Irreconcilable differences

Irreconcilable differences should be familiar to anyone in a relationship that might not be going very well. In this era of no-fault divorce, it constitutes a completely sufficient ground for divorce. More broadly, those having irreconcilable differences, cannot resolve them, and even professional relationship counselors would gain nothing by trying. Two nights ago a prominent, though semiretired, Democratic politician has just declared that this state exists in American politics today. This could explain why many pastors and diaconates (and rectors and vestries) forbid their flocks to talk politics in church. They fear that the next political discussion will cause a rift that will destroy their churches. But one can never solve a problem by ignoring it. And what this politician said, highlights (or creates) a problem so serious that innocent people could come to harm. In many cases, that harm has already come and continues to come.

Articulating irreconcilable differences

Who is that politician who declared, without using the phrase, that irreconcilable differences exist? Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), former Speaker of the House of Representatives. According to Fox News’ Gabriel Hays, she sat for an interview with Francine Lacqua of Bloomberg Television. In that interview she gave a very negative opinion of a class of people whose votes she realizes she will never get.

This class – whom she called an element – are supporters of President Donald J. Trump. Element is definitely a negative term – one speaks, for example, of a criminal element. And what is wrong with us, members of this element? “They don’t share our values in terms of respect for the dignity and worth of every person and the rest.”

That statement lacks foundation, in two respects. First, she does not respect the dignity of any with whom she disagrees. Tearing up the State of the Union address does not respect the dignity of him who wrote it and gave it. Second, she does not have dignity herself, nor does she represent dignified people. How dignified is her husband, who invites men into their house to indulge in sexual and sometimes violent roleplay?

She offered more detail in describing what she said was a second element: people afraid of change. But how she describes them (us), reveals more than she intended.

They don’t see a place for their families in the future. They’re concerned about globalization, they’re concerned about immigration, they’re concerned about innovation. They’re concerned about diversity, women, minorities, LGBTQ, other people coming into the leadership arena, and that’s to be respected.

What did she just reveal?

Let us examine those points, one at a time. “They don’t see a place for their families in the future.” Of course we don’t – because the Democrats and the globalists leave no place for families in the future they’re building. This goes beyond alleged ethnic replacement of persons of European descent with others who descend from inhabitants of other continents. Those people have families, too – and their families have no place in a globalist future, either.

Pelosi talks about women in leadership – but supports letting biological males play women’s sports. (The surgical mutilation and hormonal poisoning for which these males opt, does not erase their superior strength. As Gov. Jim Pillen, R-Neb., officially recognized.) Furthermore, the Alphabet Soup represents the destruction of the very idea of family. The globalist future will not allow people to reproduce. By according the Alphabet Soup so many special privileges, they clearly aim to recruit as many “normals” as possible. Result: population collapse – which is what these people, including Pelosi, want. In short, they want this planet all to themselves.

Irreconcilable differences mean civil war

Irreconcilable differences can result in more than divorce – including the “national divorce” that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) advocates. They can result in civil war. And civil war might be what we now have. Darrell L. Castle discussed that nearly two years ago with his treatment of the:

• Waukesha Christmas Parade attack, and the:
• Criminal matter of People of the State of Wisconsin v. Kyle Rittenhouse.

The Rittenhouse trial ended shortly before the Waukesha incident, and perhaps precipitated it. But as Castle makes clear, the Waukesha perpetrator was free to commit his nefarious act only because the local District Attorney set him free to do so. In an interview, this civil officer said a few dead innocents were an acceptable price to pay for his program. No, sir. The deaths of those innocents is the object of that program, not an “unintended consequence.”

This illustrates the irreconcilable differences. One side is determined to kill the other. It doesn’t get any less reconcilable than that.

This is the worst example, but not the only one. Consider the Greater Idaho movement and the reasons for it. The urban-rural divide results because neither side respects the values of the other. Or consider the collapse of the Dutch coalition government, after that government adopted the globalist program of abandoning agriculture and animal husbandry.

The wrong way to reconcile

Pelosi closed by proposing the exact wrong way to attempt reconciliation. She plumps for the Uniparty, and calls on the RINO Establishment to reassert itself – against the malignancy of Trump. Malignancy and cancer figured prominently in her remarks.

She speaks of democracy – which we are not. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner. Ours is a Constitutional republic, as Bradlee Dean and others routinely observe.

Furthermore the only diversity she champions, is totally superficial – basically anyone other than white cis-gendered heterosexuals, especially males. The only reason she hasn’t “transitioned” is that she might be too old. But she ticks off the “women’s checkmark,” so according to critical theory, that’s enough – or so she believes. More to the point, diversity of opinion is one kind of “diversity” she will never tolerate.

Unfortunately, her attitude is typical, or even tame in comparison to most Democrats in Congress. (And the three Liberals on the Supreme Court.) That’s what makes her admission so remarkable – that some people’s votes, she’ll never get. Her main error seems to be her underestimate of the numbers of this element she decries. By all indications, the Democrats have lost their baseline. And that might be one thing she won’t admit.