That reminds me of a novel I wrote.
Posted on 10/15/2008 6:21:56 AM PDT by connell
By Christopher Cook
Friends, conservatives, countrymen,
It's time to recognize a basic fact: We are in a civil war. It is obviously not the civil war of pitched battles and 600,000 dead. It is a low-grade—but omnipresent—political and social conflict, and though it is not an open war, it does involve violence.
Of course, only one side is fighting it as a war. The left sees every area of society as a battleground, and they will use any and every tactic at their disposal—including violence—to achieve their aims.
This is, of course, nothing new, and before we can talk about recent violence and other criminal events—and the possibility of a dramatic escalation thereof—we have to take a quick look at history.
Using a bird's-eye view of American history, one sees a disturbing trend: The Democrats and the left (once different, now synonymous) have been waging a civil war against Republicans since the end of the last one in 1865.
By 2004, the trend was well-established. Shots were being fired into GOP headquarters. Thugs were breaking into offices and physically assaulting the workers therein. Vandalism was widespread, threats were common, and battery was on the rise.
Looking at this trend required this author to ask a question: Was there an equivalent coming from our side?
I did some research—admittedly cursory at first, and then more thoroughly. I will readily confess that I did not have the time to perform the kind of research that, say, someone like John Lott would perform to get a complete statistical picture in pursuit of a book on the subject (though this is something that Modern Conservative will be doing soon.) Nonetheless, I was unable to find any coherent trend of political violence directed from the right at the left. Plenty the other direction, though, which led to my first exploration of this subject, titled Democrats are more violent. In fact, there's no comparison.
Research continued, and it led to more discoveries. Among them was that this violence was nothing new; it has its roots in Reconstruction and the (first) Civil War.
Indeed, I learned that Democrat anger at the election of Republicans—and their willingness to use physical street violence and destruction of property to express that anger—goes all the way back to the election of Lincoln. The election of the very first Republican president was an occasion for street thuggery on the part of the Democrats, and little appears to have changed.
During Reconstruction, we saw the worst massacres in American history—perpetrated by Democrats against Republicans. Hundreds of Republicans, whites and blacks, were slaughtered by Democrats for the crime of being Republicans. Thus, it was greatly frustrating to hear the Virginia Tech massacre, horrific though it was, described as "the worst massacre in American history." It wasn't even close, and saying it was was either the result of laziness or revisionism—not surprising, given the fact that media, nearly all Democrats, certainly would not want to call attention to their bloodthirsty history.
More research led to shocking realizations about presidential assassinations and attempts, and about just how low some lefty thugs feel compelled to go.
Again, this research is less than 100% comprehensive. Nonetheless, the record is disturbing. The Democrats/left display an ongoing willngness to use violence against Republicans. No appreciable equivalent appears to come from Republicans.
Enter 2008.
Added to all this history is a new phenomenon: The left has a new quasi-messianic figure, around whom a crazed and cultish movement is growing. As a part of this developing cult of personality, several trends have arisen which, when added to the low-grade civil war we are discussing, offer disturbing possibilities for the future. There is even a vibe developing that is chillingly reminiscent of the rise of 20th century fascists like Mussolini and Hitler.
Added to that are other activities and trends that make for the possibility of a grim ride for America—and specifically for those who oppose Barack Obama—in the near future. Quoting from the afore-linked article:
Recently, Republican rage at this trendline—and at the notion that a candidate who appears to be nothing more than a creation of the radical left is actually ahead in the polls—has boiled over into a few comments at a few McCain-Palin rallies. A few comments. A few times.
Of course, the media has seen this and decided to suggest that a rage-fueled right wing fascism is about to swamp the country. Meanwhile—and without any shame whatsoever—they ignore ACTUAL violence, threats, crime, and intimidation coming from the left. They ignore the fact that while John McCain is trying to decry what little is coming from his supporters, Barack Obama appears to be tacitly encouraging much worse behavior from his.
This situation is being discussed with great intensity right now in the dextrosphere. Rather than attempt to repeat what is already being said—and said brilliantly and with citation and sourcing—we will aggregate some of those discussions here. Read them. Familiarize yourself with what is really going on:
As always, Michelle Malkin is the cream of the crop:
Crush the Obamedia narrative: Look who’s “gripped by insane rage”
Vandals strike York County GOP headquarters
Libs Threaten to Beat & Kill Sarah Palin... Media Silent
You may know someone who doesn't think William Ayers matters.
Hope, Change and Molotov Cocktails
How’s that reaching out working, John?
James Joyner: “McCain Supporters Angry! Mean! Scary!” Or Did He Mean Obama Supporters?
Obama supporters call Palin a "c*nt." Where is the media?
On the Ownership of Gored Oxen
Memo to Leftist Elitists: Look at Hatred Within
Which party is the party of rage?
Are the Angry GOP Protesters Just More of the Same-- Leftist Tools?
MORE ON THOSE “ANGRY, RACIST GOP MOBS”
And a reminder from 2006 . . .
It's Time to Act
Look at the links above regarding recent trends. Read the analysis and historical information linked earlier. Put it all together with what you are seeing with your own eyes here in 2008. Is it a full-blown, hot war? No. But look at the trends. Look at who does what to whom. Look how it is reported, and look who is tacitly calling for more.
Now . . .
Imagine a scenario where Obama loses a close election. You think violence will end at that point, or increase?
Worse still, imagine a scenario where Obama wins, and the margin of his victory is ACORN's vote fraud. When we go into the street to protest this fraud—and we would—what do you think will happen to us? And who will the media portray as the perpetrators and the victims?
No matter what happens, we're looking at trouble with a capital T.
To all decent Americans (especially those in the "middle"):
Please recognize the truth of this. I know that the media, Hollywood, and academia have woven a fog so thick that the truth is barely discernible. But please, try to peer through the mist and see that this is not a two-sided situation. While there is the occasional incident from the right, all evidence is pointing to the idea that the ratio of the left as perpetrators of political violence to the right as perpetrators is 100 to 1. (The same appears to be the case for voter fraud, by the way, but that is another issue.)
Is this what you want in America? A political climate with one side using violence, crime, and threats against the other side? A media that works, shills, and lies for one side rather than just reporting the facts?
To the media, who aid and abet everything the left does—who covers for their every criminal, violent, and threatening act, while fibricating™ a reality where Republicans are the culprits:
What, you think they won't come for you eventually?
You think that just because you're on the left and you want the left to have more power, that you won't end up on their target list when that power has sufficiently expanded?
You think it was just an isolated anomaly that the Senate threatened ABC's broadcast license because it was about to air something they didn't like? Think again. Get them more power, and that'll be just the beginning.
To the left:
We're on to you. While we have no interest in being like you, we will not sit idly by any more while you use threats, vandalism, and assault and battery as a mode of political "speech."
. . . while you fire shots into our campaign headquarters.
. . . while you punch handicapped girls in wheelchairs because you disagree with her parents' politics.
. . . while you throw molotov cocktails at our homes, cut our brake lines, and threaten our children.
. . . and while your presidential candidate uses subtle code to endorse a climate where these attacks become a tool in his campaign and his vision for America.
To conservatives and Republicans:
Make no mistake, this is a war.
Since they're going to say we're the bad guys whether we fight back or not, we might as well fight back.
Since those who "buy ink by the barrel" have already picked a fight with us—and are waging that fight with extreme prejudice—we might as well fight the media too (are you listening, GOP candidates and elected officials?).
They'll punch you in the nose, huck a molotov cocktail on your lawn, and then call you a racist and a fascist for complaining about it. They'll perpetrate violence upon you and then say you're the violent one. Only one question remains:
Are you going to sit back and take it?
We are not like the left. We are not perfect, but we are not like them. This means that we do not behave like them, even in the face of this unremitting, low-level onslaught. Yes, we have the occasional miscreant, the occasional deviation from decency, and to those among our ranks who perpetrate such acts, we say please, check yourselves before you wreck yourselves.
But for every one of ours like that, there are 100 or more of theirs. Their acts have tacit official endorsement and gain cover from the media. It's very likely to get worse, and if we don't start responding, it will serve as an invitation for more. Use every tool at your disposal—short of violence (unless your health and safety are directly threatened)—to respond.
The Founders did not their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors to create an America that looks like this.
Conservatives, this has to be a call to arms. You didn't start this fight, but by God, you can finish it.
Jack Black, you’re dead-on right. Trouble is, we’re all too busy working supporting those who don’t to assemble (1st Amendment).
Like 1860, just waiting for a spark to touch the gunpowder.
Except this could be even worse, in the absence of polite geographical lines of demarcation. Every state would be a “bleeding Kansas” or perhaps a Missouri, with bands of partisans committing atrocities on all sides.
Anybody who thinks a new civil war is to be desired is insane.
But anybody who thinks we will submit quietly to creeping tyranny is also insane.
Good point.
That reminds me of a novel I wrote.
"The North and South could have survived without one another. If the South had won and gone their separate way, it would have simply been another case of a region breaking off from an established nation, something that has happened many times in history.
"But liberals cannot survive without conservatives. If we were to somehow ideologically segregate the nation, and then split it into two countries, the leftist nation would degenerate into savagery literally within hours. There would be hordes of people clamoring to get across the border into the rightist side in no time.
"It isn’t that all liberals are dependent people. Some are quite wealthy. But those wealthy liberals use the conservative middle class as a buffer against the large number of liberals who are indeed dependent, prone to violence, and culturally degraded. If we were to split into separate leftist and righting nations, the upscale white leftists such as Kos, Streisand, and all the others would find themselves outvoted immediately by the welfare crazed, affirmative action demanding masses wanting “housing”, “health care”, racial preferences, and so forth. They need a conservative presence in society as a buffer to allow them to indulge their liberal fantasies against the reality of what socialism and diversity really mean."
Keep in mind that the death toll AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE
POPULATION would mean around SIX MILLION DEAD in our time.
We were quite lucky last time as it was mainly an internal
affair, today there are too many outside players wanting to
influence the out come.
That’s a plausible scenario.
One more reason to BLOAT like hell.
Thats already going on. Liberals fleeing Massachusetts, their own liberal paradise that they built, for New Hampshire. Liberals from New York fleeing south for Florida, North Carolina, etc.
let’s split the country up. i am ready. i hate the demon rats and their media. i hate most all politicians.
let’s do it and get it over with. they can have the two coasts and a fly over path of ten miles.
washington nobody wants - can sink into the sea.
> laws regarding secession
I think COMMON LAW was established by Abraham Lincoln.
Good point.
I don’t want a Civil War, even if I think it is no longer avoidable.
The problem, in the most simplified of terms, is that now two countries exist in what is the United States. On believes in a government that gives you everything you want and regulates every detail of it’s citizens lives, right down to what they think. The other truly believes in limited government, property rights, and individual rights and responsibilities. One side views the US as evil, permanantly stained by the supposed sins of racism, genocide, and imperialism. The other side realizes that on balance America has been a force for tremendous good in the world.
How can such divergent worldviews continue to coexist under the same government? Shall we be doomed to continue this existence, where each side tries to grab power and wield it against the other may be the worst possible government. If we do not find a way to amicably divorce from each other or this situation, there will be blood.
One does not have to like the fact there is a log under the water in front of the boat. However, one will turn or the log will destroy the boat.
Strongly agree on both points which is why I am moving more and more towards favoring more muscular use of the residual rights of the states, up to and including secesion as our best hope of settlement w/o violence, of our differences. As the old saying goes: good fences make good neighbors. We need a few more fences in the USA.
BLOAT
Exactly what it is. Never doubt that.
It will be hot soon..
The first step is moving away from the most likely conflict zones, and moving into what will hopefully be a safe and stable area.
To the THINKING people aware of the game McCain won hands down. To those told what to think led by leashes Obama was the winner as he didn’t cut an orphan’s throat to make a point.
Seriously, McCain made up big time by taking his notorious notes during the previous debates while Obama had too much faith in his supposedly eidetic memory. McCain’s mastery of the forum (while easing in Obama’s faults) definitely garnered him the advantage here. While Barrack was his usual cool bobble-head self he was definitely caught off balance having to defend his actions and associations more often than not.
It seems to come down to who’s responsible for this financial crunch. I see Carter to Clinton to Bush trying to stop what’s happening five years back. The Demons are (of course) trying to put it off on the Pubs. Obama was right in there working to get the undeserved mortgages from lenders who would never have done so without the threat of being sued for racial discrimination.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.