The path to Civil War 2 (USA)
As I said a couple of years back: there is a good deal of media manipulation on this issue directed towards encouraging people to think a civil war is about to begin. I have seen it again and again: in many cases, the dire warnings and paranoia against a group in society often turn out generating precisely the enemy that the paranoids warned against. Maybe it's chicken and egg, maybe not.
That aside: contemplating a second "Civil War", I don't think it'll actually be a civil war. The term 'civil war' implies two sides competing for power on a nation-based scale. This would look a lot more like an insurgency or rebellion against the Federal government, maybe developing into a formal struggle for control by warlords of areas much later on.
Lenny's already said it'll look more like the Troubles where certain areas will wind up as Federally ungovernable. I think that's basically right, but I also think an actual conventional conflict looking like a civil war in the US would be more of a fight over the scraps after an economic collapse.
As for what would set off something like this: you would need a circumstance where a decent fraction of people really believe that the Federal government's authority can be challenged, i.e. that the US government is beatable or has no power in an area. At the moment, in part due to the surveillance state, that's essentially not the case. Decades of work by both Republicans and Democrats have been done to try and make the US populace believe that the government is an all-powerful force, partly by tying in so many benefits and services under its banner rather than under the banner of the states or individual communities.
There won't be a civil war mainly because there is no real way a state or a bunch of states could militarily hold out against a confederation of the others. Let alone the fact the states very likely depend on Federal money to a large extent, to the point all you need to do to cow them is threaten to turn off the tap.
The only scenario in which I can think of there being the possibility of an actual conflict, a rebellion as it were, is where the Federal government went to outright ban the lawful ownership of guns in a meaningful way. The Second Amendment puts a hard handbrake on that because there are still enough idiots in the US to think the Constitution actually means anything, but if the Amendment went or was ignored there's a decent chance that could touch off the powderkeg - and even then I'd query whether the NRA is quite independent enough to actually call on its members to sack up and start shooting Federal law enforcement from behind trees and rocks.
No, I think you'll only wind up in a civil war when people realise the Federal government wants to do something shit to them but doesn't actually have any power to do it. Or when people realise the court system is completely corrupt, whether it's affordable or not, and when people realise they can get solutions to their problems by talking to strongmen rather than police. Then, and only then, will you start seeing armed insurrection: when there is a credible alternative to having to talk to the US government to meaningfully solve your problems. And I think that situation would only arise after an economic collapse.
That is: when the US electorally if not entirely looks a lot like your bog-standard Latin American country, which result is coming your way in I'd say the next ten years or so. Four years to demographic destruction, give it another six years for the controlling Latino majority to settle in and start tearing up the joint. You'll get your civil war then.
That aside: contemplating a second "Civil War", I don't think it'll actually be a civil war. The term 'civil war' implies two sides competing for power on a nation-based scale. This would look a lot more like an insurgency or rebellion against the Federal government, maybe developing into a formal struggle for control by warlords of areas much later on.
Lenny's already said it'll look more like the Troubles where certain areas will wind up as Federally ungovernable. I think that's basically right, but I also think an actual conventional conflict looking like a civil war in the US would be more of a fight over the scraps after an economic collapse.
As for what would set off something like this: you would need a circumstance where a decent fraction of people really believe that the Federal government's authority can be challenged, i.e. that the US government is beatable or has no power in an area. At the moment, in part due to the surveillance state, that's essentially not the case. Decades of work by both Republicans and Democrats have been done to try and make the US populace believe that the government is an all-powerful force, partly by tying in so many benefits and services under its banner rather than under the banner of the states or individual communities.
There won't be a civil war mainly because there is no real way a state or a bunch of states could militarily hold out against a confederation of the others. Let alone the fact the states very likely depend on Federal money to a large extent, to the point all you need to do to cow them is threaten to turn off the tap.
The only scenario in which I can think of there being the possibility of an actual conflict, a rebellion as it were, is where the Federal government went to outright ban the lawful ownership of guns in a meaningful way. The Second Amendment puts a hard handbrake on that because there are still enough idiots in the US to think the Constitution actually means anything, but if the Amendment went or was ignored there's a decent chance that could touch off the powderkeg - and even then I'd query whether the NRA is quite independent enough to actually call on its members to sack up and start shooting Federal law enforcement from behind trees and rocks.
No, I think you'll only wind up in a civil war when people realise the Federal government wants to do something shit to them but doesn't actually have any power to do it. Or when people realise the court system is completely corrupt, whether it's affordable or not, and when people realise they can get solutions to their problems by talking to strongmen rather than police. Then, and only then, will you start seeing armed insurrection: when there is a credible alternative to having to talk to the US government to meaningfully solve your problems. And I think that situation would only arise after an economic collapse.
That is: when the US electorally if not entirely looks a lot like your bog-standard Latin American country, which result is coming your way in I'd say the next ten years or so. Four years to demographic destruction, give it another six years for the controlling Latino majority to settle in and start tearing up the joint. You'll get your civil war then.
Remissas, discite, vivet.
God save us from people who mean well. -storm
I read this on another site I frequent and I was curious to know if anyone could verify it.
Quote:Quote:
...
During my training for the inevitable future, I frequent the shooting ranges in MD, VA, and PA. Which are now full of Communists and Islamists on the weekends and weekdays. Never have I seen this before, and I am under the impression that they avoided visiting these areas for fear of the DHS, CIA, FBI, or local PD. However, they appear to have dropped all inhibitions towards training upon realizing where the allegiance of the police state lies (Thanks in large part to the MSM, Academia, and the FBI decloaking).
...
The public will judge a man by what he lifts, but those close to him will judge him by what he carries.
^^
I did visit a shooting range where the owner is from the middle east and decided not to shoot there. Is he with the Muslim Brotherhood? Does he launder guns?
I did visit a shooting range where the owner is from the middle east and decided not to shoot there. Is he with the Muslim Brotherhood? Does he launder guns?
The article I read was a somewhat long one but this part stood out in particular. It's often the way with blogs and news sites where you find hidden chunks of relevance among the rhetorical filler. I think the author glossing over this observation in half a paragraph does it very little justice considering its relevance. Left wing thralls were previously an annoyance but if they're doing weapons training now on a regular basis (rather than the once-for-show crap we've seen previously) then this is a fairly serious indicator that things are ramping up toward proper violence rather than the lightweight stuff we've seen so far.
This is not combat training, obviously. But trigger time dulls your natural panic response to the use of the weapon itself and will likely turn a botched mass shooting or assassination into a successful one.
I don't think these antifa and jihadi types are training to fight patriot militias. I suspect they're training to gun down conservatives/infidels in shopping centers and sports games etc or perform basic raids on specially selected conservatives.
Considering the Covington debacle, this could be seen as a serious escalation of the threat posed by radical left wing thralls.
This is not combat training, obviously. But trigger time dulls your natural panic response to the use of the weapon itself and will likely turn a botched mass shooting or assassination into a successful one.
I don't think these antifa and jihadi types are training to fight patriot militias. I suspect they're training to gun down conservatives/infidels in shopping centers and sports games etc or perform basic raids on specially selected conservatives.
Considering the Covington debacle, this could be seen as a serious escalation of the threat posed by radical left wing thralls.
The public will judge a man by what he lifts, but those close to him will judge him by what he carries.
Quote:Quote:
I don't think it'll actually be a civil war. The term 'civil war' implies two sides competing for power on a nation-based scale. This would look a lot more like an insurgency or rebellion against the Federal government, maybe developing into a formal struggle for control by warlords of areas much later on.
Well in the article LDN quoted, (https://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.c...es-part-i/) the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) is a very relevant example of what will likely happen.
At this point, the best case (but unlikely) scenario would be a peaceful breakup of the USA like the USSR.
If only you knew how bad things really are.
Political violence becoming normalized y’all.
Quote:[/url]
Quote:[url=https://twitter.com/steve_sailer/status/1094141925613924352?s=21]
Take care of those titties for me.
In my opinion, talk of a civil war is still wildly optimistic. Americans are too fat. But, I do take the Democrats seriously. What has happened in just the past two years has been astonishing. The Democrats have made a strategic decision to become the American communist party. Several Democratic politicians are already openly talking about a 90 percent tax rate. Don't laugh at them. I remember when I was a freshmen in college, we had a seminar where there were some feminists. We had never seen this in our life and thought it was a joke. People thought the left wing radicals, feminists, and hippies were just an absurd joke. Now they have completely taken over. So when they openly call for a 90 percent tax rate, that means that they know they can actually make it happen. So far, I have only seen talk from the right. Just a lot of talk.
Rico... Sauve....
Quote: (02-09-2019 11:06 PM)Sherman Wrote:
In my opinion, talk of a civil war is still wildly optimistic. Americans are too fat. But, I do take the Democrats seriously. What has happened in just the past two years has been astonishing. The Democrats have made a strategic decision to become the American communist party. Several Democratic politicians are already openly talking about a 90 percent tax rate. Don't laugh at them. I remember when I was a freshmen in college, we had a seminar where there were some feminists. We had never seen this in our life and thought it was a joke. People thought the left wing radicals, feminists, and hippies were just an absurd joke. Now they have completely taken over. So when they openly call for a 90 percent tax rate, that means that they know they can actually make it happen. So far, I have only seen talk from the right. Just a lot of talk.
The left is goal oriented in that their goal is power, plain and simple. Remember, only the little people have to suffer for the left's sins while the left racks up the power.
The right, for how they are acting, are bought off by the same people teasing the left with power. The only true right are those who call out the left-right paradigm as BS.
Quote: (02-09-2019 11:06 PM)Sherman Wrote:
In my opinion, talk of a civil war is still wildly optimistic. Americans are too fat. But, I do take the Democrats seriously. What has happened in just the past two years has been astonishing. The Democrats have made a strategic decision to become the American communist party. Several Democratic politicians are already openly talking about a 90 percent tax rate. Don't laugh at them. I remember when I was a freshmen in college, we had a seminar where there were some feminists. We had never seen this in our life and thought it was a joke. People thought the left wing radicals, feminists, and hippies were just an absurd joke. Now they have completely taken over. So when they openly call for a 90 percent tax rate, that means that they know they can actually make it happen. So far, I have only seen talk from the right. Just a lot of talk.
Come on Sherm, you're smarter than this. While the idiocy of the decline is a something [sad] to behold, look a little bit closer, read between the lines, look inside the bluster. This is actually Trump winning again, and it's always by a version of using "their" power against them.
You think AOC, who gets as much press as Trump did, due to the insanely idiotic media and press, is representative at all of America? She's a tiny sliver of a maddened, out of touch, foolish, gerrymandered district. A small, crazy rep. Yet because of the deluded, nutty press, they love to cover her, just like they covered Trump, but for different reasons. Therein lies the Dem dilemma, and they are so out of touch they don't see the Grim Reaper that is right behind them: these ideas are obviously stupid, obviously dividing the party, obviously making the Biden's of the party stay out, making a huge lefty like Howard Schultz seem like David Brooks or worse, that they are setting up the most clear, instant demise possible. At least as far as the presidency goes. This is kool-Aid drinking to a whole new level, and it is aided and abetted by the punch drunk AOC types, who think the coverage means something in a good way. It doesn't.
Now they have a hijab as her sidekick too? LOL, talk about overplaying your hand, blowing your load early. As if the demographics are that far gone yet, please --- that's the kind of bubble or echo chamber these people are in. They still have to convince a majority normal country to vote for them, or their ilk. Not gonna happen.
While long term, I'm not bullish on America at least socially, I have wagered $10k already that Trump wins the next election. It's a lock, already.
What you call "taken over," I call "last gasp" at trying literally anything to get back into relevance. They can have their 15 minutes of fame. I'm surprised you're falling for it.
How is it their "last gasp" of relevance when the demographics are only "not that far gone, yet"?
Criminal Clinton won the popular vote. Trump lost the house in 2018. Trump's already been co-opted or corralled.
"Last gasp".
Life's gonna come at you fast, bro. Hope you're not planning exclusively for fair winds and following seas.
"Last gasp".
Life's gonna come at you fast, bro. Hope you're not planning exclusively for fair winds and following seas.
The public will judge a man by what he lifts, but those close to him will judge him by what he carries.
Quote: (02-15-2019 12:23 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:
Criminal Clinton won the popular vote. Trump lost the house in 2018. Trump's already been co-opted or corralled.
"Last gasp".
Life's gonna come at you fast, bro. Hope you're not planning exclusively for fair winds and following seas.
To add to this, the states that trump needed to win and won in 2016 like Florida and north carolina now have inmates voting. In both places that act alone will ensure a dem win. More minorities moving in is just icing on the growing rainbow cake.
The 200k+ syrian/iraqi/afgani refuguees that obama brought from 2014-2015 will now be eligible to vote on the 2020 election. They vote 96% dem. There will be some 3.8 million new passports handed out from 2016-2020. The political split is not as skewed but it is still over 80%+ for dems as some immigrants from socialist shitholes are likely to vote for repubs. Immigrants from other shitholes vote dem in order to keep chain migration open so they can bring in their relatives.
Add to this the american college SJW production pipeline with some 3 million graduates(under + post grad) * 4 years. Luckily most of these idiots don't vote. But when they do its a 75% split. So even if 1/3 of them vote you are looking at a net gain of 2 million votes for the dem candidate.
All points that YT has already addressed.
The lefts demographic win is now just about complete. Keep in mind they’ve build a coalition of groups that don’t actually like each other. Blacks, Hispanic, LGBT, Jewish, etc all have MASSIVE tensions between each other. The only way to keep the train on the rails is to point them all at a common enemy. We all know who that will be.
The lefts demographic win is now just about complete. Keep in mind they’ve build a coalition of groups that don’t actually like each other. Blacks, Hispanic, LGBT, Jewish, etc all have MASSIVE tensions between each other. The only way to keep the train on the rails is to point them all at a common enemy. We all know who that will be.
Quote: (02-15-2019 01:19 PM)Easy_C Wrote:
All points that YT has already addressed.
The lefts demographic win is now just about complete. Keep in mind they’ve build a coalition of groups that don’t actually like each other. Blacks, Hispanic, LGBT, Jewish, etc all have MASSIVE tensions between each other. The only way to keep the train on the rails is to point them all at a common enemy. We all know who that will be.
This will all come crashing down on them but won't happen for another 3 election cycles. Immigrants from shitholes that come in don't assimilate and can't assimilate even if they want to because of the new technology. A recent syrian refugee will only have syrians and other arabs on his facebook, will subscribe to some arab online streaming service(there are tons of them) and will basically live in a state within a state. The confrontation between that hijab somali woman and jews that we saw last week is just the beginning. Her and that other palestinian one is the start of the changing demographic of now just the dem voter base but also the dem power structure.
My point is it won't.
Instead they're going to keep whipping all these minority groups into a frenzy against white males.
Instead they're going to keep whipping all these minority groups into a frenzy against white males.
When white males learn to stop being civnat cucks and present a strong front even if it means the chance of doing jail time then the minorities will turn on each other. They only walk over the white man because he's a bitch.
Remember when that little girl was raped by the sons of a Somalian immigrant? When the response to that is a bunch of dead immigrants then you will start to see the minorities both self-segregating and turning on each other rather than going after the white man, who can become an eminently hard target if he wants to be.
p.s. I made a cursory attempt to find that article but nothing came up except stories about how hard life is for Mexican women and children crossing the border into the US. Google is really POZzing the fuck out of their algorithms.
Remember when that little girl was raped by the sons of a Somalian immigrant? When the response to that is a bunch of dead immigrants then you will start to see the minorities both self-segregating and turning on each other rather than going after the white man, who can become an eminently hard target if he wants to be.
p.s. I made a cursory attempt to find that article but nothing came up except stories about how hard life is for Mexican women and children crossing the border into the US. Google is really POZzing the fuck out of their algorithms.
The public will judge a man by what he lifts, but those close to him will judge him by what he carries.
Quote: (02-15-2019 09:41 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:
When white males learn to stop being civnat cucks and present a strong front even if it means the chance of doing jail time then the minorities will turn on each other. They only walk over the white man because he's a bitch.
Remember when that little girl was raped by the sons of a Somalian immigrant? When the response to that is a bunch of dead immigrants then you will start to see the minorities both self-segregating and turning on each other rather than going after the white man, who can become an eminently hard target if he wants to be.
p.s. I made a cursory attempt to find that article but nothing came up except stories about how hard life is for Mexican women and children crossing the border into the US. Google is really POZzing the fuck out of their algorithms.
Was this the Idaho Falls Attack? Really sick stuff.
Cheers (sort of). That's the one.
When you're holding out an olive branch you don't send an entire clan. Even Breitbart is glossing over this. What these muslims did was a pure intimidation tactic designed to demonstrate how many people would be after them if they called the cops.
This is a phrase that I will have to use routinely from now on. The relevant suggestions for how these issues need to be dealt with are not permissible for exchange on this forum. Suffice to say that under Obama and future administrations they make it clear that they will prosecute people for complaining, and if you're not even allowed to complain then all peaceful options other than total surrender are off the table.
If you have these people in your district then you need to start building a capable response team or you need to move to higher ground.
Moreover, and this is the most important part, people need to commit to dealing with community problems on a community basis. When your wife or child is raped then your options are reduced to bad or worse. The authorities will preemptively disarm you and afterward they will watch you like a hawk. You will never get away with exacting your own justice. All of us need to learn to deal with injustice when it's foisted on those around us rather than ignoring it until it comes to our own doorstep.
Quote:Quote:
After the attack, the Muslim refugee families of the boys collectively swarmed their victim’s apartment and urged the parents not to call police after the attack, he said.
When you're holding out an olive branch you don't send an entire clan. Even Breitbart is glossing over this. What these muslims did was a pure intimidation tactic designed to demonstrate how many people would be after them if they called the cops.
Quote:Quote:
For the next ten months, the victim’s family and citizens who were outraged by the crime were derided by politicians and dismissed by the establishment press.
An Obama administration official also threatened to prosecute and punish private citizens discussing the crime and refugee resettlement. “The spread of false information or inflammatory or threatening statements about the perpetrators or the crime itself reduces public safety and may violate federal law.
This is a phrase that I will have to use routinely from now on. The relevant suggestions for how these issues need to be dealt with are not permissible for exchange on this forum. Suffice to say that under Obama and future administrations they make it clear that they will prosecute people for complaining, and if you're not even allowed to complain then all peaceful options other than total surrender are off the table.
If you have these people in your district then you need to start building a capable response team or you need to move to higher ground.
Moreover, and this is the most important part, people need to commit to dealing with community problems on a community basis. When your wife or child is raped then your options are reduced to bad or worse. The authorities will preemptively disarm you and afterward they will watch you like a hawk. You will never get away with exacting your own justice. All of us need to learn to deal with injustice when it's foisted on those around us rather than ignoring it until it comes to our own doorstep.
The public will judge a man by what he lifts, but those close to him will judge him by what he carries.
My personal advice is....not for everyone, but for those who can hack it I advise people to get involved in a motorcycle club. Most of them aren't Hell's Angels types but all of them are tight knit groups of men who are than capable of "dealing with community problems on a community basis".
Quote: (02-15-2019 12:14 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:
How is it their "last gasp" of relevance when the demographics are only "not that far gone, yet"?
Because it is dependent on a financial collapse to have any chance to succeed. While that might happen in our lifetime, would you back a horse that required that condition? I wouldn't.
Quote: (02-15-2019 12:23 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:
Criminal Clinton won the popular vote. Trump lost the house in 2018. Trump's already been co-opted or corralled.
"Last gasp".
Life's gonna come at you fast, bro. Hope you're not planning exclusively for fair winds and following seas.
I talk about tricky or dire scenarios all the time, but this is a doom porn post. Lenny, quite frankly, it doesn't say much.
It's similar to Peter Schiff stuff, I think. That 10 year doom run sure came and went fast, didn't it?
And we're still waiting...
![[Image: icon_popcorn.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/icon_popcorn.gif){kind=icon}
I found this article a few days ago on zerohedge.
There is a lot more to this article so I just have the first few paragraphs for sake of brevity. I have no idea whether you will have enough hillbilly's causing an insurrection, or whether whole states will vote to leave the union. Hillbilly's do have a history of resisting federal authority either as scions of the civil war or as bootleggers to this day. I do know a few people who have local roots in that area, and they do talk the talk. Walking the walk is something that I would wait and see if they have it in them. It is one thing being chased by revenuers than doing a full fledged insurgency.(The article does mention a short lived local insurrection that happened in Tennessee over a manipulation of voting booths)
Personally, I think that it is more likely that a balkanization of ideology that is happening now along with a massive economic crisis that makes the sub-prime meltdown look like a walk in the park will eventually break up the US in the form of what you saw with the Soviet Union. I have a hard time seeing Congressmen from New England or California do an emergency session to enact a war powers act for some president to prosecute a civil war on a part of the country that they don't give a damn about that want to leave the union peacefully. So states like Texas and Alaska may split off along with a few that coble together enough support for each other in the Mountain West or South.(Old south getting back together, maybe not, but some of the south getting back together is a possibility.)
Having said that in the event of an actual shooting civil war, I don't think that it will be as open or shut as people think. It will be longer and bloodier than the first one, mainly due to the disruption of commodities to big cities will starve the populace, or cause so much gang land violence that cities will die off to levels that you see at the fall of Rome. Most people were either farmers or knew how to make victory gardens 150 years ago, that is not the case now. I do think that the military will be divided as rank and file are separated out as predominately either white hillbilly's or minorities right now. How the officer corps will go depends on power as always.
Quote:Quote:
When one discusses the real reason for the Second Amendment – the right of citizens to defend themselves against a potentially tyrannical government – inevitably someone points out the stark difference in firepower between a guerilla uprising in the United States and the United States government itself.
This is not a trivial observation. The U.S. government spends more on the military than the governments of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, United Kingdom, and Japan combined. Plus, the potential of a tyrannical government is arguably upon us – with the federal government spying on its own citizens, militarizing local police departments with equipment and tactics from the War on Terror, and repeatedly searching Americans, which desensitizes them to this invasive process.
There is much historical precedent, however, for guerilla uprisings defeating more powerful enemies. For instance, the Cold War saw both superpowers brought to their knees by rural farmers – for the Soviets, their adventure in Afghanistan against the Mujahideen, and for the United States, the Vietnam War against the Viet Cong.
In both cases, nuclear weapons could have been used against the guerilla uprising, but were not. Even assuming the use of nuclear weapons from the position of total desperation, it’s hard to imagine they would have made much of a difference in the final outcome of either conflict. Unlike the invading armies, the local resistance enjoyed both broad-based support as well as knowledge of the local terrain.
Now imagine such a scenario in the United States. You wouldn’t be the first person to do so. From Red Dawn to James Wesley, Rawles’ Patriots series, there is a relatively long-standing tradition of American survival literature about the hoi polloi resisting the tyranny of big government, either before or after a collapse.
For the purposes of this article, consider what a domestic American terrorist or freedom fighter (after all, the label is in the eye of the beholder) organization based on the militia movement would look like in open revolt against the United States government. In the spirit of levity, we’ll call them the “Hillbilly Viet Cong.” They would most likely find their largest numbers in Appalachia, but don’t discount their power in the American Redoubt, or the more sparsely populated areas of the American Southwest, including rural Texas.
Here we have tens of thousands of Americans armed to the teeth with combat experience, deep family ties to both the police and the military, extensive knowledge of the local geography, and, in many cases, survivalist training. Even where they are not trained, militant and active, they enjoy broad support among those who own a lot of guns and grow a lot of food.
On the other side, you have the unwieldy Baby Huey of the rump U.S. government’s military, with some snarky BuzzFeed editorials serving as propaganda.
There is a lot more to this article so I just have the first few paragraphs for sake of brevity. I have no idea whether you will have enough hillbilly's causing an insurrection, or whether whole states will vote to leave the union. Hillbilly's do have a history of resisting federal authority either as scions of the civil war or as bootleggers to this day. I do know a few people who have local roots in that area, and they do talk the talk. Walking the walk is something that I would wait and see if they have it in them. It is one thing being chased by revenuers than doing a full fledged insurgency.(The article does mention a short lived local insurrection that happened in Tennessee over a manipulation of voting booths)
Personally, I think that it is more likely that a balkanization of ideology that is happening now along with a massive economic crisis that makes the sub-prime meltdown look like a walk in the park will eventually break up the US in the form of what you saw with the Soviet Union. I have a hard time seeing Congressmen from New England or California do an emergency session to enact a war powers act for some president to prosecute a civil war on a part of the country that they don't give a damn about that want to leave the union peacefully. So states like Texas and Alaska may split off along with a few that coble together enough support for each other in the Mountain West or South.(Old south getting back together, maybe not, but some of the south getting back together is a possibility.)
Having said that in the event of an actual shooting civil war, I don't think that it will be as open or shut as people think. It will be longer and bloodier than the first one, mainly due to the disruption of commodities to big cities will starve the populace, or cause so much gang land violence that cities will die off to levels that you see at the fall of Rome. Most people were either farmers or knew how to make victory gardens 150 years ago, that is not the case now. I do think that the military will be divided as rank and file are separated out as predominately either white hillbilly's or minorities right now. How the officer corps will go depends on power as always.
"Stop playing by 1950's rules when everyone else is playing by 1984."
- Leonard D Neubache
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)