New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- When looking at the Civil War* taking shape in this Country, it is useful to have a concise descriptor for the two sides, or factions in this conflict.
How do we describe each side? When, for comparative purposes, we look at the American Civil War of the Nineteenth Century, there were several colloquial, informal descriptors: ‘The North’ versus The South;’ ‘The Union’ versus ‘The Confederacy;’ and ‘Yankee’ versus ‘Rebel.’
However, there is one formal descriptor—‘The United States of America’ versus ‘The Confederate States of America.’ This latter formal description of the two sides is, arguably, the best, as we can clearly see the central issue of the conflict framed in those descriptors: namely, whether the Country would continue to exist as one independent sovereign Nation, with one central federal Government, where federal authority emanates from Washington, D.C., or, whether the Country would henceforth exist as two independent sovereign Nations, each with its own central Government.
But, when looking at the present Civil War, we have not seen apt descriptors for the two sides, and, in the absence of one or more accurate descriptors, the nature of the conflict itself may seem hazy, which may cause one to wonder whether there truly is a civil war brewing at all. In fact, there is.
What Expressions Best Describe The Two Factions?
In describing the two factions, the two combatants, we have considered various terminology and rejected that terminology because we considered the verbiage as, one, either vague and ambiguous, and therefore likely to create confusion; or, two, too narrow in scope or range, and therefore deficient; or, three, demonstrating unacceptable overlap in meaning.
We have seen employed and we have, ourselves, employed, heretofore, one or more of the following expressions to describe or intimate the two sides to the conflict: ‘Democrat,’ ‘Leftist’, ‘Progressive,’ ‘Liberal,’ and ‘Radical,’ ‘The Left,’ to describe one faction; and, ‘Republican,’ ‘Conservative,’ and ‘Populist’, and ‘The Right’ or ‘Alt Right' to describe the other. As to the words, ‘Republican’ and ‘Democrat,’ most people, undoubtedly, would hesitate to call Democrats and Republicans as representing two sides to a major civil conflict. This would, indeed, seem, at first glance, to be singularly bizarre. Yet, when we see some Congressional Democrats essentially and effectively calling for violence against those espousing another dissimilar view and when we see the Democratic Party Leadership either remaining silent or—as we are also beginning to see from Hillary Clinton & Eric Holder—espousing violence, as well—then it is NOT completely off the wall to consider that, in Congress, as a microcosm of the Country, two distinct factions do exist there as much as outside the U.S. Capitol.
Some of the expressions as commonly used are, as well, simply essentially, empty and vacuous vessels, through overuse; and, so, serve no useful, functional purpose as descriptors for the two factions that have lined up.
We have also considered use of the expressions, ‘Globalist’ or ‘Internationalist’ or ‘Transnationalist’ to describe one faction and we have considered the expression,‘Nationalist’ to describe the other faction. But these expressions come up short as apt descriptors, too, because they are nebulous. Moreover, the term, ‘Nationalist,’is all too often used as a term of disparagement by the mainstream media, when writing or talking about President Trump, or anyone who supports him. The mainstream media erroneously identifies the President’s nationalist fervor with fascism, even though President Trump clearly is not a fascist and the term‘nationalism’ does not denote ‘fascism’, and should not be construed as synonymous with ‘fascism.’ However, the allusions are there, just the same, operating as a meme in the public’s consciousness. This is all by design, to attack the legitimacy of Donald Trump as the Nation’s President.
So, where does that leave us in coming up with a suitable label to describe each faction?
Collectivists vs Individualists
A well-learned attorney, and legal scholar with whom we have discussed the matter, suggested that the expressions, ‘Collectivist,’ and ‘Individualist,’ are the best terms to describe each respective faction. And we concur. These two expressions are precise; carry no connotation of disparagement; have not heretofore been used by anyone, to our knowledge, to describe the two factions; and broadly embrace all beliefs, precepts, presuppositions and aims of each of the two sides facing off in this modern American Civil War. Furthermore, there is no danger of overlap in what each term connotes. Mutual exclusivity in both the connotation and denotation of the expressions, as applied to each of the respective groups, is therefore faithfully maintained. The expressions, ‘Collectivist’ and ‘Individualist,’ are, then, the two expressions we will use here as referrers or descriptors for each of the two factions in this conflict.
We thus have before us two distinct, mutually exclusive visions of the Country and of the world; two distinct notions of law and government, and of the relationship of man to government and to each other—two distinct visions, only one of which can be realized; and two ever diverging paths, only one of which our Nation can take. Our Nation is at a crossroads.
In our next segment we will lay out the basic belief systems, precepts, and ultimate goal and logical outcome of the Collectivist and Individualist philosophies, the motivations of which can be readily discerned from those beliefs, precepts, and aims. We will see in this delineated list two competing visions for our Country, one of which, taken to its logical conclusion, results in the ultimate dissolution of the Country as an independent, Sovereign Nation State, along with the dissolution of the Nation’s Constitution and system of laws. The other faction seeks to preserve the Country as an independent, Sovereign Nation State, in accordance with the intention of the founders of the Nation; and with the Nation’s Constitution and laws intact and supreme, never to be subordinated to foreign law or foreign jurisprudential system.
*Some people may interject, arguing that the situation at present does not rise to the level of Civil War. Referring to a typical definition in Black’s Law Dictionary, they might exclaim that the expression, ‘Civil War,’ means an internal armed conflict between persons of the same country, and that, at this moment in time, armed conflict does not exist. Well, we would argue that this legal definition is unduly restrictive. Clearly, our Nation is in deep crisis, whether armed conflict exists or not. For, the survival of the Country as an independent Sovereign Nation State, is visibly threatened by a specifically defined internal faction, even in the absence of a gunshot fired.
Consider the circumstances under which the EU was created. Ruthless, powerful, inordinately wealthy interests convinced European Nations to relinquish economic control to one central authority, unconnected to any Nation. Now, it is apparent, that those Nations sacrificed much of their political power as well. Relinquishing economic control was merely a ruse. As a result, now aware of the loss of their Countries to globalist interests, “Nationalist” elements in each Country seek to regain control of their own Countries and their own destiny; and curiously, and oddly, the mainstream media suggests that these Nationalists are the insurrectionists, rather than those forces that have effectively destroyed the independence and sovereignty of the individual Countries, comprising the EU. Citizens (Nationalists) are battling those Governmental Officials who willingly acquiesce to the dictators in Brussels. Is it any wonder that authority in Brussels is attempting to vanquish resistance through an insidious attempt to destroy the history and culture of each Nation?
One writer of the Eighteenth Century, Emmerich Vattel, views conflicts on a scale of increasing intensity: commotion, sedition, insurrection, and finally rebellion or civil war. See Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations §§289-90, at 421 (Joseph Chitty ed., Philadelphia, T. & J. W. Johnson 1844) (1758). The problem with the use of a sliding scale is that it is often difficult to discern at what point we move from one level of conflict to another. The Arbalest Quarrel argues that, where two mutually exclusive visions of a Country exist, and one side seeks to impose its vision on the other by either disregarding the legal mechanisms that constrain imposition of one faction’s will or through clear and tortuous misuse of the legal mechanisms that are designed to constrain imposition of one faction’s will on another, then a state of civil conflict exists. That is clearly the case we see occurring now.
Those who espouse Collectivism seek to impose their vision on those who espouse Individualism. To impose their will on the Nation, Collectivists seek to topple the President of the United States, Donald Trump. They seek to open the Nation’s borders to essentially any alien who seeks to reside here. They see in this policy a useful tool that serves to weaken the Nation. Collectivists essentially enlist the aid of illegal aliens as insurrectionists—which is not difficult to do since illegal aliens are essentially a mercenary force that does not belong here but seeks, nonetheless, to remain in our Country. Collectivists disavow the Nation’s history and seek to revise it. They ignore and debase the Bill of Rights and the first three salient Articles of the U.S. Constitution, essentially disavowing the foundation of our Nation. They do all these things to fracture the very sanctity of the Country as an independent Sovereign Nation State. Their goal is to subsume our Nation into a broader global world order. This goal was moving along in the last three decades, gaining appreciable speed in Barack Obama’s Administration. Barack Obama is a Collectivist. The direction toward which Obama was moving our Country—dissolution of our Nation as an independent, Sovereign Nation State, and dissolution of the Nation’s Constitution—would have continued under the Administration of Hillary Clinton, another Collectivist. Americans would have been blind to the loss of their Nation and to their Nation’s Constitution, much as Europeans have lost their Countries, through subsumption of their political power and authority into a broader European Union (the EU). But, enough Americans could see what was happening. They did not want their Country to go the way of those nations that have been integrated into the EU; their populations cowed.
Americans elected Donald Trump to turn the tide on the Collectivists. Now the Collectivists have been forced out of the shadows. Americans will see an escalation of violence in the weeks and months ahead, as the Collectivists become ever more determined to impose their will on other Americans, the Individualists. The Country is therefore very much in the throes of Civil War.
About The Arbalest Quarrel:
Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.
For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.