I don't think it is good, don't get me wrong. I am actually pretty close, long term friends with some of the guys at American Greatness. I am sure I annoy them too from time to time, though I think they do a great service. I am not as familiar with Max Morton, so I can't really comment too deeply on him.That is in preface to me answering your questions.
I think, unfortunately, we can go a long time in decline. I base that on a historical analysis of great nations. For every slip into the dark ages, we have a Roman Republic that degraded into the empire, a cavalcade of changes in Greece, the long term falls of the British and French. Etc. I don't think there is any reason to believe we are different, or to think that, given the most reasonable read of the worst motives of some in what many call the ruling class, that their goal is more like the USSR than it is like modern day France or Sweden, or whatever the flavor of the day might be. Now, I don't think this is acceptable, that is not what I am saying. I just don't think that the change in full measure is a reasonable outcome to predict. Now, to play my own devil's advocate, I think there are strains in the American left that are more perverse than those in modern European countries, but I don't think they are the dominant players. Is BLM one? Sure, but what we are going to see, no matter how things play out, is how much control the "elite left" has over the militant left.
I do think there are things we can do, and should be doing. I posted an article yesterday by a guy who often writes for Am Greatness, though this was from a different publication. I think some sort of forced Balkanization is not an unwise strategy. It is difficult for many to do, but I'd argue that if you are going to actually believe in the founding principles, one of the main ones is that different locales should have different ideas on governance. There are some places that are not salvageable to my principles. That is sad, as some of those are places we hold dear, but there you go. I also agree with you that there are significant headwinds within the justice system that are terrifying, and potentially crippling. Again, I don't really have an answer other than that like minded, right thinking people should congregate in places that allow for justice as we see it.
Other than that, the sad truth is that we can do little but make arguments, organize, push and be persuasive. I realize this is not a comfortable spot to be in, and less comfortable for those whose day to day life is not in that realm. That actually may me an answer as to why the left is better at it than the right these days. Say what you will about them, but academics, people in finance, management, talking heads etc spend their lives making and defending arguments under significant pressure put on those arguments by colleagues. That is probably one main reason they are more successful in putting these things forward to the public and winning that war. Sure, they have other structural advantages, but they are also better at this, and, arguably, more people agree with what they are saying. So if we want to win, we have to make sure more people agree with what we are saying. We are decidedly not good at this.
In another thread I suggested a argument version of Greshams law. Gresham's law says that in an environment with both good and bad money (say gold and paper) the bad money will drive out the good. It has proven to be true. And it is thus with the way we argue as well. By putting forth a slew of bad arguments for conservative positions, our good arguments die. Take, as prime example the election. I'll take no position on it, just present this for thought. If you and I are arguing election fraud, you saying there is, and me saying there isn't, and we have one observer to convince, the second you come with your worst argument, say an easily falsified one like that some dude hacked a voting machine through a heater, all I need to do to convince the third party is to disregard anything intelligent you might say, and concentrate solely on this one, obviously ludicrous claim. It works. Don't believe me, watch the public discourse on all of it. It is the same thing with the MTG scenario. She didn't say anything anti-semetic, she said something stupid, but that stupid has allowed a 180 degree shift in discourse. Is it fair? No, but it is.
Now, I am sure people will just say this is all the BS ramblings of a fuckstain, or whatever, but it is what I believe to be the case. We have to be able to fight on all levels, but intellectually we can't fight as though we were a fourteen year old girl with cerebral palsy, an ugly image, but one befitting a lot of what I am seeing. I also think it is worth it for each of us to ask ourselves whether we spend enough time engaging on these issues with those with whom we disagree, and whether we are ever able to convince anybody. And I don't mean do I have to convince you guys that I am right and that we need to go in a more conservative direction in the country. You guys already know that. I mean are we convincing people on the fence, or on the middle left, that they should be moving to our side. Because if we aren't, maybe we should change how we are trying. As you said, nobody wants a civil war, but, to use your si vis pacem para bellum, convincing more people to be on your side is good in those circumstances too.