Posted on 09/20/2018 4:00:29 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Americans keep dividing into two hostile camps.
It seems the country is back to 1860 on the eve of the Civil War, rather than in 2018, during the greatest age of affluence, leisure and freedom in the history of civilization.
The ancient historian Thucydides called the civil discord that tore apart the fifth-century B.C. Greek city-states “stasis.” He saw stasis as a bitter civil war between the revolutionary masses and the traditionalist middle and upper classes.
Something like that ancient divide is now infecting every aspect of American life.
Americans increasingly are either proud of past U.S. traditions, ongoing reform and current American exceptionalism, or they insist that the country was hopelessly flawed at its birth and must be radically reinvented to rectify its original sins.
No sphere of life is immune from the subsequent politicization: Not movies, television, professional sports, late-night comedy or colleges. Even hurricanes are typically leveraged to advance political agendas.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I would not be so optimistic. Historical records suggest a different scenario.
I would plan for 10-15 years of violent conflict which outlasts the entire cohort of current political authorities. Things end with replacement of those in power. Some people may actually retire "to spend more time with their families". Others may leave more abruptly.
Present-day Judicial and Electoral systems have no relevance in such a process. They are only decorations.
Key questions to consider:
Who replaces the political authorities?
How will the new authorities be selected?
How will much power will they be allowed to run things?
Amen
The author describes a racial urban war. The presumption is the vigilanties will be present. In the cities, the vigilantes are a minority of the nonminorities. They must ultimately retreat from lack of support by the mass that wants yo get along
Nationalism is NOT a bad thing. You cannot be a patriot and globalist at the same time. The concepts are mutually exclusive.
IF YOU ARE A PATRIOT THEN YOU ARE A NATIONALIST!.
If you are Free Traitor™ you are not a patriot.
Trump is not the finger in the dyke. The Tenth Amendment and the states who step up their own enforcement of it is. THIS is where the battle needs to be directed and fought.
In a general civil war scenario the standing US army of 800,000(half will desert for new army(ies)) will not be factor, not even worthy of a foot note in history of Civil War II.
And me makes three.
Thought of the day. It does a lot to explain the World Wars of the 20th century. But people a century ago had fewer channels for their energy. It was natural that they'd see nationalism, war, and revolution as escapes from the problem of boredom and dissatisfaction, and jump at the chance to escape the boredom of everyday life.
In recent years, the masses have had more and been distracted by affluence - consumerism, entertainment, sports, travel, drugs. I don't say that to put "the masses" down. People who find channels for their energies in peaceful activities are less dangerous and threatening than those who need confrontation or violence to feel alive. That we find ourselves talking so often about a coming civil war, though, is definitely not a good sign.
Finally, if we have chaos and civil war I will hunt down every Free Traitor™ I can get my rope around.
Crips and Bloods are going to have enough trouble working together, let alone working for suburban Planned Parenthood or ACLU types.
BLM, DSA, and Occupiers aren't going to get along very well with the lawyers and stockbrokers who give the Democratic Party its wherewithal.
And it's the same way with the conservative side: there's a big divide between those who want to use their guns and those who don't.
Throw a war and some people might show up, but those who enlist most eagerly for one side or the other may not inspire other Americans to take up arms.
I believe so. There is a peaceful alternative - one that was not taken in 1775 or 1861. Peaceful secession. We have grown apart. Everybody sees it. Even if one side were to ultimately prevail, it would only be after paying a frightful cost and then they’d be stuck trying to manage millions who despised them and who were looking to undermine them at every turn. Rational people should be able to see that that is a “victory” not worth having.
Some states will need to split while other entire states go in their entirety. Done peacefully and on the basis that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed, this need be no bad thing. Ultimately, everybody would be much happier.
The question is, on whose side will the Armed Forces intervene?
Most of the line troops might be conservative, but a lot of officers, esp. in senior ranks are commie pinko libs, thanks to the selection process.
The issue should such a scenario come to pass is that the suburbs will be the dividing line / where the action happens.
People tend to fo get the 70s we’re the most violent decade of the century. Police were regularly murdered, and leftist groups carried out numerous bombings and hijackings. Violence has always been a hallmark of the Left. The media and leftist elements in the government were just as complicit then. The leaders were rarely punished and many still hold prominent positions or are lionized by the Left today.
While the poorest are the most likely to be obese and are the most entertained poor people ever? It’s something that has never happened before, so I guess you could say there is a first time for everything. But it’s hard for me to imagine widespread sustained civil unrest occurring while these conditions persist.
FReegards
Splitting the liabilities would be a sticking point preventing that from happening.
If civil war comes, it may not be perceived as right versus left, conservative versus liberal, but as revolutionaries/bandits/terrorists/thugs versus law and order and the established way of life and governance. Whoever starts the war will be so demonized that the military will move against them without much hesitation.
In other words, for every civil war in recent history with two equally matched sides, there have been plenty of anti-terrorist, mopping-up operations, and what happens in future America might be like that. Whoever takes up arms first is likely to be considered a threat to public order, isolated from and opposed by the rest of the country.
You will have other breakdowns in the social order that will presage actual fighting.
For example, I predict that juries will begin refusing to convict nearly anybody. The distrust of government and the legal system has gotten that deep.
“Whose side has the guns?”
But will they use them?
I think the advent of the 24 hour news cycle and instant, portable media have done a lot to make the people that care about politics and culture over-estimate the number of people that care like about it like they do. Maybe it also makes the ones that do care are more intense about it too or something. If things are now so dire, and it was this vital matter to so many, seems to me we would see more people deigning to vote about it before they would choose the hardship that would come with choosing civil unrest.
Freegards
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.