Episode 41. February 1, 2020.
CLP topic category: Irreconcilable Differences
An American Conservative Revolution In the Midst of A Socialist Civil War
Introduction: The Difference Between the American Socialist Civil War and the Second American Revolution.
David Armitage’s book, War, Civil War, or Revolution, (2017), provides a useful method to understand the current constitutional crisis in America.
According to Armitage, a civil war emphasizes the essential unity of the combatants, after the war ends, while a revolution involves a civil dissolution of the existing order.
Applying Armitage’s definition, the American socialists are engaged in a civil war with conservative patriots, because socialists want both sides to “remain members of the same political community,” after the end of the socialist civil war.
The socialist logic for continuing the existing constitutional arrangement is easy to understand: the socialists need the middle class and wealthy to continue to contribute their taxes and wealth to the socialist elites, because the socialist regime cannot function without exploitation of the wealthy.
Armitage explains that revolution involves the overthrow of the existing constitutional arrangement, and replacing the old regime with a new regime.
In other words, in a revolution, the people tearing each other apart do not share a common culture and political community. In fact, as Professor Thompson reminds us, “the two sides hate each other,” and share no common or cultural values.
In contrast to the unity of the combatants at the end of a civil war, the two sides in a revolution have no on-going relationship with each other because one of the sides does not exist, anymore.
This is the stage of conflict in America today between Democrat socialists and conservatives. The socialists despise non-socialists, and share no values with the founding principles of the nation.
But, the socialists need their hated capitalist system to keep functioning, at the end of the civil war, because capitalism generates tax revenues.
If they achieve victory of their socialist civil war, they will seek to rule non-socialists in a one-party, totalitarian government, under the guise of the current Constitution.
The solution for conservative patriots is to recognize the irreconcilable values with Democrat socialists, and engage in a revolution to form a new nation that reclaims the principles of liberty.
In the second American Revolution, conservatives seek an unconditional, permanent split with the socialists.
In other words, the conservatives must win the second American revolution in order to divorce themselves from the socialist tyranny, after the civil war.
From the socialist perspective, their hatred of conservatives is engendered by the Marxist ideology of class hatred between the capitalist class and the working class.
Professor Thompson, of Clemson, writes,
“It is not an exaggeration to suggest that liberal and conservative Americans hate each other. There are now two Americas and the division is not between “haves” and “have nots” or between whites and blacks. The coastal, blue state, Ivy-educated ruling class has contempt for flyover, red state, trailer park deplorables and vice versa. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, a nation that hates itself cannot stand.”
While Armitage’s definitions are useful for understanding the difference between civil war and revolution, his definitions are not useful for explaining America’s first revolution.
In that revolution, a civil war was being fought at the same time that a revolution was being fought to form a new nation. There was a civil war inside of a revolution.
When the British General Clinton changed his strategy from taking New York, in order to focus on taking the Southern states, he ordered several detachments of loyalists in South Carolina to carry the attack against the patriots.
British regulars were not used to any great extent in the Carolina theater. According to one historical account,
“the Carolinas were subjected to furious partisan warfare. With minor use of British troops, the south became embroiled in a civil war marked by horrendous and indiscriminate violence… The patriots had to fight a civil war and fight one of the greatest armies of the world at the same time.”
For a great period of time in South Carolina, the Tory loyalists were successful in vanquishing the patriots, and engaged in horrific torture and slaughter of patriot prisoners, who had surrendered.
The success of the loyalists abruptly changed at King’s Mountain, when the loyalists met a patriot army of 900 frontiersmen, commonly called the “Over the Mountain Boys.”
From that defeat, General Cornwallis marched his regulars and Tories to Guilford County, N. C., where they engaged General Greene and the American regular army.
The fighting at Guilford Courthouse was so brutal and intense that Cornwallis ordered his soldiers in the rear of the line to shoot the soldiers in the front, in the tail, to make them advance against the Patriots.
The experience at Guilford was so devastating to the British troops that they refused to leave their quarters in Yorktown to engage the Americans again.
Louis Gohmert’s analysis of the current conflict in America could be improved if he adopted the “civil war within a revolution” model to explain the Democrat socialist behavior.
Gohmert describes the socialist initiative to nullify the 2016 presidential election and impeach President Trump as a “Communist Revolution.”
“I think it is better to characterize it as [a] communist revolution. That’s what they’re about, and whether you want to call it progressivism, socialism, communism, that’s what they’re about, and we’re already seeing … communism’s hatred of religion, and specifically Christianity. It’s a threat to what has always been an American way of life.”
The more accurate analysis of the socialist behavior involves a progression of behavior from resistance to the transfer of power, to the open rebellion of a coup, then to the sedition of the bureaucrats in the deep state, and finally to civil war.
Our podcast today will place these stages of the socialist tactics into the argument that reconciliation with the socialists is impossible.
Nothing will ever change the ideology, or the behavior, of the Democrat socialists, who will continue to push for victory of the glorious socialist state, in order to subjugate non-socialists.
To paraphrase President Trump,
“No matter how many witnesses you give the Democrats, no matter how much information is given, like the quickly produced Transcripts, it will NEVER be enough for them. They will always scream UNFAIR. The Impeachment Hoax is just another political CON JOB!”
Our podcast concludes that the only solution to the constitutional crisis is a conservative revolution to restore the original democratic republic of America contemplated by the Patriots in their creation and ratification of the Articles of Confederation.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this is the copyrighted Citizen Liberty Party News Network podcast for February 1, 2020. Our podcast today is under the CLP topic category Irreconcilable Differences and is titled, “An American Conservative Revolution In the Midst of A Socialist Civil War.”
The most recent podcast of the CLP News Network is available for free. The entire text and audio archive of our podcasts are available for subscription of $30 per year, at the CLP News Network.com.
Democrat Socialist Resistance and Rebellion.
When the Democrats did not get their way in the 2016 election, they engaged in resistance to the peaceful transfer of power.
Mark Steyn explained resistance as the Democrat’s refusal to accept the election loss to Trump.
“The Democratic Party’s refusal to accept its loss to President Trump is making rational discourse almost impossible and setting the stage for a civil war. Stacy Abrams’ argument is ‘unless I win, the election was rigged.’ And Hillary Clinton, who is a far more senior figure than Stacy Abrams, actually came close to saying that in Los Angeles — because I didn’t win, the system must be rigged.”
The denial of the legitimacy of Trump’s election may eventually lead to civil war.
But, long before the start of the civil war, the primary strategy of Hillary’s refusal to accept the peaceful transfer of power is to erode the citizen’s faith in democratic elections, in order to substitute the primacy of socialist elite decision-making over the choices of citizens.
Jim Newell, a Democrat socialist writer from Slate, explains the socialist strategy of resistance,
“Among wide swaths of the Democratic coalition, there is an orthodoxy forming: The party’s purpose is to block and resist Trump at every turn, and through the process of resistance, reinforce their own (socialist) priorities.”
Rather than consent of the governed, the Democrat’s philosophy is to “reinforce” their cultural values in extra-legal political action, called “resistance.”
Their goal is a totalitarian state that enforces socialist collectivist values, with an unelected elite, who purportedly make better decisions than the citizens.
When Adam Schiff claims that the 2020 election is already rigged and the results cannot be valid, he is extending the socialist logic of resistance.
When Hillary announced in May 2017, that she had officially joined the “Resistance” she formed a formal organization, Onward Together, to “stand up” to Trump.
Hillary’s “resistance” is not meant to denote principled and traditional partisan opposition to the incumbent majority party over policy disagreements.
Instead, “resistance” for Hillary is intended to invoke the guerrilla-warfare campaigns of the French patriots who fought as rural bands against the Nazi occupation of France.
In that history of French resistance, the countervailing political force was Vichy elite social class collaboration with the Nazis. By collaborating with the Nazis, the French elite hoped to preserve their social class privileges, under a Nazi regime.
In the current historical metaphor, the establishment Republicans act as the social class collaborators with the Democrat socialists. A more accurate way, than RINO, to describe Murkowski, Collins and Mittens is to describe them as Vichy Republican collaborators with the Democrat socialists.
In addition to the formal resistance of Hillary’s group, Ben Rhodes, Obama’s former deputy national-security adviser, and Jack Sullivan, who had been Obama’s White House deputy assistant, formed the National Security Action organization in early 2018.
Rhodes and Sullivan stated that the mission of their group was to provide,
“effective, strategic, relentless, and a national response to the Trump administration’s dangerous approach to national security.”
They succeeded in organizing former Obama officials, still inside the Trump administration, and progressive media analysts to launch nonstop attacks on all of Trump’s policy efforts.
The current deep state bureaucrats who testified in the Schiff impeachment hearings were coached by, and collaborated with, Ben Rhodes, at the National Security Administration.
That branch of resistance explains why a Vichy collaborator, like Senator Burr, of North Carolina, abdicated his responsibility to investigate the corruption of Joe Biden, during the Russian collusion inquiry.
From Burr’s perspective, as Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the more important issue was to investigate Donald J. Trump Jr. for his role in coordination with Russia to defeat Hillary.
Biden’s corruption is seen by Burr as an ordinary and necessary component of the crony capitalist system of using the agencies of government to get rich.
A third formal Democrat organization of resistance was created in California.
In his 2018 campaign for governor of California, Gavin Newsome bragged that California’s gubernatorial election would anoint him “the next head of the resistance.”
Newsome calls Trump a “pathetic disgrace,” and uses his office of Governor to “resist” Trump and the Federal government.
Newsome’s resistance is important because he has the potential to lead California out of the Union.
This podcast argues that the California initiative of secession fits within the resistance/rebellion sequence of events being pursued by the Democrat socialists.
A proposed California secession measure has been cleared by the Secretary of State to begin gathering needed signatures to qualify for the ballot.
If the current Calexit measure gets enough signatures to qualify, it would result in a special election in 2021 to ask California voters whether the state should become an independent country.
In the first stage of the socialist civil war, the resistance to the peaceful transfer of power leads to rebellion against the established constitutional order.
Rebellion suggests an uprising, or insurrection, and a refusal of obedience to the rule of law.
The goal of the second stage of the socialist resistance is a rebellion in the form of a coup d’etat.
Rush Limbaugh has noted that rebellion is related to defiance of Federal law.
“The open defiance of the federal government, the demand to be able to treat unequal and unfairly people with whom you disagree with politically. You’ve heard California talking about seceding from the union, other Democrats have talked about that. They set up sanctuary cities that defy federal law. Because the Democrats sure seem hell-bent on running a single-party country and punishing anybody who is not in their party. This is a totalitarian Stalinism, if you will.”
The Democrat behavior of resistance, rebellion and coup will never end because the ideology of socialism is a religion.
As Max Madison noted, the socialists have no limits on what they will do to win their socialist civil war.
The impeachment is not primarily a direct attack on President Trump, just to get rid of Trump. The Democrats must get rid of Trump in order to destroy the country’s institutions and rule of law in order to achieve a political monopoly to implement socialist rule.
As David Horowitz points out, getting rid of Trump is not the real issue for socialists.
“They use an issue, then move on to the next issue. Yesterday’s oppressed factory worker is today’s racist redneck hick. Workers lost their value to the left so the Left moved on. The Left has no limits. It’s vital to understand that. No battle they pick is ever really over the stated issue. Each issue is merely a step towards the goal of eradicating Western Civilization.”
In the progression of socialist behavior, resistance, rebellion, and getting rid of Trump, through a coup, are merely the first steps towards their goal of socialist tyranny.
Deep State Sedition and Treason
The next stage of the socialist strategy is the use of the deep state agents to engage in sedition and treason.
The behavior of the Democrats, after 2016, can be better understood when placed into the bigger analytical framework of deep state treason.
Rosenstein, Bolton and McCabe are Democrat socialist activists engaged in a conspiracy of sedition to overthrow a constitutionally elected President. They are traitors to the cause of liberty and traitors to America.
The deep state agents who appeared before Schiff’s committee are engaged in an ongoing act of sedition to overturn a national election and to use impeachment proceedings in the absence of a high crime or misdemeanor.
Their treason consists of both the treason of espionage on private citizens and the treason of disloyalty to the nation.
The underlying logic of the socialist deep state sedition is that common citizens are unfit to govern.
Angelo Codevilla, writing in the American Spectator, identified the characteristics of the American Ruling Class as follows:
“Today’s ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as taste and habits…the key to understanding our bipartisan ruling class is that “we” are the best and brightest while the rest of Americans are retrograde, racist, and dysfunctional unless properly constrained.”
Codevilla places the deep state ruling class into the analytical framework of the crony capitalist rewards system.
“Like left-wing parties always and everywhere, it is a “machine,” that is, based on providing tangible rewards to its members. Hence our ruling class’s standard approach to any and all matters, its solution to any and all problems, is to increase the power of the government– meaning of those who run it, meaning themselves… our ruling class is making itself the arbiter of wealth and poverty.”
In place of Jefferson’s dictum that all legitimate authority is derived from the consent of the governed, the deep state agents assert that legitimate rule flows from right-minded persons in the country’s elite institutions.
When Vidman and Bolton claimed, in Schiff’s hearings, that Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine, what they meant was that Trump did not obey the deep state agents in his treatment of Ukraine.
By not obeying the deep state agents, Trump committed an impeachable crime of abusing his authority.
Victor Davis Hanson also places the behavior of the deep state sedition within the context of global crony capitalism.
“In political terms, the conflict hinges on whether the powers of entrenched government will be used to ensure a rough equality of result — at the expense of personal liberty and free will… The consequences of globalization, the growth of the deep state, changing demographics, open borders, the rise of a geographic apartheid between blue and red states, and the institutionalization of a permanent coastal political and culture elite are tearing apart the country.”
The underlying logic of the deep state apparatus is that the elites can usurp the authority of the citizens because the elite make better decisions than voters.
“if the citizens vote incorrectly, then an elite in government, the courts, and the media will intervene to set in place what common citizens should have done to properly advance the correct agendas.”
In summary of the first set of socialist behavior, the resistance, the rebellion and the deep state ruling class, all lead to the socialist civil war.
A Civil War to Guillotine the Rich.
Victor Davis Hanson writes,
“When socialist totalitarianism comes to America, it will come under the guise of diversity, tolerance, social justice and equality…the socialists insist that the country was hopelessly flawed at its birth and must be radically reinvented to rectify its original sins.”
In order to explain the socialist threat of civil war, it is necessary to see the conflict from the eyes of socialists. The ideological values of fairness and social justice provide the justification for the socialists to engage in a civil war to right the historical wrongs in the founding of the nation.
When socialist civil war comes to America, the socialists will guillotine the rich, under the justification of social justice and fairness.
The socialists see the same divisions and polarization in America as conservatives, but the socialist blame the unfair economic system of capitalism for the irreconcilable differences.
In their article, “The Threat of Tribalism,” Amy Chua and Jed Rubenfeld describe the cause of the hatred between the socialists and conservatives.
“Americans on both the left and the right now view their political opponents not as fellow Americans with differing views, but as enemies to be vanquished. And they have come to view the Constitution not as an aspirational statement of shared principles and a bulwark against tribalism, but as a cudgel with which to attack those enemies.”
H.W. Crocker III, cites the absence of a shared culture in his article, “America’s next Civil War.”
“The difference between the America of today and the America of yesterday is that we once had a common culture.”
Chauncey DeVega, a socialist writer at Salon, writes,
“At present, America feels like a broken country. Democrats and Republicans do not live in the same neighborhoods or communities. Nor do Democrats and Republicans communicate with each other in meaningful and personal ways… the idea of a second Civil War actually feels increasingly plausible. The second American Civil War will not be fought over climate change; it is going to be fought over racial issues.”
Jim Sleeper, a socialist writer at Salon, also cites racism and white supremacy as the justification for civil war.
“What’s destroying our civil society: White supremacy, or relentless corporate greed. White supremacist violence is a dangerous symptom. But our corrupted and corroded public life is the disease.”
Thom Hartmann’s article, Will America’s billionaires start a second Civil War to protect their wealth and power? cites the unfair capitalist system as the cause of the civil war.
“forces of massive accumulated or inherited wealth have nearly succeeded in taking full control of our nation, replacing a democracy, where the will of the people is accomplished through their elected representatives, with a form of government where most government functions are to reinforce the power, wealth and control of the morbidly rich.”
Conor Friedersdorf, in his article, The Hunger for a Bold Socialism, cites two socialist professors, who state,
“While the current Democrat Party policies are crucial to countering the misery we face under capitalism…We want real socialism. We don’t just want to replace private ownership with state ownership. We don’t believe that capitalists should be able to have disproportionate control over economic resources. We don’t think unaccountable state officials and bureaucrats should have the power to control investment and production through ‘socialism from above.”
The violence begins on the side of the socialists.
In his article, Igniting Civil War, Angelo Codevilla, predicts that the socialists will use class hatred to start their civil war.
“It all starts with getting people accustomed to hating each other. And that starts at the top. But when blood is spilled, then everyone else, tends to use it as a pretext for inciting more violence. That’s the meaning of blood-feud. We know that the spiral of political violence has already taken its first fateful turns, and that the logic of our partisan ruling class is pushing for more violence.”
The end goal of the socialist civil war is to keep the capitalist class in Madison’s constitutional order in order to continue exploiting them for tax revenues.
The historical irony of the socialist civil war is that it cannot be successful without the continued existence of their hated capitalist class. A civil war maintains the constitutional order, while a socialist revolution, in other words, would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Reverting to Madison’s Flawed Document After the Second American Revolution.
After the civil war, conservatives who attempt to reclaim liberty by reverting to Madison’s flawed document will not solve the constitutional crisis.
Madison’s constitutional representative republic required voluntary allegiance to the rule of law. In place of the shared values of individual liberty and self-government, in the Articles of Confederation, Madison substituted the values of commercial and financial self-interest.
In other words, Madison’s Constitution of 1787 disconnected the Constitution from the shared cultural values expressed in the Declaration, and substituted a centralized federal government for the decentralized state sovereignty framework of the Articles.
Lincoln clearly foresaw the flaw in Madison’s constitution at his first inaugural address.
“I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”
Following Lincoln. what is not included in Madison’s Preamble is the ideology of individual liberty. In Madison’s constitution, a more perfect union could as easily be a more perfect socialist union as a more perfect individual liberty union.
In 1787, Madison could not incorporate the ideology of liberty in his constitution because the South would never agree to those values. Madison was stuck trying to force two entirely different cultures into one nation.
The cultural value that Madison used to hold the two cultures together was making money from the system.
Hamilton understood that, more than virtue, civic duty, religion, or shared sacrifice, it was the prospect of making money with one another that could bring Americans together.
“As a nation, we are united by our desire to make money off one another. When people recognize that they can make money from interacting with one another, they will come together. Their interests will ultimately be “blended and interwoven,” even if they have different religions, regional dialects, or professions… as prosperity goes up, domestic strife goes down.”
Madison’s rules were designed to ameliorate economic conflicts, not ideological conflicts. Liberty and socialism are ideologies, not commercial factions.
Following Lincoln, what is not provided for in the instrument itself is how to solve the ideological conflict between freedom and socialism. Madison’s constitution is non-ideological, and thus, incapable of resolving ideological conflicts that are not about property rights.
Madison’s rules substituted a principle of shared plunder and greed to exploit the system for the rule of law in the Articles of Confederation, which were based upon a shared cultural sense of fairness and citizen patriotism.
The cultural value of shared trust, in the Articles, is replaced, in Madison’s Preamble, by the common value of shared plunder. The cultural values of shared plunder do not promote voluntary obedience to the rule of law.
Making money off of one another eventually devolved into a centralized tyranny, commonly called crony capitalism.
What Madison’s careful arrangement of separation of power does is create an effective system of a market exchange society that fails to bind disassociated individuals to a shared sense of civic duty and national mission.
His rules, for example, spell out how slaves should be counted for taxation and voting apportionment decisions, without addressing the larger moral issue of the public purpose served by slavery.
Leaving that larger moral issue unsolved, but having rules that address the issue of slaves left the American society with a ticking time bomb that eventually had to be solved on the field of battle.
As a result of Madison’s constitutional orientation, the role of the federal government in economic policy matters became skewed towards issues like making certain that the bondholders of federal debt were repaid at full face value, in gold and silver, for the bonds they had bought for pennies on the dollar, with paper money.
The solution, for Madison, was permanently loading the constitutional deck against common citizens. The true distinction of the American system, wrote Madison in Federalist #71,
“lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity in any share in the government.”
As Gordon Wood has pointed out, in The Creation of the American Republic, not only did Madison’s scheme provide for a system dominated by
“…natural leaders who knew better than the people as a whole what was good for society, but it also succeeded in removing the non-natural leaders from the political process.”
“In fact, the people did not actually participate in government any more…The American (Federalists) had taken the people out of the government altogether.”
As Sean Wilentz wrote, in The Rise of American Democracy,
“The people had no formal voice of their own in government. And, that was exactly how it was supposed to be – for once the electors had chosen their representatives, they ceded power, reserving none for themselves until the next election…The people, as a political entity, existed only on election day.”
The flaw in Madison’s rules of excluding common citizens is easily seen during the impeachment inquiry. Common citizens were left defenseless to protect their rights to elect a President from the socialist effort to remove Trump.
Madison’s constitution is hopelessly flawed and cannot function in a new democratic republic, after the second American Revolution.
Unless conservatives make some fundamental changes to Madison’s centralized representative republic, Trump’s legacy will end just like Reagan’s administration, in the Republican default position of bi-partisan collaboration with the Democrats.
The conservatives must conduct a revolution in the midst of a socialist civil war.
This is my Conclusion: Restoration of The American Character of Individual Liberty.
The new constitution of the Democratic Republic of America changes Madison’s centralized representative republic back to the decentralized state sovereignty framework of the Articles of Confederation.
The Constitution of the Democratic Republic provides the cultural glue of shared values by reconnecting the new Constitution to the principles of liberty in the Declaration.
The new Constitution enshrines the answer to Crèvecoeur’s 1782 question “What then is this American, this new man?”
- Bradley Thompson, a professor of political science at Clemson University, and author of America’s Revolutionary Mind: A Moral History of the American Revolution and the Declaration That Defined It (2019), explains what Crèvecoeur meant when he said that Americans had a unique character of individual liberty.
Thompson cites Crevecoeur, and DeTocqueville, 50 years later, that there was a single universal character trait in the new American citizen. The Americans deeply believed in the sovereignty of the individual over the sovereignty of the state.
As Thompson notes,
“The greatest achievement of the American Revolution was to subordinate society and government to this fundamental moral law…The moral philosophy of the American Revolution was closely associated with the idea of self-government—that is, with the idea that individuals must govern their own lives in the fullest sense of the term.”
The new American character of liberty demanded three duties from citizens:
- that they not violate each other’s rights;
- that they live self-starting, self-reliant, self-governing lives by practicing certain uniquely American virtues and character traits.
- that they deal with each other by means of persuasion and voluntary trade.
Thompson describes this type of government as “ethical individualism”.
The new constitution of the Democratic Republic of America is based upon the moral philosophy of ethical individualism.
The decentralized, federalist government of state sovereignty is founded on 11 principles of government, that form the preamble to the new constitution.
The first three principles of government are:
“…that all legitimate authority is derived from the consent of the governed, and that the further removed authority becomes from the consent of the governed the more likely the authority is illegitimate, opressive and corrupt.
“…that those governed by the laws and whose individual freedom is restricted by the laws should have the greatest say and consent in making of the laws.”
“…that those who make the laws and give consent to the laws, acting as representatives of the citizens, bind themselves and their constituents to following the laws.”
The entire set of 11 principles of the new constitution are available at the Democratic Republic of America website.
Our podcast today describes the irreconcilable differences between the police state repressive society of socialists and the individual liberties of a natural rights republic.
The only peaceful, non-violent solution to the nation’s conflict is to dissolve the nation into two new nations:
The Socialist States of America
The Democratic Republic of America.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this podcast is a copyrighted production of the CLP News Network.
You can subscribe to all of the audio and text of our podcasts, for $30 per year, at our website.
You can join the political movement to create a natural rights republic and contribute our mission at CLPnewsnetwork.com
You can learn more about the federalist, state sovereignty framework of the new constitution of the Democratic Republic of America at GABBYpress.com
Thank you for joining me today and please visit our entire archive of podcasts at clpnewsnetwork.com