Is Another Civil War Inevitable?
Civil War has been in the news quite a bit lately – both domestically and abroad. Prominent names and media outlets repeatedly discuss the possibility. Those on the Left and Right provide their reasoning, ranging from which president is your favorite to the situation unfolding between Israel and Palestine. However, the overall rationale and outcome are essentially the same: the United States is deeply divided, and it might be time to fight it out.
Is another Civil War really inevitable or even possible? If so, what is the true cause, and can it be stopped? The questions and their answers are rather complex but worthy of being explored. However, before we discuss that, I’m going to ask you to watch the following video. Listen closely to what the presenter has to say and really ponder the implications. The following video provides the necessary context for this article.
She presents a very compelling argument, doesn’t she? However, if we are being honest with ourselves, we will notice that a few things seem a little “off.” There’s a good reason for that. However, that truth seems to be masked with a slew of things that “sound about right.” Of course, that’s our first clue.
The speaker in this video is Dr. Walter. She is known for her work on political violence and the outbreak and resolution of civil wars. She has also had a strong voice in helping people understand the logic of terrorist violence. Accordingly, her words here are definitely something to consider. However, there are a few crucial elements missing from her talk that must be discussed to really understand the full scope of the potential.
My Background on the Topic
I am a trained Social Scientist. A social scientist is someone who studies how people interact with each other and how societies work. My specialty is in leaderology. In this capacity, I study leaders and followers, their decisions, the influences and outcomes of those decisions, strategy, interpersonal dynamics, power dynamics, multicultural perspectives, change processes, and much more. However, I also have a specialty in forecasting and leading change, and I am well-versed in Socratic questioning – which is a method used to examine complex ideas, challenge assumptions, and find greater understanding.
Additionally, I have a major in Security Management, with an emphasis on Homeland Security. In this, I have studied emergency planning, terrorism motivations, and so on. So, while I am not an expert in civil wars, I am not approaching this topic from a completely ignorant standpoint and can speak to much of what Dr. Walter is trying to convey here. However, my education and understanding might have provided me with a bit of a different perspective, which I am about to share.
The Wisdom of Walter
There are several important pieces of information that we can glean from Dr. Walter’s Ted Talk. The first is that civil wars do happen and are increasing around the world. This should not be lost on any of us because it’s true. Of course, it is also another clue. Reasoning aside for a moment, just understand that we are currently faced with a global transition that is causing a significant amount of tension around the world. This tension is being felt across religion, economics, and so on. This includes the United States. Hence, we must understand that the United States is not immune from these potentials.
Second, the Political Instability Task Force figured out that predicting civil war is possible. This is absolutely true. Moreover, I appreciate the two highly predictive factors that she provides and will focus on those specifically in this article. For clarity, these two factors are 1) if a country is an anocracy and 2) if the citizens in these anocracies form political parties based on identity (identity politics) rather than ideology.
Third, Dr. Walter said that the people who typically start civil wars are the groups that had once been politically dominant but are now in decline. This is an interesting and critical point that also happens to be the elephant in the room. Moreover, it provides support for the Adversity Nexus, which I will share with you. However, there is a strong false narrative surrounding this point, and I will address it specifically herein.
Holistically, we have a problem. Dr. Walter is absolutely correct that these various factors spell big trouble and that we are currently faced with these factors. However, I think the question we should be asking is, why is all of this happening? Frankly, her assessment of the actual cause and effect might be a little off. Or perhaps, she is trying to misdirect you and refocus your attention away from the true cause. Ultimately, you get to decide.
As she stated, the United States is already officially classified as an anocracy, and clearly, the United States suffers from identity politics. As Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams said in her opening speech at the Center for American Progress’s Ideas conference, “I would argue that identity politics is exactly who we are.” Of course, Abrams was referring to the Democrats, and she said that as though it were something to be proud of. And while the Left has embraced and pushed identity politics for over a decade now, the reality of the situation is rather bleak for everyone.
As the Left continues to discount and attack the Right, the Right is beginning to resist and fight back against the Left. Unfortunately, the Right is fighting fire with fire and has begun to use similar tactics. Specifically, when an attack is rooted in identity, the focus of the retort will likely be rooted in identity as well. Predictably, this only exacerbates division and fans the flames of political tribalism.
Accordingly, we now see identity politics on both sides of the political aisle, and only a small portion of the population seems wise enough to understand that this type of tribalism often leads to an “us versus them” mentality and are willing to bridge with counterparts across identity classifications (E.g., black, white, Hispanic, Asian, male, female, liberals, conservatives, etc.). If identity politics are a catalyst, then understand that we are collectively making things worse by engaging in it.
In my opinion, there are a few things missing from her speech. Logically, it is difficult to debunk things that are not said. Hence, you will likely find a clean record of factual information when researching some of these contorted statements. However, that does not mean that inaccuracies or contortions cannot be found when considering the full story. As they say, “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
Granted, it is difficult to cover everything that needs to be covered in a mere ten-minute speech. I will give her that. However, while the information presented is compelling, it also doesn’t provide the full and necessary scope of the issue – if outcomes matter. Nonetheless, these are extremely important points that must be conveyed. Moreover, the way the information was presented makes it difficult to see the agenda riddled throughout the speech. So, let’s break this down.
The Rise and Participation of Militia
Dr. Walter said that “the rise of militias has been driven primarily by white men who see America’s identity changing in ways that directly threaten their status. They were the ones who marched on the capital on January 6.” This is inaccurate. In fact, there are several things wrong with this narrative. Primarily, just the facts. Her statement here is heavily biased and omits necessary contexts.
Now, I shouldn’t have to say it, but militias have been around since the beginning of this nation. The supposed rise of militias happened hundreds of years ago, and it has ebbed and flowed ever since. And yes, accuracy matters.
Nonetheless, she infers that white males present at J6 are indicative of the rise. I am going to push back on that notion as well. First of all, it’s important to acknowledge that this issue can be viewed through a statistical lens. Currently, the majority of Americans are white. Consequently, from a statistical standpoint, unless a particular group is expressly designed to be for specific ethnicities, it is highly probable that a majority of any group will be white.
Second, it doesn’t take much research to discover the diverse crowd present on J6, and you don’t need the video to prove it. This idea is clearly evidenced by the fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt and the fact that women accounted for roughly 14% of the arrests related to the incident. Then there are the numerous stories of people like Emanual Jackson, John Earle Sullivan, Enrique Tarrio, Mark Ponder, and so on, who are clearly not white.
Regardless, I would argue that aside from certain Antifa instigators (see: 18:30) and some right-wing participants involved with the Three Percenters, The Oath Keepers, and Proud Boys, the bulk of those present at the capitol on J6 were largely just average Americans participating in the political process. That’s not speculation. Take, for instance, the stories of Pamela Hemphill and Gary Wickersham, or just look at the studies that say that many arrested for their participation that day were not affiliated with hate groups or militias but instead, just older, employed Americans who were frustrated with the situation. I could go on, but hopefully, you understand the point.
As for the statement that this rise in militias is reflective of white men who see America’s identity changing in ways that directly threaten their status, I’m going to push back here as well. It should be noted that there are numerous racially diverse militias and militant groups that have formed in recent years. This phenomenon is neither white nor right-wing exclusive, and many of these groups (on either side) could care less about their demographic composition.
For example, two of the more prominent militia groups that have risen in recent years are the NFAC (America’s largest Black-only militia) which went public in 2020, and the left-leaning “Redneck Revolt,” which was founded in 2009. Of course, we should never forget the ongoing issues associated with the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), which arose in the 1990s. Then there are other groups like the various spinoffs of the John Brown Gun Club. Of course, we could recognize the seemingly countless Antifa groups as well.
And for clarity, while often ignorantly classified as a militia, a neo-nazi group, or even anti-government groups, the truth is that the Oath-Keepers and Three Percenters are highly diverse patriot groups that are more concerned with Constitutional integrity than anything else. Yes, there is a difference between a ‘Patriot Group’ and a militia. To be clear, these groups wouldn’t be diverse if they were neo-nazi, and they really can’t be labeled as anti-government either. After all, being a supporter of the Constitution inherently signifies a commitment to the principles of government, as the Constitution itself serves as the foundational document outlining the structure of government. To suggest otherwise is merely a demonstration of extreme ignorance, contorted bias, or a deliberate attempt to confuse.
Either way, we have to understand that her statement and inference regarding the composition of militia groups (by race, purpose, or political lean) was either a deliberate attempt to shift focus away from the facts or was simply rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts. Not that it matters much because the way it was said clearly demonstrated an intent to position right-wing militias in a negative light despite any militia (left or right) being considered beneficial and necessary according to the Constitution.
The Truth of the Big Transition
She also said that “the United States is in the midst of a major transition from a country whose population is majority white to a country whose population will be majority non-white. The United States will be the first country to go through this, but others are going to follow.” Perhaps, but the question we have to ask ourselves is, “Why?” In my opinion, the seemingly obvious answer is alarming.
You will notice that she points specifically to the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK. She is correct. Of course, it would be too easy to point to the deliberate importation of foreigners for political reasons, but each of these nations seems to currently suffer from the same set of problems: identity politics, big government, Keynesian economics, redistribution of wealth policies, and liberal activism. Moreover, all of them seem to be highly influenced by groups such as the World Economic Forum and the Council on Foreign Relations.
Here is my question: if the mechanisms for trouble are known, then why do these problems persist, and why are there seeming zero initiatives to stop them? Agenda aside for a moment, is this happenstance, coincidence, or agenda? Of course, Walter points to climate change as the primary culprit, and now we have our answer – agenda. I say this because her statement is yet another clear distraction from the truth.
If we are being honest with ourselves, and if we simply look at the data, we would have to admit that immigration is driven more by economics than anything else. Even international data reflects the same. For clarity, we are talking about food security, healthcare, better living conditions, employment, education, and opportunities to send home remittances. These are the things that immigrants can expect (not hope) to receive by coming to the United States. It is not a climate change issue.
Either way, unchecked and exaggerated immigration for any reason is probably not the best policy for America (or any nation), especially if the known result leads to civil war, as she claims. A key component of harmonious immigration appears to be the adoption of or integration into the culture that one is immigrating to. The result of not adopting or integrating into the culture is the division we see. However, this truth has been known since before ancient Rome, yet, this vital component seems to be lacking lately with immigration policies in the nations she mentioned. Even Henry Kissinger recently said that mass immigration is a ‘grave mistake’ because letting in so many people of totally different cultures, religions, and concepts “creates a pressure group inside each country that does that.”
The part that confuses me is that if the known outcome of loose immigration policies is so bad, then why do such policies persist? Legal immigration requires proof of understanding of the culture and laws of the nation someone is migrating to. This requirement has worked well for many years. So, what has changed?
Improved Rule of Law
Dr. Walter also suggests that to address anocracy, we have to improve the rule of law. I agree, but this doesn’t equate to more laws or more enforcement. Quality over quantity. An improved rule of law demands improved laws that are rooted in sound principles (not emotional or economic contortion) and tempered by the Constitution.
As evidenced by Article VI, Clause 2 (Supremacy Clause), the Constitution is supposed to be the “Law of the Land.” This is supported by Marbury vs. Madison, which states that all laws that are repugnant to the Constitution are void. Yet, as a nation, we have largely forgotten the Constitution; there is not a single right in the Bill of Rights that is not currently being infringed upon; we incarcerate more people per capita than any other nation in the world, and we have more laws on the books than the Library of Congress can count. Moreover, our collective condoning of unconstitutional benefits has merely set the stage for the economic reasoning for the migration previously discussed. The point is that further distancing ourselves from the constitution for the perception of safety is unlikely to help the situation. The rule of law is not the issue. However, the lack of recognition and enforcement of the law of the land might be.
Understand that you cannot support, love, defend, or exercise something you do not know. So, if we are going to improve the rule of law, perhaps we should start by enforcing the law of the land. Of course, in order to do this, we would have to eliminate unconstitutional entitlements, licenses, and infringements. Doing so would greatly reduce the size and power of the federal government and its agencies, and that may be all the insight we need to understand why such efforts are not currently being pursued. However, we must also be honest with ourselves in the idea that many citizens on both sides of the aisle would not be too excited about giving up the unconstitutional entitlements that they have become accustomed to.
Equal Access to the Vote
Dr. Walter suggested that we have to ensure equal access for every citizen to the vote. Again, I agree, but what she said and inferred was rather ambiguous. Of course, this seems like an odd point to bring up. From what I can tell, the only real issue regarding voting resides specifically with non-citizens voting. This shouldn’t even be a debate, so perhaps she is referring to “felony disenfranchisement laws.” Now, I concede to this problem, and this would be something conservatives might want to reevaluate. I say this because, to the best of my understanding, the only true citizens who are denied the right to vote are the roughly six million Americans who lost their right due to the laws restricting voting rights for those convicted of felony-level crimes. At first, this topic seems simple, but the root of this problem requires a little more context.
After the Civil War and thanks to the Republicans, thousands of Black men achieved freedom, the right to vote, were elected to government offices, and began purchasing property. The Democrats were not happy about any of this. In fact, the Jim Crow Era was marked by a Democrat-led system of racial segregation, discrimination, and various laws that targeted Black Americans. Felony disenfranchisement laws were a part of this initiative. However, these were never corrected.
Since then, millions of individuals from diverse backgrounds have suffered the adverse consequences of these laws. Think about it. Corruption, malicious prosecution, abuse of the legal process, and wrongful arrest are common videos on almost any social media or legacy media outlet. Of course, these issues typically originate from misconduct by law enforcement officers, prosecutorial misconduct, or errors in the investigative process, but the overarching problem stems from unconstitutional laws. Clearly, the origin, result, and intent are not good, and such laws should probably be rejected by any freedom-loving American – with a caveat.
Unfortunately, this is where it gets a little hazy. Now, as we know, incarceration is supposed to include a temporary suspension of rights as punishment for infringing upon the rights of another – as this is the ultimate punishment aside from death. Hence, for example, a convict should not be allowed to handle a weapon during incarceration, and they are not free to leave when they want. Well, voting while incarcerated should probably not be allowed, either – during incarceration.
It may seem like a side note, but allow me to clarify that point using a somewhat extreme example. The Constitution states that “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” It could be argued that imprisonment is a form of servitude. I say that because the federal prison system and all U.S. state prison systems have some form of penal labor. Penal labor is forced labor that prisoners are required to perform. Webster’s Dictionary defines this as Penal Servitude. An important note here is that servitude is a fancy way of saying “the state of being a slave,” which starts a whole new and necessary discussion on things like indentured servitude. Either way, we have to appreciate the idea that when you are incarcerated, you are essentially demoted to slave status as punishment for infringing upon the rights of another. Hence, you do not get to have a say in what law-abiding citizens are doing – during incarceration.
In alignment with the Constitution, if such rights (such as owning a firearm, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, or even the abolition of slavery) are merely suspended as punishment during incarceration, should they not be reinstated once the debt to society has been paid? Would it not be cruel and unusual punishment to attempt to deprive someone of an unalienable right indefinitely if their sentence was not a life sentence? Similarly, if the individual cannot be trusted to exercise their unalienable rights in society upon release, then should they have been released in the first place? And if the argument is that we have overcrowded prisons, then shouldn’t we reevaluate the numerous unconstitutional laws that put many of them there? We should collectively take some time to reconcile these questions, but hopefully, the point is clear.
The Corruption Problem
Dr. Walter continues by suggesting, “We have to reduce corruption, and we have to improve the quality of government services.” Indeed! I can get behind that initiative, especially in light of the previous points. However, that would also mean that we have to be honest with ourselves regarding corruption and the power that is transferred to the government as they provide such services.
I’m reminded of some statements made by Matthew C. Stephenson, the Eli Goldston Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. In a Harvard blog, Dr. Stephenson stated that when it comes to government corruption, there’s a lot of corruption associated with political machines, particularly in urban areas. Of course, if you look into that, you will find that urban areas are typically dominated by Democrats. Hence, it is easy to conclude that there is a lot of government corruption associated with Democrat political machines, and that appears to be the reality.
The question is why. Well, Stephenson says that these political machines provide tangible benefits to voters to ensure their support. This makes a lot of sense. What I want you to understand here is that this is transactional and that people are trading their votes for some sort of prize. You can recall any historical quote regarding the dangers of what happens when voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury, but the resulting corruption should be self-evident by now.
However, another reason for corruption that Stephenson points to is wealthy business interests corrupting politicians to receive favorable treatment from the government. This should sound familiar to all of us. Stephenson says that this might include “offering legislators bribes, sometimes in the form of company shares or special privileges, to provide special benefits to companies, or to look the other way when private interests were siphoning off taxpayer funds. These sorts of corruption often involved government-supported infrastructure projects, especially railroads, and natural resource extraction.” This point bears significant importance because Dr. Walter specifically emphasized the need for a more pronounced involvement of businesses in the resolution process. However, there is a significant problem with that recommendation.
Anocracies are typically marked by corporations and political elites wielding disproportionate influence over governance and decision-making mechanisms. Indeed, that seems to describe the United States in a nutshell. And, if we are already an anocracy, then her suggestion here would only exacerbate the problem. Of course, this influence often culminates in the formulation of policies that prioritize a corporation’s vested interests over the welfare of the general populace. Welcome to America. But let’s be honest for a moment. This scenario is strikingly similar to the concept of corporatocracy—a state where corporations and business magnates exert substantial control and authority over governmental policies and verdicts. Six of one and half a dozen of the other.
The notion that more corporatocracy or business involvement could serve as a remedy for anocracy appears inherently paradoxical, given that both systems yield analogous predicaments. So, ask yourself, if corruption frequently stems from collaborations between liberal apparatuses and corporate giants, how exactly can the endorsement of liberal ideologies and heightened business participation be deemed efficacious? Just think about the recent situation with U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He was recently, once again, indicted on federal bribery charges related to his “corrupt relationship” with three businessmen. Of course, these are just examples, but we see this often on the city, state, and federal levels, and it even extends to the White House.
Despite the skew, some might be tempted to argue that such corruption can be seen on both sides of the aisle. I concede to this truth, but that argument only furthers my point. It seems inherently counterintuitive to propose that any level of corporatocracy could offer a resolution for anocracy, as both engender comparable plight. This supposition becomes even more unreasonable when we realize that any such attempt would only exacerbate the problems we currently face. However, I believe Dr. Walter knows this, and I believe her recommendation is meant to play on the ignorance of the masses.
The White Discrimination Problem
Dr. Walter provided South Africa as an example to follow. I found this to be an interesting tactic because while it is true that businesses did have a hand in tempering some of those issues, it is also true that the situation is far from resolved. In fact, if anything, it has completely swayed in the opposite direction. After all, white farmers are continually murdered there for race alone. It has been reported the world over (but less in America) that the white community there is subjected to horrific acts every day and that the perpetrators of such acts are rarely brought to justice. Of course, we could discuss the endless videos that document such horrific acts, but that gets rather dark.
Moreover, I found it interesting that her statement on this topic defined “white apartheid” instead of simply apartheid. Is there a black apartheid? If we think about it, and if we are honest with ourselves, then we have to admit that it is likely not a stretch to suggest that her words were a very deliberate effort to keep you focused on whites and frame the term white in a negative context. For clarity, this merely plays into the identity politics that she points to as a problem, which, interestingly enough, also implicates her as an antagonist.
Revisiting the business idea, Dr. Walter said, “The business community can also help address identity politics by investing in those communities that have been left behind by globalization and by free-trade agreements like NAFTA.” I find this statement particularly interesting for several reasons. Or, perhaps a better word might be “ironic” or even “disingenuous.”
Paraphrasing her words, Dr. Walter said that in the United States, white men see America’s identity changing in ways that directly threaten their status. That’s because the United States is in the midst of a major transition from a country whose population is majority white to a country whose population will be majority non-white. Then, she alludes to the idea that this might very well be a spark that leads to civil war. That is a logical argument.
The irony is that contemporary media outlets, like Forbes, have examined the phenomenon of white men encountering exclusion from the labor market. In other words, being left behind. However, Forbes is not the only one. Reports from organizations like the Center for Individual Rights have shed light on instances of hiring biases that disproportionately affect white males. In fact, INC.com has also delved into the issue, outlining cases where discriminatory practices appear to marginalize this particular demographic. These stories go on and on. The point is that there is a noticeable divergence in Dr. Walter’s proposal. Nonetheless, it appears that her focus on investing in disadvantaged communities does not explicitly extend to the proactive inclusion of the white communities that find themselves at a disadvantage and actively being left behind.
I also found it interesting that Dr. Walter stated, “In the United States, it was the working class that disproportionately suffered. Those are the communities that are the most angry and the most resentful today.” That is accurate, but since it was not explicitly said, and to help avoid any confusion, I feel compelled to point out that according to the Federal Reserve, the working class was largely white until the early 2000s. In fact, to this day, the Midwest remains at 52% white working class, but this is shifting due in large part to the importation and admittance of immigrants. So, based on what we have seen regarding white discrimination in the workforce, along with efforts to exacerbate identity politics and the immigration situation, it seems that increased tensions are not only an expected result but a deliberate effort to a desired end. Let me be clear: Many businesses are proactively discriminating against whites in the name of globalization. I will revisit this point shortly.
One has to wonder how hopeful the white working class can be when they are discriminated against, pushed out of the workforce, repeatedly told that they are racist, not worthy, and must atone for something they personally had no part in. And if we want to discuss the history of this issue, let us never forget that there were white, black, and red slaves, just as there were white, black, and red slave owners. Moreover, when you consider the push for the various hiring initiatives that exclude based on identity politics, it seems the result is both expected and inevitable. In fact, one could argue that the outcome almost seems planned. Of course, that position might be seen as a conspiracy theory, despite being entirely logical based on the evidence.
Taking the Bullhorn Away
Ironically enough, Dr. Walter suggested that regulating social media and taking away the bullhorn of the supposed bullies, hatemongers, and conspiracy theorists would result in a decline in negative influence. I disagree, but there again, there are a series of questions that we should be asking. For example, if someone is being silenced for an opinion, then who is really getting bullied here? Who is really hatemongering? Who gets to say what is a conspiracy theory or not? It seems to me that whites are being bullied as a result of hate-related identity politics and are often labeled conspiracy theorists for pointing it out.
Who gets to decide who gets the bullhorn? And let’s be real for a moment. Wouldn’t taking away someone’s bullhorn regarding their seemingly legitimate concerns only further alienate and frustrate them? What would be the result of that? What is the expected outcome of someone whose concerns are belittled or continually go unheard?
And on a bit of a side note, exactly how many supposed conspiracy theories have to be proven accurate before we remove that negative term from our lexicon? Think about it! The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, MKUltra, CIA Assassinations, Cointelpro, Operation Mockingbird, Operation Northwoods, Operation Paperclip, the Wuhan Lab Leak, Hunter Biden’s laptop, etc. These were all supposed conspiracy theories that were proven to be true. Imagine taking away the bullhorn from those who figured these truths out before they could expose the truth! Imagine taking the bullhorn away from the whistleblowers. More importantly, exactly how is ignoring dissenting ideas or perspectives ever going to help us identify problems or generate solutions? The short answer is it won’t.
Should We Fight for Democracy?
And finally, we have to address her statements regarding democracy. Dr. Walter said, “We have to be brave enough to fight for real democracy, strong democracy, because only by fighting for democracy can we ensure that we will truly get peace.” Well, there is a problem with that position. The fundamental problem here goes back to her statement regarding an improved rule of law. Again, you cannot support, love, defend, or exercise something you do not know. When it comes to her ideas of democracy, I am reminded of the famous words of John Adams, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.“
Specifically, and more to the point, the problem in her statement resides in Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution. “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive against domestic Violence.” That seems rather simple.
For clarity, we are not a democracy, and our Founders clearly didn’t think too kindly of democracy. That is why we are a Republic. It’s not a democratic republic, not a constitutional republic; it’s just a Republic. Understand that we must all know the difference if we want to be the difference. Yet, somehow, most couldn’t define either if their life depended on it. It’s just a thought, but perhaps we shouldn’t be fighting to solidify democracy when it is democracy that is single-handedly tearing us apart while handing more power to those seeking to keep the people divided and keep the banks and corporations strong.
So, were Dr. Walter’s statements simply not thought out? Was she unaware of these truths? Or was she speaking from a position of bias or agenda? Dr. Walter is an educated woman, so perhaps we really need to understand her bias to gain an appreciation for her statements. By better understanding the bias, we can usually gain insight into the genius and agenda of the statements being made. This situation is no different.
First, we must look back at what we have already discussed. You will note that her solutions tend to favor liberal solutions or agendas, such as more business involvement in government machines, taking the bullhorn away from those with dissenting views, etc. We can also note that her finger points to traits and characteristics – those who might be eager to protect some semblance of the historical norm. These are massive clues and a solid place to start from. However, when looking for evidence of these types of bias and when asking the right questions, we find a very telling association.
A little digging will demonstrate that Dr. Walter has been a permanent member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) since 2012. The CFR is a think tank and policy group with tremendous influence in a variety of areas. The CFR likes to suggest that they are non-partisan, which is likely only true in publication. After all, if you do not claim a party affiliation, you are free to call yourself non-partisan. However, actions speak louder than words. Many of the things they support and encourage are anything but non-partisan, and much of what they advocate is eagerly embraced by those with a very specific lean. You are free to draw your own conclusions on this, but the truth is that various media bias ratings demonstrate that the CFR is undoubtedly Left. Even the most generous say they “lean Left” and face criticism from conservatives for doing so.
Now, being Left or leaning Left is not inherently bad, and that is not the point. Instead, it is just a bias that we must be aware of when evaluating the recommendations being offered. For clarity, “leaning Left” typically means that there is a bias that aligns with liberal, progressive, or Left-wing thought and policy agendas. Of course, as previously addressed, this typically includes things like identity politics. Acknowledging the association, and as one might expect, these are the very things that Dr. Walter seems to be highlighting in her talk. Of course, this might explain her omission of Left-leaning militia groups and antagonists in her speech. Regardless, what we must all be acutely aware of is that Left-leaning suggestions and approaches tend to provide Left-leaning results. Which, as demonstrated, seems to be more of the same if we follow her suggestions.
As previously mentioned, it can be difficult to debunk something that is not said. The CFR has an excellent track record of sticking to certain facts. However, as demonstrated here in this article, sometimes some of the necessary contexts can be strategically omitted from certain statements. I have found this to be true with some of what the CFR offers. So, while much of what you see from them is technically true, it might also not be the entire story. An example of this might be in their encouragement of globalization while omitting what that effort would truly entail. Another example might be the support for the supposed consensus regarding climate change while omitting dissenting conclusions from numerous reputable scientists. These examples go on and on.
The Insurrection Example
I found it interesting that Dr. Walter brought up “the insurrection” in her talk. Specifically, I was dumbfounded by the spin she provided. I say that only because it seemed to be a stark contrast to one of her statements reported in the New York Post. According to Steven Hayward, Dr. Walter is on record as saying that January 6th “was the gift that America needed to wake up because those of us who were sounding the alarm had been getting nowhere with it” and that she was “really happy.”
Meanwhile, from everything I have researched, she has made no mention of left-leaning incidents, such as what happened on October 14th, 2021, or October 18th, 2023. Moreover, she has made no mention of the Black militias that are popping up in droves across the country. Is this a clear demonstration of selection bias, or is she simply unaware of the full scope of these situations? Moreover, the balance regarding January 6th was simply not there. There is a lot to consider here, but there was no mention of contrast. For me, that is typically a warning sign.
So, absolutely. We can gain a fairly strong handle on which way that bias leans. Hence, you can consider the various agendas of that lean and determine whether her statements and the various agendas align. In this case, it seems to me that they do. Hence, I conclude that there is probably an agenda at play.
The Problem and Truth
Dr. Walter is a smart individual with solid expertise. Do not discount her expertise or words because of this critique. Instead, heed the warnings she provided, but also read between the lines. Indeed, we might very well be heading toward a civil war. Logically, that would make sense. However, the selective examples provided by Dr. Walter seem to provide blame while feeding into the very problem she seems to be warning you about. At the same time, there is much that we can learn from Dr. Walter regarding how this all might play out.
Unfortunately, I feel that her message is highly contorted and politically slanted. I just find it ironic that, if she is sincere, she does not understand how she just played a part in exacerbating the problem while encouraging others to do the same. Of course, because she is highly intelligent, I suspect that she does understand, and perhaps that is exactly what she intended to do. Just understand that the cause and effect of her recommendation lead to one thing. Frankly, that is what scares me.
Essentially, she points to identity politics as being a root cause. Yet, her message here was that we should be concerned about the white male extremists and conspiracy theorists. It’s interesting that she essentially calls out white men as the ones who are likely going to start the war but seemingly ignores that the same group is the one being bullied, attacked, and left behind by those subscribing to and pushing identity politics. Moreover, she made no calls to stop attacking the white community. For me, that is the biggest tell of all.
Let me emphatically state that discrimination against any group is wrong. That said, the intellectually honest have to admit that discrimination against whites is a very real thing and is getting worse by the day. A great example of this might be white discrimination in the hiring process. It’s like the old “Irish Need Not Apply” on steroids. Here are a few recent articles to support that claim: Example 1 | Example 2 | Example 3 | Example 4 | etc.
For whites already in the workforce, many are subjected to unwarranted attacks. A recent example of this might be the vice president of DEI at MaineHealth making white employees apologize for their supposed “internalized racism.” Or better yet, you might recall the Minneapolis Public School system’s deal with the teachers’ union to lay off white educators ahead of their less senior minority colleagues. Of course, this behavior extends to the youth as well. A recent example of this might be how some medical schools in New York were supposedly discriminating against white and Asian teens by setting up additional barriers while simultaneously making it easier for minorities to attend.
Of course, these are just a few of what seem to be endless examples. I want you to understand that they know that these acts will elicit a response. The question you have to ponder is, what outcome are they trying to achieve? In other words, why are they trying to pick this fight? Unfortunately, I think Dr. Walter already told you. It seems simple if you truly consider what I have provided thus far.
What It Means
With these things in mind, we can apply some forecasting methodologies to the equation. Let me start with a couple of questions. If someone is picking a fight, is the person responding to the instigation at fault? Would it be wrong the blame the victim? Isn’t it interesting that the solutions being offered by Dr. Walter would really only exacerbate the potential for the problem she is warning you about? This can get a little complex, but it is necessary to evaluate her advice.
We need to level-set. The fact is that if the person who initiates the confrontation has the intention of creating conflict, then they are responsible for the aftermath. From a legal perspective, if the person being provoked responds with force due to genuine fear for their safety, the response might be considered justified in a court of (legitimate) law. However, you are being made to believe that the victim is responsible for the attacks they are enduring and that any response might be unjustified. In reality, that mixture is only going to enrage those affected.
Let me say this another way. If it is known that identity politics and anocracy are the sparks of civil war, and if these are the things that are being pushed by those that influence agenda and law, then what are you likely going to get as a result? Again, who is at fault? In my opinion, it is reminiscent of the McCollum Memorandum conspiracy. If you create a list of factors that are likely to lead to war, and then you set out to achieve or enact everything on that list, you really cannot be shocked by the resulting war. Perhaps that is our clue (and warning) regarding the agenda.
Moreover, if those who are being pushed out of dominance are also the ones actively being attacked, would they not feel compelled to protect or defend themselves even more? Finally, if white men are actively being pushed out of the workforce and cannot fend for themselves due to the political climate they are subjected to, would that not create a sense of desperation? Well, what do desperate people who are under attack typically do? Better yet, if you lost your job, couldn’t get a job, were publicly shamed, and were proactively under attack for something you couldn’t control and had nothing to do with, what would you do?
Now, some might argue that this is what white men get for the sins of their forefathers. Of course, this position is based on emotional contortion and ignorance and largely ignores nearly all of the facts. For example, it ignores the fact that most white Americans arrived well after slavery, and the same is true for many black Americans. It also ignores the fact that anyone living today has zero responsibility for the things that happened hundreds or even thousands of years ago. Moreover, it also ignores the reality and full scope of that situation – along with the responsibility and participation of the various races and religions involved (E.g. Black and Red slave owners, Islam, African slave traders, etc.). More importantly, it’s a weak scapegoat for the inequalities thrust upon the people (of all colors) via corrupt governments, banks, and corporations that have colluded for their collective gains while actively setting out to divide the people in an effort to hinder their collective collaboration and education. Ignorance of these truths is a very dangerous thing, and we are watching the expected result.
The Adversity Nexus seems to suggest that “adversity” is upon us and will likely get worse. Ignorance and blindly following irresponsible suggestions are only going to exacerbate that result. Hence, a lot of people could get hurt over things they do not fully understand. Nonetheless, can you really blame the dog for biting when the dog was conditioned to be aggressive and then was aggressively provoked? Well, the American people have been trained to hate each other, and now they are being provoked. The question is, why?
Understand that instigating a problem is very different from responding to the attacks, marginalization, and discrimination being thrust upon someone. Again, discrimination of any kind is wrong, racism from any color is wrong, and its ultimate outcome is both expected and unpleasant. The people need to understand that they are being provoked and why.
I will say it like this: if you know who and what causes civil wars, and then you go out of your way to do the very things that encourage that specific result, then perhaps the responding group is not the problem. In other words, an effect cannot be its own cause. It seems to me that those who are proactively trying to exacerbate the problems are the actual problem. Those pushing identity politics are the problem. Those encouraging democracy over the Republic are the problem. Those promoting ignorance are the problem. Those who encourage the hindrance of discourse are the problem. Finally, those who turn a blind eye to these issues and truths and then set out to fan the flames are the problem.
A Potential Solution
So, what’s the answer? Well, the answer to these problems is definitely not to perpetuate the problems or commit acts that play into, encourage, and validate identity politics. The simple truth is that powerful entities want you divided. Hence, the answer is to come together and resist the division being encouraged. This is to say that the answer will not be found in revisiting divisive ideologies.
The answer is to deflate identity politics and get back to the vision of the Republic and the actual rule of law (law of the land). The answer is rooted in the vision of unity. That vision is rooted in the Constitution, which means we need to understand it and unify in pursuit of that goal. It is rather simple. Adhering to that vision secures the rule of law and equality while giving everyone something to collectively strive for – as a team.
Similarly, we must collectively understand that large democratic governments, large banks, and large corporations were the very things that our founders warned us about. These were the things they set out to stop. Yet, these are the entities that are hurting all of us today while also encouraging our division. If people could just see that and act accordingly, we might all have a better chance at a better life.
So what can you do? Well, an easy way to navigate this is to simply ask, “Does my support for this (initiative/law/company/bank/etc.) benefit my community, or does it strengthen a large bank, government, or corporation?” Of course, another part of the answer might be in distributing knowledge of the truth. Many people are entirely confused about what did or did not occur during our founding and even up to recent history. True, revisionist history is a problem, and this is matched with the fact that ignorance is at a very high level, but I can promise you that encouraging more of the same is not helping matters. This puts us all in danger of very ignorant acts and outcomes. Similarly, the supposed solutions that encourage more corruption and division should be avoided. Learn, and encourage education.
Perhaps we need to ask ourselves a very pointed question. Who benefits from this division and why? My advice is simple. Don’t follow the money. The money is useless. Follow the power! In the interim, don’t self-divide. You are being fed reason after reason to hate your fellow American. Don’t buy it. Most of us want the same thing – a better life!
Look, we will all need each other if civil war is in our future. Just keep in mind that we (men and women of all colors and creeds) have a lot more in common than most currently appreciate. Similarly, we also have a common adversary – and it’s not each other. Ancient wisdom tells the tale. Publius Cornelius Tacitus, an eminent Roman historian and politician, provided us with a simple warning. He said, “Rarely will two or three tribes confer to repulse a common danger. Accordingly, they fight individually and are collectively conquered.” Or, as Ben Franklin once said, “Yes, we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.” Powerful stuff!
That said, while civil war is definitely a possibility, it is not a foregone conclusion. Sure, the powers seem to want one, and it would be irresponsible to downplay that possibility because the likelihood is increasing by the day, and enemies of the Constitution are amassing. Hence, we must be mindful of its potential and do whatever we can to avoid it while we still can. There is one thing I can guarantee. A civil war in the United States would not end well for the people, and it most definitely would not play out like the movies. At the same time, the major powers that are encouraging it stand to benefit the most.
I would highly encourage you to learn about the Adversity Nexus. When measured against our understanding of historical cycles, we can get a really good idea of where we currently find ourselves. Similarly, you can simultaneously see reality for what it is and see the silver lining, knowing that the adversities we face will come to an end – if we are prepared to actually face them.
On a personal note, I will add that political participation plays a crucial role in our republic. It’s the foundation of our society. Allowing citizens to voice their concerns and engage in the decision-making process is crucial, and this includes dissenting perspectives. That’s where innovation comes from. However, it is essential to emphasize that effective and appropriate means of political participation must always be sought first, and violence should always be a last resort. Generally speaking, peaceful assembly and respectful dialogue are more constructive avenues for people to express their views, bridge with others, and bring about change. In my opinion, the division being thrust upon us undermines the very principles on which our republic was built. Hence, it’s important to encourage responsible and civil engagement in politics to maintain a healthy and functioning republic. With that said, I will close with a quote from Thomas Jefferson.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem (I prefer a dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery). Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccesful rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government.Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, January 30, 1787
Did you enjoy this article? You might also like “Will the United States Collapse?“