We are lectured constantly on the need to “compromise” in our politics in order to get along because it is “bad” to be so “divisive.” It’s funny, though, how that compromise is and always will be a compromise toward the Left. The Left calls for compromise on gun control, alien amnesty, gay marriage, social services, student aid and more money for education. It is never a compromise to move the agenda to the Right (less gun control, less money for universities, stricter immigration, the establishment of marriage between male and female only).

The Republican Party has been the perfect partner to the Leftist Democrat party — it has howled in outrage and yet faithfully “compromised” with the Democrats at every stage an level through out presidential administrations. Republicans truly are the “loyal” opposition to the Democrats.

And it’s not as if the Democrats define the agenda, they merely reflect the agenda set a generation earlier as children are indoctrinated in public schools whose teachers were certified as “orthodox” by Left wing religionists (university professors). Add to that indoctrination the constant evangelism by secular newspapers, magazines and the the “entertainment” industry (which is nothing less that massive social and psychological control) and the Democrats just push over the top an agenda that has been building since those leaders were in grade school.

It’s funny how people expect a business cycle (boom and bust, expansion and contraction, inflation and deflation) but can’t imagine a cycle of history in their own country. Everything in life tells us about natural seasons — the sun rises and sets, the seasons come and go, we are born, we live, then die, but there remains a delusion that our civilization is immortal — the End of History as Francis Fukuyama put it. Some consider it “extremist” to give voice to the idea that collapse my be impending; but this is no more unreasonable than giving voice the idea that our own death impends.

And herein lies the problem: it is not acceptable to talk of one’s own mortality — we have willed it out of existence. Seventy year old females talk of sex, show off their bodies, and live and act as if they were twenty. Would they not be a more mature human to contemplate what is fast approaching and order their affairs before their Maker before that day comes? It is verboten to discuss the impending fall of our civilization just as it has become unfashionable to talk of our own mortality; so of course it would be forbidden to believe in the mortality of our social and civilizational order.

Never the less, we approach an end of an order and the emergence of something new.

I am no optimist to who believes, however remotely, that one day we will all wake up and just believe the same things and get along and build a new local (not world) order. We are human beings and, thankfully, it is not in our makeup to “all just get along.” Some differences are irreconcilable and divorce is the appropriate, safe, and rational course to take. Thus the Colonies divorced the Crown in 1776 and Jews cut out their own homeland from the British and the Arabs, the Palestinians from the neighbors and South Sudan from Sudan.

America is not in the position today, should we find ourselves without a Constitution, to agree upon a much of anything let alone a political compact (a constitution) by which to order our affairs. There are those who would get rid of the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, The Tenth Amendment, the Bi-Cameral Congress, and so on. We cannot ever come to a place again where we just agree. That last time this was forced was in the 1860s and we collectively slaughtered a good portion of our young men in four short years. Central control won. But nothing last forever.

Providence shall provide another avenue of de-collectivization. We don’t get along. Compromise isn’t the answer (in spite of the constant indoctrination we received in public schools on the necessity of “compromise), compromise has been a one way path to central control, agressive atheism, debauchery and decay.

There are some points s where Left and Right may agree:

1) To Be Left Alone. Hippies an survivalists (to take two extremes) want to do their own thing without interference from the “authorities.” This happens only with extreme local control. This is a bigger deal that we may imagine. Imagine a world in which the hippy and preppier, both gardeners, buy and sell at the same common market. This makes sense.

Why does the government regulate who can sell tobacco or alcohol? If this is a requirement for your family, then make that a local law and not a national law enforced by bureaucrats with guns and prisons.

2) Local Control of Education. Education should be taken out of the hands of the government. Parents can “home school” their children and impose whatever dogma they wish up their children and the “government” should have no say in this. Parents could form cooperative unions (sometimes called “private schools”) and pay tutors to teach in accordance with their own beliefs and convictions. Once controll of schooling is moved to the “government” then either a majority or a judge will impose a uniformity upon the schools — in the long run this only leads to centralized control and intellectual slavery. The Left may hate the Ten Commandments, and the Right may love them; where is compromise here? Should we keep only Five of the Ten and then discard the rest? Is that Compromise or Surrender?

3) Self Sufficiency. No people can be free and dependent at the same time. Local foods mean local control. Growing tomatoes in Mexico does not make the people of El Paso Country, Colorado any freer, richer, nor more independent. Local power sources, from completely self-contained home solar projects to local power stations independent of larger grids, prevent others from controlling our community. Anti-Fragility may be inefficient, but efficiency in governing means control. Neither Left nor Right wants others to dictate their own lives. As much as possible, all the means of staying alive should be produced as locally as possible, especially food and power and health care education. Those in desert areas can build houses of sand and concrete — those in the mountains forests of rock and wood.

With regard to international trade, all nations should be self-sufficient in food production, housing, education, finance, and defense. If they are not, they are vassals to others. The Battle for Seattle fought the World Trade Organization — today Trump fights NAFTA, the TPP and China. This is an explicit area in which the Right (as embodied in President Trump) and the radical Left (as embodied in the Battlers in Seattle) should quickly agree. Global trade agreements disenfranchise local producers, don’t make for good paying jobs in any country, don’t decrease prices (have car prices or iPhone prices drop?) and make us dependent up others beyond our control.

Right and Left have an interest in overturning corporate international banking. There is nothing “free market” about banks or the monetary system; itt is a closed system protected by the government for the enrichment of the few. Itimpoverishes the masses with debt. It does not make their lives better, it makes acquiring the means to live even more distant and unaffordable.

So many Lefties relish “local authentic” products and foods — that is a natural human impulse that should be embraced. Right wingers have no reason to reject this. Local means local control, local self-sufficiency, even “sustainability.” There is nothing antithetical to the right or left with those concepts.

Totalitarian subjects, on the other hand, claim to be “citizens of the world,” which means they are not citizens at all. They don’t belong anywhere. They aren’t from anywhere. They have stripped themselves if identity and the natural protections of family, tribe, nation, border, gods and law, and are completely dependent upon the whims of those they don’t control. They have no one and nothing to turn to; they exist at the pleasure of powers they have no influence over.

4) Self-Defense. What free people surrender arms to an unresponsive and distant government? The Left has long been enamored with armed revolution against “imperialist” forces. Can the Left not see this natural alliance with the Right? Surely Left and Right can agree that only an armed people can be a free people and that their common enemy are remote powers unresponsive to the local pulse.

Freedom means maturity. It means self-sufficiency. Once you surrender your own welfare to others you are no longer free. Control over education, control over the means of production (your farms, flocks, fields, forests and waters), and control over the means of violence (arms) are requisites for freedom. Left and Right can agree to these ideas in that it enhances their ability to live they way they want to. Independence gives you options.

Now, this is not to say it is wise that we live in close proximity to each other. I am not inclined to be neighbors with those self-righteous, holier than thou moralists who would impose their beliefs upon me and call me “racist” and “sexist” and the full trope of academically acceptable and thoroughly demonizing terms of delegitimization. I do not want my kinds under the influence of those who normalize homosexuality and atheism. I want to live with families who govern themselves and are self sufficient and who respect the Ten Commandments and the ideas in the Bible.

Thus I have no interest in living in a community of homosexual atheists nor devout Muslims. We cannot get along; rather we will kill each other. Europe now is in the early stages of either surrendering to the Moslem invader or deciding to engage in slaughter. But before they can defend themselves they have to wake up and realize that their own blood and faith is worthy of existence in its own right; they have to renounce their “citizenship of the world.” They must believe their present, past and future is worthy of protection and the blood of their own sons at war. The Moslems believe this and thus have won by default. Should a revival of self-belief arise in the native German, Frenchman and Swede, then they have no option but to rise and reconquer that which their forefathers surrendered so willingly to the invader.

As America declines, the monopoly on power will erode. Social control functions through a soft-repression in America — thought control at the schools and universities, employment control by weeding out bad-thinkers as they ascend the corporate ladder, judicial control by never seating judges who would question their own omnipotence, by a strict religious authority funded by taxpayers and beyond questioning (which is the role of priests, a prophets and religion). Yet it is hidden by the Deceiver who says “no, it’s not a religion, it’s science!”). Like Eve, we are all so easily deceived.

Few are willing to move to “find their place.” As the current order erodes, power struggles will be violent. Gang control of neighborhoods is violent — gang control is political control. The central authorities wage war on gangs via the “police.” But what are the Police but a gang paid for by the taxes of the people they are supposed to protect (at least that is how a police force is marketed). If you are rich enough you hire your own gang and call them “body guards” or “private security companies” that patrol your neighborhood. Violence is always behind order.

As societies degrade, this becomes every more apparent. Every gang (including the police) will protect themselves first, then their own families, then each other, and finally those who pay them. You and I are last on this list — know this — especially with a “professional” police force. Should the police be loyal to blood and soil and faith, then it is more likely that those related by these naturally protective anti-bodies will be protected.

We are trained not to see violence. American has more people per capital in our prisons that any nation on earth (save a couple small islands). We pretend it isn’t a problem. As prisons collapse it will only erode the control of central authority. Whom shall we trust besides ourselves? No one.

Arms remain a pre-requisite of a free people. Arms are not for “sport.” Arms are a fundamental act of familial sovereignty, political power, and independence. Free men are subject to no man but when they assent by agreement for stated purposes and are free to withdraw that assent at any time unless previously forsworn. Anything else is slavery and Americans have come to love the soft repression and slavery that has become our daily life.

That said, I am no anarchist, nor do I believe it is possible for any man or one family to be free, independent, and self sufficient. But I do believe the Maker has created social order within mankind to govern himself.

Blood lines, nations, languages, border, cultures, beliefs and times are organic, natural and God given. We descend from our ancestors. We speak their tongue. We worship their gods. We breed with our women and replicate. These foundations are righteous — and it is these foundations that the Left and the Atheists attack. These foundations are not oppressive, they are protective. They are no limiting, they are enhancing. No man is full or free or strong without clan and family and traditions and group identity. No man is a man without a wife and offspring and the ability to guard, guide and love them. And no family can exist and replicate without and extended network to give that family balance and security, identity, continuity, and immanence. Being part of something greater is foundational to our identity — we were made to be that way. We are not random tigers roaming the forest, we are man and family and clan and kin and ancestors and language and gods. It is good and right and proper to cling to them. It is the work of the Devil to tear those down so that the “individual” becomes tasteless tofu in the industrial blender of modern society. Both Left and Right can and should reject this. Totalitarianism (Babel) hates kith and kin and faith and bloodlines and languages because they are the natural and inherent anti-bodies to the fatal disease of totalitarianism that would suffocate mankind in its soul-less grip. God hated Babel then and He hates Babel today. To embrace the institutions (blood, faith, family, kin, territory, heritage languages, rural life) is to resist Babel/Totalitarianism. That is why the first thing imperial powers (whether today’s or in ancient times) do is destroy the old religion (Christianity) and replace it with something new (cultural Marxism) which inherently denies faith and family and borders and bloodlines and languages and even sex and gender.

Resistance to totalitarianism means embracing the natural anti-bodies of blood, faith, family, kin, territory, languages, self-sufficiency (which comes with rural life) and independence. “Order and efficiency” are Orwellian and ought not guide any national policy. Chaos and distinguishment (differences) are godly because they preserve the possibility that such nations would turn to the Almighty and order their bloodlines according to His law. How ironic that many turn from their own authenticity and seek it in distant lands and peoples. Turn to your own ancestors and language and lands and traditions. Treasure them. Esteem them. Foster them in your offspring. And in all this seek the God who made your blood line different and build clan and kingdom with Him.