America’s politics have become red-hot. Not just with heated words, but also with heated actions.

• An executive from United Health is murdered, but the accused murderer is hailed as a hero and showered with money. The killing is supposedly a protest about high insurance rates.

• Protesters are torching Tesla dealerships and attacking privately owned Tesla cars because of Elon Musk’s politics. Domestic terrorism at work, masquerading as free speech.

• Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh was targeted for assassination, because of his vote in the Dobbs v Jackson abortion decision.
• Federal agents arresting illegal immigrants are being attacked by coordinated mobs in Minneapolis. After one particular attack, state senator Bobby Champion said “that is just an example of Minnesota being a place where we help our neighbors.”
• Killing your political opponents is supposed to be the way of “less developed” nations, and not in America. But here we are, pretending that speech is violence and violence is speech. Between these incidents, Black Lives Matter protests, and Antifa activity, could it be that America is swinging towards some sort of a civil war?

My article discusses political persuasion, politicized violence, and the prospects of a genuine civil war. I argue that we might very well see a coup, but from an unexpected angle.

A republic, if you can keep it

The members of the 1787 Constitutional Convention wrote a pact that became our Constitution. It was a compromise, the best agreement that they could make. Regarding it, Benjamin Franklin said that we have “a republic, if you can keep it.” The various states signed on, forming the United States we all live in today.

This republic has been quite successful. We’ve endured wars and discord, and at need amended our pact, working towards, as the Constitution’s own preamble states, “a more perfect union.”

A remarkable thing is that all of our politics have sought to work within its bounds. People promoting their causes point at the Constitution and seek justification within its words. Even the results of the War Between the States didn’t create a cry for a new constitution. We just amended it to reflect our needs.

But the Constitution is not self-defending, or self-amending. Its “walls of parchment” don’t prevent officials from overreaching their authority. Those tasks fall on us, and on our “lesser magistrates.” We must be vigilant to stop expansion of government power, and to prevent laws which trample constitutional limits. After all, the Constitution itself represents a distrust of government and its tendency to accumulate power and privilege to itself.

Our republic attacked – can we keep it?

America is an enduring, successful republic. But because we don’t have a socialist society, the “progressives” among us hate it. The drastic changes they have in mind will succeed only if they convince us that America is actually a failure. To that end, they’ve made many claims.

The Constitution shouldn’t bind us. Why must the words of some ancient document – the Constitution for sure, but even the Bible? – constrain our actions and desires? We’re encouraged to treat the Constitution as a “living document.” Doing this would give jurists the scope to rule as they please (Judges 17:6). It would let them overturn, at their whim, foundations upon which society is built.

The Supreme Court isn’t legitimate. Because the Court isn’t ruling the way they like, progressives holler “fraud!” We’re told it’s a national emergency that they don’t get their favored rulings. For them, the Court must be fixed to ensure that Republicans never win again.

We must become a democracy! To many, our republic is shameful because it isn’t a democracy. Yet a democracy is exactly what the Founding Fathers feared. For example, Alexander Hamilton said this to the New York Ratifying Convention:

“It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”

The article goes on to demonstrate that only a republic protects the rights of minority factions.

People shouldn’t be allowed to own anything. For example, the new socialist New York City government disfavors home ownership. Cea Weaver, the lead of its Office to Protect Tenants, has claimed:

“Private property including and kind of ESPECIALLY homeownership is a weapon of white supremacy masquerading as ‘wealth building’ public policy.”

When government strikes against private property, the aim is confiscation. But these socialists plan to strike twice against property, this time with wealth taxes. Go and read what I’ve already written about wealth taxes, and how they impoverish both rich and poor.

You might think it odd to link property ownership with constitutionalism. But in both cases, critics are aiming at the foundations of our republic.

• One foundation is having predictable rules and expectations. It’s hard to invest your life into family and career if the rules of your culture are essentially chaos. Law founded on a hard-to-change constitution provides a good part of predictability.
• Another foundation is the ability to acquire and keep property. As John Adams said “Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist.” And as I wrote in another article, our task of obeying God requires us to have the tools that enable this task.

If this progressive propaganda succeeds – that America looks at the Constitution as obsolete, and that our society needs a drastic overhaul – then implementing socialist patterns into society looks like an easy task.

Socialism is a religion

Suppose that we call for a convention to rewrite the Constitution. What would be its outcome? Considering our scholars and experts, the resulting document would describe some sort of socialist democracy. That’s because there are a lot of “true believers” out there.

Note that in my writing I regard socialism, communism, and Marxism as meaning pretty much the same thing. While they’re technically different, in practice everyone learning socialism also picks up Marxism. They’ve become inseparable, so I’m using the terms interchangeably.

Although Karl Marx decried religion, saying that “religion is the opiate of the people,” socialism itself is a religion. Why else would its adherents believe in it fervently, in spite of its constant failures? Long ago I wrote an article describing the religious aspects of socialism. To summarize:

• There is no God, no supernatural. There exists only the material world which you can see, touch, and measure.
• We must collectively work to make everybody comfortable, supplying people with everything possible in super abundance.
• We’ll soon evolve to being all-loving and all-giving, never being grasping or greedy. We won’t need a government and will strive to do good things all the time. This will be heaven on earth, but without that God business.

Although they’re building what they think is heaven, socialists are afraid that their opponents, the rich and the religious, will try to frustrate their goals. So all of the world must become socialist at the same time, that there will be no naysayers. For example, a rapid global conversion to socialism is what the World Economic Forum wants in its call for a “Great Reset.”

Socialists hate Christianity

What do socialism and communism – remember, they’re essentially the same thing – think of Christianity? Nikolai Bukharin, one of Lenin’s and Stalin’s closest advisors, describes how communism and religion are incompatible. He wrote:

“In practice, no less than in theory, communism is incompatible with religious faith. The tactic of the Communist Party prescribes for the members of the party definite lines of conduct. The moral code of every religion in like manner prescribes for the faithful some definite line of conduct. For example, the Christian code runs: “Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

In most cases there is an irreconcilable conflict between the principles of communist tactics and the commandments of religion. A communist who rejects the commandments of religion and acts in accordance with the directions of the party, ceases to be one of the faithful. On the other hand, one who, while calling himself a communist, continues to cling to his religious faith, one who in the name of religious commandments infringes the prescriptions of the party ceases thereby to be a communist.”

While some communist thinkers were willing to let people practice their beliefs “in private,” not so Lenin. He wrote:

“So far as the party of the socialist proletariat is concerned, religion is not a private affair. Our Party is an association of class-conscious, advanced fighters for the emancipation of the working class. Such an association cannot and must not be indifferent to lack of class-consciousness, ignorance or obscurantism in the shape of religious beliefs.

We demand complete disestablishment of the Church so as to be able to combat the religious fog with purely ideological and solely ideological weapons, by means of our press and by word of mouth. But we founded our association, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, precisely for such a struggle against every religious bamboozling of the workers. And to us the ideological struggle is not a private affair, but the affair of the whole Party, of the whole proletariat.”

When socialists gain power they don’t leave religion or the religious alone. Although their excuse is saving people from their religious delusion, they’re really concerned about any competition for hearts and minds. Christ draws people to Himself, and this threatens the power of the socialist state.

But Bukharin is right about socialism and Christianity being incompatible. What they represent is who gets to declare the truth, and who declares what is right and wrong. Is it man, or God? And as Matthew 6:24 says, no man can serve two masters. Neither can a society. We can’t have both socialism and Christianity.

How socialism would change our culture

Socialism and Christianity aren’t merely bumper sticker slogans. Each have concepts that affect how people live. We’re used to our Christian-based society, but what if we moved on from it? What if we really agree to tear it all down, as people demand. How would a socialist culture differ from our present one?

I’ve already written an article on how anti-Christian socialism really is. You can go there and read the gory details. This is my short “Cliffs Notes” comparison, the differences between a Christian culture and a socialist culture.

This comparison isn’t about what you’d see right after choosing a socialist future. Rather, it describes the full effects of cultural change. Think of it as equivalent to the “Pottersville” sequence of the Christmas movie It’s a Wonderful Life.

How do we tell what is right and wrong?

• Christian culture:  Our ultimate source of truth is God. What He said to us, what we think and how we should live, is written in the Bible. We must collectively measure ourselves, and our laws, by this standard.
• Socialist culture:  Socialism claims that there is no supernatural, and thus no God. Therefore, the Bible has no special authority over us. We get to collectively decide what it means to be right and wrong.

What is the concept of the individual?

• Christian culture:  Each of us are held responsible for our own actions. We’re free to work, do business, and individually benefit from our own talents and achievements.
• Socialist culture:  For better or worse, your group or “class” defines you. You can be inventive, and give your all, but you can expect only the reward due to those of your class. After all, Karl Marx promised “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” Your personal role is to become an ant, for the benefit of the anthill.

What is the concept of families?

• Christian culture: The family is the building block of society. In this protective social unit, parents have the right, authority, and responsibility to teach their children religion, culture, and skills for adulthood.
• Socialist culture: The state is the building block of society. The individual lives to serve the state. There is no room for families. Men and women are meant to produce products and services for the state. Children really belong to the government. So said Alexandra Kollontai, a leader in family issues for Lenin’s Russia, writing on communism and the family.

“The state does not need the family, because the domestic economy is no longer profitable: the family distracts the worker from more useful and productive labour. The members of the family do not need the family either, because the task of bringing up the children which was formerly theirs is passing more and more into the hands of the collective.

In place of the old relationship between men and women, a new one is developing: a union of affection and comradeship, a union of two equal members of communist society, both of them free, both of them independent and both of them workers.”

What is the concept of property and property rights?

• Christian culture: Owning property is generally a good thing. And if you have more property, good for you. For example, Abraham found favor with God (Genesis 12:1-3) and was blessed with enormous wealth (Genesis 13:2). Jesus affirmed this concept in the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30).
• Socialist culture: The overarching government owns everything, always “in the name of the people.” Factories, farms, airports, skyscrapers, automobiles, maybe even your power tools – everything is theirs.

What is the role of government?

• Christian culture: Government is to judge civil disputes, protect the people from criminals and dishonest people, and defend against external threats. This government acts as society’s protector, not as society’s controller.
• Socialist culture: Since the government owns everything, it must control all. It decides what factories produce, what farms will grow, and even your work occupation. It will supply your housing and daily bread. Note that if you’re this dependent on government then you’re its slave.

What about freedom?

• Christian culture: You can travel where you will, and can decide where to live. You may buy or sell things and keep any profits you make. You may have private and public discussions on most any topic.
• Socialist culture: You will live where the government tells you to. A socialist government shuts down dissent, such as religious discussion, because dissent undermines confidence in the system. As for property rights, Friedrich Hayek declared in his book The Road to Serfdom that “[w]hat our generation has forgotten is that the system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom…”

Can I buck the dominant culture?

• Christian culture: If you want, you can form a voluntary socialist community. This has been tried many times before. Note that these quickly ended in failures.
• Socialist culture: Everyone must affirm the socialist culture. Public worship of God is suppressed as delusion. Private worship of God is sedition. Bucking socialism is a hard thing to do. It’s been said many times that “You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out.”

Discouragement and socialist evangelism

Over the last century Marxists have figured out that they can’t overturn a Christian society by force. Instead, they’ve turned to first weakening, or discouraging, a society’s faith in itself and its beliefs. Once suitably prepared, the society is ready to accept socialist precepts.

The Marxist Antonio Gramsci authored this strategy of Marxist evangelism. Here is how it works.

“The significance of this inversion of classical Marxism is profound. What it means is that if you want to change the economic structure of society, you must first change the cultural institutions that socialize people into believing and behaving according to the dictates of the capitalist system. The only way to do this is by cutting the roots of Western civilization—in particular, its Judeo-Christian values, for these (supposedly) are what provide the capitalist root-system. In short, unless and until Western culture is dechristianized, Western society will never be decapitalized.

How might this be accomplished? By an army of Marxist intellectuals undertaking (what was later called) “the long march through the institutions of power”; that is, by gradually colonizing and ultimately controlling all the key institutions of civil society. As Gramsci put it, “In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.”

The larger goal, however, is control of all the major institutions of political society as well (e.g., the police, law courts, civil service, local councils). Gramsci referred to this process as “becoming State.”

The program, then, at least in theory, is simple: subvert society by changing its culture and change its culture by infiltrating its institutions. The goal is likewise clear: destroy capitalism and replace it with a communist counter-hegemony. This is why many see Cultural Marxism as an accurate description of Gramsci’s neo-Marxist philosophy.

“The long march through the institutions” is likewise regarded as an apt summary of his strategy for establishing the necessary conditions for a socialist takeover and the (supposed) arrival of a communist utopia.”

Inspired by this approach, socialist scholars have invented and popularized many slanders of American culture. As examples:

• Systemic racism. The idea that American culture has such built-in racism that it can’t be fixed. But if you ask for evidence of this, all you get back are invented statistics.
• Patriarchy. The concept that male roles, female roles, and families raising children are all wrong. America’s widespread acceptance of “families are good” is a strength against socialist plans.
• Equity. Equal justice for all doesn’t cut it. We must have reverse discrimination, “anti-racism,” to create “equal outcomes.”

I suppose that the most comprehensive insult is “imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.” This combination asserts that nothing in our Christian-based society can be fixed, so it must all be destroyed through revolutionary change. We’re supposed to agree with this, because we learned to be ashamed of our past, and we’re now unwilling to defend our culture.

Socialist evangelism, especially through the schools, is getting results. A recent survey shows that 42% of voters hold a high opinion of socialism. This climbs to 57% approval among younger voters. I guess that if you promise “you’ll own nothing and be happy” that you’ll get a lot of takers.

Color revolution is the modern socialist way

There are many ways for a culture to lose its Christian orientation. For example, Europe’s Christian population has lost interest in having children, but imports Muslim immigrants. Over time, European Christianity will fade while its growing population of immigrants will plant their own culture. As Mark Steyn said, “the future belongs to those who show up for it.”

Another way to change a culture is to fight a vicious civil war, with the winner imposing their version of culture on the subdued populace. For example, after the Russian Civil War the victorious Bolsheviks imposed their vision of socialism upon Russia, transforming property ownership, parenthood, and morality through use of force.

The culture change method I wish to highlight is a campaign of mass intimidation called “color revolution.” This method suits the “long march through the institutions,” for it begins only after society is “softened up” through discouragement and re-education.

In this campaign, protesters arrange for wide-spread protests, propaganda, and seemingly unstoppable violence. The aim is to persuade the people that giving in to the protesters’ demands is preferable to continuing violence, unrest, and uncertainty in their lives. That surrender provides to the protesters the public approval needed to implement their plans.

Color revolutions have already been used to oust governments in Serbia, Georgia (the nation), and Ukraine. I’ve boiled the color revolution down into the following phases.

• Prepare to fight. Like minded activists discover each other, and agree to coordinate their activities. They acquire financial donors, because a lot of resources will be needed, such as lawyers, training, transport, safe houses, and weapons. Arrange for friendly news coverage, because convincing the people to support the protests is the main point of the campaign.
• Choose an opportunity. The activists need an actual newsworthy event to act upon, to blow up into a big deal. This could be the death of someone, like that of George Floyd. It could be in response to some ongoing government activity, such as rounding up illegal immigrants. Or it could be about an upcoming a national election, accusing it ahead of time of being stolen.
• Begin the attacks. Following a coordinated signal, begin “spontaneous” protests related to your opportunity. Become an increasingly large nuisance and threat. Occupy and attack targets, whether buildings or people, that the government can’t afford to ignore, that they must defend by attacking you.
• Keep escalating things. The goal is confrontation after confrontation. If the government ignores your violence and occupations, it means it is too weak to govern, and unworthy of support. And if the government attacks you, it is too brutal to stay in power, and must be rejected by all. Or at least that’s what your friendly media will be telling everybody.
• Force the crisis. After a spell of this activity, the people will increasingly demand an end to the conflict, an end to what is upsetting their lives. If the government has failed to suppress the protesters then they must yield to their demands. Who knows, maybe the government completely resigns.
• Pop the champagne, you won. The winners can now get what they wanted. They’ve also proven to the people that they’re powerful. That power play can be used again and again.

The color revolution plan works only when the people are already unsure of themselves, of their leaders, in their government, and in their society. The activists must first prepare the society to question itself. Perhaps they say that society is full of systemic racism. Or that the Constitution is immoral, an obsolete relic, and not worth preserving. We already see many such preparations for an upcoming fight.

Will America hear better, and truer, stories about American culture, stories that encourage us about what we’ve collectively achieved? Will we correct the lies, ones which say that we’re racist to the core? Who will announce that we should be proud to have a republic and not a democracy? Telling these stories seems to depend on us.

Color revolutions can be big or small

The previous section showed how color revolutions were used to overturn European and Asian governments. How might the technique be used in America?

Action to block particular policies. Localized protests can end up defeating attempts to enforce laws. These protests would be sophisticated and planned activities, not mere public unrest or riots. As an example, look at the attempts to defeat what the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) police are doing in and around Minneapolis. What we see are:

• Professional planning and coordination. Of course the various protest groups are working together. But there is also cooperation between city governments and the protesters.
• Use of paid protesters. There are people who admit to being paid to protest. There are also paid groups providing services to coordinate the protests.
• Communication networks. Protesters use the internet to report ICE agent sightings. They also use use social media, etc., to coordinate their activities.
• Public media cooperation. The news media have taken sides in their coverage of ICE protests. Their reports are uniformly in favor of the protesters.

Such demonstrations need not take place just in Minnesota. As seen with the George Floyd riots, people in many cities can be induced to demonstrate, even though nothing in their own community is actually at stake.

The immediate goal in Minneapolis is to block illegal immigrants from being arrested. The larger goal is to make the American public tired of the conflict, and get the government to stop its policy of arresting these people.

A grand gamble for national change. The aim of this campaign would be force changes that can’t be obtained through elections. As examples:

• Stacking the Supreme Court. Add many hand-picked jurists to get the progressive decisions decisions. This would also lead to the “living Constitution” business.
• Direct election of the President. If the Electoral College isn’t revoked in its entirety, then legalize any of various workaround schemes.
• Many new, unaccountable bureaucracies. Create any number of extra-constitutional agencies, such as Human Rights Commissions. This “coup of bureaucrats” would be able to shape society by edict, and citizens would have no effective remedy against them.

The goal of this “grand gamble” amounts to regime change. They’d force the politicians to implement policies which otherwise can’t get through Congress. With the right policies, such as a “living Constitution,” we’d be essentially a different country.

Role of violence

As I’ve said before, one foundation of society is having predictable rules and expectations. If you build a house, or start a family, it’s with the expectation that you’ll be able to keep that house, and raise your children, without either being molested. And a community threatened by bandits or lions will defend against those threats by building walls or deploying an army. The aim is to minimize surprises.

The role of political violence is to shock the people out of their comfort zone. They’re now surprised with unexpected events, new decisions. For example:

• Can our leaders protect us? The leaders failed to predict this violence. The people are unsure of their leaders.
• Do we care about this fight? If the propaganda of discouragement has been working, then the people are asking if the status quo is worth keeping.
• Is the fight worth the cost? If this looks to be a long, pricey struggle then perhaps giving in is the best choice.
• Should we trust the protesters? After all, they promise to make the violence go away if only we let them have their way.

As long as they are the ones dealing it out, protesters love political violence. Controlled political violence generates fear, uncertainty, and doubt, which works in their favor.

It’s hard for society to live with chaos. When there are street protests, will your own home or business survive? Or if the electricity goes out due to sabotage, can you trust the government to regain order?

The threat of violence can be even more potent than actual violence itself. If the protesters call in bomb threats, or threaten more public utilities, the leaders and the people understand that the protesters are calling the shots.

But note that violence can go both ways. For the protesters, it’s all fun and games as long as nobody gets caught or hurt. But suppose the government, with its substantial military potential, grows a spine and treats the protesters as revolutionaries they really are. Give them “a whiff of grapeshot” and the fun goes away. The protests wither, and the government is left with the manageable task of finding the remaining protesters, those terrorists performing the actual violence.

Perhaps the results of the protests comes down to which side is willing to be hurt the most. Which side cares the most about getting their own way, and who is willing to bleed or even die for the cause. We used to call that willingness “patriotism.”

Crisis and the “Great Middle”

The immediate goal of the protesters is to make life so unbearable for the directly affected people that these demand relief, even if the cost is surrendering to the protesters’ demands. A greater goal is to swing national opinion, that the people at large demand this surrender. The protesters can win without even fielding an army.

By “the people,” I mean a great majority of society who don’t want to be activists, or otherwise involved in social issues – or so they think. They just want to go to work, raise a family, watch a little television, etc. Let’s call them the “Great Middle.”

The activists in society, both on the left and the right, are very few compared to the bulk of the Great Middle. But since power in America goes to those getting the most votes, this Great Middle can decisively choose who is in power and what the sorts of policies that can be pursued.

When confronted by coordinated protests, the mood of the Great Middle can decide how the government, either local or federal, responds to the protests.

• If the people like their culture, and are proud of their history, then they’ll see the protests as an attack on their way of life. They’re willing to put up with an awful lot as long as they see the government making progress in putting down the unrest.
• If the people are unsure of their culture – thanks to socialist messages of discouragement – then the people will send signals that victory will be too expensive, and that accommodation is preferable.

There is the rub:  do the people in the Great Middle have any staying power for this particular struggle?

• Before the Japanese navy attacked Pearl Harbor, their leaders thought that America had no staying power for war. Perceived American morale, and our actual will to fight, definitely factored into how the war was prosecuted.
• In the current struggle between Iran’s leaders and a popular revolt, the people so far have had great staying power. They’re willing to suffer, even die, to free their nation from the mullahs.

In America, if the government doesn’t decisively defeat the protests right away, then the protests will escalate, as they’re designed to do. The protesters are aiming at getting the people, this Great Middle, to want the disruptions and fighting to end right away. The people will believe that winning isn’t worth the price, and long to return to normality.

When the topic is socialism, or changing the Constitution, we must not reach that crisis point. As I’ve written before, there is no viable alternative to our current Christian-based society. Not with the society in the divided state that it’s in. At worst, we must be able to convince the people, the Great Middle, that, as Winston Churchill said,

… It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

But isn’t Islam also a problem?

An increasing Muslim population is a problem for a Christian-based society. By and large, Muslim immigrants come here not to assimilate, but to establish Muslim communities. This threatens a Christian culture by raising the specter of having two different sources of truth and law, the Bible and the Koran.

However, socialism’s immediate threat to American culture far outweighs the down-the-road problems arising from Islam. If America rejects socialist advances, then our renewed affection for our Christian-based culture can handle the problems of Islamic colonization. But if America rejects its Christian past and goes socialist, then Christian advice on anything involving Islam won’t be wanted or heeded.

Suppose that things go pear shaped

Suppose that, by hook or crook, socialist activists or revolutionaries get a crack at running our government, at changing our laws. Is that the end of things, just because the Great Middle of society has no more stomach for protests? Here are ways that we still can block these people and turn our society around. They’re listed in terms of increasing trouble for all of us.

Convince the American people that they made a big mistake. Once convinced, his puts the Great Middle into the “we support our society” mindset that they should have always been in. The outcome of this sea change will soon rout all of the “bad guys.”

Get judges to block unconstitutional changes. Suppose that the color revolution leaders get a chance to change things. Can we find justices who will defend the Constitution as written (originalist) and block unconstitutional provisions?

Oppose the unconstitutional changes as illegitimate. You might be an official, but that doesn’t mean that your word is always law. You’re constrained by the bounds of your office. Suppose that our justices go rogue, and base their rulings on a “living Constitution” basis. Are their rulings automatically constitutional?

This is largely unexplored territory. For example, President Andrew Jackson addressed constitutionality in 1830 when he dealt with the Bank of the United States. My article Must Christians Obey Bad Court Rulings? explores what to do when the Court rulings are misaligned with society.

Oppose federal actions through local opposition. Why can’t a “color revolution” technique be used to defend the Constitution against unrighteous abuses of power? Once could say that this technique was already done in the Civil Rights era marches, and in campaigns like the Montgomery bus boycott. The protesters defied the authorities, were sometimes arrested and roughed up. But they wore out the opposition and got what they fought for.

Can our lesser magistrates shield us?

In my article American Christians, Tyranny, and Resistance I explored the issue of obeying unrighteous government commands. Not just “I don’t like the politics” laws, but situations where you must either obey the law or obey God. For example, when told to stop preaching in Jesus’ name Peter said “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). I covered three historical precedents.

1550: The Siege of Magdeburg

Acting on behalf of the Holy Roman Emperor, in 1550 the Duke of Saxony besieged the city of Magdeburg (in modern Germany). The Emperor had commanded that the people of the city either abandon the Lutheran faith or be destroyed. The city again asserted its Lutheran faith, and offered the Magdeburg Confession both as justification and as a plea for help.

In the Confession the authors reached this conclusion about resisting government that oversteps its bounds.

“It is when tyrants begin to be so mad that they persecute with guile and arms, not so much the just persons of inferior magistrates and their subjects, as the right itself, especially the right of anyone of the highest and most necessary rank; and that they persecute God, the author of right in persons. . . . and if he himself defends and prosecutes this law with force and arms, so that certain death is laid down as the penalty of those who resist or fail to conform – in such a case, doubtless, no clear-thinking person would have any hesitation about the divine right and commandment that such a leader or monarch ought to be curbed by everyone in his most wicked attempt, even by the lowest magistrates with whatever power they have.”

In summary, when a tyrant commands disobedience to God, we are obedient to God when we ignore that command. This applies to both individuals and subordinate rulers (lesser magistrates). Through their defiance the leaders of Magdeburg protected its citizens from the Duke of Saxony and the Emperor’s demand.

1637: Scotland rebels over religious hijacking

In 1637 the Scots rebelled against the King of England. At issue was King Charles’ claim that he ruled by divine right, and had the authority to tell his subjects how to worship God. This rebellion directly led to the Bishops Wars of 1639/40. It was also a foreshadowing of the later English Civil War.

In 1644 John Rutherford wrote the book Lex Rex, justifying the Scottish rebellion. Among the matters addressed in the book was the claim that the King had no right to command his subjects to disobey God. One of Rutherford’s summary statements says:

“6. The lawful ruler is the minister of God, or the servant of God, for good to the commonwealth; and to resist the servant in that wherein he is a servant, and using the power that he hath from his master, is to resist the Lord his master. But the man who is the king, commanding unjust things, and killing the innocent, in these acts is not the minister of God for the good of the commonwealth;—he serveth himself, and papists, and prelates, for the destruction of religion, laws, and commonwealth: therefore the man may be resisted; by this text, when the office and power cannot be resisted.”

In summary, the King is still the lawful king, and the people must still honor him. But if the King oversteps his office – for a king has both rights and responsibilities – then he acts not as King but on his own name. Charles might demand the people disobey God, but not in the authority of being King. The leaders of Scotland, both civil and religious, resisted the King’s overreach. They even warred against the King’s armies for their cause.

1776: King George III vs the rights of Englishmen

Over time the King’s ministers, as well as Parliament, had been revoking the rights of self-rule previously given to the colonists. The colonial leaders looked at this trend as forcing the colonies into being serfs. Concerning this Samuel Adams said in 1772:

“The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.

…

“The absolute rights of Englishmen and all freemen, in or out of civil society, are principally personal security, personal liberty, and private property.

…

“The supreme power cannot justly take from any man any part of his property, without his consent in person or by his representative.”

Because the colonists were losing their rights as Englishmen, the representatives of the colonies declared that the King had abandoned them. They asserted freedom from the claims of the King and of Parliament. Of course the English armies had something to say about that. But in the end the world received these United States as a new nation.

In summary, the colonists relied on their governments, their lesser magistrates, to defend them from unrighteous claims on their liberties. They believed that they were being reduced to being vassals, and resisted this trend. When their petitions were ignored, they brought forth the Declaration of Independence.

2026: Uses of lesser magistrates today

How can we apply the concept of the lesser magistrate? First ask if the conflict is over a matter of faith or freedom. Are religious or political freedoms at stake?

• If the government were demanding our Bibles, or our guns, or other sorts of property, do we have the right before God to resist the demands? I think so, because it is an overreach. These demands would remove from us our rights (1st and/or 2nd Amendments), and our ability to resist government overreach. As with the 1776 example, we stand on the Constitution and work to preserve our freedoms.
• If the government were demanding that illegal aliens be arrested, do we have the right before God to resist the demands? I think not, for this isn’t a religious matter or one of political freedoms. The federal government has the right to control the borders and our immigration policy. There is no freedom to evade that law.

So if the governor of Minnesota thinks to resist or hinder the ICE arrests, he’s not acting as a lesser magistrate before God.

Suppose you are resisting the government, acting as a lesser magistrate for God and freedom. Be aware that the federals don’t care about that, and you’re merely in rebellion. Your interposition has a chance to succeed only if you also have your own army, a duly-constituted militia. Maybe this show of strength will lead both sides to negotiate their differences. But if not, this situation is where something of an army vs army confrontation is possible.

Learn techniques from the protests

Suppose that the socialists get their way with the federal government. They then might send agents in a campaign to collect firearms, arrest Christian bloggers, etc. Maybe we should protest these actions?

Protesting is a historical political technique, and can be successful. Consider the civil rights protests, and the 1863 anti-draft riots in New York City. These changed public opinion and government policy. And if we protest, then we should do it well. Let’s learn from techniques found in these Minneapolis protests.

Know your friends. Groups interested in protecting liberty ought to know who else is out there. After all, large protests need many groups. But among them are many pretenders, such as undercover FBI agents. Your groups need to learn who you can trust.

Communicate and coordinate. There are really no spontaneous riots or demonstrations. Getting large numbers of participants requires talking with the other groups. Tactics during the events require instant communications.

A common answer to this need tends to be cell phones. But be aware that cell phones can always be tracked. They constantly call the cell phone towers, and these contacts are logged. From these logs, even your home address can be deduced.

Perhaps it’s better to get experience using unregistered radio communications. Try the common walkie-talkies, like FRC, MURS, and even Baofeng-style ham radio transceivers. Better yet, set up a net repeater to extend the range of your group communications.

You’ll need money. Those protest signs aren’t free. Protest training sessions need venues. And lawyers and bail bonds aren’t cheap.

Effective protesters are trained ones. The progressive people get protest training. Once your people are in the street, what should they be doing, or not doing?

Get out your message. The point of the protests is to affect the Great Middle of the public. They won’t lean your way unless they hear your message. The Minneapolis protesters already have friends in the media, but you probably won’t. You’ll need other ways to get out your message. Blogger sites, or even distributed networks of cell phones, might help.

Learn how to use jury nullification. If your people are charged for protesting, going to jail is a risk. Think about that before volunteering. But if the charges are outrageous, promote jury nullification in the media, and when possible in the court. Nullification means that the jury says “we don’t care what the charges are because the law is stupid.” Judges and prosecutors hate this, but it is legal and a basic liberty in America.

Lesser magistrates. Since your protests ought to be about preserving Christian liberties, you should be able to get officials to consider agreeing with you, to act in the “lesser magistrate” role.

By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) is NOT acceptable. BAMN amounts to killing and burning. That isn’t promoting the kingdom of God.

Civil war is misunderstood

We need to address this “elephant in the room” right away. People who think that we’ll resolve our issues through armed conflict are thinking about “the last war,” not a modern one. They also don’t realize that such a war would set us up for the society-changing conditions that the war is supposed to prevent. Remember the discussion about the morale of the Great Middle of society?

When Americans think of “civil war” they think of the American Civil War, fought in the years 1861-1865. However, I think that it’s better called the War Between the States for these reasons:

• Division by geography. The principals in this war were the states of the Union. Which state you lived in loomed larger in your life than did the federal government in Washington. And the people in the northern states had come to abhor the slave economy of the southern states.
• War between governments. The cultural strains are expressed through the individual state governments. Most southern states seceded to become their own confederacy, while the northern states stayed loyal to the constitutional union. A major political question decided by the resulting war was whether a state may quit being part of these United States.
• Combatants were conventional armies. The fighting was done through volunteer armies. These were authorized, organized, and supplied by the state and federal governments.
• Armies obeyed the accepted rules of war. The armies were answerable to their governments, and generally obeyed the recognized and accepted rules of war. Excepting General Sherman’s March to the Sea, an army pursued the enemy forces to fight them. The goal was to force the other army to surrender, or at least to retreat.

If our current antagonism leads to blows, there will be very different conditions than those of 1861:

• Opponents are geographically intermingled. The opponents, usually called progressive and conservative, aren’t separated into different states or regions. Sometimes they even live next door to each other. The best that you can make of any geographical divide is that progressives dominate in urban areas and conservatives in rural areas.
• War to gain control of government and society. If there is a war, it won’t be aimed at conquering or defending a territory or region. Rather, we’ll fight to control the federal government, for it can be used to force changes in our culture.

It might seem odd to think that you can control thought and practices through government power and oversight. But look the Soviet Revolution, how they forced socialism upon the country. And look at the Obergefell decision on homosexual marriage, after which people largely stopped fighting against it. Through threat of government force, and by smothering speech and activities, you really can shape society.

• Combatants are protesters vs “reactionaries.” A common narrative is that conservatives have all the guns, and that war with progressives, or leftists, would be a foregone conclusion. While this might be true, it’s also irrelevant. The progressives can’t fight and don’t plan on doing so. Their revolutions rely on paralyzing the government into inaction and ineffectiveness. They win by outlasting the public’s will to keep fighting.

Against such attacks there are police, who themselves might have stand-down orders. There also might be some ad-hoc groups of patriots, essentially militia, which are trying to protect their own neighborhoods.

• The ends justifies the means. We’ve already seen people cheering the murder of United Healthcare’s executive Brian Thompson. Charlie Kirk was murdered, and many say that he deserved it, that he earned it. The people celebrating these murders are holding to the meme that speech is violence and violence is speech. They act on it, too, since progressives largely hold to “by any means necessary.”

So unless things really go pear-shaped, we won’t see armies fighting to control towns, regions, and infrastructure. And after seeing the results of the Russian Civil War and the Spanish Civil War, who would really invite a modern war in America? Look for political conflict to to be confined to non-army means. At least for a while.