Quote Of The Day

There are many in this country who measure a person’s level of patriotism by their magazine capacity.    -Me


Post#: 080-19 – Words: 2379 – Audio: N/A

Go ahead… make my day.


Congressman (take a breath) Steve King of Iowa has blurted out some more disharmony nonsense, this time with a Tweet hinting at a civil war “option”.  See for yourself…

First off, I encourage the reader to take in a quick CNN video segment by journalist John Avlon HERE.

He discusses the seemingly ever increasing rhetoric about a “civil war”… and how that rhetoric is becoming more commonplace in our daily politics and political divide.  Of note, he mentions a couple unnerving stats from recent polls….

  • Some 42% of either side of our current divide… liberals AND conservatives, believe the “other side” is just plain evil.

And if that doesn’t wet your violent-loving whistle…

  • 20% of either side feel the other side “should just die”. 

Now, I don’t personally believe we have descended into the depths of some divisiveness hell that contributes to some shooting war to kill fellow Americans.  But there is no denying that some people “out there” wouldn’t mind “taking their country back by force if necessary”.

Like our real Civil War back in the day, it took a number of years of seething public discourse and animosity before a shooting war came to fruition.  By time it did the percolating issues were coming to a head, particularly in the South where the independence cause had reached a fervent level.  Anxious to prove their cause, their valor in fighting for independence, the pomp and circumstance in being called to arms and fighting for their state and their “new” country… nearly every facet of Southern life was spearheading straight into a shooting conflict.

Judging from my own blogging travels to various Conservative blogs.. I see a fair number of right wing bloggers seemingly itching for a reason to take the family AK-47 down off the fireplace mantle (or wherever else AK’s are stored these days).  Conservative blogs seem to relish playing some sort of persecuted victim and will counter about all the Liberal blogs that are just as violent in their rhetoric.  The problem with that argument… it’s my observation that Conservative bloggers seldom visit/follow Liberal blogs because the Right all prefer preaching to those who agree with them… and they discourage any posts/replies that offend their views.  Nonetheless… both sides include elements who would welcome a shooting conflict directed at the other.

 

Any Percentage is Not Good

Now… one could debate that the 20% of “why don’t they just die” category might range in extremes from “hoping they get hit by a car while crossing a street” to “I got enough bullets to take a few of ‘em down”.  Bottom line, some folks on both sides wouldn’t mind dealing out death to the other… for simply political ideology.  Yet that rather illustrates there is no such thing as “simple” political ideology.

I have oft mentioned that I am a student of history, not unlike many other folks.  While history can be a study in events and human milestones of achievement and discovery, history also contains man being violent toward his fellow man for whatever reason… and for every reason imaginable.  A sub-interest of mine is also the humanist/behavioral reasons as to why man does what he does, beyond just the surface issues.  It’s one thing to raise your sword in emotional defiance to defend your cause, whatever that is… it’s a far different thing that makes you want to thrust that sword into another human who doesn’t believe the way you do.  In most cases that thrust to end another human’s life is based on some level of your personal fear that this human posed a personal threat to you in some way.  A kind of.. “I have to kill you, but please don’t take it personally.”  Unless of course you have the proverbial “old scores to settle”, in other words… revenge for a previous “wrong”.  Man really requires no reason to justify killing his fellow man because it’s in our nature.

 

Let’s Consult History

I mentioned the real Civil War earlier because our own Civil War is a typical example of studying this kind of thing so it’s kind of natural to make certain civil war-ish comparisions to our current political divide.  But it seems we might be traveling a road with a similar thought process as the pre-Civil War years.  When a cause begins to form and that cause reaches a fever pitch.. whatever that measure represents… there’s a tendency to think that the cause itself becomes the holy grail and to achieve that just might call within us those noble ideals we love to fight for.. freedom, sacrifice, honor, martyrdom, independence; that the goal to be achieved is paramount to following generations of people just like us.  It becomes a noble crusade of and by itself.  Suddenly there’s a bit of “romance” to it all.  The cause is right.  The cause is a divine calling.  It can become a quest to “cleanse” that which needs cleansing.  We don’t generally want to think that “cleansing” usually means killing another human being.

 

Who Would Be The “Enemy”?

But.. ok… as long as many are rhetorically mumbling about some civil war, let’s explore how a contemporary civil war might play out.  Given the only  comparisons most Americans can make are recollections from elementary school history books.  First off, the reasons between then and now would be markedly different.  Slavery/states rights/independence from a dictatorial North seems a bit out of place in today’s dialog.  So who would be the sides on our new civil war?  This itself seems to pose a problem.

  • If you are a Conservative you likely see the conflict being between Constitutionalist Christians trying to preserve American greatness and pride in America-only values.. vs… Liberals and atheists who want to just let everyone come in, government should pay for everything, and take away our guns in the process.
  • If you are a Liberal you might see the conflict being between Liberals who hate Trump the man and all he stands for, and all the dismay he has imposed upon the country… vs… Conservatives who love the man and all he stands for, and worship the ground he walks on, and all the “good” he has given to the country.
  • Intellectuals (elites), and certain outsiders, might suggest it was between disenfranchised white folks who are feeling culturally and economically displaced by globalism and poor immigration policies diluting the white gene pool and holding a bias against Christianity… vs… Liberals who just want a return to  traditional American values in a world that embraces globalism.

(If you note… both sides want a return to more “traditional American values”.  No one can apparently agree to what timeline(s) in American history that would be.)

I dunno here… not an overly easy way to determine where to point a gun, at least to kill humans.  Back in the old days of the real Civil War one knew where his enemy was… he was on a battlefield facing you with his gun pointing your way.  Since a current civil war would not be an alliance of disgruntled states fighting a federal government, organizing like-minded folks into some military-style units across state lines seems a bit complex in the least.  Especially when the “enemy”, the people you want to kill, are all around you and generally unidentifiable, “good” guys from the “bad” guys. So there will not likely be the romantic mustering up of troops under the flag-icon representing your cause to the tunes of Dixie in the background… as Johnny goes marching off to war.

 

So, Where, Or What, Exactly Will The “War” Be In Our New Civil War?

Good question.  I suppose it’s easy to assume any and all forms of domestic terrorism would suffice.. either strategically directed from a central “command” structure to “partisan” units… or just randomized lone wolf attacks simply to instill fear among the populace.  Could such an organized unit take over some local National Guard armory (ala John Brown)?  Perhaps.  But to what end.. and the “captured” weapons to use against whom?  Would this be to feed some guerrilla war to target Democrats or Republican elected officials?  That seems an obvious first choice… kill those in government that don’t agree with you and represents the other side.  Snipers, car bombs, blowing up public buildings perhaps (like the Weathermen back in the 60’s)?

 

At What Point Do We Call “Civil Unrest” A Bonafide Civil War?

When the amount of damage, death, and destruction exceeds an “acceptable” level (whatever that is, and whomever makes that decision)?

It’s been suggested… by Cohen’s testimony and others, as well as my own summations, that Trump is very likely not to leave office all too willingly, especially if it’s anything other than an election defeat.  There was a point in Nixon’s last days where he considered use of the military in the event Congress impeached him.  Presumably that would have meant a physical deployment around the White House to prevent his removal.  Obviously he wisely had a perception of his own role in American history over his personal pride and resigned before impeachment proceedings got started.  Trump, as we all know, is a narcissist and behavioral prima donna… so one could imagine at least some attempt on his part to engage the military in order to save himself or delay his inevitable end.  That would fall in line with his own version of Götterdämmerung, as he sees himself as the nation’s savior (for those unaware… German Mythology:  the destruction of the gods and of all things in a final battle with evil power/opposition).  Use of pardons, calling on his supporter minions to rise to his defense, demanding investigations, attempts to clog government by firing administration directors, issuing decrees, etc., could be his “scorched earth” exit.

Now, on the other hand, Trump could win a second term.. and come out unscathed and unimpeachable after all the investigations.  In which case, what might “radical” Liberals do in protest?  Marches on Washington that get violent?  Local marches and demonstrations that encourage violence?   Random car bombings of elected officials?  Not likely there will be any frontal assaults on the White House ala White House Down or Olympus Has Fallen.  Then again.. either side in our “civil war” scenario could include one side or the other forming an “unholy” alliance with an outside nation.. which could indeed make things climb to another level.  This happened during the real Civil War when Britain formed an alliance with the South.  Absolutely no reason not to assume some foreign state aligning with one side or another, thus spreading the war internationally.  Russia or North Korea providing hacker support to shut down infrastructure; maybe they get more direct and offer weapons and explosives in some clandestine way.  Point being… these kinds of conflicts tend to start on pure emotion, continue on their own inertia as time self-feeds the continued commitment, then start to wane and lose steam as experiencing death challenges the common sense to continue with no end in sight.

 

If Things Get Violently Dicey This Will Likely Happen

The following is from a past series I did on being a survivalist.. and the four basic things that would spell an apocalyptic end to whatever the U.S. was… and I say “what the U.S. was”  because once all this comes tumbling down… there is NO restoring Old Glory to it’s original precepts because times will have changed and any new government will never be “like it was”.  Anyone of these, “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” would cause the cascading effect into the others.

  • Loss of electricity
  • Loss of drinking water
  • Loss of the Internet
  • Loss (breakdown) of social order

These elements interact within each other, against each other, and by themselves.  You lose electricity, down goes water distribution and the Internet.  You loose water, people don’t drink, can’t work, down go the other elements.  You loose the Internet you will ultimately loose electric, then water.  Of course, all of these lead to a loss of social order,  and if the economy takes a tumble due to a political or financial or political upheaval then the loss of social order initiates the loss of the other elements.

This is not the 19th century anymore where at the end of the fighting we can all leave the field of battle, head home, and get back to plowing the fields.  There will be no returning to work on Monday morning after stopping off at Starbucks for a latte.

 

Maybe A “Limited” Kind Of Civil War?

I’m not sure what exactly that would even mean, much less guess how it would be “fought”.  But I tend to think more along the lines of  civil disorder, ala the 60’s, but with far more terrorist-style violence.  As I suggested earlier, bombing of public buildings, assassinations of elected officials, mystery powders sent through the mail, local interruptions of utilities… the list is seemingly endless as how “we” could make living in America more uncomfortable than we ever could imagine.  After the fist few shock & awe violent events that result in our loved ones dying in the streets or at home, we can then add to the mix, living family members who want vengeance and retribution.  The cycle goes on and on.

But here’s the wonderful thing to remember when contemplating a civil war as you dry fire your assault rifle… right now the battle is all rhetoric.. and at the end of the day you can still go home, kick back, have a beer… maybe a pizza, and tomorrow is another day.  Or.. you can go out and shoot someone, maybe your neighbor, the local mayor… and when the dust settles from a civil war, you and your family will very likely be dead.. if not from bullets or bombs when it all started, most assuredly from the disease, starvation, thirst,  emotional distress that the lifestyle you knew is gone… and other predatory humans wanting what you have… or not.

You might wanna think this one through before proceeding.

 

FEEL LIKE SENDING ME AN EMAIL TO PRIVATELY PRAISE MY SAGE WISDOM, OR TELL ME TO SELF-COPULATE? —-> blogfps1@gmail.com

My other sites… if you’re interested…

FreeStatesman.us

 

DougLite.com