Now or Never

“Now in these dread latter days of the old violent beloved U.S.A. and of the Christ-forgetting Christ-haunted death-dealing Western world I came to myself in a grove of young pines and the question came to me: has it happened at last?”

Walker Percy, Love in the Ruins

Here’s an important article by C. Jay Engle, “Revolution from the Middle.” It is a very good summary and diagnosis of where we stand in the last days of the old American order and worth making time to read it. 

There is a lot Engle gets right and that I want to agree with, but sadly believe are ideas that have expired. I think Engle is accurate in saying that Friend vs. Enemy is the only sane disposition to have (and abandon any sentiment and belief that a constitutional recovery is possible or even desired) and that building parallel cultural, economic, and social alternatives with Friends is essential (the argument to become a government in waiting). The problem is that this strategy requires a very long time to become operational and longer to have the needed impact. Even if everything he advocates were adopted today en masse by dissidents and Friends from the middle, it probably is too late to slow the free fall. 

The reason is because mass migration has changed everything.

Toxic Overload

There are dozens of instances from antiquity to right now where the intentional migration or resettlement of populations significantly changed or destroyed nations, peoples, or other cultures: Assyrian deportations, Roman colonization, the Gothic migrations, Mongol invasions and settlements, the Spanish in the Americas, Stalin’s deportations and resettlements, Israel’s resettlement policies, how the Han Chinese became the dominant ethnic group in China… The list is long and the impact absolute. 

While colonization and resettlement can have flash points of conflict, it is the ultimate strategy of conquest because it is primarily a moderated toxic overload to a host country that avoids the fight. It is the ultimate slow boil.

Comparatively there have been few examples where a host nation successfully reversed or mitigated the impact of resettlement or migration that threatened its demographic, cultural, or political stability. Notably: The Reconquista in Spain, The Reconquista of Sicily, the fall of the Crusader states, the expulsion of the Mongols, China’s expulsion of foreigners from Manchuria, and in Africa, the end of French and Portuguese colonial rule in Algeria, Mozambique, and Angola and the forced White exodus in Rhodesia, Kenya, and South Africa. 

In every case, these and other expulsions are violent and brutal.

The British leaving India may seem like there is a peaceful solution because their departure was not violent in the sense of an armed struggle. But unlike the other instances, it was largely a negotiated and planned process influenced by a non-violent independence movement, the broader international context was favoring decolonization, and critically, the British were not a large, entrenched settler population. However, the Indian and Pakistan partition that followed was incredibly violent.

Grim Options

So, back to the position the Engle’s article represents. In my opinion, there are only a few options for Heritage Americans: 

1. Pursue the strategy recommended in the article and accept that, if you’re lucky, you will live in a “regional fortress” requiring continual defense on a continent now dismembered into zones of Friends and Enemies that will still inevitably clash as each side only grows stronger and more antagonistic over time. 
2. Accept the change and learn to live as a literal racial and cultural minority hoping for the benevolence of the New Order.
3. Advocate, organize, and relentlessly posture with the real threat of kinetic reaction to remove the internal enemy and forcibly expel the immigrant populations if demands are not met.  

Options one and two seem inevitable and could not be a more depressing and darker outcome. To quote Ronnie Van Zant, “Lord take me and mine before that comes.”

Regarding option three, for all the “revolutionary” and “come and take ‘em” language our side uses, we’re too quick to deflate the idea that the threat of violence and force is actually what we mean, or worse, we actually find force unacceptable or impermissible rather than it being the most obvious and historically defensible solution. 

There is no difference in the critique of why conservatism failed (strategically, because it believed that taking the high road and making better arguments would win the day and because it was infiltrated early on by neocons) and the emerging position articulated in Engle’s article. Rather than physically resist and actually fight, we retreat and pen more essays that few read, fewer understand, and no one, including most authors, ever implement. 

Once again, conservatism and spin-off derivatives live in the theoretical world, while the enemy is relentlessly in the real world. They use action and have zero compunction about using force, including violence. With the accelerated strategy of the ultimate weapon, immigration, paired with their facility of using force, the Right couldn’t be more comically unprepared for the fight. 

Any one of the conservative, paleo, and yes, Southern independence strategies over the last 70 years could have been effective. But, the window has closed. The moment has passed. Mass immigration has very likely killed any chance of any of these grand visions mattering at all.  

Unless 30 million people are sent home right now and before their babies start coming at exponential rates, we are defeated.

The Tipping Point and Sending them Home

This dark assessment is based on numbers. Repatriation is possible until the foreign population reaches a critical mass. 

As of 2023, the foreign-born population in the United States has reached a conservative estimate of 15% of the total population, marking the highest percentage in history. This figure translates to approximately 49.5 million foreign-born, a significant increase from previous decades. This surge includes both legal and low-ball estimates on illegal immigration. 

The reality is that the number is probably off by ten million, meaning that it’s probably one in five people who are foreigners, mostly illegal and mostly from third-world countries.

Historically, expulsion has occurred at varying percentages of the foreign-born population, often between 1% and 30% with the high end being post-WWII when Germans were forced out of places like Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary. In most cases however, where forced and violent expulsions as cited previously occurred and were successful, those expelled made up a low single digit percentage. 

If foreign born and mostly illegals make up 20% of the United States population consider the variables that make peaceful repatriation possible: The percentage of foreign born, how well integrated the people are, their economic power, the time frame of the immigration, and, of course, the political will.    

The fact that most have come here recently, they are not integrated, and they have little economic power are certainly positives. The public sentiment is also more in favor of deportations than ever before. The terrifying percentage of foreigners and the lack of political will unfortunately outweigh the things in our favor of hoping for a mostly peaceful political solution.

During Operation Wetback (1954 to 1955), a little over one million people were deported back to Mexico. During the entirety of the operation, illegal workers by American growers continued because growers avoided the bureaucratic obstacles of the Bracero program, which was trying to formalize the process for temporary workers. The unchallenged continuation of illegal immigration, along with public outcry was largely responsible for the failure of the program and why it so quickly lost funding. This would likely resemble what a Trump program would look like. Unless he goes for the big double-digit deportations, anything short of that will be undermined and not matter. 

This brings us back to previous options mentioned and whether or not we want to save the continent, or regions of it, from the permanent transformation into something that will more closely resemble the third world.

Ready Enough

Few of us are prepared for fighting personally, let alone having the infrastructure and logistics in place that would be necessary for a prolonged North American Reconquista with the complexities of alliances and resources split between Friends and Enemies. But here’s the thing, there never is going to be a scenario when it’s just right or even good. It’s not how this ever works. It’s a full-time job and something a State alone is capable of doing. But we’re ready enough. We have been ready enough for a long time. 

It is not complicated what needs to be done or even how to do it. For obvious reasons laying out a strategy here is ill advised but consider that the Enemy is a paper tiger in every way. From the ability to marshal force at scale and its dependency on the tax base, the system is loud and scary, but weak. It can hurt a few dispersed people at a time. They can do nothing with even moderately concentrated resistance. Less still once it is emulated across states.

We have allies in office, local and state. We have 80% of law enforcement. The military is a clown show but not yet a full mercenary force. It’s still months away from April 15th. Learn how to make your case for the urgency needed now to avoid an irreversible demographic disaster and why presenting a unified and aggressively defiant front is the lone option for a future worth having.