Hard Questions: Civil War Between The Left and The Right

[Del Ivers]

This topic is not for the usual squawking and blaming between left and right. This is about straight-up answers to what you would personally do if this hypothetical scenario became a reality. It's about survival.

1. If a civil war broke out in the United States would you arm yourself?

2. Do you think you have the psychological determination to pull the trigger on another human being in such a conflict?

3. What chance of survival do you give yourself in an all-out urban warfare scenario?

4. Which side would the military be on? Or would they be against both sides?

5. If you're on the Right, to what extent would you trust others on the Right?

6. If you're on the Left, to what extent would you trust others on the Left?

(Note: By 'trust' it is meant how confident would you be of those on your side to help each other out if the going got rough, e.g., if there was only a certain amount of food, water, supplies, etc., to go around, would there be equal sharing or would you fear some on your side would be thinking only about themselves?}

7. If you have a family, how would you defend those who wouldn't be able to defend themselves such as children and the elderly?

8. If during the conflict you learned of groups (civilian) of both Left and Right who joined together to bring about peace even if it meant fighting the hard-core of either side, would you:

a. Join them?
b. Regard those from your side who joined as traitors?
c. And if you did join them, would you fear retaliation from those of your side who did not join?

9. If the other side won and assumed authority, would you fear that instead of unification in the interest of all (even if under new laws) that some of them would feel they have license to continue their violence upon those of your side?

10. If such a war happened, do you think a foreign country or countries would take advantage of it for their own assault on the U.S.?

11. Whether single or with a family, would you leave the country if you knew of other countries that offered sanctuary?

12. Do you think that a civil war could happen? If you do, why? If you don't, why?

As for my answers, I will answer in the course of the thread or if someone specifically asks for an answer to a question. I f I answered all ten immediately then that might prompt answers that are more in response to mine than unfiltered from theirs.

[Meno_]

This topic is not for the usual squawking and blaming between left and right. This is about straight-up answers to what you would personally do if this hypothetical scenario became a reality. It's about survival.

1. If a civil war broke out in the United States would you arm yourself?

2. Do you think you have the psychological determination to pull the trigger on another human being in such a conflict?

3. What chance of survival do you give yourself in an all-out urban warfare scenario?

4. Which side would the military be on? Or would they be against both sides?

5. If you're on the Right, to what extent would you trust others on the Right?

6. If you're on the Left, to what extent would you trust others on the Left?

(Note: By 'trust' it is meant how confident would you be of those on your side to help each other out if the going got rough, e.g., if there was only a certain amount of food, water, supplies, etc., to go around, would there be equal sharing or would you fear some on your side would be thinking only about themselves?}

7. If you have a family, how would you defend those who wouldn't be able to defend themselves such as children and the elderly?

8. If during the conflict you learned of groups (civilian) of both Left and Right who joined together to bring about peace even if it meant fighting the hard-core of either side, would you:

a. Join them?
b. Regard those from your side who joined as traitors?
c. And if you did join them, would you fear retaliation from those of your side who did not join?

9. If the other side won and assumed authority, would you fear that instead of unification in the interest of all (even if under new laws) that some of them would feel they have license to continue their violence upon those of your side?

10. If such a war happened, do you think a foreign country or countries would take advantage of it for their own assault on the U.S.?

11. Whether single or with a family, would you leave the country if you knew of other countries that offered sanctuary?

12. Do you think that a civil war could happen? If you do, why? If you don't, why?

As for my answers, I will answer in the course of the thread or if someone specifically asks for an answer to a question. I f I answered all ten immediately then that might prompt answers that are more in response to mine than unfiltered from theirs.

Preemptively, unfiltered, even crossing such a threshold, it would not be possible even to imagine that martial law, union vise, or separable by state would not preceede such state of affairs. After that failing, would-could the above scenarios be envisioned to seek more drastic resolution.

An objective issue would need to be raised, such as slavery, without which no one would rally expressly to either side. This question predominates before.

The simplified version is, could civil war actually break out even with the effects that an application of martial law, that would be applied to any effort on part of individual states threatening to ceceede, by virtue of such fragmented issues as : immigration, white nationalism, economic inequality, diversively widening differences between the rich and the poor, etc.

If after all this failing, could national guarding of national unity guarantee successfully prevention of a civil war? These intervening questions need resolution, and if failing, the questions could become viable

Just a note : I am tempted to answer the pointed questions. and I can see that the assumption is that all failed, however it was compelling to insert the above variables, in order to indicate the relationship between such scenarios as necessarily based on the idea and the constitutive force between them. In my nind at least, they are a sine quo non.

In addition, could the historically new method of dealing with national strife. be exported into an international theatre, which was not available in Lincon's time prefigure? (Wag the dog)


And the news of the new Iranian clouding came after this prefiguration. That is most expedient, in this age of op ed via pop psych. Who could ever know the Real facts out there?

[Del Ivers]

An objective issue would need to be raised..

That there are all manner of elements to be considered before an actual conflagration? Yes, of course.

What the OP posits is what would an individual do when faced with a situation where the issues are replaced by the immediate, palpable reality of such a conflict. At that level the issues will still be pondered - and usually by those at a distance from the fray - but in a serrated tandem there is the negotiating of one's survival. Think of some of the conflicts in the Middle East, the issues there have been pondered and discussed for awhile but that does not mean that conflict and its consequences have been suspended until there is an 'objective issue' agreed upon.

In short, set aside the issues and variables, it's about what you would do to survive the situation.

Here's my note: I bet a lot of people cannot even bring themselves to answer these questions. That says something right there.

In addition, could the historically new method of dealing with national strife. be exported into an international theatre, which was not available in Lincon's time prefigure? (Wag the dog)

Ask Steve Bannon about that.

[surreptitious75]

I If a civil war broke out in the United States would you arm yourself ? No

2 Do you think you have the psychological determination to pull the trigger on another human being in such a conflict ? No

3 What chance of survival do you give yourself in an all out urban warfare scenario ? 0

4 Which side would the military be on ? Or would they be against both sides ? Yes

5 If you are on the Right to what extent would you trust others on the Right ? 5 - 50

6 If you are on the Left to what extent would you trust others on the Left ? 5 - 50

[Del Ivers]

surreptitious,

Ok, I will answer 2:

"If a civil war broke out in the United States would you arm yourself?"

Yes. Even if it came to naught there are those who might take the situation as license to do whatever they want. I would be someone who would remind them their license is void.

"Do you think you have the psychological determination to pull the trigger on another human being in such a conflict?"

Yes. If they're determined to pull the trigger on me then there would be no hesitation on my part.
____

By the way, any reason for only 6?

[Pedro I Rengel]

In my experience, nobody knows what the fuck is going on in a civil war except the people that orchestrate it.

[Del Ivers]

In my experience, nobody knows what the fuck is going on in a civil war except the people that orchestrate it.

As I noted in a previous post: ".. and usually by those at a distance from the fray..".

But the orchestration still creates effects with consequences that have to be dealt with by the populace. If such a situation happened in the U.S. it would be different than in other places due to the size of area and population. If the military is involved, which it would and I would hope so, it will not be able to deal with all the 'points' of conflict. That being the case, then the people would have to take measures to protect themselves until there is a military presence in place.

There is no guarantee that people arming themselves with weapons and other measures would be effective. But not to do so and just sit around defenselessly and hope for the best would be foolish and possibly deadly.

[promethean75]

I would respond to such a situation in the following way:

https://streamable.com/v5uhv

[Artimas]

“1. If a civil war broke out in the United States would you arm yourself?”

Arm myself and more.

“2. Do you think you have the psychological determination to pull the trigger on another human being in such a conflict?”

Some People are already dead, all you have to do is pull the trigger. Give me a reason and I won’t think twice in a time of war. I can read people.

“3. What chance of survival do you give yourself in an all-out urban warfare scenario?”

Depends on a lot of different variables, if I have allies, if I have sufficient weapons. If I have such, I wouldn’t just survive. I’d rebuild.


“4. Which side would the military be on? Or would they be against both sides?”

Depends upon individuals army members family views of self views if they are self made, if self made I would estimate high possibility of them being on the side of which isn’t left or right.

“5. If you're on the Right, to what extent would you trust others on the Right?”

I am independent, I don’t trust either side, groups have extremists and you will be associated with such and possibly adopt tendencies. I’m one not for adopting.

“6. If you're on the Left, to what extent would you trust others on the Left?”

I am independent, I don’t trust either side, groups have extremists and you will be associated with such and possibly adopt tendencies. I’m one not for adopting. ‘Help’ has a cost too.

(Note: By 'trust' it is meant how confident would you be of those on your side to help each other out if the going got rough, e.g., if there was only a certain amount of food, water, supplies, etc., to go around, would there be equal sharing or would you fear some on your side would be thinking only about themselves?}

“7. If you have a family, how would you defend those who wouldn't be able to defend themselves such as children and the elderly?”

Build up a place to act as a shelter or bunker, supply it, set traps everywhere in proper areas. Poisoned Nail bombs, chlorine bombs, pitfalls, doors rigged to blow etc.

“8. If during the conflict you learned of groups (civilian) of both Left and Right who joined together to bring about peace even if it meant fighting the hard-core of either side, would you:”

a. Join them?
b. Regard those from your side who joined as traitors?
c. And if you did join them, would you fear retaliation from those of your side who did not join?”

I would advocate peace but I wouldn’t join anyone, I can take the peace without joining their side, I’d do my best to remain separate from extremism or ego festered people.

“9. If the other side won and assumed authority, would you fear that instead of unification in the interest of all (even if under new laws) that some of them would feel they have license to continue their violence upon those of your side?”

Yeah, they usually always do, would have to put them in their place.

“10. If such a war happened, do you think a foreign country or countries would take advantage of it for their own assault on the U.S.?”

Highly possible.

“11. Whether single or with a family, would you leave the country if you knew of other countries that offered sanctuary?”

Most likely.

“12. Do you think that a civil war could happen? If you do, why? If you don't, why?”

Can happen if people wake up to themselves and do not discard or let go of the anger.

[Del Ivers]

I would respond to such a situation in the following way..

Well, that's an interesting attitude toward it. I'm just trying to figure where I would put that on my playlist along with tunes from Julie Andrews, John Denver, and Bill Douglas' choral works.

Oh, wait, I could put it on my Scandinavian death metal compilation CD!

[Del Ivers]

Artimas

Thank you for answering all 12. I will answer 4 more:

3. In times when I knew it was safe to relax from the fray, it would be 50% spiritual and psychological review and 50% vigilance.If there is no time to relax, then it would be 1000% focus on the field.

4. Yes, it would depend on the individual but I think the military would have a mandate from the majority of the population to stabilize the situation - by any means necessary. There is the factor of how many would 'break ranks', but current stats indicate a different picture: "Racial and ethnic minority groups made up 40% of Defense Department active-duty military in 2015, up from 25% in 1990." source Add to that the percentage of white members of the military who would join in with that 40% and I think any 'in-house' problems would be cleared up quickly. And don't forget those who would immediately enlist for duty.

5 & 6. If I were on the Right, 50%. If on the Left, 10 to 20% more trust.

[Karpel Tunnel]

1. If a civil war broke out in the United States would you arm yourself?

What kind of civil war? Between regions? Between factions in the government? There are other possibilities. I think this affects what one might do or think then.

2. Do you think you have the psychological determination to pull the trigger on another human being in such a conflict?

Pretty sure I would shoot to protect myself and those I care about. Beyond that a lot depends on what kind of civil war. But my sense is that in most civil wars, I would just try to survive.

3. What chance of survival do you give yourself in an all-out urban warfare scenario?

Anyone with an answer to this is speculating wildly. And of course it depends on what kind of conflict it is.

4. Which side would the military be on? Or would they be against both sides?

Depends.

5. If you're on the Right, to what extent would you trust others on the Right?

6. If you're on the Left, to what extent would you trust others on the Left?

I don't identify with either.

7. If you have a family, how would you defend those who wouldn't be able to defend themselves such as children and the elderly?

that depends on the type of war, where we are, what the various powers are doing to non-combatants, etc....

8. If during the conflict you learned of groups (civilian) of both Left and Right who joined together to bring about peace even if it meant fighting the hard-core of either side, would you:

a. Join them?
b. Regard those from your side who joined as traitors?
c. And if you did join them, would you fear retaliation from those of your side who did not join?

Depends on a number of things. If it meant capitulating to mass killing, if it meant accepting a tyranny, if it meant....

9. If the other side won and assumed authority, would you fear that instead of unification in the interest of all (even if under new laws) that some of them would feel they have license to continue their violence upon those of your side?

Sure.

10. If such a war happened, do you think a foreign country or countries would take advantage of it for their own assault on the U.S.?

Depends on their sense of who had the buttons.

11. Whether single or with a family, would you leave the country if you knew of other countries that offered sanctuary?

Possibly.

12. Do you think that a civil war could happen? If you do, why? If you don't, why?

I think there could be coups and coup attempts. I think a coup could lead to guerilla warfare. but something like the 1800s civil war, not a chance.

[promethean75]

tunes from Julie Andrews, John Denver, and Bill Douglas' choral works

I think that's doable. I could rock some John Denver during a shootout with the U.S. army.

'sunshiiine.... on my shoooulders... makes me happyyy'

*tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat!!!*

'sunshiiine... on the waaater... looks so lovelyyy'

*Zzzzzeuuuuuu.....BOOM!!*

[Karpel Tunnel]

4. Yes, it would depend on the individual but I think the military would have a mandate from the majority of the population to stabilize the situation - by any means necessary.

In some abstract sense. But whoever controlled the information, which would likely be elite/wealthy/corporate interests would likely be framing the situation and the military would be following that framing.

[Del Ivers]

What kind of civil war?

An excerpt from a 2017 article in the Washington Post:

"How would Trump's hardcore supporters react to the removal of their president for a high crime or misdemeanor that fell somewhat short of a triple ax murder? Not with equanimity, you can be assured. Does that matter? Maybe not. But the "civil war" cited in the New Yorker article was not of armies marching across fields, but of civil unrest — a lot of angry people causing a lot of mayhem.

The precedent may not be America from 1861 to 1865, but pre-war Europe. The recent skirmishes here between ultra-nationalists on the far right and the so-called antifa on the far left are reminiscent of the brawls between fascists and communists that weakened German democracy in the 1920s and 1930s. The extremes sucked the air out of the center. In Yeats's enduring words, things fell apart. The center could not hold."

Many of your answers are about, "it depends". Yes, there are many variables to consider in such a scenario of conflict. But whatever they may be the overriding reality would be as the quote says, 'a lot of angry people causing a lot of mayhem'. If one happens to find themselves dealing with angry people and mayhem then 'it depends' would still be an element in your decisions but with very little of the ease which we can discuss it here on a forum in times where the center is still holding.

Anyone with an answer to this is speculating wildly.

If you see a tornado in the distance and it's coming in your direction your decisions have to be quick and underlying them there has to be a sense that you will succeed. The strength of that sense is the chance that you give yourself. Some will say 50/50, others will go more in one direction or the other. My bet is that those who keep it at 50/50 or higher in their favor are going to do better than others. If that is wild speculation, then that is what is needed to increase your chances of survival.

..the military would be following that framing.

In this conflict the only immediate framing would be to stabilize the situation. As to how much the military, and for that matter the National Guard and police, would follow the framing intended for stability is also of concern. Just because they're wearing uniforms and badges does not mean that some of them won't themselves be, "people causing a lot of mayhem." Look at history and you'll find numerous examples of the protectors becoming wolves.

One can armchair as much as they want about actions depending on this, that, or the other, but when the pilot light triggers the flames it's time to get up from the chair and act with the sole purpose of survival.

Here's an article about what might happen if Trump is defeated in 2020. Read it.

"Those who assume otherwise haven’t been paying attention."

[Del Ivers]

Promethean, you are flexible.

But if the military were there to stabilize things (one would hope), then I wouldn't be against them. They have a lot more experience, personnel, and ammunition.

I'd be more concerned about other characters.

[barbarianhorde]

This topic is not for the usual squawking and blaming between left and right. This is about straight-up answers to what you would personally do if this hypothetical scenario became a reality. It's about survival.

1. If a civil war broke out in the United States would you arm yourself?

If Id live there id be armed

2. Do you think you have the psychological determination to pull the trigger on another human being in such a conflict?

Sure

3. What chance of survival do you give yourself in an all-out urban warfare scenario?

Id make sure to stay the hell away from big cities, nothing to be gained there

4. Which side would the military be on? Or would they be against both sides?

So many different sections.
The airforce would maybe not be on the same side as the navy. But in general command centres wouldn't be in control of their forces per se if the chain of power is broken. Army people would also consider the chaos and the necessity to strategize, and everyone would be paranoid. Its hard to imagine the sheer amount of ideas that would be floating around in different station heads minds about what is going on and what is going to be the case.

An idea would win, eventually, not a party. Because you cant kill an idea.

5. If you're on the Right, to what extent would you trust others on the Right?

A lot. We've all been through the same shitstorm, it has been incredibly powerful as a furnace forging unity. I think 90 percent on the right are in fundamental agreement about the purpose of not having a social order that controls our thinking, and an absolute readiness to do whatever it takes, because we have seen how little reason is worth to the others.

(Note: By 'trust' it is meant how confident would you be of those on your side to help each other out if the going got rough, e.g., if there was only a certain amount of food, water, supplies, etc., to go around, would there be equal sharing or would you fear some on your side would be thinking only about themselves?}

Since it is the right, everyone would know that you have to merit others to have a safe spot in the hierarchy, to not be expendable. There would be very little bureaucracy about it, no shared ideals, except commonly known Christian ideals which would apply in useful ways. It is a guerrilla religion.

[b]7. If you have a family, how would you defend those who wouldn't be able to defend themselves such as children and the elderly?

By all means... what can you say to this...

8. If during the conflict you learned of groups (civilian) of both Left and Right who joined together to bring about peace even if it meant fighting the hard-core of either side, would you:

a. Join them?

Id not fight my own brothers

b. Regard those from your side who joined as traitors?

If they'd be fighting me, obviously

c. And if you did join them, would you fear retaliation from those of your side who did not join?

Logically one would expect it.

9. If the other side won and assumed authority, would you fear that instead of unification in the interest of all (even if under new laws) that some of them would feel they have license to continue their violence upon those of your side?

Well their victory in the first place would be a violence, the laws they'd set would mean that what I want to do (think and speak freely) would not be allowed. Since I would be breaking these rules, Id not be very optimistic.

10. If such a war happened, do you think a foreign country or countries would take advantage of it for their own assault on the U.S.?

China and Russia for sure, they'd have to. And yes all others who think they can get a piece also, but China and Russia would be brutal in preserving their first right to usurp.

11. Whether single or with a family, would you leave the country if you knew of other countries that offered sanctuary?

Canada would become even more interesting that it already is.

12. Do you think that a civil war could happen? If you do, why? If you don't, why?

Yes. I can't say no to this. It can still happen.

[barbarianhorde]

Maybe it would come down to which side the Canadians are on. Because all runaway options would be north. Canada would either fall apart or not, I don't know about its military structural integrity. But its people in the north would have an enviable degree of autonomy from anything, the outposts around the bay of Hudson would become important.

[barbarianhorde]

And Alaska becomes the centre of the world.
Russia would need a military buildup at the Bering strait, people mobilizing for the North Pole, Greenland occupied, the whole western world will go Eskimo.
Then, in the utter lack of direction in the conflict, and the expansion into the true connection of modern man with the earth, it will likely be found that the conflict is utterly pointless, irrelevant completely.
but there will be no leadership to call it all off and the different sections of army and militia will remain in a headlock, and irreducible scrimmages will be frequent and determine the landscape of human nature for a good while, until some form of politics organizes from the new necessities and possibilities.
Ultimately the predators from outside will cement a new unity. By that time squatters will be living in the freedom tower living off birds that fly into windows.

[Del Ivers]

I think 90 percent on the right are in fundamental agreement about the purpose of not having a social order that controls our thinking, and an absolute readiness to do whatever it takes, because we have seen how little reason is worth to the others.

You do know that if I were to take your quote and replace 'right' with 'left' that it would also accurately express what the left feels about the situation in general? That we don't want the Right's idea of a social order to control our thinking as it seems intent on doing? That addedly we don't want to go back to things of the past like racism, Christian authoritarianism, the taking away of women's rights, the taking away of voting rights and a whole lot more?

From my point of view, I do not wish to convert your views to mine. I do not wish to tell women on the right who are pro-life that they should have abortions. I do not wish to tell you to dismiss your religious beliefs. What I do declare is that there is that if freedom of expression is to be a reality for everyone, then everyone has to recognize that it means allowing the space for that freedom.

But the Right does not think of it that way. The right wants their views enforced overall as LAW, it wants those who do not accede to those views to be punished. The Right is not interested in equal space, it wants DOMINION.

You may see all of that as a political view but I and many others see it as logical with respect to cooperation, the cooperation which without it there would be no civilization. I don't want to tell the right what they should do in their acre of endeavor. Why is the Right so intent on telling the entire acreage of a country what to do, how to behave, and who to believe?

Why does the Right not realize that the more things are fucked up between ourselves, that it makes it easier for outsiders to come in and attempt to fuck us over permanently?

Why are the reasons from the Right better than the reasons from the Left? Why can't there be, CENTER REASONS?

Why is that, Mr. Horde?

[Ecmandu]

The right wing is not a real party in the United States, it is a control group that panders to blok groups to win elections. Tax cuts for the rich doesn't win elections, appealing to evangelical Christians and displaced whites does.

Actually, I take most of that back. The United States in a brainwashing program has actually convinced people that their votes are even being counted...

Oh *gasp*, the Russians hacked two districts in Florida ... that's called a straw man, the government in conjunction with mind control programs has hacked its own elections for over 20 years, but yeah, we should focus on Russians ... what a fucking joke!

[barbarianhorde]

I think 90 percent on the right are in fundamental agreement about the purpose of not having a social order that controls our thinking, and an absolute readiness to do whatever it takes, because we have seen how little reason is worth to the others.

You do know that if I were to take your quote and replace 'right' with 'left' that it would also accurately express what the left feels about the situation in general? That we don't want the Right's idea of a social order to control our thinking as it seems intent on doing? That addedly we don't want to go back to things of the past like racism, Christian authoritarianism, the taking away of women's rights, the taking away of voting rights and a whole lot more?

No, I see leftists as snakes with no loyalty.

From my point of view, I do not wish to convert your views to mine. I do not wish to tell women on the right who are pro-life that they should have abortions. I do not wish to tell you to dismiss your religious beliefs. What I do declare is that there is that if freedom of expression is to be a reality for everyone, then everyone has to recognize that it means allowing the space for that freedom.

Then you ought to come to the right.
Its the people on the left who prevent expression.

But the Right does not think of it that way. The right wants their views enforced overall as LAW, it wants those who do not accede to those views to be punished. The Right is not interested in equal space, it wants DOMINION.

Oh my .... youve been been reading too many Facebook posts and newspapers.
What you think the right is is precisely what the right is not.
The left projects its own shadow.

You may see all of that as a political view but I and many others see it as logical with respect to cooperation, the cooperation which without it there would be no civilization. I don't want to tell the right what they should do in their acre of endeavor. Why is the Right so intent on telling the entire acreage of a country what to do, how to behave, and who to believe?

See above.

Why does the Right not realize that the more things are fucked up between ourselves, that it makes it easier for outsiders to come in and attempt to fuck us over permanently?

See above.

Why are the reasons from the Right better than the reasons from the Left? Why can't there be, CENTER REASONS?

Why is that, Mr. Horde?

Ask your hyena hordes that, mr Ivers.
People could have just respected American democracy and worked with the president. But instead news networks threatened to kill him. That was the end of civil society, and the beginning of the civil war.

Unless the left finds some self-criticism, some notion of how it has threatened us into war-readiness, it will find the consequences of its actions in the old ways.

The lefts seem to have no idea what they've done to us yet.
(I changed "you" to "they" as I have no beef with you personally at all and Id welcome any reasonable person into the moderate right, of which I see myself as an extension, after finally having left the left after it had shown its true face to me personally.)

Moderate left is very rare. It would require the leftist to condemn the fascistic FBI bureaucracy, the fascistic CNN machinery, and a lot more stuff which seems perfectly normal to all leftists.

All in all it is cruelty which brings down the left. Savages who bring down whole nations (such as Libya) while virtue designating to their own electorate, this is something nature simply won't be able to support for very much longer.

I work a lot with bodycount. I simply count the corpses that a regime has on its conscience. Ive yet to talk to a leftist who even considers this a factor. They're more concerned with the immense personal hurt of not being addressed with the proper pronoun.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Regarding one of the questions:

There is no case ever in which civil war has led to resolution, where one side wins. In this sense, the US civil war really wasn't so much a civil war as a war between to distinct alliances of states. The country USA didn't quite properly exist. This was the achievement of Lincoln. People forget just how independent all these different states were. Texans considered themselves Texans, not United Stateseans.

But it's good, that was a righteous war, to end slavery. There were other goals and things at stake, but that was the only one that mattered. All others were noise. All due respect to Texans, who I like better than almost any other gringo.

But anyway, no, civil war is not a means. It is an end.

[barbarianhorde]

I wonder in todays case if the left has any idea why the right is preparing for war.

They seem to think it is because we want to dictate peoples minds. Whereas I don't think we've ever expressed any desire in this direction. It is foremost because we have been classified as legitimate targets for attacks, because we've been dehumanized and thus severely threatened in mainstream media.

There is no one on the right now who trusts the lefts will to uphold the social contract, and there is no one on the left who speaks out on behalf of respecting democracy. All is about overthrowing our president and making sure we will never again get to elect one. Thus we are prepared.

[barbarianhorde]

Regarding one of the questions:

There is no case ever in which civil war has led to resolution, where one side wins. In this sense, the US civil war really wasn't so much a civil war as a war between to distinct alliances of states. The country USA didn't quite properly exist. This was the achievement of Lincoln. People forget just how independent all these different states were. Texans considered themselves Texans, not United Stateseans.

But it's good, that was a righteous war, to end slavery. There were other goals and things at stake, but that was the only one that mattered. All others were noise. All due respect to Texans, who I like better than almost any other gringo.

But anyway, no, civil war is not a means. It is an end.

The worst civil war on record is said to be the 30 year war of Germany, of which our 80 year against the Spanish is considered a part. Go figure with these numbers.

Anyway the bad reputation of this 30 year war is always tied to the fact that it came into families. Families got divided by this war, where this isn't normally the case as much, not even in civil war.

So this war we've got brewing right here has at least this characteristic in common with the 30 year war, that it cuts right through families.