The Problem with Calling for an American Crusade

…Is that we’re obviously not in a situation where that’s feasible.

Look, the idea of a crusade is romantic. It’s tempting to think about raining down death upon our enemies – progressives, SJW’s, what have you.

But we’re not there. We know we’re not there because if we were there the people calling for the crusade would be attempting to form armies and start a revolution. They’re not, because they can’t. We, in America, are simply not in a position where such a thing is feasible.

It’s well and good to say that at one point, you need to kill the enemy, but we don’t have it so easy. We can’t – not now. And so we’re stuck with conversion as our best tool yet.

God help us all.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to The Problem with Calling for an American Crusade

  1. Wood says:


    I agree. On the flip side, I get in my head at times about what I “should be doing” or wondering about possible ways out (for both my country and my Church). Not that those thoughts are necessarily wrong, but I think back to Jonah preaching repentance and warning of the coming destruction. God was even willing to save the paradigmatic case of awful – Sodom – if He had found a certain number of righteous men there. That’s not to advocate for a Benedict Option or the Quakers or anything of the sort. It’s that for me, “simply” working to be found a righteous man is doing far more good than joining any of the current political teams.

    • I mean, it is pretty clear I’m referring to John C. Wright’s last crusade posts for those who read him. I’m very skeptical. He mentions killing his enemy in the comments. If he really believes that, will he join his army if he actually manages to form one? Are they really ready to start a new American Revolution?

      I doubt it, and I hope not. Even the original crusades were not fought against kinsmen, but invaders. And “immigration is invasion” is all very well and good, and if those immigrants take up arms and mobilize against us believe me, I’d be all for fighting back.

      But we’re not there, and we should pray we never get there.

  2. John says:

    I agree with you completely on this.

    Most people have absolutely no idea how to wage warfare on a scale such what they call for (unless they are Vietnam or Iraqi vets, but even then their knowledge is limited), so all of those calls for war and preparation are misguided.

    I mean, do these people even know what they would do if it came to war?Do they have anything even resembling plans for a coup?Or for intense, long and extensive guerilla warfare?

    If anything, you should look at what happened in Yugoslavia during the 1990’s and 1940’s, Spain during the 1930’s and Russia during the Russian Civil War.

    The situation in the US right now is nowhere close to being similar to the 4 historical situations mentioned above.

    And let’s not forget that historical analogies themselves are also limited here because of the sheer scope of the US, both geographically and politically.

    The US is very, very big and is racially and ideologically diverse.If war were to break out, there would most likely be many more than just 2 participants characterised in black and white terms.

    You would need to have a very detailed and large military plan to even start organised resistance.

    That alone is difficult to achieve, let alone a military victory, which would likely come at very great cost to everyone involved.

    And let’s not forget the possible ethnic cleansing, violent ideological repatriations/cleansing leaving many dead, other war crimes and etc.

    And just one more thing:

    ”God help us all”

    Now I know you are a cynic by nature, but I think you should at least a little bit more hopeful because the situation isn’t as helpless as it seems, even now.

    But basically yeah, your analysis is spot on.

  3. Crude says:

    Better to start getting ready for the crusade than anything else right now.

    • That’s not a crusade we need to prepare for. That’s a war. Religion is secondary when we’re claiming the Milos and Roosh’s of the world as “on our side”.

      • Crude says:

        Milo’s on our side. Catholic and everything. He’s more pro-life than some priests.

        Do you know the gall, not to mention faith, he has to have in order to get up in front of his audience and say ‘atheism is wrong’ and ‘abortion is murder’?

        Granted, he’s a terrible moral example. But he admits it, which is a far sight better than many.

        (More seriously, pardon, I thought you were talking revolution, not religious crusade. I think the talk of that isn’t very serious.)

      • Read John C. Wright lately, though? I assure you, he is extremely serious. Ask him if you don’t believe.

        As for revolution, I’ve gone on the record in the past as being against starting one, but I’m all in favor of being prepared for one to break out anyway.

      • Crude says:

        I believe in preparing for and being ready for one. Leftists do want us dead. How they act when they lack power is frightening.

        And no. I can’t read Wright regularly. The problem is, he is tremendously thoughtful and poetic, a skilled writer, and a pretty sharp thinker. Which is great, and I appreciate that. But I have a low limit for poetry and drama in both politics and religion.

        However, I looked over his page just now, and I think you misunderstand him. Probably because of all that damn drama. He’s describing a mentality, an approach to life and politics. He’s not calling for armies or for revolution in the sense you mean. He’s calling for, in essence, recognizing our enemies AS enemies, and treating them accordingly in a modern American context: keep them out of our churches, our of our schools, and out of our lives. He is saying that we can’t agree to some kind of public peace and ‘focus on what we have in common’, because that’s a lie – we don’t have much in common with these people after all.

        It’s a shift of psyche, not a mobilization for war. He’s after a crusader’s psychology here – that there really is, after all, an ‘us’ and a ‘them’ at least on some level, and the ‘them’ wants us eradicated. And for once, that’s not drama. It’s reality.

      • I’m not so sure.

        Obviously, John is nobody’s fool. He’s not calling for war now; he’s not bloodthirsty and not a killer. But he is certainly advocating PREPARING for war. In his own comments he literally says that he is in favor of killing our enemies.

      • And, by the way, I think the sentiment is laudable enough. But I don’t agree.

        I’ve come to think that war is a poor metaphor for anything that isn’t war.

      • Crude says:

        But he is certainly advocating PREPARING for war. In his own comments he literally says that he is in favor of killing our enemies.

        That, I agree with. I also think it’s prudent.

        When you have large-scale riots like at Berkeley, complete with people being beaten up, and the left’s response is “GOOD” and “YOU DESERVE IT”, that’s a powder keg. This isn’t exaggeration – they really do hate Catholics, the right, Christians, etc. Previously they thought, if nothing else, we were governable, ie, we could be bullied into submission. That we may actually vote against them and win wasn’t in the cards. Now that that’s possible, they’re in ‘deal with them’ mode.

        I’d rather not have war. And really, what I expect more is a union break-up and some lawlessness.

        Again, I think this is all about mentality, awareness, and understanding the lay of the land. ‘Preparing for war’ in the sense of ‘Let’s start forming up a military’ isn’t the way I think John is advising people prepare. Instead he’s talking about mental preparation – the willingness to accept that there is a somewhat organized group that is out to control, punish, and oppress.

        I know of one liberal Christian I’ve managed to respect all thee years, despite differences. I decided to check in with him again. What do I find? Him basically demanding Trump be impeached, and dreaming up ways to make it happen. It’s not about any impeachable offenses. It’s about ‘We need to get power back, or at least we need to replace the person who is actually undermining our goals with someone more pliable so when/if we take power back we’re still in a position to give payback’.

        But again, I don’t think Wright is calling for war. He’s just saying what we should be prepared for. I think it’s reasonable. If you were in Berkeley, if people knew your views, would you be walking around thinking ‘I live in a fair and democratic society. I won’t be harmed, and even if I am, the police will protect me’?

      • The problem, though, that I don’t think the vast majority of the world realizes, that I only started to realize myself the past year or so, is that the very policies John defends as sacred – literally sacred – the equality of man and liberty for all, that is, liberalism – I consider the very source of the problem.

        It’s all a part of what Feser called the Hegelian Mambo. John is willing to fight to try and roll things back to a time where the unprincipled exceptions happened not to be getting HIM killed. But that the United States went in such a shockingly immoral direction in such a relatively quick time was not a coincidence.

        The founders loved to trumpet how THEIR revolution was so different and civilized compared to those evil French, but it turned out the bloodshed was only delayed for a generation. The American Civil War was just as bloody, if not bloodier, and both sides cited specifically as their reason for fighting those selfsame principles the founding fathers tried to base this country on.

        And I held my nose, and I voted for Trump, and he’s keeping his promises of rolling America back to the Bill Clinton era. It’s very, very tempting to see those rioters and think “I’m in danger. At least these guys don’t want to kill me.” But ultimately you’re just waiting for that coin flip to turn up tales. What is needed is not a last crusade, but a full-on, Nineveh-style repentance.

      • Crude says:

        That, I agree with. I also think it’s prudent.

        Modifying this.

        I’m not drawing up lists of people to give helicopter rides to. But I do think recognizing that there is a very real element of violence, and realizing that it’s entirely just to meet it with violence in turn if it comes to it, is simply prudent.

        When people look at violence against the right and say ‘Good, nazis deserve no better!’, I know the lay of the land.

      • Crude says:

        Pardon me for replying out of order, there’s no ‘reply’ button under your responses.

        Honestly, I’m not talking values here. Insofar as you say that the ideals Wright considers to be golden are actually part of the problem, okay, interesting view and I certainly disagree with Wright about much. But… that’s not what matters. The people he’s talking about don’t particularly care if you’re a post-Enlightenment holder of Founding Fathers values a la John, or an alt-right pre-Enlightenment cultural/ethnic nationalist a la Vox, or really, much else. They care if you oppose them; if so, you’re a nazi or a nazi collaborator. Everything else is a footnote.

        That’s what I’m keeping my eyes on one hell of a lot more than anything else. Modernism’s particularities are important, but not what animates even John here. At least, not in the most relevant way.

      • You’re not wrong; the problem is that his proposed solution just perpetuates the problem. Trying to push forward your good version of liberalism is still perpetuating liberalism.

  4. Deus may or may not Vult. Either way it is not ours to call. What I believe John should call for is a Reconquista, something a king can justifiably call for for God and country. Pity we don’t have those anymore.

    That said, I do agree with you that we are not there yet. God knows it feels like we are close sometimes with the rising levels of violence, the betrayal of our ruling classes and a literal invasion by our ancient enemies, and as I said on John’s blog, political violence is a wicked demon that is near impossible to curtail.

    The problem, I think, is not that a war is coming, and it is not that I do not believe we will win it. We would, handily, both in America and Europe and elsewhere (rumours are already circulating that there is a second Cristeros revolt burgeoning in Mexico, God be with them), the problem I feel, is that we will not be the ones to throw the first punch, we won’t be the side that starts it. My fear is we will have to suffer more blood, more indignities and more calumny before that trigger is finally pulled.

    My fear is that it is going to get much worse before it’ll get better precisely because our enemies will sooner become ungovernable and drag us down in blood and chaos rather than let us try to bring them up and better their lot in life and in spirit. We’ll have martyrs before we have war heroes.

  5. John says:

    ”The problem, though, that I don’t think the vast majority of the world realizes, that I only started to realize myself the past year or so, is that the very policies John defends as sacred – literally sacred – the equality of man and liberty for all, that is, liberalism – I consider the very source of the problem.”


    The Antifa protesters at UC Berkeley wrote some graffiti on some shops during the protests.

    What this basically means is that portions of the left such as Anarcho-Communists have let out the fact that their true beliefs are incompatible even with classical liberal values.

    They have basically admitted that they are Marxist authoritarians who are against the values of free speech and liberty and equality that liberalism espouses as being of primary importance.

    What this means for your view that liberalism is the very source of the problem, I don’t know.

    But this is starting to look like as if Communism/Socialism/Marxism were the actual threat right now.

    • What do communists, socialists, and Marxists have in common with Ronald Reagan, Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher, and George Washington?

      ANSWER: They all are violently and virulently opposed to being bound by any sort of earthly authority.

      • John says:

        So how do you explain the call for the murder and purging of liberals?

      • A misunderstanding or different usage of the word. John C. Wright also claim no to be liberal, when he is about as dyed in the wool a classical liberal as they come.

        But he’s not wrong, either. He just happens to be using the word in a narrower sense than I am.

      • John says:

        ”A misunderstanding or different usage of the word. ”

        Considering that Antifa also supports modern-day cultural Marxist ideas of the sexual liberation movement and transgenderism and whatnot, what type of liberal could it actually be?

        It can’t be those who support the sexual liberation movement, because Antifa agrees with that.

        It can’t be those who are conservative classical liberals, because Antifa doesn’t consider those who are socially conservative to be liberals, and to call social conservatives liberals in today’s world is only correct if you use the wider definition of liberalism.

        So what do you think could they be refering to?

      • Liberals as used for people who believe that liberty should be the proper end of government.

  6. dpmonahan says:

    If the right ever got violent it would be harshly punished. Leftist violence is tolerated; agitators and terrorists always have a network of donors and college professors to fall back on. If they murder someone then they go to jail, but there is a presidential pardon and university job awaiting someday.
    Right-wing calls for violence are romantic and stupid. The right might have the guns but not the hatred in their hearts to use them, or the means to get away with it.

    • Crude says:

      The right might have the guns but not the hatred in their hearts to use them,

      Welcome to two years ago. The right is rapidly changing, largely in response to hatred and violence directed at them, and a realization that the left does in fact hate them after all.

      Especially since the ‘violence’ the right is calling for is largely self-defense. Violent leftists are flaring up more and more, and either the police are going to stop them – harshly, if need be – or self-defense acts will start lighting up.

      If you think the right is going to break down sobbing because a masked antifa idiot became crippled for life when trying to beat someone, I suggest you don’t know the right very well.

      As for the network and the ‘college professors’ – stay tuned.

    • Crude says:

      Grow up.

      Tell me again how antifa can commit violence with impunity because gender studies professors, ever above scorn, can shield them? Or how people are horrified when left-wing protesters get hit by cars.

      Pay special attention to the votes on that one.

      My advice? Go play in traffic holding a ‘IMPEACH DRUMPF’ sign, D to the P. Safety, security and a bright future await you. Certainly the last one, if you do it at night and if headlights count.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s