We all know it can’t go on. Like a bad marriage, the “union” is a barren, emotionally alienated thing held together by nothing more than the inertia of tradition and the threat of force directed at the side that suggests the best thing to do would be for each side to go its separate way.
Peacefully, ideally.
Our side would certainly consider that ideal, for we want nothing more from the other side than to be let alone. We are not interested in the other side’s money. We merely wish to hold onto our own. To raise our families and live as we see fit – respecting everyone’s equal right to do the same. We like our history – but do not begrudge anyone else’s theirs. Only requesting that they do not attempt to replace ours with theirs.
We want to decide for ourselves with whom we do business; whether to open our doors – and for anyone who wishes to walk through them to be free to do so.
There are so many things but it really comes down to just one thing. We want to live – and are willing to let live. The other side regards that as a “threat to our democracy.” It means a threat to its hegemony. It must be one-size-fits-all, the size determined by the other side.
Irreconcilable differences. No common ground – for a wolf and his supper cannot have common ground. There are two alternatives for the “supper,” if he doesn’t wish to become that. The first is to get away from the wolf.
The second is to be supper.
Which is it going to be?
That separation is necessary is obvious – except to those on the other side, who know they need our side just as a wolf needs his supper. For that reason, they will never agree to peacefully let us depart, just as the wolf will not wish the rabbit a good evening and watch him hop off into the woods.
It is obvious to the wolf – on the other side – that our side cannot be allowed to depart, no matter how much they despise our side. This is interesting, when you think about it a little but. In a bad marriage, if each spouse is basically sane and well-meant, it’s understood that the best thing for both is for each to go their separate ways with as little damage to either side as can be managed. An equitable divvying up of assets. A handshake or a hug when the papers are signed. After all, they loved each other, once – and (one hopes) do not hate each other, now.
But what if one of the two is abusive? Cannot accept that the marriage has failed, works to prevent the other from leaving and – when he or she does finally leave – does everything possible to hurt them?
That is what we’re dealing with now, writ large. The other side does not intend to ever let us go, notwithstanding it loathes us viscerally – which, you’d think, would be motive enough to agree to a separation. What sane person wants to live with someone they cannot stand? Whom they know only remains on account of duress?
The question begs its answer.
An insane person.
An insane political philosophy.
Or, something worse. Something evil. A political philosophy founded on bullying. On making other people do things they do not want to do – and denying them the right to do the things they want to do. A philosophy of taking by force things that rightly belong to others. A mentality of meddling, in everything.
They hate us, but do not want to let us go in peace – for they feed off of us. Financially as well as psychologically. They require that we stay, even though they cannot stand the thought of us – because they need us.
But we do not need them.
And they know this.
It eats away at whatever remains of their humanity, etiolating into ever-increasing viciousness directed our way (viz, the red backlit rhetoric of Dark Brandon the other night).
Separation is the only solution. But how?
It is one thing to acknowledge the necessity of the thing – assuming our side wishes to avoid becoming a wolf’s “supper.” But the logistics of the thing are as complicated as the divorce is necessary.
In 1861, the sides were clearly arranged by geography. In our time, the other side is often right next door. Write large, how does our side separate from the other side? This is perhaps the most important question of our time, succeeded in importance by only one other thing.
That being the doing of it – and the sooner it is done, the better it will be.
For our side, at least.
