I was over at neo-neocon recently and the topic of a new American revolution or civil war came up. It's kind of difficult to imagine how it would begin, and since Krag and some others seem to think it's likely, I thought I'd ask for hypothetical answers.
Here are my thoughts on insurgency / civil war / revolution in the near future.
I don’t see a new civil war happening
unless some states decide to secede. This isn't unthinkable (Texit, anyone?) but I think the states would at least try a constitutional convention first, and then if that failed, secede. That would be quite some way down the road.
There could possibly be an attempt at revolution, maybe in the form of a coup, but I doubt it. At least, not as a first step.
I think it’s more likely an
insurgency would be the way it developed. A small insurgency would probably be quickly crushed, but a widespread insurgency could develop into either a civil war, if it could somehow gain territory and regular forces, or a revolution, if it were widespread and popular enough.
An insurgency could be where it stopped, as well. We could be looking at a situation maybe similar to Northern Ireland. Possibly the insurgency could create no-go zones for the authorities, but not get any further. I think this would eventually fail, although it could take a generation or so.
It's difficult for me to assess what would happen with our current security forces. I've read a number of commenters on various sites who claimed that the military and police would be on the revolutionaries side, but that's not necessarily true. I think Conservatives are divided between those willing to go outlaw and those whose honor is bound up in law and order, even if it ends in results they find objectionable. It's hard to say.
I also think that answers the claim that Conservatives have the police, military, and gun owners, so the Left can't win. I think the fighting would be done by Conservatives on both sides, outlaws vs. law-and-order types.
I think it ends in disaster for several reasons. First, I don’t think enough
Americans understand or care enough about liberty to join the revolutionaries. If they cared enough to fight for liberty, they would have cared enough to vote for it before now. Many young Americans are
increasingly hostile to liberty, and many of the old are risk-averse. So
I don’t think it would ever be successful enough to draw in those
sitting on the fence.
Another reason is, without outside help, insurgencies never win, not
as long as the government is willing to keep fighting. It is only when
the government decides it isn’t worth fighting anymore and gives up that
insurgencies can win.
Instead, I think any insurgency or attempt at revolution would end up
being just another crisis the Left would not let go to waste, and they
would become more powerful from it. And we would all lose more liberty.
There are other disasters that could occur as well. The drug cartels
would almost certainly get into it, and what if Russia or China decided
to play by providing arms, money, advisors, etc.? What if La Raza took
the opportunity and made their “reconquista” a violent insurgency as
well? Bad news all around.
Anyway, what do you think? How does it start? How does it play out?
15 comments:
Grim and the 3% resistance groups online and off grid, have written enough about this subject that I don't see much I can add to it. Besides, predicting tactical formations and asset mobilization, isn't necessary for civil war 2's inevitability. That's based on other factors.
As I mentioned before on the thread Thomas referred to, civil war is inevitable once you have two factions with enough power and willing to use it to kill each other. At least two factions, this war seems to have about a 1000, at minimum. Everybody vs everybody. How nice.
Also are you trying to get Grim's comment sections flagged? Because Google spy bots do scan through these things and provide info the FBI, NSA, ATF, etc.
This is merely half a joke aimed at when Grim wrote to me here that "I should give the feds ideas" about surveillance concerning Facebook. Although during that time period, the NSA already had a backdoor mirror for Facebook, so they didn't need my help on that one.
Correction, should to shouldn't give the feds ideas.
I'm pretty sure we're flagged already. If they're not paying attention, they should be.
So this week, I've been reading up on Michael Collins and his intelligence war with the British. It turns out that the 90% solution for him was when the people agreed to turn against the police, and establish a boycott against them. A "boycott" in Irish terms meant that no one would talk to them, nor sell them anything (including funeral services for their dead), nor deal with them in any way. It immediately destroyed the vast majority of British intelligence on the rebellion, as most of it was coming from local police.
Then Collins had the easy job of targeting the equivalent of the Feds, G Division. By the time he was done assassinating its members, the rest of them were going to pubs all day every day so that they could be publicly seen drinking whisky at 10 AM. They were effectively neutralized, so the British had to try to set up a military intelligence network from scratch.
The Irish won without any serious outside intervention (very minimal help from Germany). But let's not rule out getting outside help: the Russians seem very interested in our politics right now.
A "boycott" in Irish terms meant that no one would talk to them, nor sell them anything (including funeral services for their dead), nor deal with them in any way. It immediately destroyed the vast majority of British intelligence on the rebellion, as most of it was coming from local police.
It's similar to how the Mafia controls areas. Or the US operations in Iraq, which relied upon local intel assets to differentiate AQ from Sunni from Shia from Iranian agent.
My analysis of Trum as the Left's stalking horse, would be how I would make the optimum moves from their pov. The problem with grassroots insurgents, like the Tea Party, is that they are difficult to wipe out at once, since intel on their membership isn't available, due to the cellular nature of their organizations. Tea Party Texas, isn't linked with Tea Party California, for example, before the March on DC at least. It was only when they networked, applied for 401 c or was it 403 c status under the IRS, that the Leftist power hierarchy could target them. Same for Eich and Prop 8 in California.
Thus I see Trum as the perfect opportunity to smoke out these Alt Right insurgents, who hide online and in the world, via a number of methods, and attach them to a political party. Because one thing the Left knows, is how to deal with a domestic Political opposition party like the GOP. The Alt Right right now is moving as if they are facing the Left's SJWs. I continue to tell them that the Social Justice Whores of the Left are merely the trash heap of their strategic and tactical assets, but I don't think many people on the Alt Right can believe that, given their victories over the SJWs.
It's easy to like winning.
"Alt right" is a term I'd not heard before this year, although I knew many of the people assigned to it -- Vdare and whatnot. There are some good minds among them, thinking unapproved thoughts. A healthier society would be glad to have them, if only to test its core ideas against their critiques.
Alternative Right is the label for what I formerly called the anti Left coalition or enemies of the Left.
They organized more due to Vox Day's Cuckservative novel about betrayal in the US. Then even more so to replace the current GOP e right and conservative right, by backing Trum.
Thomas has heard it used online in places like Neo. It's a creation of the anti Left, not by their enemies necessarily.
There are some good minds among them, thinking unapproved thoughts.
It included Pick up Artist Neuro Linguistic Programming as well. Back then, of course, they only had Alpha and Beta descriptions. Now they have Omega, Gamma, Lambda, etc, filling it out more like a wolf pack. That is progress, of a sort.
Before 2012, I didn't see any signs that these sub groups and sub communities were interested in the culture war or the political war in the US. Now that they are interested, their lack of logistical planning is showing through.
Flanks like Gamergate (I call them flanks for a specific reason), often complained that the conservatives were missing out on an opportunity to fight their enemies, by not joining with GamerGate. and GG was said to be very harsh, but for internet fights, it was pretty normal to me. So when the Alt Right brought GamerGate tactics (which did successfully counter much of the Left's corruption of journalism in game industries and products) to Trum's campaign, a lot of people felt it was extreme or rude or reckless.
But I think it is reckless for an entirely different reason. Recently at VoxDay, they noticed that Clinton wanted the Alt Right to replace the Right. I wonder why.... no, I don't need to wonder why, I already have some hypothesis about that one. It's a classic trap, like when the IRS got the Tea Parties to apply for official tax free non profit activist licenses. Leftists are human and make mistakes, but in a strategic level, they haven't made all that many mistakes. Commies in Vietnam was able to defeat the US Superpower with the aid of US traitors and disloyal factions. That's just one example of how Leftist act stupid on the tactical front, only to win at the strategic level. Probably because as with Mohammed, they are getting divine inspiration from Lucifer's angels.
One thing: in both the Irish example and the American Revolution, the insurgency was against people who lived somewhere else and ruled the insurgent population. It's very easy to distinguish Great Britain from either Ireland or the thirteen colonies, geographically. There's no need for a division, because the division is already there.
So the endpoint of the insurgency was fixed and clear, from the beginning. (Ignoring the whole Northern Ireland issue for the moment.) What was already physically separate would also become politically separate. Those people from thousands of miles away will no longer rule over us.
In our situation, the populations in question are widely dispersed among each other. Even though some sorting has taken place, it's far from complete. Most states are purple, with blue concentrated in the larger cities. To say nothing of ties of marriage, parentage, work, professional....
How on earth do you separate two such interpenetrated populations?
And if you can't separate, then what's the endpoint of your insurgency?
jaed - a more realistic view of the Civil War is something like that, though. I remember a couple of notable quips from Ken Burn's series. One talked about the 'Kingdom of Jones' (which I've heard is going to serve as the basis for a movie sometime soon) which was a pro-Union county in the middle of Alabama (IIRC) that was a 'no-go zone' for Southern sympathizers. Another note was the fact that every state including the Confederacy had regiments in the Union Army. And then you have things like the Draft Riots in New York and other areas that weren't directly related to the Confederate cause but added to the over all disorder.
I guess I expect something similar but with far less well-defined combatants if the whole thing blows up. We'll take a while to get there, probably over decade, with areas ramping up in hostility to central control. There will likely be a crisis similar to the Bundy Ranch, or the takeover of that BLM/NPS outpost, or a city or state office building, and somebody will blink instead of force the issue. Once that happens a few times then the cascade will start as people realize the state and federal authorities don't have the will to enforce order any more.
One thing: in both the Irish example and the American Revolution, the insurgency was against people who lived somewhere else and ruled the insurgent population. It's very easy to distinguish Great Britain from either Ireland or the thirteen colonies, geographically. There's no need for a division, because the division is already there.
About 30% of the Colonial population were loyal to Britain and wished to remain as British subjects. They needed to be dealt with, during the war. Which they were. After the war, they got exiled or self exiled themselves to Canada/Australia/GB etc.
So if the War of Independence was just fighting foreign imperial brits, that'd be pretty easy. But it was more complicated. The problem may have mostly solved itself, if the loyal British subjects turned over their weapons obedient to the Crown. But they would have still served as spies and saboteurs behind enemy lines. That glorious military general, soul of honesty, Benedict Arnold turned traitor for some silver, and that was a person Washington would have vouched for.
"Once that happens a few times then the cascade will start as people realize the state and federal authorities don't have the will to enforce order any more."
It could go the other way, as it did in the Irish case: the British executions of the Easter Rising leaders was what hardened the population against them.
The real questions is whether a critical mass of the population perceives the government as illegitimate. At that point, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Ya know, getting on a government watch list was not really on my to-do list for this life. Anyway.
We do have a long-term native insurgency, of sorts: the druggees.
My mind also goes to Ireland / N. Ireland. The British didn't have much taste for a fight after WWI, and N. Ireland kinda ended up a tie.
Legitimacy is the $64 question.
Night, all.
"Ya know, getting on a government watch list was not really on my to-do list for this life."
Well, none of us here are planning an insurgency. We're engaged in protected free speech. But it would be good if the government were listening to us, because it might help them avoid the disaster that they are bringing with their actions.
I doubt, however, that the political will exists in either potential administration to reform government practice in the important ways. I'm sure that the Clinton administration will go just the other way, and continue to try to consolidate power and impose undemocratic, one-size-fits-all solutions on the nation.
That's what's driving all this. It's not anything any of us are doing, nor planning to do. It's something we're watching happen.
And that is the truth. There's needs to be a keyboard emoji for "shaking head in disgust."
It's quite apparent to me the Left was mobilizing all of their strategic assets for end game, since from 2007. Although old generations would probably differ, and go back to Wilson or FDR or etc. But the rest of America, didn't think so. They didn't feel the threat was eminent.
Brings to mind Churchill saying Americans are foolish and protected by God, they'll try every last wrong thing, and only at the last minute will do the right thing.
But is that still true for a country that has broken their contract with God?
Post a Comment