Thinking the unthinkable on a Second Civil War
Mass psychosis has gripped a significant fraction of the progressive regressive elites in the wake of their shock at the election and presidency of Donald Trump. The open embrace by California and some other jurisdictions of nullification – the doctrine that states can ignore or obstruct federal law – is recapitulating the run-up to our 19th-century Civil War. Serious publications are taking seriously the possibility of an actual armed conflict.
The notion some on the left have that they would gain from such a conflict is insane on every level. It would be a catastrophe of world historical dimensions, unleashing every bad actor in the world to enact its dream aggressions: China attacking Taiwan, Iran attacking Israel, and Russia restoring the old USSR borders, for starters.
But how about the question of who would win? Kurt Schlichter on Town Hall takes a cold, hard look at the question and concludes (correctly) that the blue-staters would get their posteriors handed to them. His article, titled "Why Democrats Would Lose the Second Civil War, Too," is must-reading, albeit unpleasant to contemplate. I think he is highly realistic:
Do I think there will be a civil war? No, but there could be. This is the Age of Black Swans, and anything is possible – we could easily see the country split into red and blue. Civil war is unlikely, but never underestimate Democrat stupidity and hatred.
If you can read Schlichter's article with the same amused frame of mind you might take while playing a violent videogame, there are a lot of payoffs in it. The Dems have no clue how stupid they are.
There are two Civil War II scenarios, and the left is poorly positioned to prevail in either one. The first scenario is that the Democrats take power and violate the Constitution in order to use the apparatus of the federal government to suppress and oppress Normal Americans. In that scenario, red Americans are the insurgents. In the second scenario, which we can even now see the stirrings of in California's campaign to nullify federal immigration law, it is the blue states that are the insurgents.
The Democrats lose both wars. Big time.
Let's talk terrain and numbers. Remember the famous red v. blue voting map? There is a lot of red, and in the interior the few blue splotches are all cities like Las Vegas or Denver. That is a lot of territory for a counter-insurgent force to control, and this is critical. The red is where the food is grown, the oil pumped, and through which everything is transported. And that red space is filled with millions of American citizens with small arms, a fairly large percentage of whom have military training.
Remember what two untrained idiots did in Boston with a couple of pistols? They shut a city down. Now multiply that by several million, with better weapons and training.
He does not ignore the fact that Dems are the party of disarmed civilians, and consider how law enforcement, the military, and the National Guard might handle the conflicting calls that would be made on their loyalties.
This article really should be read by progs. But it won't be. They like living in their fantasy world, where human nature can be changed, tax hikes increase prosperity, and racial agitation is the means to produce a just society. https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/03/thinking_the_unthinkable_on_a_second_civil_war.html
I'll start my recon for times and places where unamerican domestic terrorists gather. Like on Sundays, around 10 am. Because of articles like this, I've personally waived my restrictions on age and gender when it comes to the Violation of ToS, [SP]
I am at a loss for words. Tales from the dark side?
They need to lay off the tequila and LSD before they write this partisan idiocy.
Either that or share it.
There shouldn't be any need for a civil war. I'm all for just giving the Left Coast the push it needs to break off from the rest of the county and keep out their insanity.
This sort of Krazy Klan Krapola is why all righties must be crushed at the ballot box on November 6th...
Off topic [ph]
Isn't the term "civil war" an oxymoron?
The author of the article is a moron for sure.
This is the same guy that wants to invade San Francisco and Los Angeles.
LOL, he is....Well like I said on another article I'm sure that the Longies (longshoremen) in Long Beach/San Pedro/Wilmington will explain to him how the world works on the waterfront...LOL
Indeed! It should be something to watch. (grin)
Nor the one where you live either. Only God knows what they might find.
I think he is part of the great swamp that his orange hero perpetuates.
Whitehood masturbation fantasy.
What the fuck is a progressive recessive elite?
The truth that the right wing has to face is that, while they are very mouthy and noisy, when you come right down to who is willing to fight in an actual war I mean willing to really got shot at and really die, they are very, very tiny and impotent. If they called all of their members to action I would bet they wouldn't fill the parking lot of a medium sized mid-west Walmart. They talk a good game and if a revolution could be accomplished via talking on social media they may have a chance. However if they all have to get out of their Lazy Boy's and miss the next episode of Dancing With The Stars or the coming opening of the baseball season, well then their revolution is pretty much fucked.
They do talk a good story about their revolution, however, I wonder when they will have the revelation that their fantasy is not reality.
See.... I can fantasize that certain people would move of the state of California as they seem to hate it so much, however, I am smart enough to know that it is merely a fantasy and won't happen, at least, not very soon.
Funny thing...reality. Some people hate it and so try to avoid it as much as possible, preferring to live in their fantasy world. So of like mental Prozac.
civil war can only start via state govts - (and will start in the courts with said states suing the feds for breaking the social contract.)
if hillary had won the idea of a civil war might have been plausible. now... not so much.
selling us out into a world govt would have started a civil war, but thanks to trump the globalists have been neutered.. meaning?
there will be no civil war, you can not have one
So how is it that Trump selling us out to the Russians and multinational corporations doesn't bother you?
because that is all liberal BS and nothing more.
unless you would like to explain how the USA having secure borders, fair trade deals, less regulations, lower taxes and a sovereign country is in russia's best interest?
The last time the southern conservatives started a civil war over their claimed right to own slaves it didn't end well for them. Those bigots are still threatening to refight that bigoted idea because other people have equal rights.
What social contract did the federal government violate, if you understand what the concept of a social contract means?
I love how Democrats interpret history. The Democratic party was into slavery then and still are by designing Social programs that keep people in them and poor instead of giving them a hand up. If you disagree please explain why people are better off staying on welfare than getting a job, all in the name of growing a constituent base at the cost of the entire country. It is this way by design.
FAMOUS RACIST QUOTES:
Margaret Sanger, founder of planned parenthood:
"We do not want word to get out that we want to extinguish the Negro population, if it ever occurs to some of their more rebellious members"
Lindon Johnson:
"I'll have those N**** voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
I have never gotten an answer to that one. Logic combined with facts always baffles them.
resistance is never futile and always makes a great hobby
Hopefully, far right wing fascists will never be a part of any democratic government.
OOps! Too Late!
Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. [12] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. [12] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. [13] [14] [15] [16] Fascists advocate a mixed economy , with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies. [17]
Fascism is a right wing political ideology. It's literally the opposite of liberalism.
Yep, that describes the Heartland Institute to a T.
Christo-fascism advanced through a tax exempt money laundering organization.
I know exactly what the Heartland Institute is. I've been fighting against their oil/coal/tobacco-soaked anti-science propaganda for many years now.
Aw, there's nothing to see here....
There's no such thing as black racism. Oh, OK.