Quote: (04-27-2017 12:50 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:
...
I don't see a civil war coming. The surveillance state is too omnipresent for groups to form up, and there's no local shared communities for armies to form around. The technology is good enough and efficient enough that most people will have their basic needs met and their bellies full, even if the food is low quality junk.
...
White militancy is going to rise in the same way islamic militancy rises, but with different precursors.
For islam the precursor is the density of their presence in an area. I suppose in the same way white militancy will rise with the precursor of a growing density of impoverished whites with not much left to lose. You might be doing it tougher than you should be, but try to imagine what some guy in Appalachia feels when he can't afford to take his kids to the doctor or pay off the mortgage on his shitty little shack. That guy is not looking for a reason to be nice. He's looking for a target, and it's not going to take much to convince him that DC or Jews or Blacks or Messicans are the source of most of his problems, whether that's true or not. That guy doesn't need a group to cause problems for the government, and even if he did then there wouldn't be a shortage of local guys in precisely the same position as him. Guys that aren't fussed about "going dark".
So just as the muslims have shown us that the state apparatus is useless in preventing growing militancy, so too will it fail to stop to stop that militancy in whites. Sure, occasionally you get the odd Dylan Roof or some other guy that goes over the top, but by and large, discontent and the accompanying militancy swells like a tide and no individual act of bucketing out that tide will stop it. At least not in an armed nation like America.
So just like the 15,000 strong jihadi watchlist in France, the watch-lists in America will become functionally worthless (they probably have already). As 150,000 citizens are flagged for being disgruntled keyboard warriors, that same 150,000 are going to be flagged for being disgruntled keyboard warriors
who just bought assault rifles, which in turn shifts to 150,000 citizens being flagged for being disgruntled
non-keyboard warriors that just got basic rifle training from a professional, etc etc etc.
Meanwhile attacks will escalate in the form of individuals or small, untraceable cells, at first targeting outlying infrastructure and hostile organisations or just whatever demographic they have the shits with. And like the muslims these attacks will simply escalate over time, the government having the impossible task of trying to predict which of the 150,000 disgruntled white men is going to leave his phone at home that day and go out to put bullet holes in some
thing or some
one.
Eventually the government would have to crack down hard or simply accept that certain areas had become "injun territory". A crack-down would signal the end of the beginning, because if there's one thing we can learn about counter-insurgency ops from all over the globe, it's that they might restore a semblance of
order but they predictably put the dagger in
peace until one side is dead.
Besides, any strong-arm attempt to imprison pissed off whites would only swing prisons back into white ownership and create a breeding ground for hatred and a training ground for militancy that could only be subdued by the most extreme measures imaginable, and that in turn would militarise the brothers, fathers and sons of the men subjugated by those means.
Having said all that, I don't begrudge anyone leaving their nation because they don't want to have to start shooting people to retain their freedom. Some people are not cut out for that and in any case have skillsets that better lend themselves to aid such causes from the
outside.