The Second American Civil War Is Underway

Modern Conservative ^ | Christopher Cook

[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.

• Granted, the violence was worse during Reconstruction.

• Granted, it had ebbed and flowed: it tends to calm down a bit when the Democrats/left have power. Thus, from 1932 until 1994, there was less of it.
  
  (Recall that in the 1960s, that violence was not directed at us so much as it was directed at society in general; it's effect was to finalize the conversion of the Democrats from a racist, proto-progressive party into a transnational neoliberal party. On either side of that long transformation, though, there was still a violent ethos.)

• Granted, since 1994 (when the left lost the near-hegemonic control of Congress they'd enjoyed in an almost unbroken streak since 1932), the violence has been sporadic, but it is on the increase.

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:

• Barack Obama has terrorist friends (at home and abroad) and communist front groups working on his behalf. 
  
  
• He has allies at every layer of society who are willing to change rules, break laws, and flout procedures in order to bring him to power.
  
  
• He has a media that is working on his behalf every bit as reliably as "Pravda" reported the party line in the USSR.
  
  
• He is using state power to silence his critics.
  
  
• He has requested that his followers "get in the faces" of his detractors, and he is getting his wish.
  
  
• He has a vote fraud operation working on his behalf in states across America. This operation is aided by laws passed by his allies in Congress and supported by his allies in various states.

• And now, Obama Youth groups are being formed.

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

"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to . . ."

You may know someone who doesn't think William Ayers matters.

NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE?

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”

Obama Rallies Turn Ugly

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.

[DarthVader]

“The left and the MSM has been very, very stupid to take this to this level of anger.”

Yes they have and it will be a military conflict of a ferocity with which they are not equipped to deal with on all levels.

[wardaddy]

We are not in a Civil War....anyone who thinks we are should read how bloody the last one was or come down where I live and check out what it was really like. We still have signs of the damage down here and the graves to prove it.

We are however sharply and distinctly divided....and dug in. And one side is EXPERIENCING A LONG HELD WAY OF LIFE AND SENSE OF COLLECTIVE IDENTITY TAKEN FROM THEM BY FORCE....that is a key similarity. And yes Virginia, it involves color a bit this time around again....at least the way the sides have lined up. Much like the 1850s.

It is reasonable to think the current strife today which does lay out on racial lines to a degree with so many blacks still not neatly functioning in our culture to the same degree as whites has roots back to the same issues which played in the Civil War. Obama is Lincoln to them today metaphorically except they can vote, even if they are dead, in prison or 7 years old. Recompense for the evils of slavery....let’s call it “enriched enfranchisement”.. The 40 acres and a mules the Radical Republicans never fully delivered is in the works, let’s just give Obama and Nan a chance. ‘Course ya’ll will have to share with other folks of color who know btw outnumber you. Conyo!

But then, it goes beyond black and white too..well beyond.

Folks like this author who think it’s simply a matter of Democrats always bad and GOP always good have no inkling of social conservatism and how it has always played down South and they conveniently ignore the Radical Republicans who while maybe heroes to some revisionist northern GOPers here were the greatest Constitutional usurpers we had known at that time prior to FDR’s plans later in the 1930s.

History is simply more complicated.

Imagine:

Lancasters always right. Yorkists always wrong. Roses stink.

Silly and such logic defines one’s underlying prejudice. (prejudice used as the word should be historically)

[dmz]

So you’ve never been to Austin, I see.

[Leisler]

So, you got the large, ignorant, conditioned mob.
You have their reactionary leadership, soon to take power.
You have legions of lumpen working for, and desperate for their no heavy lifting, short work day, holidays, benefits, pensioned jobs.
You have the financial sector that is now under government command, totally dependent on government license, any bank or financial institute can instantly be shut down upon an ‘examination’.
You have a police/internal security apparatus that will or will not shoot to kill you for, or not for, having a gun, or a joint or something.
You have a monoculture, once lesson learning schools, now really not much more than propaganda factories.

What small percentage of really true belivers were with Lenin? With Hitler? Couldn't happen here. Other than that, things are looking up.

[o_zarkman44]

If Islam believe an economic war will bring down America, then why wouldn’t a peoples economic war against our oppressive, out of control government accomplish the same?

Not that I believe we should bring down America. Quite the contrary. I believe the way to regain power for the Constitutional Republic is to cut off the funding of the left wing socialists within our government. If they have no goodies to hand out every election cycle, they will not be able to compete in the ballot box.

Nearly every action of government has become a strengthening of control over some aspect of free people.

As was part of the first Civil War, states rights will bea part of the 2nd. States are getting tired of sending money to DC, just to have that money used to boss them around. If states would refuse to send tax collections to the Feds, their ability to intimidate will be greatly reduced. The weaklings in Congress would be afraid of initiating a shooting war against Americans based on their obvious lack of stomach for the sacrifices of American Troops in the WOT.

We can regain control without a shot being fired.

[Illuminatas]

Unfortunately, sometimes they are really out to get you.

[popdonnelly]

The pathology of the Left began back in the 1960’s. The World has changed since then, but the Left hasn’t.

I am against violence. It is morally wrong. And in the end it is counter-productive.

I am in favor of people standing up for themselves, standing up for their rights, resisting in every lawful way they can.

[TADSLOS]

Other than that, things are looking up.

LOL!

[mad_as_he$$]

There are really none. Other than you are not suppose to be able to as Abe believed.

[jamaksin]

And remember, parasites eventually kill their host.

[ctdonath2]

we are headed for a division of our country

Dividing what from what? The Civil War was easy: the Mason-Dixon Line clearly marked one side vs. the other. We don't have such a line this time.

Here's a map from 2004 showing the voting tendencies by county:

The dominant feature is that the blue/red divisions (such as they are, which is not a bright line) are urban vs. rural, not a simple line. Consider too that the resolution of that map is only to the county level; zoom in to precinct level, and you'll see the same type of urban/rural division, right up against urban boundaries.

Given that, where do we draw a line? Geographic division is easy when a line can be drawn with a stroke of a pen. What we have is an archipelago, dividing a broad sea from many islands; this is not easily divided.

The only other "line" is the one addressed by a true civil war (the Civil War was really over secession, not over who ruled all), the political persuasion of the legislature/administration/judiciary and the system that flows from there. The only truly viable winner is one who can satisfy (generally speaking) all parties involved, not just which can force their will on the others.

The only viable solution is to persuade one side that what they seek is misguided, that they HAVE the freedom to live as they wish - and if they despair for the fates of others, they must accept that the fate was chosen (to wit: poverty/need/want is largely a choice, not something solved by redistribution of wealth).

Assert life, liberty, and property. Hold to Constitutional values. The system is good, though the occupants may strive to pervert it. Keep the peace by restoring Constitutional rule.

BLOAT.

[ArrogantBustard]

I seem to recall reading (on this forum) that the set of “folks who pay zero income tax” is >30% and < 40% of the population. Many of these are essentially the “takers”. I further seem to recall that 0bama’s “tax plans” would increase that set to somewhere in the neighbourhood of 45% of the population. As long as the folks in that set can vote (essentially, can decide how to spend other peoples’ money), socialism is inevitable.

[rdb3]

Can't argue with you there.

The Bolshevik Revolution was relatively bloodless.

[onedoug]

We’ve been in civil war for a long time now.

[Former Dodger]

Thanks for the post, I agree completely.

I've been telling people that November 4 - 5 will be tough days depending on the results.

The BHO supporters have been hinting that anything other than victory might cause problems, because they are tired of the racism in this country, and anything other than victory will be due to racism, basically.

I also think that at least 30% of the electorate will not vote for BHO because of his alleged race, perhaps another 20%, which overlaps with the first group a little, because they see him as a muslim, and then about 40% (again with overlap) that reject his left-wing commie politics.

Of this group, about 25% will support secession and armed rebellion if McCain does not win, not for love of McCain, but for hatred and distrust of BHO.

So, there's the choice:
*Civil disorder, mostly in Urban areas if BHO loses, or
*Civil War in America, with secession a possibility, as well as violence, if he wins.

There is no third choice, unless it's utter shock if everyone votes for Nader and he wins. BTW, who's his running mate, because they will probably take over after Nader dies from shock at his victory.

This is the most important election of my life (born 1951) and we have to stand together to keep our country strong and the Union intact.

[Entrepreneur]

i think texas can still secede & should

If at first you don't secede, try, try again.

[ArrogantBustard]

The Bolshevik Revolution was relatively bloodless.

True ... the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution was incredibly bloody.

[Cacique]

btt

[frankiep]

I see the exact same scenario happening.