The War for America’s Sovereignty Will Drive The New Seventh Party System

After 243 years, America has become a product of history separate from its founding principles inscribed within its Constitution — principles promoting ancient Judeo-Christian values which embody Western philosophy and English legalism.

Pat Buchanan

Pat Buchanan

In 2015, I foreshadowed the grassroots anti-establishment wing of the party, the Tea Party, somehow breaking from the GOP establishment in its effort to aggressively promote an ideological intersection. Closely identified with the populist Reaganite coalition in the Moral Majority, the Tea Party had fulfilled two major labors in American politics beginning in 2010 in reaction to Washington’s bailouts of big banks, Enron, and passage of the Affordable Care Act two years following the financial market crash. Under the trajectory of national politics at the time, I strongly believed the GOP had descended along a trajectory towards self-destruction after House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell passed the Trans Pacific Partnership bill in collaboration with the Obama administration, which set the American people on a collision course to surrendering its sovereignty to multinational corporations.

Like Pat Buchanan, I ultimately placed blame wholly on the neoconservative and libertarian infiltration of the GOP after 1989 at the launch of the age of Bush Republicanism, and that the consequence by 2008 saw the party reach its nadir due to endless wars and nation-building. I believed that the candidacies of John McCain and Mitt Romney reflected this decline due to the party losing touch with the heartbeat of America. The Republican National Committee even had the audacity to attempt to serve a third Bush candidate, Jeb Bush, to us, who would’ve lost to any Democratic foe. 

Now in the third decade of the 21st century, the international liberal order (that is, liberal democracies) faces an existential crisis — a crisis of its own making. Its guiltiest parties are not the politicians, but rather the gullible voters who, for generations, elected individuals with utopian visions which appealed to their fantasies driven by passions not grounded in reality. For example, can we say that America still reflects its foundation? Or has that run its course and become a product of history? By knowing history better, we may project our likely future as a nation. As Winston Churchill, a noted historian in his own right, observed, “The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.” The Globalist Left today, in unison with the European Union, is reconstructing America to resemble qualities utterly anathema to her history. Unlike the other great empires tied to Europe, America wasn’t built on conquest in the same tradition of Nimrod, Nebuchadnezzar, Persia, Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire in all its incarnations; nor of its progeny, most notably the Spanish and British empires. If a nation founded on philosophy, on ideas, is being deconstructed on a new plank reflecting the nihilism of Nietzsche, our history must necessarily disappear. After all, our history is utterly inseparable from the very British values and Western philosophy undergirding America’s foundation since 1776.

The question therein lies in how much the media and Big Tech should be taken to task, how social media strives to promote the interests of one political party by silencing the voices of another in the name of political bias. The interests of these organizations drive public policy today more than at any time in history. Instead of socialism under a German or Soviet totalitarian model, it will come in the form that Margaret Thatcher warned: corporatism, the ruse driving the motivation for ‘climate change’ — a key component to TPP and all future treaties within the United Nations — which “provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism.” For these reasons, I predicted in July 2015 a realignment of the current status quo into a new political consensus ― a ‘Seventh Party System’ if you’d like ― featuring a new duopoly now jostling over whether America’s perilous journey down the road to Globalism ends in ‘corporate socialism’ regulated by ‘fat cats’ presiding over a ‘new serfdom’ in ‘flyover country’. Today, two international bodies ― the United Nations and the European Union ― embody the greatest threat posed to democracy and the nation-state since the Cold War.

As a result in 2020, millions will vote for a socialist Democrat to be their president whose platform, beyond ‘green politics’, will reflect a form of neo-fascist ideology driven by a collection of ethno-nationalist movements (e.g., black nationalism and to a smaller degree, Hispanic nationalism) and identitarianism (e.g., the LGBTQ movements, feminism, Islam) vying for dominance over the nation. It is a hybrid anti-Western ‘big tent’ ideology, undergirded by a socialist platform that better reflects the mindset of 1930’s Germany far more than 1917 Russia. But all these factors also underscore how the Left is breaking apart because in the long run, their singular objectives will each unilaterally clash with the other groups. Until the past decade, that postmodern Democratic coalition, hastily formed after the Reagan presidency forced the party to pivot towards the center by 1992, was one of convenience that while effective enough to get Bill Clinton and Barack Obama elected a combined four times, could only last so long as it could collectively promote an anti-Western agenda. Now however, as their agendas are clashing, they are rapidly becoming incompatible and incapable of reinforcing the big tent’s instability that is so critical to maintaining the party’s coalition.

Similar to the European Union, the first part of this realignment will feature neocons like former Sens. Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, columnists Bill Kristol, George Will, and the ‘civil libertarian’ provocateur for National Review David French coalescing around a platform designed to reject the man elected as the first ‘Tea Party president’, Donald Trump. It would likely mean returning to a reconstruction of Bill Clinton’s ‘third way’ doctrine that will be even less tied to the party’s traditional foundation with labor unions given the party has, since the passage of NAFTA in 1994, slowly pivoted towards a modified neoliberal platform and an open borders policy. Their world order would be committed to a broad coalition of technocrats influencing public policy through expanded unelected bureaucracies, with public policies drawn up by far left-wing academics and ‘green activists’ serving in global think-tanks. Monied interests on Wall Street (everything from Starbucks Coffee to The Gap, Levi Strauss, retailers such as Walmart and Target, etc) will use the free market to fully press their agenda around ‘green politics’, racial, and gender identitarian platforms. Hollywood, the mass media, and Silicon Valley would collude to use their power to provide online platforms regulating what the general public is permitted to access, to control the themes and context of advertisements and entertainment, what news is ‘verifiable’ based on official ‘fact checkers’ and what is flagged as ‘fake news’, and how all news, medical, retail advertisements, music and even medical websites will be editorialized or censored as demanded through the fluidity of political correctness. At the head of the Leviathan will be the administrative class — featuring individuals like Hillary Clinton, Mike Bloomberg, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or perhaps Oprah Winfrey — to ease the transition of America into the international order. Finally, there will be a hard fusion of organized religion, whose theologies will be revised to fulfill the fluidity of government policy by heavily censoring the holy books of every religion to conform to the Left’s messages. The Bible, for instance, may come to resemble Thomas Jefferson’s ‘gutted’ copy; or perhaps the federal government, like the Chinese Communist Party, may issue a ‘revised’ edition of the Bible omitting the critical First Commandment of Moses articulated in Exodus 20:2-3. (“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me.”)

Over time, each world religion may be assimilated into a single global theology connected to ‘climate change’ demagoguery which may reflect the words of the committed globalist Pope Francis, who claims God is ‘neither divine nor a magician’.


Postmodernism and the Left

Over the past 50 years, with the exception of the 1980’s, the slow emergence of political Postmodernism, at the very ‘core’ of political correctness’ foundation, has today become the defining intellectual cult of ‘the modern world’. It is the Left’s unsung approach to neutralizing ‘Modernity’ without offering an alternative to replace our present reality because its proponents see that truth in itself doesn’t exist. It reinforces the narrative of a list of ten laws that, for precisely these reasons, make its disciples difficult to define or engage.



Consider the following talking points.

  1. Leftism is the nationalism of foreign people.  
  2. Leftism is a bid for costless social acceptance.
  3. Leftism always imposes costs on the majority for the benefit of an outlier.
  4. Leftist attacks are always projection.
  5. Leftists never answer the question “what happens next?”
  6. Leftist arguments must deny reality.
  7. Leftist arguments are nearly always short-term tactical in the service of winning more power.
  8. Leftist arguments are never truly concerned with the thing itself.
  9. Leftists will justify any means to achieve their ends.
  10. Leftist solutions always impose artificial controls.

Critical to the Postmodern imperative are its supplementary talking points which were, in the immediate past, expansions on Nietzsche’s introduction to nihilism (‘the abandonment of values and knowledge’) defined in his book Will to Power. (“Every belief, every considering something true, is necessarily false because there is simply no true world.”) It’s forced the West to inquire on everything in context with reality without relying on conventional wisdom or rational theories, in the form of three general questions.

  • “Are nationalism, politics, religion, and war the result of a primitive human mentality?”; 
  • “Is truth an illusion?”; and, finally,
  • “How can Christianity claim primacy or dictate morals?”

Within the Postmodern narrative, the questions stem from lost confidence in what they have determined to be a corrupt Western world. For example, Stanley Fish articulated in Is There a Text in This Class? how “Deconstruction” ― the means by which Fish and other postmodernists believe that ancient Western historical and cultural truths must be broken down based on ‘metanarratives’ ― relieves him  of “the obligation to be right… and demands only that I be interesting.” 

For the Left, consumerism now undergirds socialism’s old reliance on the state to break down and reconstruct our reality by desensitizing our understanding of traditional ‘morality’ based on the products we buy, the forms of entertainment we consume, while the permanent things which defined our culture are gradually being ‘canceled’. The same holds true with respect to how the media reports news. Brendan Bruce writes, in quoting Armstrong Williams, that “There are two sayings that are familiar in every news room across the country: 1) sex sells; 2) if it bleeds it leads.” A few examples are Patty Hearst, O.J. Simpson, Tonya Harding, and recently Osama bin Laden: each of whom received more press, and arguably more public sympathy, than did their victims, given they were eventually painted ‘victims of the broader society’ or ‘antiheroes’. It is far easier to sell newspapers by romanticizing the lawless than it is to paint the faces of their victims (multiple in number) with human faces. These characteristics which some call ‘woke capitalism’ drive the talking points of the current Democratic establishment.

This new form of class warfare, to the casual observer, seemed anathema to the conventional wisdom from history, or even a few short years ago. And it gets stranger still: the second half of the new ‘Seventh Party System’ features America’s conservative base, in a new form of Fusionism, already featuring an increasingly disaffected (but often socially conservative or moderate) blue-collar working class located inside the Rust Belt (Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota) joining with traditional Republican voters in the South and ‘flyover country’ in the mighty effort to protect America’s vital interests with respect to manufacturing, agriculture, the fossil fuel industry, small businesses, our Judeo-Christian heritage, free speech, as well as the spirit driving civic ritual embodied within our Constitution. It seeks to reestablish the new consensus based on an old idea: one where through opportunity our merits and talent will lead so far as our work ethic permits, and whose means and resources will not be outsourced in the names of unbridled economic growth or petty ‘cultural exchanges’.

Labor unions since 2015 have donated millions of dollars to conservative congressmen who oppose the establishment’s push towards globalism in the most unlikely political alliance in history due to President Obama’s repressive policies towards labor unions. In 2015, I predicted this would one day become reality, that conservatives had a golden opportunity to turn big labor ‘red’, to win America back at the ballot box by seizing this once in a lifetime opportunity to unite with a strange bed fellow. Trump Republicanism’s rejection of laissezfaire economics and open borders seeks to right several wrongs, to resurrect regions like the Rust Belt which fell victim to globalization a generation ago beginning with NAFTA in 1994 and intellectual transferal. 


The American Sovereigntist Movement As the Driver of the Seventh Party System

My idea to dominate the new ‘Seventh Party System’ would be confined to the American homeland, under a motto similar to the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk: “Peace at Home, Peace in the World.” If we have no peace here at home, how can we then, like a toothless tiger, expect to export this new Pax Americana and it still have bite? We could begin by recalling that Russell Kirk explained that conservatism adheres to “custom, convention, and continuity” as the prescription to securing a civil society. Bearing this in mind, we must reject what Heather MacDonald calls ‘the diversity delusion’ on today’s college campuses and throughout the popular culture, and act mindfully when dealing with ‘the devil (we) know to the devil (we) don’t know’. There have been times in history when radical changes were necessary, even through extreme martial measures in response to the Whiskey Rebellion (1791-94) and the Civil War (1861-65). Such may be the case with respect to the Democratic Party’s advocacy of terrorism against political opponents, and its unambiguous fealty to Iran over American interests following Trump’s order to assassinate Qasem Soleimeini.

As I reflect upon nearly 243 years of American history, I recall the German philosopher Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel (1770-1831) understood that just because men and women learned about the past, it didn’t mean they’d make better decisions about the future, even cynically commenting that “What experience and history teach us is this—that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.” Thus if conservatives are to rediscover and reclaim our understanding for what it meant to be an American, it is important to reflect Thomas Jefferson’s most conservative line within the Declaration of Independence.

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

Typically, I would advocate turning inward briefly to collectively examine our souls: both as a nation in the sum of all its parts; and as a nation populated by individuals. At the time, I believed this to be in defiance of the great conservative principle of methodical, organic societal evolution. After all, my thoughts were that the biggest losers would be religious liberty and freedom of the press. As Sir Isaac Newton concluded in Law III of his Laws of Conservation and Energy, “To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.” Therefore, the great American Sovereignist movement must justify that America’s objectives subjectively reject globalist designs based on separate (even unconnected) narratives through small chunks and broad strokes. This does not mean that we abandon our principles ― quite the contrary. The American Sovereignist movement must aggressively defend and willingly go on the offensive if it wishes to secure the primary foundation to our principles which on the one hand, are kinetic, while our resolve is as impregnable as the cold steel legitimizing its good intentions. In other words, our principles matter deeply. But those principles, so far as they are abstractions, must never block our path to achieving our objectives which are the fulfillment of the same principles, even through direct measures.

Conservatives must unambiguously reinforce our intention to remain independent from the rise of a geopolitical government. Because Bush Republicanism ignored these warning signs to our great peril while enabling the Left to build ‘the new world order’, we today are engaged in the second great American Sovereignist movement some describe as a cold civil war, where our grand strategy must now hold that the best defense is a relentless offense. It is a strategy we are no longer averse to wield in the ruthless pursuit of our end of total victory: that of full American independence from the encroaching global order. I now am convinced that our inaction since the end of the Cold War is why we are seeing our culture slip away before the altar of political correctness like so many other countries throughout the West.

 

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

  

  

  

Recent Comments



    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner