenty of time for things to get better.

Key to understanding this is to remember there’s actually three factions involved - the Left, the Right, and the federal government. While the Regime is a synthesis of the Left and the federal government, there comes a point where their respective interests diverge. The Left seeks to deconstruct and destabilize, while the federal government seeks stability. I’m repeating myself, but this is so important: losing control of the situation is disastrous because being in control is the reason people support regimes, even tyrannical ones, in the first place.

The Left may have no choice but to back off a bit at some point, but it’s less likely to occur unless the Right fights back. Not with the force of arms, but through organizing, creating real-life social networks, and taking back control of the institutions. The problem is, this is all rather boring and doesn’t make for exciting conversation, which is why so many prefer to talk about civil war instead.

What are some ways you think we can cultivate soft power and bring greater balance to our institutions? How do we convince people to take politics more seriously and not resort to talking about how we’re going to fight a war against the state and other Americans? Let’s discuss in the comments section below.

UPDATE: Reader “Brian Villanueva” writes:

Conservatives are structurally resistant to alterations in social norms and rules, which places us at a disadvantage when the Left changes said rules (vote harvesting for example). "A few sham indictments of federal officials in red states" is a great example of this. We don't have to like political lawfare, but those are the rules the Left has made, so we must learn to play by them.

I also think the American Right sees itself as the “good guys” in the story and, despite their opposition to political correctness, are sensitive to being perceived as the protagonists and antagonists. Obviously, this isn’t working out and the Right has, for much of our history, been regarded as the antagonists, the people who need to be fought against and defeated.

Ironically, the Left actually embraced the “bad guy” role while also being perceived in the public realm as the protagonists in our national story. Or maybe it’s not all that ironic - when the public generally sides with you, it gives you greater license to operate freely. For example, if people celebrate a bank robbery, are the thieves still the bad guys?

Of course, it wasn’t always the case the Left was perceived as the protagonists. Ultimately, they became the good guys because they won and kept winning. By taking over the institutions, they were able to re-write the American story on their terms and gradually shift public sentiments over time.

The lesson - an uncomfortable one - is that there really is nothing more to it than gaining power and wielding it. To gain power, one must embrace that upstart, hard-charging, and yes, villainous mentality. In the short run, yes, you will encounter fierce resistance (the sort of thing that happens when you challenge the establishment), but in the long run, if successful, you, not they, get to write the story. Surely, I’d hope the Right, if it ever takes power again, will write an honest story, but it’ll never have a say unless they accept their current position in society and focus on regaining control of our institutions.

It’s doubtful the Right can ever control academia, the media, or even the military, not any time soon, but what it can do is build parallel institutions, like alternative media outlets, participate in local elections and ensure one’s community isn’t governed the way Joe Biden likes to govern the country, and, most of all, get your house in order. If you have kids, raise your kids to be the kind of people you want anchoring this nation. There are lots of bad influences out there and the only defense against this are strong families and households.

There’s a reason the Left has been so relentless in its assault on the family. The proper response isn’t to say “Having families is bad, so I won’t,” but to say, “If the people in charge think having families is bad, then I must!” The Left came to power not by acquiesing to established norms, but by openly, flagrantly defying them. Perhaps it’s past time for the Right to begin openly and flagrantly defying the Regime’s norms and values?

And that’s as much politicking as you’ll get out of me! Enjoy it while it’s here.

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!