“A 13% minority can’t win a Tutsi/Hutu-level tribal/racial civil war. That much is clear.”
They can when only 13% of the other side opposes them. Nearly 100% of blacks would ban together. Maybe 13% of the remaining population would stand against them. It would be nearly an even match as far as numbers but just who would perform the most violence to win is another matter. All hypothetical, of course; just saying not to discount a 13% minority if they act together against an opposing force where only 13% participate.
How about if 13% of our military were to suddenly decide not to follow orders? Or worse?
Not to turn this into an "Obama" eligibility thread, but that is one of the scenarios that I've run through in my head as being a reason for the "powers that be" to want for that issue to not come to a head. Yet.
Now add sumultaneously with exposure of the usurpation fraud a Zimmerman exoneration, repudiation of "Obamacare" and another run on the banks/markets (others can posit additional elements) and it's not hard to envision a very, very dire set of circumstances arising very, very quickly for the Republic.
Timing, as they say, is everything.
You make an excellent point: a cohesive, highly motivated minority can defeat a majority which is mostly unmotivated and divided into factions. For generations now, any talk of "white solidarity" has been condemned as evil and racist.
Also, any conflict that starts out black-vs-white is quite likely to devolve into Right-vs-Left.
Very good point about the two 13%s.