US Civil War 2.0 Update

Young boy sleeps between his parents

There have been several articles in the past week or so on the topic of the possibility that there will be or there already is a second civil war occurring in the United States. Several of them reference each other.

The Washington Post started with In America, Talk Turns to Something Not Spoken of for 150 Years: Civil War in which it blames Trump and conservatives for the current state of affairs.

From Richard Fernandez’s article at PJ Media, What Would a Hybrid Civil War Look Like? wonders if we are already in a civil hybrid war where victory is achieved by silencing opponents, punitive prosecution and deplatforming.

Howard Schultz tweeted that “the failed political class of Washington, D.C., has broken America’s political system. And out of that are rising political extremes on both sides.” Yet to some, extremes are not a bug but a feature. Bernie Sanders declared without a hint of irony that “Donald Trump wants to divide us up based on the color of our skin, based on where we were born, based on our gender, our religion and our sexual orientation,” even though that is the perfect definition of intersectional identity politics.

While one explanation for the fractiousness is a reversion to our primitive natural tendency to mistrust outsiders, the other possibility is that it is now the way modern warfare is waged. The Russians have ascribed events unfolding in Venezuela to an American Trojan Horse strategy. It “would rely on ‘protest potential of the fifth column’ to destabilize the situation in the countries with unwanted governments … using the technologies of color revolutions.”

The Russians, whose Soviet empire was overthrown by the color revolutions, have been experimenting with similar strategies known as hybrid warfare. As the NYT reported

General Gerasimov laid out in an article published in 2013 … which many now see as a foreshadowing of the country’s embrace of “hybrid war”… analysts see a progression from the blend of subversion and propaganda used in Ukraine to the tactics later directed against Western nations, including the United States, where Russia’s military intelligence agency hacked into Democratic Party computers during the 2016 election.

With conventional war rendered suicidal by the advent of nuclear weapons, a cocktail of lawfare, info war, deliberate population movement, and targeted physical intimidation is now the toolset of choice and the Russians, Chinese, jihadis, EU, and USA each have their versions.

“The idea that the Russians have discovered some new art of war is wrong,” Mark Galeotti, a Russia expert at the Royal United Services Institute and the author of “Russian Political War,” said of the general’s latest speech. “This is basically the Russians trying to grapple with the modern world.” Hybrid war has long been a Western military term of art, analysts say, especially in the context of counterterrorism.

But since the resulting battlefields are waged inside the country, there is little reason why domestic political conflict should not resemble the international ones. Because victory is now attained by jailing opponents, silencing or financially sanctioning them, punitive prosecution, deplatforming, and universal surveillance are used alike in both cases and it is increasingly hard to tell them apart. The thesis that America is already in a “civil war” or on the brink occurred to Greg Jaffe, national security reporter, and Jenna Johnson, national political correspondent for The Washington Post...

Robert Bridge writes at RT American Civil War 2: US media will have only itself to blame if all hell breaks loose that the media’s self-righteous bias stokes the divisions.

…Michael Cohen, for example, Trump’s turncoat personal lawyer who committed perjury by lying to Congress, was quoted high in the article as saying, “Given my experience working for Mr. Trump, I fear that if he loses the election in 2020 that there will never be a peaceful transition of power.”

Now that is certainly rich. Ever since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election, Washington has been consumed by the Mueller investigation, and amid mindless chatter that Trump is an illegitimate president slated for impeachment. In other words, the last thing that can be said about the Democrats is that they facilitated a “peaceful transition of power.” In fact, they have hobbled Trump and his administration ever since he entered the Oval Office.

Another pro-Liberal voice dragged into the Civil War story was Robert Reich, who served on Barack Obama’s economic transition advisory board. The Post linked to an article Reich wrote last year where he posited the fictional scenario where an impeachment resolution against the president is enacted, thus kicking off mass civil strife on the direct command of dear leader…

Now that is some world-class chutzpah. In fact, it is the same self-righteous, ingratiating tone that weaves itself throughout the Post article. In keeping with the mainstream media’s non-stop narrative, Trump and the Republicans are blamed for everything that has gone wrong in the country, while the Democrats come off as little angels trying to piece the fractured country back together.

As already mentioned, Donald Trump is certainly not above criticism. Far from it. But for the mainstream media to place all of the blame for the current political malaise at the Republican’s door is about as responsible as lighting up a cigarette inside of a Chinese fireworks factory…

Finally Malcolm Pollack’s On Civil War discusses how it is the Left that has pulled crazily away from the rest of the country and the resulting desperation of normal people to return to civilized order that is causing the chasm.

…That’s it exactly: we are desperate. We know how close we are to the edge, to the dissolution of civilized order into chaos and tyranny. We can feel in our bones the implacable hatred of our would-be commissars for everything we believe is good and right and true — along with a growing understanding that their hatred doesn’t stop at our traditions and beliefs. As long as we live and breathe, we are a threat. If the blood-soaked history of the twentieth century can teach us anything at all, it should teach us that it will not be enough to see us displaced and destroyed. They will want us dead and gone.

One of the milestones along the road to civil war is the normalization of violence as a rational response to a dehumanized enemy, followed soon after by an eagerness for general conflict. This eagerness arises first in the breasts of those seeking radical change, who see violence as justified by the righteousness of their cause, and who are usually young and excitable people who have a much better sense of how to destroy what exists than to build and preserve a system that, however flawed, actually works. (This also reflects that the Right, almost by definition, moves toward order, while the Left is always entropic.) But the Right is eminently capable of reactive, or even proactive, violence when confronted by an existential threat to order, and is every bit as liable to the “othering” and dehumanization of its enemies in preparation for war.

There is, then, a spiral of mutual threat and provocation in the run-up to war, along the course of which a people can go from general comity and commonality, to political or cultural division, to rancorous debate, to increasingly bitter struggle for political power, to “othering” and dehumanization, to normalized violence, to bloodthirsty eagerness for war, to general armed conflict. We are already well into the latter stages, and even on the Right I see martial enthusiasm increasing: the hatred of the enemy, the idea that we are now so far beyond reconciliation that there is going to be a fight, and that we might as well get on with it (especially as we are the ones who will most likely win)…

Burning Platform: 2019 From a Fourth Turning Perspective

William Strauss and Neil Howe (both historians, among other things) wrote a book in 1997 called The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy — What the Cycles of History Tell Us About America’s Next Rendezvous with Destiny — which introduced what is now called Strauss-Howe Generational Theory. According to that theory, there is a four stage cycles of eras, called turnings, which repeat in cycles of approximately 80-100 years, the fourth of which is the Crisis turning, an era of destruction and revolution. The theory has its critics as well as proponents, so, as with everything, use your think-thingy. The following is an excerpt from a lengthy article on The Burning Platform titled 2019 From a Fourth Turning Perspective, which gives some overview of the theory and applies it to world and US events.

“An impasse over the federal budget reaches a stalemate. The president and Congress both refuse to back down, triggering a near-total government shutdown. The president declares emergency powers. Congress rescinds his authority. Dollar and bond prices plummet. The president threatens to stop Social Security checks. Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling. Default looms. Wall Street panics.” – The Fourth Turning – Strauss & Howe

Image result for budget impasse trump schumer

Strauss and Howe wrote their book in 1996. They were not trying to be prophets of doom, but observers of history able to connect events through human life cycles of 80 or so years. Using critical thinking skills and identifying the most likely triggers for crisis: debt, civic decay, and global disorder, they were able to anticipate scenarios which could drive the next crisis, which they warned would arrive in the mid-2000 decade. The scenario described above is fairly close to the current situation, driven by the showdown between Trump and the Democrats regarding the border wall.

It has not reached the stage where all hell breaks loose, but if it extends until the end of January and food stamp money is not distributed to 40 million people (mostly in urban ghettos) all bets are off. The likelihood of this scenario is small, but there are numerous potential triggers which could still make 2019 go down in history as a year to remember.

As we enter the eleventh year of this Fourth Turning, the fourth Crisis period in U.S. history, the mood of U.S. citizens and citizens around the globe continues to darken. Fourth Turnings are driven by generational configuration and the emotional reaction to events by the Prophet generation leaders, Nomad generation spearheads, and Hero generation cannon fodder.

As we close out this year, stock markets are gyrating wildly, central bankers are trying to reverse their nine years of interventionist strategies to sustain the establishment, civil chaos spreads across the European continent, saber rattling between the U.S., Russia and China increases, the animosity between political parties reaches new heights, the Deep State relentlessly pursues their Mueller led coup against Trump, mega-social media corporations tighten their grip on free speech by silencing conservatives, leftists push their socialist, open borders, normalizing degeneracy agenda, and global recession gains momentum as trade declines and global debt reaches unserviceable levels…

Click here to read the entire article at The Burning Platform.

Patriotman on American Partisan has his own take on the article, The Fourth Turning & The Future, As I See It:

…I think that the article was very closely aligned with my fears. The biggest threats we face as a country are all intertwined (thus, don’t consider this a ranked list) and are: civil unrest due to a growing divide between ideologies, economic slowdowns due to massive debt and employment trends, and outside challenge of the unipolar world by China and Russia.

I don’t think that any of these are the causation for the others, but if I was forced to choose it would be the differing of ideologies that is driving the other two. The urban and rural divide has always been present obviously, but the obvious disconnect between the coastal elites in their ivory towers and those in the hinterlands seems unsolvable at the moment. The problem mostly lies with the former as the latter would like nothing more than for everyone to be left alone by everyone else. It is the liberal elites who insist on forcing their culture, norms, and ideology on those conservatives in rural America and continually try to remake the system in their permanent favor. They attack our religion, our culture, and our lifestyle because they do not approve of it…

 

 

AIER: The Real Problem Is the Politicization of Everything

Kai Weiss at the American Institute for Economic Research has a nice, short article on the problems of over-politicization and the solution thereto – The Real Problem Is the Politicization of Everything. Unfortunately, at least one of the sides will reject the idea of a less-intrusive state.

…This is a problem the great C.S. Lewis also saw when he mused that we should focus on “a household laughing together over a meal, or two friends talking over a pint of beer, or a man alone reading a book that interests him.” Meanwhile, “economies, politics, law, armies, and institutions, save insofar as they prolong and multiply such scenes, are a mere ploughing the sand and sowing the ocean, a meaningless vanity and vexation of the spirit. Collective activities are, of course, necessary, but this is the end to which they are necessary.”

So what is a possible way out of this conundrum? A multitude of proposals have been made to detoxicate today’s climate, and it would frankly be pretentious for me to claim to know the solution. Nonetheless, one surefire way, as friends of liberty will quickly point out, is to get politics out of our lives. As Kristian Niemietz notes, “The most obvious antidote to a dysfunctional, adversarial political culture is just to do less politics.”

What does that require? It necessitates a dramatic reduction in the size and scope of the state, the building of a wall between the state (so long as it exists) and the rest of our lives, and the restoration of the conviction that society works best when it is left alone. In other words, we need desperately to resurrect the vision of classical liberalism and draw lessons from its modern heirs in the libertarian tradition…

To regain civility in human interactions and finally treat other human beings as human beings again, we would do well to get politics out of human affairs.

Click here to read the entire article at AIER.org.

FO: What Most People Get Wrong About Our ‘Civil War’

Sam Culper at Forward Observer has another piece in this series covering our ongoing domestic conflict, What most people get wrong about our ‘Civil War.’ It’s got some length to it, but it’s a good read with valuable information for you to understand.

…While a civil war, by definition, has not yet started, I do argue that a domestic conflict has already started (my specific thoughts are here, here, and here).

There are plenty of naysayers, and I understand their logic. They advise listeners or readers, “Go to your local Walmart or grocery store. Your local doctor’s office. Your local bank. Walk out your front door and talk to your neighbor.” They ask if Americans are at war with each other in these places, and use these anecdotes to explain that America isn’t locked into a civil war and won’t be.

They’re right in that regard. America isn’t at war.

But the problem with their argument is that it’s not all of America fighting the culture war, nor is it all of America fighting in the ongoing domestic conflict. It’s an ‘irate, tireless minority’. (The brunt of the ‘fighting’ in this conflict isn’t being waged by the average American, as two of my favorite thinkers people in the world — Victor Davis Hanson and Niall Ferguson — have alluded to. You can read my review of Ferguson’s latest book here.)

Another reason why most Americans — the overwhelming majority — aren’t engaged in our domestic conflict is because we’re still really early. Those engaged in establishing the battle lines of today’s culture war were ‘innovators’ in the 1990s. Those engaged in the culture war through the 2008 and 2016 elections were ‘early adopters’. But once the ‘early majority’ joins as soon as 2019-2021, the evidence of an active domestic conflict could be overwhelming. That’s a very distinct possibility.

My estimate is that we have maybe a few percent of the population pushing left or right extremes at the center of the culture war, but there’s an even smaller percentage (a fraction) that actually engages in political violence. There’s probably another 10 percent on either side actively engaged in political, information, and economic warfare. The remaining 75 percent is on the bubble, indifferent, or just plain stuck in the middle — a lot like other intra-state conflicts we’ve experienced.

So can we really have a domestic conflict with just a few thousand combatants?

Well, yeah. But we’re probably still very early.

To understand why we’re still in the beginning phases of our domestic conflict, we can look at three concepts…

Click here to read the entire article at Forward Observer.

Related:

The Organic Prepper: Are You Prepared for Lockdown? How to Stay Safe When All Hell Breaks Loose in America

…Add in the fiercely-fought midterm elections and the threat of civil unrest is high…

Strategic Culture Foundation: American Politics Is Now Just Civil War by Other Means

…Trump didn’t cause today’s polarization, he only exacerbates it because he punches back…

Monster Hunter Nation: The 2nd Amendment is Obsolete, Says Congressman Who Wants To Nuke Omaha

…We are so divided it’s like we are speaking two different languages. Hell, on this topic we are on two different planets. And it is usually framed with a sanctimonious left versus right, enlightened being versus racist hillbilly, unfailing arrow of history versus the knuckle dragging past sort of vibe…

Imprimis: America’s Cold Civil War

Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College, has a posted a transcription of a speech given by Charles Kesler, the Dengler-Dykema Distinguished Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College and editor of the Claremont Review of Books. America’s Cold Civil War discusses the current political divide in the USA and how it came to be. The somewhat lengthy piece details the difference in beliefs about the Constitution, individual vs group identity, and opposing definitions of rights. It also identified five possible paths ahead, including hot civil war.

…[W]e have described our current political scene as a cold civil war. A cold civil war is better than a hot civil war, but it is not a good situation for a country to be in. Underlying our cold civil war is the fact that America is torn increasingly between two rival constitutions, two cultures, two ways of life.

Political scientists sometimes distinguish between normal politics and regime politics. Normal politics takes place within a political and constitutional order and concerns means, not ends. In other words, the ends or principles are agreed upon; debate is simply over means. By contrast, regime politics is about who rules and for what ends or principles. It questions the nature of the political system itself. Who has rights? Who gets to vote? What do we honor or revere together as a people? I fear America may be leaving the world of normal politics and entering the dangerous world of regime politics—a politics in which our political loyalties diverge more and more, as they did in the 1850s, between two contrary visions of the country.

One vision is based on the original Constitution as amended. This is the Constitution grounded in the natural rights of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution written in 1787 and ratified in 1788. It has been transmitted to us with significant Amendments—some improvements and some not—but it is recognizable still as the original Constitution. To simplify matters we may call this “the conservative Constitution”—with the caveat that conservatives have never agreed perfectly on its meaning and that many non-conservatives remain loyal to it.

The other vision is based on what Progressives and liberals, for 100 years now, have called “the living Constitution.” This term implies that the original Constitution is dead—or at least on life support—and that in order to remain relevant to our national life, the original Constitution must be infused with new meaning and new ends and therefore with new duties, rights, and powers. To cite an important example, new administrative agencies must be created to circumvent the structural limitations that the original Constitution imposed on government.

As a doctrine, the living Constitution originated in America’s new departments of political and social science in the late nineteenth century—but it was soon at the very forefront of Progressive politics. One of the doctrine’s prime formulators, Woodrow Wilson, had contemplated as a young scholar a series of constitutional amendments to reform America’s national government into a kind of parliamentary system—a system able to facilitate faster political change. But he quickly realized that his plan to amend the Constitution was going nowhere. Plan B was the living Constitution. While keeping the outward forms of the old Constitution, the idea of a living Constitution would change utterly the spirit in which the Constitution was understood.

The resulting Constitution—let us call it “the liberal Constitution”—is not a constitution of natural rights or individual human rights, but of historical or evolutionary right. Wilson called the spirit of the old Constitution Newtonian, after Isaac Newton, and that of the new Constitution Darwinian, after Charles Darwin. By Darwinian, Wilson meant that instead of being difficult to amend, the liberal Constitution would be easily amenable to experimentation and adjustment. To paraphrase the late Walter Berns, the point of the old Constitution was to keep the times in tune with the Constitution; the purpose of the new is to keep the Constitution in tune with the times.

Until the 1960s, most liberals believed it was inevitable that their living Constitution would replace the conservative Constitution through a kind of slow-motion evolution. But during the sixties, the so-called New Left abandoned evolution for revolution, and partly in reaction to that, defenders of the old Constitution began not merely to fight back, but to call for a return to America’s first principles. By seeking to revolve back to the starting point, conservatives proved to be Newtonians after all—and also, in a way, revolutionaries, since the original meaning of revolution is to return to where you began, as a celestial body revolves in the heavens…

Click here to read the entire essay at Imprimis.

American Partisan: Balkanization in the United States

From the fine staff of American Partisan is this brief article, Balkanization in the United States: Is it Coming?.

…We are meant to swallow the lie that says “diversity is our strength” without consideration for merit, performance, ability, intelligence or actual results.

This is not meant to be an indictment on any specific culture or ethnicity, but more of a history lesson, a social observation and a dire prediction.

The history lesson is the continued failure of all socialist based economic models, whether we want to consider them “real” socialism or not. The sort of hard socialism seen in 1980’s Yugoslavia and the crony-capitalist soft socialist version seen in the US today are both examples of that failure system. As I stated earlier, it does not take any level of economic expertise to understand that our current system is insolvent and that we have passed the point of no return on a future crash of our financial system. Now that less than half of the people in the US are net-taxpayers and over half of the people in the US are receiving some sort of government assistance simply to survive, we have become a welfare state, with only decreasing numbers of producers with increasing numbers of consumers. Mathematically, it is not sustainable. Historically, it is disastrous.

The social observation is that such a mass of diverse peoples must have a voluntary pressure outlet in order to maintain peace. We must accept reality that not all cultures are able to be forced together with peaceful results. Forced proximity, with advantages, disadvantages and blame doled out to certain peoples, with a lack of opportunity to separate peacefully will always result in strife and eventual violence.

The dire prediction is one that is easy to see coming: An eventual economic failure is the lit match, while the total lack of national cultural identity is the gasoline. The media and governmental apparatchiks stand by to stoke the fires.

We are Yugoslavia circa 1980’s.

My advice? Stay out of Sarajevo.

Click here to read the entire article at American Partisan.

Related:

Forward Observer: The Hidden Tribes of America

 

NY Times’ Literary Supplement Publishes “Trump Assassination” Story

From Mac Slavo at SHTFPlan.com comes a story of media hypocrisy. While the media and media talking heads like former CIA head Brennan blame President Trump for inciting violence leading to the recent failed bombing attempts, they ignore the well recorded incitement to violence of Democrat party leaders and the media.

While mainstream media outlets balk at the suggestion that they may have been guilty of ramping up the division and political tensions in the United States, one of those outlets actually published an assassination story about president Donald Trump.

While those in the mainstream media blame Trump’s inflammatory “fake news” rhetoric for half a dozen bombs mailed to prominent Democrats and CNN, the New York Times ran a short story envisioning Trump’s assassination.  The story detailed a failed assassination attempt by a Russian but what happened next was incredibly disturbing.

Frustrated by the failure of the Mueller investigation to turn up the requested dirt on their “enemy”, Trump, the media “resistance” asked a few spy novelists to predict a more “appealing future” for the president in the Times‘ literary supplement., according to RT. The results revealed some shoddy writing work, even putting aside their predictable endings. Spoiler alert: Trump was colluding with the Russians all along…

…This is a highly hypocritical stance for the mainstream media to take.  On the one hand, they demand Trump cool down his rhetoric toward them, but on the other hand, they insist on publishing violent leftist trash meant to incite glee over the president’s assassination.

Trump’s election has hastened a decline in journalistic standards that has seen once-respectable media outlets like the Times jettison fact-checking, accountability, and taste standards in favor of grinding their political axe. Journalists’ concerns about the Trump regime are not unfounded, however – his Justice Department has prosecuted more whistleblowers and leakers than even media darling Barack Obama, who previously held the record. -RT

If you think the media is not inciting violence, just take a quick look at an article by Breitbart titled, 613 Acts of Media-Approved Violence and Harassment Against Trump Supporters...

Democrats claiming that they are not inciting violence with their words are reminiscent of South African President Zuma singing “Kill the Farmers, Kill the Boer” and claiming that it is merely preserving history and is not an incitement to violence.

Forward Observer: October Update on the Second American Civil War

The intel folks at Forward Observer have written a follow up piece on a possible second American civil war.

One of the central themes in contemporary insurgent movements is the relationship between armed combatant groups and their ostensibly peaceful political party cohorts.

The Irish Republican Army and Sinn Fein in Ireland. Hezbollah, the Shi’ite militant group, and Hezbollah, the Shi’ite political party, in Lebanon. The YPG militant group and the Democratic Union Party in Kurdistan/Syria. Jaysh al-Mahdi and the Sadrist Party in Iraq. The Badr Brigade and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.

There are numerous other examples of political parties having militant wings, in addition to examples of militant organizations establishing themselves as political parties during a conflict.

Historically, insurgent campaigns are more likely to lead to political resolutions than martial victories, so militant organizations must have political representation. On the other hand, violence carried out by a militant wing provides leverage for the political party and an incentive for governments to solve political issues peacefully.

Neither side necessarily has direct influence or control over the other, but they often act to accomplish mutually beneficial goals. A militant wing can offer muscle to a political party, and the political party can provide judicial protections to the militant wing.

So what I want to draw some attention to today is the association of Leftist militant organizations and various factions of the Democratic Party, as one potential way forward in the current domestic conflict. Specifically, I want to point out that while these militant groups don’t necessarily seek or depend on permission to commit violence, some Democratic Party voices offer that permission none the less. And the relationship between Leftist militant groups and the Democratic Party is often tenuous. While many (maybe most) militant Leftists have a disdain for the Democratic Party for not being radical enough, that doesn’t prevent actions that could be mutually beneficial for both sides.

Whether we’re talking about 1970s radical and former attorney general Eric Holder (“Michelle [Obama] says, ‘When they go low, we go high.’ [Applause.] No. No. When they go low, we kick ’em.”), Hillary Clinton saying that maintaining civility with Republicans is futile, California Democrat Maxine Waters encouraging her constituents to harass Republicans and Trump cabinet members, a campaign staffer for a Democratic politician saying that President Trump should be executed (an action for which he later denied his support), or other examples of green lighting incivility in the political and culture war, there’s ample evidence that major voices of the Democratic Party are dog whistling that violence is permissible, while officially denying support for political violence against opponents. There are many, many other examples beyond Holder, Clinton, and Waters. (See my last post for additional information.)

Beyond mainstream Democrats, there’s the growing “Democratic Socialist” faction whose ideologies are steeped in the revolutionary histories of Marxist and Leninist movements. Considering that many Leftist militant groups are supportive of “Democratic socialism”, a political movement that gains mainstream legitimacy — what we’re starting to see now — should be alarming. And then there’s also a growing communist movement in the United States, as revolutionary vanguard communist groups form across the country. There’s a very overt effort to label mainstream conservative voices as “fascist” and “Nazi”, in a successful effort to rationalize violence…

Click here to read the entire article at Forward Observer.

Market Ticker: An Impending Shooting Civil War

Karl Denninger at Market-Ticker.org is the latest voice to speak up about an impending civil war in the United(?) States.

It is my contention that we are just one bad event away from a shooting civil war in America — and in fact if you ask Steve Scalise it may have already started...

When political animus spills over into action in the real world such as repeated criminal assault, as has been happening now with regularity and is being increasingly documented in video form and in their own voices by the political left there is a major problem.  When that sort of activity is intentionally amplified and permitted by major corporate firms such as Facebook and Twitter while suppressing any sort of pushback whatsoever you now add an attempt to con the public into believing this is some sort of “organic” series of events — when nothing of the sort is the case.  When Chuck Schumer states on CSPANthat “There is no presumption of innocence then the Rule of Law and due process are both dead and he is inviting, provoking and in fact inciting civil war.  The conduct alleged is criminal; whenever one makes such an allegation due process rights attach.  If one cannot find recourse in due process before the law then the only remaining recourse is to the law of the jungle.  There are also those (Hirono) who have gone even further and stated that Kavanaugh is presumed guilty because she does not like his written judicial opinions.  This is exactly identical to the Salem witch trials where one was presumed a witch because they had a black cat and were unmarriedwhich certain people found “distasteful.”

The media, specifically but not exclusively CNN, is even worse — they are intentionally lying and when the civil war they are inciting comes they are and should be first on the list of parties held responsible for the outcome.  As just one example in the context of Ramirez they have intentionally lied about the fact that her attorneys have ignored and deflected seven separate attempts to obtain some sort of formal statement of facts and allegations made under penalty of perjury;instead her attorneys continue to insist on a trial in the media where there is no penalty for outright lies.  Why is this?  Might it be related to her being a board member of a far-left organization that has required, non-negotiable positions that constitute a flat-out demand to abrogate the First Amendment?

Throughout time and the history of nations there have been multiple political groups that have refused anything other than complete acquiescence and acceptance of their alleged mandates.  Political Islam has been known for this for more than 1,000 years; it has rolled into nations, sometimes by force and sometimes by “migration”; in the latter case the “migrants” then multiply literally as part of their political design and, when they reach a material percentage of the whole they begin segregating society, creating “no-go” zones in which they enforce their own version of law by force and, if not challenged and driven out they eventually take over the entire civil legal authority of the country and replace it.  It is this series of actions that led to the first of the Crusades; they were not, as is commonly put forward, a bunch of Christians rising up and deciding to “kill all the non-believers.”  In point of fact the First Crusade was initiated as a responseto demands from Islamic invaders who had occupied the land now called “Israel”, specifically Jerusalem, and forbid Christian pilgrimages.  (Yes, those wars, like so many others, degenerated rather quickly….. war has a way of doing that and no, this is not a blanket claim on the rest of them; there’s a clean argument that many of the other Crusades were more about trade routes than anything else.)  Today we are seeing the beginning stages of the same thing in France and other parts of Europe, including the UK — never mind Sweden.

Rome collapsed largely due to the same sort of nonsense within political groups.  Venezuela was recently a nation with one of the greatest concentrations of oil wealth in the world, it fell victim to the same sort of “one way politically and we’ll kill anyone who disagrees” game and now the nation is basically bankrupt and disintegrating.  Argentina was recently thriving economy.  Today it’s struggling to emerge from its own self-imposed Hell for the exact same reason...

Read the entire article, An Impending Shooting Civil War, by clicking here.

Related:

Club Orlov: When Money Stinks A brief article about the collapsing US dollar and world de-dollarization.

When it comes to issues that may affect the stability of the entire global financial system, being prudent and cautious does sound good. On the other hand, you may ask, What stability are you talking about? The current intellectually challenged resident of the White House likes to wake up in the morning and start another trade war. He has endowed various other individuals within the US government with the authority to single-handedly impose financial sanctions on countries, companies and individuals anywhere in the world. The US federal budget deficit is zooming toward a trillion dollars a year—and this while the economy is supposedly doing well. But of course it isn’t: there are close to 100 million long-term unemployed; inflation (if you include housing, education and medicine) is running wild; the country is full of insolvent municipalities and states and so on. Wealth inequality in the US is reaching levels at which countries tend to explode politically. Perhaps most importantly, the quality of the governing elites in the US, which was quite high just a few generations ago, has now become absolutely abysmal. It isn’t just Trump who is intellectually subpar; so is just about everyone else. They will do all they can to perpetuate the fiction that the US is still wealthy and powerful—until the lights go out.

American Partisan: Forming a Community Survival Group

Aesop: Civil War Is Bad

Aesop over at Raconteur Report has written a piece – Es Kommt – in which he writes that civil war in the US is inevitable unless something changes. Sane people should want to avoid civil war, because it will be truly horrible should it come to our land.  “Bosnia times Rwanda” as Matt Bracken would say.

Will America keep dividing and soon resort to open violence, as happened in 1861? Or will Americans reunite and bind up our wounds, as we did following the upheavals of the 1930s Great Depression or after the protests of the 1960s? 

The answer lies within each of us. 

 Every day we will either treat each other as fellow Americans, with far more uniting than dividing us, or we will continue on the present path that eventually ends in something like a hate-filled Iraq, Rwanda or the Balkans.

Hanson has correctly described a binary outcome:
Either the lunacy will stop, or the country will rend itself.

Either/or.

1, or 0.

And he described it, not to put too fine a point on it, in exactly the terms put forward by Matt Bracken years since:

Bracken:
Bosnia, times Rwanda
Hanson:
we will continue on the present path that eventually ends in something like a hate-filled Iraq, Rwanda or the Balkans.

Hanson is not an instigator, he’s a historian.
He’s showing, with painful precision, that following the edge of this straight-ruler to its logical end leads to flying off a cliff into an abyss at speed, unless people see that inevitable denouement, and decide within themselves to turn away…

…Again, Hanson is not suggesting anything; he’s stating with mathematical precision that either things will be done differently, or there will be a conflagration. He is mathematically correct and precise in this formulation.

Having laid out the consequences, I don’t think he’s in denial about the current state of affairs at all. When one guy, or five guys on the ‘net say “Civil War”, it may be just Tulipomania. When everyone is starting to sound like a chorus, including Stanford historians, there is beginning to be something to it…

…And unlike Hiroshima 73 years ago last month, it won’t go off 8000 miles away from home. It’ll be happening on your block, and mine.

So then what was suggested was adding a line about “redrawing borders”. Srsly?

How did that work in Yugoslavia? Iraq? How about Rwanda, or anywhere in Africa, in all of history, inclusive?

This isn’t a red v. blue classic set-piece battle, because your town, your block, your apartment building, and in some cases your own bedroom are purple.

That’s going to be Stalingrad, not Waterloo.
Hue, not Gettysburg.
Not Hatfields & McCoys, but rather War Of The Roses...

Click here to read the entire article at Raconteur Report.

31% of US Voters Believe Civil War Likely in Next Five Years

According to a new Rasmussen poll,

Thirty-one percent (31%) of Likely U.S. Voters say it’s likely that the United States will experience a second civil war sometime in the next five years, with 11% who say it’s Very Likely…

59% of all voters are concerned that those opposed to President Trump’s policies will resort to violence, with 33% who are Very Concerned…

 

Medic Shack: Civil War and Disease

Chuck at The Medic Shack has an article up describing the increase in disease during modern civil wars and the lack of preparedness in the professional medical facilities.

Over the years we have talked about nuclear war chemical war, SHTF because of crazy politicians, money collapse, and general bad things. One thing that Cat the Herbal Prepper and touched in in past Medic Shack and Herbal Prepper Live shows is normal diseases that follow war, or SHTF collapse.

So lets look at 2 recent civil wars. Bosnia and Syria.
First off lets start with the worst mistake made in medicine at the beginning of the civil war.
There were HUGE signs of the impending war. The crash of Communism, the heated political rhetoric. The clashes between the 3 sides in small isolated conflicts.

So No preparations were made, no stockpiling of medications, no reorganization plan to help them quickly adapt to wartime conditions – if the need arised. As a result, the hospitals in Sarajevo ran out of basic surgical material (dressings, bandages, sutures, cleaning solutions, and similar) within the first three months of the siege. Essential medications, oxygen, and anesthetic gases were at a premium, and the power and water supply were cut off after several months. At the end of the first year medicine had returned to the mid 1800s level of technology. Another problem that I can see happening is the health care post SHTF going to “highest bidder” Meaning If you can pay you get treated. If not. So sorry Charlie. Don’t tell me it won’t happen. You all have seen the deterioration of medical ethics today. Doctors putting in pacemakers on people who don’t need them. Writing scripts on expensive drugs to treat a patient where a proven, less expensive drug, or no illness at all, to get some kick back from Big Pharma. I could go on but this is not what this news letter is about.
After the major medical centers closed and supplies were not to be found and good clean food and water was not available disease reared its wartime head. The official statement by WHO and the Red Cross was limited spread of infectious disease’s happened during the war. In reality, Typhus, Cholera Parasitic intestinal infections (Giardia Cryptosporidia) rose rapidly. Due to malnutrition there was a huge increase in deaths from flu measles and exposure. Scarlet Fever killed 2 out of 10 children under the age a of 6. Due to lack of clean water for hygiene fleas lice, mites and other insects infested the population. Outbreaks of Bubonic plague happened. Also instances of Bartonellosis (Trench Fever) Leishmaniases, Lyme disease Hepatitis A and C and others. Since it was declared a non outbreak event by the WHO there are few numbers to support the claims of eyewitnesses of the event.

Lets fast forward to the 21st century and Syria. Syria did not have the same level of medical infrastructure that central Europe had. Health care was situated in the larger cities and towns and the rural population made their ways to the cities or treated themselves.

The Syrian civil war on the other hand has had and does have extensive coverage by the WHO and other medical organizations. And the documentation of disease during the war is published and it is in a word scary.

The war started inn 2011. In Syria Hepatitis A was almost unheard of. By 2012 an average of 2200 cases a year appeared. Typhoid less than 50 in 2011. By 2012, 1150.

Cutaneous Leishmaniasis. In 2011 less than 100. By 2012 52,900 cases. There is incomplete data after 2012 since the information is highly controlled and unverifiable.

One thing that is similar between both modern civil wars. No preparations were made by the local medical community. All the signs were there but no one in government or medical leaders choose to do something.

So what does all this have to do with the Prepared Medical Prepper?

EVERYTHING.

As we see from recent history the government nor the national and local health communities will do NOTHING to prepare for anything until its to late. Are we on the cusp of a civil war? It very possible giving the current state of relation we have with each other in our own country. The divisional racial wedge that has been driven between us. And the current fight we have about The Constitution of The Untied States.

So what do we need to look out for?

Click here to read the entire article at The Medic Shack.

FO: Five Reasons Why We’ll Have Another Domestic Conflict

Sam Culper over at the Forward Observer intelligence shop has a new article up titled Five reasons why we’ll have another domestic conflict.

Demographically, culturally, fiscally, we’re hemorrhaging as a country. Studies show that most immigrants, legal or illegal, have a political predilection towards larger, more authoritarian government. They do or will vote Democrat. That’s why amnesty is the death knell for the right-leaning electorate. And amnesty is only a matter of time, which means the GOP as a nationally viable party could have an expiration date within your lifetime. Several states, including Texas, were decided by fewer votes than those states have illegal immigrants. Amnesty pushes those states blue, which then push a far Left agenda in a Democrat-controlled Congress. That writing is on the wall.

Without amnesty, studies show that larger percentages and greater numbers of future generations are slightly or consistently liberal. Millennials are the least white voting generation on record; Generation Z is less white than Millennials, and these two groups are or would vote for Leftist populists (like Bernie Sanders) in far greater numbers than previous generations. If we look at political leanings by generation (graph below), we can see the decline in percentage of those mostly or consistently conservative. (Look at each generation in 2017, for instance.) The opposite is also true: the Baby Boomer generation in 2017 had a greater percentage of mostly or consistently liberal than the Silent Generation; Generation X had a higher percentage than the Baby Boomers; and the Millennial generation has a higher percentage than Generation X. Each generation is becoming more liberal due wholly to immigration. Because immigration is little more than importing future Democrat voters, I don’t see how the GOP hangs on to anything outside of regional power without a cultural resurgence (like Reagan, for instance).

Click here to continue reading at Forward Observer.

South Africa News Roundup

Civil war ‘becoming real threat for South Africa

From World Net Daily

Civil war is looming larger and larger as a threat in South Africa as the once-prosperous nation pursues a race-driven agenda that already has damaged its neighbors to the north, says Charl Van Wyk, a longtime missionary in the troubled nation.

 It’s because of the current government’s aggressive move toward communism, he explains.

“We are going to see the same disaster in South Africa that we’ve seen further north of our borders,” Van Wyk told WND in an interview…

“We’ve had a major challenge with communism in South Africa,” Van Wyk said. “In fact, the African National Congress, Nelson Mandela’s group, was completely communist backed. Both by China and Russia.”

Now, the current president of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, plans to dig deeper into communism, hoping to seize white farmers’ lands without compensation, according to the London Telegraph.

Zuma plans to unite the black parties in the parliament of South African to vote for the plan, as it would require a significant majority in parliament to change the law.

Click to read full story

ANC Member Says South Africa Needs Revolution

ANC Member Tiisetso Makhele writes in a News24 opinion piece that South Africa needs another revolution in order to “crush white monopoly capital.”

The primary interest of white monopoly capital is to ensure that profits are maximized at all costs. White monopoly capital receives its mandate from Wall Street in the US, in the main, and it is very powerful.

Just like Cuba, which has had two revolutions so far; one in 1868 to overthrow the Spanish colonizers, and the socialist revolution of 1959, South Africa needs a second revolution. Given our own unique material conditions, we might not require a military struggle to wage this second revolution. But, no matter what shape it takes, South Africa needs a revolution to crush white monopoly capital. Any hope that the revolutionary movement led by the ANC can negotiate with this powerful force is an illusion. White monopoly capital must be weakened or the county will face a storm.

Click for full story

Zuma Tightens Grip as South Africa’s ANC Censures Rebels

From Bloomberg News:

It’s payback time for South African President Jacob Zuma as his ruling African National Congress censures its lawmakers who openly backed a move to oust him, increasing his sway over who’ll succeed him.

The ANC fired Makhosi Khoza as chairwoman of parliament’s public service committee last week after saying it would punish three legislators who announced they’d back an opposition motion of no confidence in Zuma. It then wrote to Derek Hanekom, the head of its disciplinary committee, rebuking him for his Twitter postings calling for the president’s removal.

Click to read full story

The Market Ticker: Editorial on Free Speech

Source: Kart Denninger at Market-ticker.com

To The Press, The Pols And The Rest

Let me say this just one more time:

That someone is a Neo-Nazi, a White Supremacist, KKK member or racist does not render them bereft of the First Amendment.  Just as being a member of BLM or the Antifa does not render them bereft of the First Amendment.

It is not acceptable, legal or excusable to meet speech by any such person with violence.

Period.

To suggest, state, or advocate that such is the case, or to promote the premise that violence is an appropriate remedy for speech you find vile and outrageous is to declare civil war, because there are others who will likely find your speech vile and outrageous and by your statement you have made the claim that just punishment for speech you deem vile is to be found at the hands of a mob.

The press and now lawmakers are openly advocating for the complete breakdown of civil society — they are stating by the droves that violence in response to mere speech that one finds offensive yet has the protection of the First Amendment is not only worthy of said violence the person uttering same is not worthy of having their assailants prosecuted or the protection and investigation of the police forces to interdict violence intended for or served upon them

Continue reading by clicking here