Very interesting discussion, as usual Peter, but I must say (again) that I think the prospect of mounting a successful campaign for a constitutional amendment is somewhere between zero and none. Your point about the pro-life movement's half-century campaign through the very dark woods that that followed Roe v. Wade is well taken, but I am afraid it's a flawed analogy if it was offered for anything beyond a generic reminder that anything is possible.
Yes, the ultimate success of the pro-life movement was quite impressive, but not entirely unexpected. The critical distinctions here, in terms of what immigration restrictionists now face, are multifold, perhaps most notably that the nation's population is now vastly altered from its composition in the 1970s-1990s. The demographic tide is not on our side and unless the Democratic Party can be shut out of the White House for the next three or four presidential election cycles, the waterline is only going to rise further and faster as we sink beneath the surface.
The population has been significantly eroded via mass migration and the American psyche has been devastatingly polluted by a multi-decade IV-drip of progressive dogma administered through the cultural chemotherapy that's delivered by Hollywood, the media and academia. It might not be too much to say that when the national obit is written, the conservatives' silent surrender of virtually every cultural power center was a fundamental cause of death, like an autoimmune disorder that turned the body's defenses on itself.
So, we simply don't have the real estate to work with, in respect to time, that the pro-lifers were able to put to effective use.
The hour is so very late that listening to the chatter about constitutional amendments seems to me to be akin to the German general staff in March 1945 undertaking reviews of proposed offensive operations in the campaign season of the approaching summer. One can imagine them trying to discuss options even as the Russian shelling overhead kept a steady rain of debris falling throughout the bunker network at Wünsdorf.
It's just fantastical, magical thinking.
You state at the end: 'The process is the prize.'
I must admit I am not sure what to make of your assessment. The process and the people who have turned it into their own religion of sorts (bureaucrats, lifer-politicos and partisan honchos) were the avenue that led us to where we stand now. The GOP, that confederation of nincompoops, hucksters and vile traitors, cannot possibly be the vehicle for our deliverance now. The Democrats have essentially become the successor organization of Jim Jones' Peoples Temple, embracing the tenets of critical theory that seeks the elimination of the white population as a primary goal. The Republicans are in the final stages of becoming a dead letter society and are much closer to political irrelevance than they appear to understand.
All of which is to simply say: The system — the process — cannot now be successfully employed to deliver what must be done in short order to save what remains of the nation. Virtually every major city across the country has already fallen. We don't have time. Decisive, radical action is likely the only path forward to ensure survival.
In the coming weeks, I'll be writing about what a bloodless national divorce might look like, along the lines of the Soviet Union's dissolution in 1992.
Very puzzled to see I didn't respond, Mark, I thought I had. I must say that I think the pro-lifers had more reason to be depressed after ROE, the SCOTUS liberals were on a roll and the Left had complete control of the cultural institutions. On the other hand, we don't have 50 years. Have you written your National Divorce piece?
Well, we're both quite busy these days, which is why it has taken me a week or so to circle back here. Just a couple of thoughts; the first of which is that my main point concerning a Constitutional Amendment is that the heritage population no longer has the time to wage what would ultimately be a decade-plus fight to even get a proposed amendment somewhat close to passage, i.e. the ERA's peak final stage spanned the 1970s to 1982. Added to that, of course, is the calculus of just which 38 states can be counted on to pass it? Democrats control 18 states outright, plus another 14 where they have enough seats in one chamber to block it.
That's 32 states where a Birthright Citizenship Amendment would either be dead on arrival or face exceedingly steep odds.
But let's assume for a moment that an amendment ending birthright citizenship sailed through the process by 2032, which would be a bullet-train today, and it became official. Two issues immediately present: 1) It is almost certain to be a 'going forward' status, grandfathering in all who were citizens before its passage, and 2) It will also prove to be essentially meaningless in states where the distinction between migrant and citizen have been all but erased, witness California.
So the case I make is that we are, in real world terms, out of time. Very tough decisions aren't so much ahead of heritage Americans as they are staring them in the face right now. It is not too much to say that 'The Democrat Next Time' in the Oval Office will likely mark then end of what we have known for more than a century, with One Party rule falling across the land as millions more migrants are funneled into the country-turned-market.
I have been writing a bit on my view of how a 'National Divorce' could work, when it is done I'll be happy to share a copy with you for your thoughts. My premise is fairly straightforward: the divide is now too deep and fundamental to pretend we can functionally coexist, particularly as ever-increasing numbers of foreigners are being added to the Crockpot. A hyper-Balkanization may be one outcome, but we should all understand that if possible, the Left has no intention of surrendering the spoils of their conquest, nor do they particularly have coexistence on their mind.
I wish this weren't so, but of course that's of no matter. It's just what is.
And that's why as I slip deeper into my 60s, I cherish the memories and all the rich experiences of the nation and state and our people that I was able to experience in my time on this planet. I had a helluva good time, and that counts for something.
I have zero confidence that Congress will be able to pass a bill let alone an amendment getting rid of birth right citizenship.
I'm not sure what to do at this point. I simply cannot see the country holding together at this point. Something has got to give.
Very interesting discussion, as usual Peter, but I must say (again) that I think the prospect of mounting a successful campaign for a constitutional amendment is somewhere between zero and none. Your point about the pro-life movement's half-century campaign through the very dark woods that that followed Roe v. Wade is well taken, but I am afraid it's a flawed analogy if it was offered for anything beyond a generic reminder that anything is possible.
Yes, the ultimate success of the pro-life movement was quite impressive, but not entirely unexpected. The critical distinctions here, in terms of what immigration restrictionists now face, are multifold, perhaps most notably that the nation's population is now vastly altered from its composition in the 1970s-1990s. The demographic tide is not on our side and unless the Democratic Party can be shut out of the White House for the next three or four presidential election cycles, the waterline is only going to rise further and faster as we sink beneath the surface.
The population has been significantly eroded via mass migration and the American psyche has been devastatingly polluted by a multi-decade IV-drip of progressive dogma administered through the cultural chemotherapy that's delivered by Hollywood, the media and academia. It might not be too much to say that when the national obit is written, the conservatives' silent surrender of virtually every cultural power center was a fundamental cause of death, like an autoimmune disorder that turned the body's defenses on itself.
So, we simply don't have the real estate to work with, in respect to time, that the pro-lifers were able to put to effective use.
The hour is so very late that listening to the chatter about constitutional amendments seems to me to be akin to the German general staff in March 1945 undertaking reviews of proposed offensive operations in the campaign season of the approaching summer. One can imagine them trying to discuss options even as the Russian shelling overhead kept a steady rain of debris falling throughout the bunker network at Wünsdorf.
It's just fantastical, magical thinking.
You state at the end: 'The process is the prize.'
I must admit I am not sure what to make of your assessment. The process and the people who have turned it into their own religion of sorts (bureaucrats, lifer-politicos and partisan honchos) were the avenue that led us to where we stand now. The GOP, that confederation of nincompoops, hucksters and vile traitors, cannot possibly be the vehicle for our deliverance now. The Democrats have essentially become the successor organization of Jim Jones' Peoples Temple, embracing the tenets of critical theory that seeks the elimination of the white population as a primary goal. The Republicans are in the final stages of becoming a dead letter society and are much closer to political irrelevance than they appear to understand.
All of which is to simply say: The system — the process — cannot now be successfully employed to deliver what must be done in short order to save what remains of the nation. Virtually every major city across the country has already fallen. We don't have time. Decisive, radical action is likely the only path forward to ensure survival.
In the coming weeks, I'll be writing about what a bloodless national divorce might look like, along the lines of the Soviet Union's dissolution in 1992.
Happy Fourth of July,
~ Mark
Very puzzled to see I didn't respond, Mark, I thought I had. I must say that I think the pro-lifers had more reason to be depressed after ROE, the SCOTUS liberals were on a roll and the Left had complete control of the cultural institutions. On the other hand, we don't have 50 years. Have you written your National Divorce piece?
Hi Peter,
Well, we're both quite busy these days, which is why it has taken me a week or so to circle back here. Just a couple of thoughts; the first of which is that my main point concerning a Constitutional Amendment is that the heritage population no longer has the time to wage what would ultimately be a decade-plus fight to even get a proposed amendment somewhat close to passage, i.e. the ERA's peak final stage spanned the 1970s to 1982. Added to that, of course, is the calculus of just which 38 states can be counted on to pass it? Democrats control 18 states outright, plus another 14 where they have enough seats in one chamber to block it.
That's 32 states where a Birthright Citizenship Amendment would either be dead on arrival or face exceedingly steep odds.
But let's assume for a moment that an amendment ending birthright citizenship sailed through the process by 2032, which would be a bullet-train today, and it became official. Two issues immediately present: 1) It is almost certain to be a 'going forward' status, grandfathering in all who were citizens before its passage, and 2) It will also prove to be essentially meaningless in states where the distinction between migrant and citizen have been all but erased, witness California.
So the case I make is that we are, in real world terms, out of time. Very tough decisions aren't so much ahead of heritage Americans as they are staring them in the face right now. It is not too much to say that 'The Democrat Next Time' in the Oval Office will likely mark then end of what we have known for more than a century, with One Party rule falling across the land as millions more migrants are funneled into the country-turned-market.
I have been writing a bit on my view of how a 'National Divorce' could work, when it is done I'll be happy to share a copy with you for your thoughts. My premise is fairly straightforward: the divide is now too deep and fundamental to pretend we can functionally coexist, particularly as ever-increasing numbers of foreigners are being added to the Crockpot. A hyper-Balkanization may be one outcome, but we should all understand that if possible, the Left has no intention of surrendering the spoils of their conquest, nor do they particularly have coexistence on their mind.
I wish this weren't so, but of course that's of no matter. It's just what is.
And that's why as I slip deeper into my 60s, I cherish the memories and all the rich experiences of the nation and state and our people that I was able to experience in my time on this planet. I had a helluva good time, and that counts for something.
Best,
~ Mark
Mark, I basically agree, although miracles do happen quite often in politics.
The point is not actually to pass a Constitutional Amendment, but to force the issue into public debate.
But I don't see that the GOP leaders/ Trump are trying to do that anyway.
Look forward to seeing your article.