The path to Civil War 2 (USA)

[Easy_C]

Rhetorical question:

What makes people think other intelligence services wouldn’t pick US factions to back, hoping to get leverage over them?

Hint: One major US adversary already has both stated intent to militarily back any such event and has the means to do so.

It’s also worth asking what I would do in China’s position and the answer is pretty simple. I would be doing everything possible to instigate a US civil war and would be strategically placing assets to ensure that the conflict is as evenly matched as possible.

 

[Elipe]

It’s also worth asking what I would do in China’s position and the answer is pretty simple. I would be doing everything possible to instigate a US civil war and would be strategically placing assets to ensure that the conflict is as evenly matched as possible.

It would be fascinating to see what they're stockpiling in the back rooms of Chinese buffet restaurants...

 

[get2choppaaa]

It would be fascinating to see what they're stockpiling in the back rooms of Chinese buffet restaurants...

Assuming you're not talking about dog meat?

 

[david.garrett84]

American civic nationalism/faint-European nationalism peaked in the 1940s and began falling off a cliff after the late 1960s.

America, whether we like it or not, would have fared better if it had openly touted itself as a culturally White and Christian European outpost post-1945. It did not mean it had to exclude non-Whites but all newcomers should have been forced to assimilate and their numbers should have been drastically reduced.

Pax Americana was always flawed because the Pax Romana model it was supposedly based on only worked in a world where it took months to travel from one side of the empire to another. Plus, the Romans screwed themselves over as soon as they significantly watered down citizenship, especially Caracalla granting it to anyone who was not a slave in 212 A.D.

Globally connected societies from the early 20th century onwards require a culturally similar population to socially function. America had that amongst European-descended populations in the first half of the 20th century, despite admitted sectarian divisions in some cases.

Literally millions of German- and Italian-Americans dropped everything to join the armed forces during World War II and fight against their ancestral countries. By contrast, how many Mexican-Americans or Chinese-Americans would support the US during a really bitter trade war (think Trump years x50), let alone in a conventional, non-nuclear conflict?

Even the majority or at least a huge minority of the Japanese-Americans supported the Allied war effort in World War II.

 

[get2choppaaa]

This is the sort of silliness that a lot of the boomer's think will occur in the current construct/paradigm of our federal government regarding a civil war.

The heritage American ideology of independce has been supplanted by the federal government and it's promise of financial support for all loyal to it.

Look at the current state of the military. All of my colleagues who were anti-vaxx have capitulated because "hey its how i make my money man"

Its frequently only after a Vet is out that they see the error of being a yesman for the machine (speaking from experience here)

 

[david.garrett84]

…

Its frequently only after a Vet is out that they see the error of being a yesman for the machine (speaking from experience here)

Society is crumbling in all directions, so it is easy to overlook sometimes, but the way the federal government abandoned 9/11 illness victims, especially first responders, should have been the years-long major clue about how the powers that be really see the bravest cogs in the machine.

Veterans who died, lost limbs and other body parts, and suffered psychological trauma in Iraq and Afghanistan are, without minimizing their suffering, only getting a more public “up yours” from the feds than the one received by the long-neglected 9/11 victims.

More people seem to have died from cancer and other illnesses after 9/11 than those who died on the day itself. People like Jon Stewart, to his credit, pointed out how badly these people were being treated, often dying in agony and leaving their families with mountains of debt, suiciding, or generally just living in misery on welfare or in bankruptcy.

The troops who served in Afghanistan and Iraq are unfairly associated with the neocons and others, like military corporations and contractors who drummed up support for the wars and occupations. That is unfortunate but a reality.

By contrast, the 9/11 first responders have none of that (unfair) taint but still get diddly squat. Anything they did receive has been achieved through significant stress and lobbying (the kind of righteous lobbying we could all actually get behind).

The bewildering cascade of events in our current age can frequently convince us that things are unexpected when they are not. The patterns of institutional and governmental neglect and exhorting people to sacrifice before abandoning them are all around us and have been for years.

 

[MusicForThePiano]

Massive violence is not necessary, but the brainwashing and elitist chess strategies make it nearly impossible to avoid...

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)"

 

[get2choppaaa]

Society is crumbling in all directions, so it is easy to overlook sometimes, but the way the federal government abandoned 9/11 illness victims, especially first responders, should have been the years-long major clue about how the powers that be really see the bravest cogs in the machine.

Veterans who died, lost limbs and other body parts, and suffered psychological trauma in Iraq and Afghanistan are, without minimizing their suffering, only getting a more public “up yours” from the feds than the one received by the long-neglected 9/11 victims.

More people seem to have died from cancer and other illnesses after 9/11 than those who died on the day itself. People like Jon Stewart, to his credit, pointed out how badly these people were being treated, often dying in agony and leaving their families with mountains of debt, suiciding, or generally just living in misery on welfare or in bankruptcy.

The troops who served in Afghanistan and Iraq are unfairly associated with the neocons and others, like military corporations and contractors who drummed up support for the wars and occupations. That is unfortunate but a reality.

By contrast, the 9/11 first responders have none of that (unfair) taint but still get diddly squat. Anything they did receive has been achieved through significant stress and lobbying (the kind of righteous lobbying we could all actually get behind).

The bewildering cascade of events in our current age can frequently convince us that things are unexpected when they are not. The patterns of institutional and governmental neglect and exhorting people to sacrifice before abandoning them are all around us and have been for years.

Yes...

But...

We don't have a Bonus Army nor a Smedley Butler figure to lead them in the US.

With the purges witnessed over the last 10 years and the ongoing ones now with the Vax..... you are only gonna see a more aggregated yes man military.

So it would take the fed system and all VA benefits to stop before any of the current post service beneficiaries get too agitated.

 

[CrypticHodl]

American civic nationalism/faint-European nationalism peaked in the 1940s and began falling off a cliff after the late 1960s.

America, whether we like it or not, would have fared better if it had openly touted itself as a culturally White and Christian European outpost post-1945. It did not mean it had to exclude non-Whites but all newcomers should have been forced to assimilate and their numbers should have been drastically reduced.

Pax Americana was always flawed because the Pax Romana model it was supposedly based on only worked in a world where it took months to travel from one side of the empire to another. Plus, the Romans screwed themselves over as soon as they significantly watered down citizenship, especially Caracalla granting it to anyone who was not a slave in 212 A.D.

Globally connected societies from the early 20th century onwards require a culturally similar population to socially function. America had that amongst European-descended populations in the first half of the 20th century, despite admitted sectarian divisions in some cases.

Literally millions of German- and Italian-Americans dropped everything to join the armed forces during World War II and fight against their ancestral countries. By contrast, how many Mexican-Americans or Chinese-Americans would support the US during a really bitter trade war (think Trump years x50), let alone in a conventional, non-nuclear conflict?

Even the majority or at least a huge minority of the Japanese-Americans supported the Allied war effort in World War II.

I think you will find at least in Texas that the Mexican-Americans understand what's at stake and are aligning themselves accordingly. https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/democrats-losing-texas-latinos-trump/

 

[get2choppaaa]

Doomer Paul going down on this one me thinks.

 

[magaman]

I've been reading more about the Civil War and the Revolutionary War, about how those wars were actually Masonic wars. I already knew about some of our past presidents and especially the founding fathers being Freemasons but I was reading yesterday that the common colonials that lived in the colonies prior to 1776 were actually happy with the way that things were going and didn't want to fight any wars/independence, etc. They also didn't really drink much tea either, only the wealthy folk did that so the Boston Tea Harbor incident, also Masonic. In fact it was the wealthy people that wanted the Revolution to happen because they didn't like paying taxes and not only that, the Freemason founding fathers were in it for the long haul and used the religious colonists resolves and ideals to further the Masonic USA that they founded so that way they could topple Christian kingdoms all across Europe..

The colonies were actually very different from each other and didn't always get along fabulously and had different ideas about their Christianity and were only united by the Freemasons narratives and rhetoric. Where we would be today if the USA had never come about, I'm not sure. Would we be in a better place? Probably. If there's a second civil war, it will no doubt be another Masonic war to set the stage for the next chapter in their storybook. We don't really want these types of wars. Revisionist history may want you to feel that you do but it seems to me that the common folks like us on here would be the losers of it and the winners would be the very wealthy and the Freemasons. It's tragic that we've been so proud to be American and saw it as something great but yet when we finally figured out why it was started and what the founders we idolized were actually really about, we realize that not everything is as it seems.. It almost makes me sick to my stomach but this must be part of the process

 

[RexImperator]

American civic nationalism/faint-European nationalism peaked in the 1940s and began falling off a cliff after the late 1960s.

America, whether we like it or not, would have fared better if it had openly touted itself as a culturally White and Christian European outpost post-1945. It did not mean it had to exclude non-Whites but all newcomers should have been forced to assimilate and their numbers should have been drastically reduced.

Pax Americana was always flawed because the Pax Romana model it was supposedly based on only worked in a world where it took months to travel from one side of the empire to another. Plus, the Romans screwed themselves over as soon as they significantly watered down citizenship, especially Caracalla granting it to anyone who was not a slave in 212 A.D.

Globally connected societies from the early 20th century onwards require a culturally similar population to socially function. America had that amongst European-descended populations in the first half of the 20th century, despite admitted sectarian divisions in some cases.

Literally millions of German- and Italian-Americans dropped everything to join the armed forces during World War II and fight against their ancestral countries. By contrast, how many Mexican-Americans or Chinese-Americans would support the US during a really bitter trade war (think Trump years x50), let alone in a conventional, non-nuclear conflict?

Even the majority or at least a huge minority of the Japanese-Americans supported the Allied war effort in World War II.

Yes I don’t think many appreciate how the generic “American” or “white” of the late 20th century was forged over time, and is a fairly recent thing. Getting drafted and serving together in two world wars, plus a near moratorium on immigration from 1924 to 1965 created that. Not too long ago, many would expect to be referred to informally as a “Mick”, “Kraut”, “Wop”, etc.

 

[PolishCalifornian]

Yes I don’t think many appreciate how the generic “American” or “white” of the late 20th century was forged over time, and is a fairly recent thing. Getting drafted and serving together in two world wars, plus a near moratorium on immigration from 1924 to 1965 created that. Not too long ago, many would expect to be referred to informally as a “Mick”, “Kraut”, “Wop”, etc.

I think that unity has been pretty much obliterated through immigration, maybe its also a sign of how weak it was in the first place. Physical isolation created by two oceans and the lack of anything resembling the modern mass media back then, made it possible to roughly integrate more recent European immigrants into the native Anglo stock. One reason I think a civil war is unlikely is that today, whites have very little in common with each other unless they are from the same geographic region. Roughly half of all whites (supported by the majority of virtually all minorities) are actively hostile towards their own ethnic interests by voting in maniacal leftists. Some nationalists put way too much faith in the notion that generic American whites will unify in their own interest when the history of Europe from where they are descended is the history of conflict between English, French and Germans in the west and Slavs and Germans in the east (to name the main fights), all "white".

 

[EndlessGravity]

One reason I think a civil war is unlikely is that today, whites have very little in common with each other unless they are from the same geographic region.

Depending on what you mean: it's also common to own a home for only five years before bouncing to the next spot. So even though everyone acts like a local...no one is. They have no connection to the history or culture of their regions. They can show you where the nearest local craft beer bar is though.

 

[magaman]

I think that unity has been pretty much obliterated through immigration, maybe its also a sign of how weak it was in the first place. Physical isolation created by two oceans and the lack of anything resembling the modern mass media back then, made it possible to roughly integrate more recent European immigrants into the native Anglo stock. One reason I think a civil war is unlikely is that today, whites have very little in common with each other unless they are from the same geographic region. Roughly half of all whites (supported by the majority of virtually all minorities) are actively hostile towards their own ethnic interests by voting in maniacal leftists. Some nationalists put way too much faith in the notion that generic American whites will unify in their own interest when the history of Europe from where they are descended is the history of conflict between English, French and Germans in the west and Slavs and Germans in the east (to name the main fights), all "white".

America is a house of cards that was built on pillars of sand, if you know the true story of it's founding and the people that founded it. The official narrative would make you think that the founders were good boys, a bunch of goodie two shoes and that all the colonials were on board with the idea but the real story is pretty different. There may have been some semblance of racial unity as in most of the colonials were white but like you said, they came from all different cultures, tribes and had varying ideas on Christianity. People buy into the idea that America is a Christian nation and there is some elements of truth in that, such as lots of common folks were very religious and hard workers. The wealthy and the Mason founders took advantage of that and were able to make the first Masonic nation a reality.

 

[david.garrett84]

I think you will find at least in Texas that the Mexican-Americans understand what's at stake and are aligning themselves accordingly. https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/democrats-losing-texas-latinos-trump/

I very much disagree. Plus, “Mexican-Americans” is far too broad a term for Texas especially given its history. Mestizos are still firmly for the Democrats.

Texas is in huge, huge trouble for Republicans. People often talk about Bush beating Democrat Ann Richards by only 53-45 in the 1994 Governor’s race as an example of how Texas has always had a fairly or even very strong Democratic vote. On paper, it is a very similar margin to Cruz’s win over Beto O’BetaDork for the Senate two and a half years ago.

Regardless, old races where Democrats won a huge percentage of the vote ignore how many of these “leftwing” candidates from the 1960s to 2000s were more in line with Trump’s policies than many Republicans are today.

This is why I tend to scoff at conservatives who fondly remember how Newt Gingrich in 1994 led the Right to its best showing in Congress in “decades”. The Congress under Eisenhower, Democratic-dominated as it was, had more conservatives than Newt had in 1994. Party affiliation alone tells you very little. Newt was certainly important for his time but the obsession with certain misleading metrics obscures how badly America has fallen over decades.

We cannot rely on simply comparing GOP/Democratic percentages across different periods. Easily 2/3 of Ann Richard voters in 1994 would have voted for Cruz for Senate in 2018. That between 45 and 50% of Texans voted for an extremist like O’BetaDork in 2018 is an indictment of the collective insanity gripping huge swathes of even hitherto red states.

Think also about how John Kennedy in neighboring Louisiana was a Democrat until only 10-15 years ago. On the flip side, Dennis Kucinich, an “extremist” in his heyday (only a decade and a half ago in 2004), was a “radical”, “fringe” Democrat who in 2021 would be in the 80th percentile for how “conservative” he was.

Many of the people you are talking about when you say “Mexican-American” in Texas are criollo (pure White) or phenotypically criollo Hispanic. They are old school Tejanos. Many but not all Hispanics in certain border areas have been in Texas for hundreds of years. El Paso is a lot whiter-looking than the stats suggest. Plenty of Hispanics there are as white as Irish Beto, for example.

In addition, many conservative “Hispanics” are mixed non-Hispanic/Hispanic individuals who simply put down Hispanic as the ethnicity they choose. There is a tendency to choose the more exotic ancestry, which explains mixed Anglo/Polish people in Michigan putting down Polish or mixed German/Norwegian people in Minnesota putting down Norwegian.

I do the same on censuses when I am back home. I put “Swiss-German” down despite being literally eight times more “English” than I am “Swiss-German”. I also put down “Irish” as my second of two choices because I am part-Irish and “English” gets more responses than “Irish” in Australia, even if there are plenty of Irish people.

Ted Cruz’s Hispanic ancestry is basically a joke, as is Charlie Sheen’s. Both had grandfathers born in actual Spain, Cruz’s father is a pure White man born in Cuba, and both Cruz and Sheen had not even on-paper-Hispanic European mothers, in Cruz’s case Irish-Italian.

 

[get2choppaaa]

I very much disagree. Plus, “Mexican-Americans” is far too broad a term for Texas especially given its history. Mestizos are still firmly for the Democrats.

Texas is in huge, huge trouble for Republicans. People often talk about Bush beating Democrat Ann Richards by only 53-45 in the 1994 Governor’s race as an example of how Texas has always had a fairly or even very strong Democratic vote. On paper, it is a very similar margin to Cruz’s win over Beto O’BetaDork for the Senate two and a half years ago.

Regardless, old races where Democrats won a huge percentage of the vote ignore how many of these “leftwing” candidates from the 1960s to 2000s were more in line with Trump’s policies than many Republicans are today.

This is why I tend to scoff at conservatives who fondly remember how Newt Gingrich in 1994 led the Right to its best showing in Congress in “decades”. The Congress under Eisenhower, Democratic-dominated as it was, had more conservatives than Newt had in 1994. Party affiliation alone tells you very little. Newt was certainly important for his time but the obsession with certain misleading metrics obscures how badly America has fallen over decades.

We cannot rely on simply comparing GOP/Democratic percentages across different periods. Easily 2/3 of Ann Richard voters in 1994 would have voted for Cruz for Senate in 2018. That between 45 and 50% of Texans voted for an extremist like O’BetaDork in 2018 is an indictment of the collective insanity gripping huge swathes of even hitherto red states.

Think also about how John Kennedy in neighboring Louisiana was a Democrat until only 10-15 years ago. On the flip side, Dennis Kucinich, an “extremist” in his heyday (only a decade and a half ago in 2004), was a “radical”, “fringe” Democrat who in 2021 would be in the 80th percentile for how “conservative” he was.

Many of the people you are talking about when you say “Mexican-American” in Texas are criollo (pure White) or phenotypically criollo Hispanic. They are old school Tejanos. Many but not all Hispanics in certain border areas have been in Texas for hundreds of years. El Paso is a lot whiter-looking than the stats suggest. Plenty of Hispanics there are as white as Irish Beto, for example.

In addition, many conservative Hispanics are mixed non-Hispanic/Hispanics who simply put down Hispanic as the ethnicity they choose. There is a tendency to choose the more exotic ancestry, which explains mixed Anglo/Polish people in Michigan putting down Polish or mixed German/Norwegian people in Minnesota putting down Norwegian.

I do the same on censuses when I am back home. I put “Swiss-German” down despite being literally eight times more “English” than I am “Swiss-German”. I also put down “Irish” as my second choice because I am part-Irish and “English” gets more responses than “Irish” in Australia, even if there are plenty of Irish people.

As a Texan in the most diverse city in the US (Houston)... I agree.

The state will be blue in 2-6 years.

If you're in rural pockets it will be very conservative. But the cites are going to be very blue (as they already are)

If your in state, you need to get land and move in the next couple years and avoid the Soros crowd permeating Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and of course Austin.

 

[It_is_my_time]

At least they might stop pretending they want unity or anything good for the world.

 

[get2choppaaa]

At least they might stop pretending they want unity or anything good for the world.

This is literally top 10 dumbest historical analysis tweets I've ever seen.

The bit about Thermopylae alone (arguably the single most important event in western world from a military rally point view) shows the idiocy of the liberal hoi paloi.

Determined White Men have set the arc of all history in the modern world as far as Geopolitics.

Clearly context gets lost in wokeness.

 

[The Beast1]

I've been reading more about the Civil War and the Revolutionary War, about how those wars were actually Masonic wars. I already knew about some of our past presidents and especially the founding fathers being Freemasons but I was reading yesterday that the common colonials that lived in the colonies prior to 1776 were actually happy with the way that things were going and didn't want to fight any wars/independence, etc. They also didn't really drink much tea either, only the wealthy folk did that so the Boston Tea Harbor incident, also Masonic. In fact it was the wealthy people that wanted the Revolution to happen because they didn't like paying taxes and not only that, the Freemason founding fathers were in it for the long haul and used the religious colonists resolves and ideals to further the Masonic USA that they founded so that way they could topple Christian kingdoms all across Europe..

The colonies were actually very different from each other and didn't always get along fabulously and had different ideas about their Christianity and were only united by the Freemasons narratives and rhetoric. Where we would be today if the USA had never come about, I'm not sure. Would we be in a better place? Probably. If there's a second civil war, it will no doubt be another Masonic war to set the stage for the next chapter in their storybook. We don't really want these types of wars. Revisionist history may want you to feel that you do but it seems to me that the common folks like us on here would be the losers of it and the winners would be the very wealthy and the Freemasons. It's tragic that we've been so proud to be American and saw it as something great but yet when we finally figured out why it was started and what the founders we idolized were actually really about, we realize that not everything is as it seems.. It almost makes me sick to my stomach but this must be part of the process

Instead of looking at it from a masonic lens, look at the revolutionary war as a proxy war between France and England.
In fact, it all started with the French and Indian war which the french lost.

Looking for revenge, the french began to agitate small pockets of anti-english sentiment in the colonies. The english did their best to ban colonial publications they felt were agitating the colonists. Curious how Thomas Paine's Common Sense and other pamphlets of the era vould probably be identified as French fake news.

Is it any wonder that the Boston Tea Party and the infamous Jan 6th capital storming have any comparison with one another? I bet if the English had smartphones and GCHQ during the 18th century, all of the boston tea parties would have been promptly arrested too.

France had her claws in the American revolution to piss off the English (which they won). The English returned the favor by overthrowing the French monarchy and throwing the rest of France into chaos.

Ultimately however, it was the French who got the last laugh when Napoleon spanked all of Europe's behinds. By that point, I think everyone basically chilled out.