The Unifying Principle: Understanding Why Current Political Divisions in the US are Irreparable

Recently, I found myself engrossed in a brief documentary about the history of political discourse and division in the United States. It led me to ponder on how past internal conflicts might be connected to the prevalent social battles Americans are currently grappling with. From early disputes among the Founding Fathers on contentious issues like the Sedition Act, central banking, and standing armies, to catastrophic conflicts like the Civil War, America has never been entirely unified on all matters.

However, the enduring belief has been that even when we stumble into chaos, Americans will discover common ground and collectively progress towards the future. It's an appealing notion, but what if this ideal is no longer applicable?

Was there ever a Golden Era for the US?

Some argue that the US never had a golden era, asserting that it has always been destructive, exploitative, or "imperialist." It's quite easy to scrutinize any historical period through the lens of contemporary sensibilities and pass judgment. Our actions today do not necessarily reflect how we would have acted in the past. It's unfair to condemn the men and women of the past without acknowledging that we may never fully understand the issues of their time from their perspective.

The political left is notorious for breaching this principle. They often attempt to rewrite history based on their current ideological beliefs and apply their taboos to periods when societal views on functioning were vastly different. The progressive philosophy is partly rooted in "futurism," the idea that all old methods and ideas must be abandoned to make way for new ones. In other words, they believe that everything "new" is better and must be adopted.

Are all new methods better?

This theory, frankly, has never been proven correct. Not all old ideas should be discarded, and not all new methods are superior. In fact, most ideas that leftists consider new are actually quite old. For instance, DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) is not groundbreaking; it's merely another form of Marxism based on personal identity rather than traditional class politics.

So, what is DEI in reality? It's a tool for forced association. Forced association is used to manipulate populations into a homogeneous mixture, a hive mind devoid of individual thought or the right to discriminate against destructive groups and ideologies. But if America is currently experiencing an agenda of forced association, we must ask - What's the endgame? Why force people who fundamentally disagree with each other on every level to coexist within a society? Why do those in power desire this so fervently?

The Central Planners' Agenda

For central planners, typically socialists/globalists, tribalism is a big no-no. They find the idea of people going their own way unacceptable. If the populace believes they can divide, separate, and live differently from each other, how can the establishment continue to exist? For a one-world government to be realized, ALL divisions must be eradicated, and everyone must either love or fear the purveyors of "unity."

Consequently, separation must be demonized. However, it's impossible to coerce a population into association in the long term. A group is an abstract concept without form; it only gains meaning when the individuals involved share a unifying principle. When I reflect on political disagreements in history, I find that a crucial factor existed during past conflicts that does NOT exist today.

The Unifying Principle

Even during the worst of times, including the Civil War, both sides of the division held the same fundamental principles and morals. They shared many values, a common religion, and an understanding of reality. They were people connected by the same American soul, merely disagreeing on specific issues. The goal for each side was for America and its fundamental heritage to survive, even if they didn't always adhere to every aspect of the Constitution or the existing leadership at the time. This is not how things work in 2024.

In terms of surface-level politics, it's evident that there will never be peaceful reconciliation between woke progressives and conservatives/independents. One side or the other has to go, and I believe the majority of people in the US want leftists to go.

Are all people on the political left the same?

To clarify, I'm not suggesting that all people on the political left are identical. There's undoubtedly a political spectrum from traditional liberals to extreme activists. But there's no denying that, for now, woke zealots control the power and influence within the Democratic Party and the leftist media. They also have the explicit backing of every major institution, from corporations to NGOs to the government.

There's a noticeable lack of average Democrats with the courage to stand up and criticize their own side, even when they know something is seriously wrong. They comply with the program either out of laziness or fear. On the other hand, conservatives are often at odds with each other when it comes to solutions.

The Fence Riders

Let's not forget the fence riders out there. It's certainly comfortable to always be out of the fray and in the rear with the gear while pretending to be "above it all." It's a convenient position as it allows a person to avoid risk while appearing to take the high road. It's akin to a slippery academic who never defines his position in a debate so he can change his arguments at will.

The problem is, even though fence riders don't want to admit it, there are times when one side is right and one side is utterly wrong. Sometimes, there is no middle ground.

The Awakening of Moderates

Many moderates are finally awakening to the horrors of the collectivist movements in our midst. Perhaps it was the pandemic lockdowns, the attempted trans indoctrination of children, or the unhinged nature of far-left activists in the streets, but somewhere along the way, moderates finally realized conservatives were RIGHT all along about many things. We were fighting to preserve their freedoms years ago while they were acting cool and wondering what all the fuss was about.

The Core Disconnect

There are numerous factors that set conservatives (and many moderates) apart from the political left, but the core disconnect is so profound and unsettling that it's hard to quantify. I can only summarize it down to this:

1) The unifying principle of the left is deconstruction. They find their purpose in the act of tearing down and destroying what others have built.

2) The unifying principle for conservatives is to build and protect what has been proven to work.

Humanity's best bet for success is liberty with responsibility, free markets, and meritocracy. All things we are trying to preserve, and all things that leftists want to obliterate.

For progressives, the most pertinent question is: What happens when they've destroyed the last edifice? What comes next? If dismantling systems is their unifying principle, what will they do when they have nothing else to dismantle? What happens when every plate in the china shop is broken? They are incapable of creating a new and functional society, so they would need an external foundation.

The Spiritual Nature of Our Impasse

In this regard, I distinguish globalists from typical leftists. Globalists are indeed leftists at their core, but they are also builders, albeit not in a positive way. Globalists don't build societies; they build prisons. Once the useful idiots on the left have completed the task of deconstructing America, the globalists plan to introduce a new ideal, a new religion, a new foundation based on worshipping THEM.

This is where we encounter the most significant split of all - the spiritual nature of our impasse.

I've never been one to advocate for theocracy, and I have many reservations about "Earthly" religious organizations. Anything governed by men can be corrupted. But I also acknowledge that America was built by a predominantly Christian society following essential Christian values. I don't believe every American needs to be Christian. The Founding Fathers understood that religious freedom is crucial. But we must recognize and embrace the fact that the country functions best when Christianity is at the forefront. At least there is a unifying moral code to hold the framework together.

Can Christian Social Systems Coexist with Science and Critical Thinking?

Moreover, it would be far easier to reconcile Christian social systems with science and critical thinking than it will be to reconcile freedom-loving Americans with far-left collectivists. The woke cult is much more hostile to science today than Christians are; they even refuse to acknowledge human biology. I also think Christianity is growing along with newer generations of conservatives with a greater respect for skepticism. We could see a renaissance following the paths set by great Christian thinkers like Thomas Aquinas or C.S. Lewis.

I'm noticing a decline in the old blind devotion to the Republican Party and a greater focus on what politicians achieve rather than what they promise. I'm seeing people on the right embrace the value of comedy and pop culture more, which has always been a problem for conservatives. And, I'm seeing science open doors to religious thought instead of trying to close them. As humanity delves deeper into quantum physics, cosmology, and even the mind sciences, our relationship to the great beyond requires consideration of the physical AND the metaphysical.

This is the kind of thing that would make progressives seethe. For them, science must always serve their causes, or it loses its value, and one of their primary causes is the eradication of Christianity. They'll never allow a world where science and religion work together to build a future where discovery is balanced with ethical responsibility.

The Issue of Moral Imperative

Then there's the issue of moral imperative. Many of us see the targeting of children for indoctrination and exploitation. We see the promotion of subjective reality and degeneracy. We see the inclination towards lies as a tool for political power. We see leftists caring more about winning and less about the truth.

For the globalists and the woke mob, morality is nothing more than a social construct, but we know that these ideas are innate and inherent for the majority of people. If they weren't, humanity would have gone extinct ages ago due to self-destruction. Leftists don't agree with the concept of a basic moral code. Leftists don't even agree that morals are a necessity. They believe they can manifest their own reality from thin air. How can we possibly coexist with people who despise every pillar that holds western civilization together?

The answer is - We can't. For now, I see no path to peace. Peace would require a unifying principle, a mutual respect, and that does not exist.

Final Thoughts

If you'd like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, consider subscribing to our exclusive newsletter, The Wild Bunch Dispatch.

As we reflect on these perspectives, it's clear that the political divisions in the US today are deeply rooted and complex. The lack of a unifying principle and mutual respect makes the path to peace seem unattainable. What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you agree with this analysis, or do you see a different path forward? Feel free to share this article with your friends and engage in a meaningful discussion. You can also sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is available every day at 6 pm.