Apropos the obvious decline of our nation and increasing polarization, the Civil War has been on a lot of people’s minds of late. But the current spasm of talk about it was generated by Nikki Haley giving an unacceptable answer about the cause of the Civil War. No matter what you might know, the “correct” answer is: slavery. Only slavery. Nothing but slavery. If you are a politician and you are asked what caused the Civil War, you are only permitted to answer, slavery.
Which is true as far as it goes. But it is more true to say that if there hadn’t been slavery, there would have been no Civil War. That is, if the slave system hadn’t produced a class of people running things there would not have been a class of people fearful of losing their position as slavery was shown to be grossly inefficient in addition to being morally wrong. What existed in America prior to, say, the 1840’s was a Ruling Class which was based in the South and had its wealth in land and slaves. Because they had the wealth, they had the power and though Northerners did get into office, the South dominated the Republic. Just take a look at the first 15 Presidents – all Southerners (with a fair number of slave owners) or Northerners dependent upon Southern influence. The reason Lincoln was such a watershed is because he came to power entirely without the South. While Lincoln got just under 40% of the total vote in 1860, his total in the North was a majority and in the upper North, a landslide win.
And therein lies the real reason for secession and Civil War. No matter how you sliced it, the American Republic was going to become ever more Northern in character as time went on. Mass immigration and natural increase was increasing Northern population at a phenomenal rate. But, more than that, the rise of an industrial North was leaving the South economically in the dust. The slave labor economy of the South simply could not compete with the North. There was no way for the Southern Ruling Class to remain in charge in the USA as a Southern Ruling Class. That class, or at least a substantial part of it, would have to make a deal with the rising North and become a subordinate part of a coalition which would ultimately be based on Northern money and political power (votes, eg). And any such deal with the North would mean an eventual extirpation of slavery. The Southern Ruling Class looked upon this and decided: we’re out.
Only in a Southern Confederacy could the Southern Ruling Class remain in charge. Only in such a Confederacy could a slave economy be maintained long term. Only in such a Confederacy could poor whites be kept out of power and wealth and thus dependent upon the Ruling Class. If you take a look at the early proponents of “State’s Rights” and secession what you won’t find is lots of poor, white farmers leading the way. It was an upper class thing marketed to the lower class – mostly by playing on racial fears. The Abolition Hordes were going to force your daughter to marry a black man! Even then, it didn’t really work too well with the poorest whites. Most Confederate soldiers were upper class, middle class or dependents of upper class people. There were large parts of the Confederacy where Confederate officials didn’t dare show their faces (mostly back country areas and especially from 1863 forward).
It is my view that all wars – every last one of them – is the result of someone wanting to steal something. You can look to economic factors, political factors, dynastic factors, etc, etc but what it really comes down to, when you really look at what started the fracas, it was always someone thinking they could steal on the cheap. A bit of fighting, get some loot, live in power and wealth. Nobody enters a conflict thinking its going to be a long, bloody slog with victory bought so dear as to be indistinguishable from defeat. They’re always certain it’ll be short and easy. And, sometimes, it is. Our war with Mexico did entail some hard fighting but in return for about 13,000 dead from all causes (and only about 2,500 battle deaths) the United States obtained 529,000 square miles of territory – and territory which has proven itself exceptionally valuable over time. You can look at this or that reason for the war but the bottom line is that we wanted Mexico’s land. We had our excuses for why it should come to us (most of the land we took only had a theoretical connection to Mexico based on previous Spanish colonial claims, themselves tenuous) but what we did not have was clear title to it. So, we just took it.
That is just how wars are. What the Confederate leaders wanted to do was steal power they couldn’t obtain by legal means – and, of course, to continue to steal the labor of black Americans. The only legal path to national power in the USA was via compromise with Northern interests increasingly hostile to slavery. But, if you could form a Confederacy – sort of steal half of America from itself – you could retain your dominance without any need for compromise. And that is what they did – the ground prepared by a decade of anti-Northern polemics and enacted so fast that Unionist sentiment had no real chance to coalesce in the South before the deed was done.
The crucial lesson here is to learn about people of power and position. Ruling Classes are always most keen about maintaining themselves. The British Ruling Class is probably the most successful – through all changes, it has kept itself in wealth and still exercises a great deal of power officially and unofficially. There will never be another hereditary Lord as Prime Minister (the last was Salisbury early in the 20th century), but they control large swaths of power. The Duke of Westminster is descended from a man who got himself knighted by James I in 1617…and he and his descendants just parlayed that into more and more until the current Duke is worth $9 billion. Think of all the changes over 400 years…and here’s this guy sitting pretty because an ancestor did a service for James Stuart. That’s a first rate self-perpetuating Ruling Class! Most Ruling Classes aren’t that clever. In fact, most of them are very stupid and pigheaded about things and end up destroyed.
This is important to realize because we also have a Ruling Class which cannot sustain itself legally in power any more than the Southern planters could in 1860. The only way out for the Ruling Class is to compromise with the rising power – in this case, the populist Right currently represented by Trump. And like that Southern Ruling class of 1860, the modern Ruling Class is more than willing to go outside the law if it means they remain in power and wealth. This makes for a very dangerous time for our Republic. But keep of good heart: Ruling Classes who don’t give way are always pushed away. Their time is up, and their days are numbered. The only question is how much destruction they’ll cause on their way down.
Blogs For Victory 
Isn’t slavery the answer to every question in todays world? The oppressed vs the oppressors? And the reality is, all the migrant caravans headed to the border now, are just the newest slave ships for Democrats. Americas Ruling Class is currently bringing in a new crop of slaves, and that’s how I would have answered the question.
Correction on the Presidents Mark … John Adams was from Massachusetts and he and his wife Abigal, did not own slaves and both were strong opponents against the practice … if memory serves me correctly.
Jonathan Turley was “swatted” last night, and MTG was again swatted last week, so not only is the Biden regime using lawfare, so are his voters. This “swatting” crap is pure bullshit and speaks to the quote posted by Amazona the other day … at the core of liberalism is the spoiled, intolerant child. I challenge law enforcement to grow a new pair of balls, and stop being used like brown shirts by an incompetent regime.
The effort to distill the root cause of the Civil War down to a single, easily grasped reason is typical of the shallow thinking that dominates this nation today. We demand a quick snapshot of something that can “explain” it without much thinking or analysis. Preferably one word, such as “slavery”.
Not every slave owner in the South was willing to die to keep his slaves, and only a small percentage of people in the South even owned slaves. But the South had a fiercely territorial concept of its identity, and what was seen as a federal violation of its sovereignty was intolerable to it. Then there was the economic factor and the fact that much of the economy of the South was dependent on slave labor. You didn’t have to own slaves to still be affected, not if you owned cotton gins or were in the business of transporting cotton, for example. It wasn’t slavery per se but the sweeping instantaneous destruction of huge swaths of the Southern economy that got a lot of people willing to fight for their old way of life—there was no gradual easing in of replacing slave labor with paid labor, even just paying former slaves to do the work they had already been doing.
Sure, a lot of and maybe even most of the core rebellion of the Southern states could be distilled down to the word “slavery” but the situation was far more complex than just fighting for the ability of some people to own other people. The Emancipation Proclamation offered no pathway to a gradual transition away from slavery and told the South it no longer had the ability to chart its own course.
To that description I posted I have to add “petty”. I have never seen an entire demographic so dedicated to the petty and spiteful. “Peevish” also comes to mind, constantly looking for something to find offensive and constantly looking for ways to annoy or harm those who fall on the other side of their boundary of tolerance.
Oh, yeah – and they actually prove my point in that both were one-term Presidents. They had no Southern support.
JAR SHAKING
As we approach 2024, I am reminded of comments by a man who said that as a young kid, he and his friends collected jars of black ants and jars of red ants. They would then put the red and black ants in the same jar. Initially, nothing much happened.
They would then shake the jar vigorously and dump all the ants onto the ground. Something amazing would then occur. Although the red and black ants were not adversarial in the jar, they violently attacked each other. These ants literally went to war: they would cripple each other and bite off each other’s heads if they could. They would fight to the death.
He learned later that black ants and red ants are not. In nature, they are not natural enemies, and they do not attack each other. They go about their daily routines, almost impervious to the other group.
Who is the Real Enemy?
Clearly, the vigorous jar shaking and dumping them on the ground puts all of the ants into a frenzy such that they become mortal enemies. Who is the true enemy, however? It is not the black ants or the red ants themselves; the larger forces shake the jar.
The mainstream media, a plague upon us, are our jar shakers. While both left-based and right-based media engage in jar-shaking tactics, the left has refined the art. They revel in stirring up dissension between groups, especially when such squabbles would not necessarily be occurring.
Great analogy. In every authoritarian State, the government controls the media and education, and that’s exactly what Democrats have done over the last 20 years … take control of the media and education. And now we are living, and fighting the results of that. The bad news is … the fight has just begun and it could get messy
I’ve tried to imagine what a modern civil war might look like, how it might play out, and I have never been able to fully wrap my head around it. There is no Mason-Dixon Line. We’re divided geographically, but not north/south or east/west, but large metropolitan areas vs. rural. In some respects, the current divide would lend itself to an easier resolution. Rural folks could just blockade the big cities, so the only way in and out was by air. The expense of that would bankrupt the cities in pretty short order. A secondary benefit would be that starving people would likely turn on each other. I know that’s an over-simplification, and certainly not something I wish for.
I imagine it starting much like the Revolutionary War started … with a single shot. There may come a time in 2024, when the Left pushes just a little too hard and one fed up patriot will have had enough, and wipe out of few of them, which will galvanize the sides and off we go. I don’t wish for it, but based on the increasingly violent actions of Democrats, I can certainly see it happening, and as a direct descendent of a forefather who fought in the Revolutionary War, I would be honored to engage in that fight. My forefather, was Captain of Company 4 in the 1777 Third Battalion commanded by Col. William McAlevy. I would be honored to continue his legacy.
I have that connection as well. Back in the 1970s my aunt (my dad’s sister) decided she wanted to join the DAR, so she tasked my uncle with finding an ancestor who fought in the Revolutionary War. After a decade of traveling throughout Pennsylvania and Ohio, visiting court houses and cemeteries, he came up empty when he determined that my ancestors with my last name arrived from Wales in the early 1790s. He decided to try another direction, dictated by the fact that my great-grandmother on my dad’s side was French. Sure enough, in fairly short order, he discovered she had a great-great-great-great grandfather who served with Washington at Valley Forge. I would be doing that ancestor a grave disservice if I don’t fight with every fiber of my being, to my dying breath, to preserve the greatest experiment in self government in the history of the world that he and others like him left us.
You analysis of it starting with a single shot is something I’ve thought likely for some time. Quite frankly, I’m surprised it hasn’t happened yet. For years, nay, decades, patience was the Left’s only virtue, and not something that was often attributed to Conservatives. That dynamic seems to have shifted 180 degrees. But you’re right, at some point, especially if the Left is able to consolidate its power, somewhere, someone is going to say “enough,” and just start blasting away. Then it will be like a dam bursting.
I still haven’t been able to figure out who would be shooting at whom because there is no organization. In a city I supposed gangs could join up and fight citizens, but otherwise I just don’t see how it would play out. We’ve already had ‘a single shot”—every night in every big city.
I can easily see armed skirmishes, when people get fed up with the morons blocking roads and getting more and more physical and aggressive, till someone shoots one of them or one of them pulls a gun. That is a scenario that is not hard to imagine. Or expanding beyond that highway, or that intersection, or that city?
Not unless there is a repeat of the nationwide racial rioting we saw when Saint George of Fentanyl was being canonized and turned into a martyr, and then I could see armed battles in a few cities between blacks and normal people who are just fed up with the narcissism and paranoia and self-indulgence infringing on their own rights. But even then I have a hard time imagining a national uprising and a civil war between two large demographics.
Though I have thought for a long time we were headed toward a race war, which Obama tried so hard to get going but just couldn’t get enough energy behind it to move it beyond constant whining and griping. The huge pro-Hamas crowds make me wonder if we might be facing an invasion of sorts, as foreigners and foreign intrigues inflame enough Americans to start some battles. But a civil war among Americans? I just don’t see it, partly because the American Left is only militant behind keyboards and microphones.
Birds of a feather amigo
Yup.
But a civil war among Americans? I just don’t see it, partly because the American Left is only militant behind keyboards and microphones.
I would love for you to be right. Like I said, I’ve had a hard time wrapping my head around how it might play out, but I sense that, if it starts, it will start in an irrational way, by someone or some group that has just reached the breaking point. I can’t even speculate the breaking point of what. The agenda of the Left just touches us in so many evil ways. I mean, just look at the hundreds of January 6th defendants who have been imprisoned for offenses that should have been fines at most. Look at people who have been put through the ringer by the EPA just for wanting to build a house on a property that has a puddle on it part of the year. Look at people whose property has been confiscated, even though they’ve never been charged with a crime. What if we have another manufactured pandemic this year with lockdowns, masks and vaccine mandates (and massive mail-in ballot fraud)? The list is pretty much endless. And yet the only domestic terrorist act that comes to mind that was in response to government over-reach was Oklahoma City in 1995. Isn’t anyone here surprised that we haven’t had more Oklahoma Cities? And no, I’m not advocating for more. Indiscriminate mass casualty events are repugnant to me as a means of social protest just as much as the riots of 2020 were. I’m just surprised there haven’t been more, especially in light of the fact that the FBI director says such activity is THE MAJOR threat to this country.
Very much like the Spanish Civil War, in my view. If it starts, each side will try to consolidate power in as much territory as possible and then try to take the other side’s land. When it comes to it, victory will go to the side which has the most energetic leadership. The Spanish Republicans ultimately lost because, early on, they thought it could be easily contained.
I disagree. If we end up in another civil war, I don’t think red areas will try to take blue areas, although the reverse will almost certainly be true. Conservatives just generally don’t have any desire to rule over others, and just want to be left alone. Probably not wise to generalize, but that applies to pretty much every Conservative I know.
You talk about “consolidating power”. I’m not trying to be contentious here, just genuinely curious about how any movement could “consolidate power” in a way that would lead to overthrowing the government and assuming its powers. I just look at all the branches of government at the federal level, then all the state governments, and don’t see a takeover that is not political.
OK-let’s say there is some violent uprising that ends up with the presidency in the hands of the rebels. (Trigger warning–here comes that dreaded phrase again….) Then what? So the new president controls the Executive Branch. What’s he going to do with that power? Unless the law enforcement agencies are part of his cabal, all they have to do is ignore his edicts. Ditto for the military.
But let’s say the takeover of the Executive Branch is the culmination of acquisition of control over the law enforcement agencies as well as the military, so the new “president” can force compliance with—what?
Put another way, I see the “power” of our government now depending on the passivity of the populace. Even when the people have complied with dictatorial edicts of our government, such as masking and injections of experimental drugs, this has been meek acceptance without analysis of the rightness of what is happening.
So in my mind, what is more likely than anything else would be a coup in the highest levels of government prompting a sudden uprising in the populace as passivity is replaced with “Oh, no, you don’t!” and an armed resistance to the sham government. Which is, in a way, kind of what you were referring to when you mentioned OKC, Spook, though I have always thought the claim of that being a rebellion against government overreach to be just a feeble effort to justify hatred of the government in general.
Anyway, when I look at the conflicts in this country so far at least I only see specific groups fighting with other specific groups. So I don’t see a civil war prompted by the newly invented gender wars, or by abortion fanatics. I see the single biggest issue being that of race, of black vs white, and that would not be a civil war as much as a short-lived albeit violent episode. Right now the largest and most vocal segment of our society is the pro-Hamas contingent, and that can be divided into the True Believers (nearly all Muslim) and the fringe hangers-on who want to be part of something big and dramatic they can also pretend is virtuous. This would quickly be shut down with aggressive law enforcement and I don’t think it offers a threat to the Republic.
It’s not that I don’t see violence on the horizon, but not in the form of anything like what has always been considered a “civil war”. I see the violence as being likely in two areas—-black vs everyone else racial violence, and Muslim vs everyone else religion-based violence. Of these two, as Islam is really just a political movement dressed up as a religion, it does also want to take over our government and assume its power, if unchecked then Muslim violence could escalate into a true insurrection. But not a civil war.
Happy New Year everyone, and Spook, my prayer is that 2024 heals your heart from the loss of your beautiful wife. Godspeed my friend.
Thank you, my friend. My prayer is that 2024 exceeds all of our expectations – in a good way. Seriously, we’re due for a good year.
This is a very important analysis of different aspects of one significant fact. The fact is that Donald Trump has possession and control of a binder of information that will be very damaging to the State as it continues to pursue its abuses of power in efforts to destroy him. The different aspects include the fact that the information in the binder was officially declassified, through the same channels the Left howls must be employed, while Trump was still president. (“Trump reviewed them and decided that the binder should be declassified to the maximum extent possible. (T)here was a lot of fighting over redactions…..This was finally settled, with President Trump accepting the “proposed redactions” and declassifying the binder in a final Jan. 19, 2021, order.) This was even acknowledged by CNN: CNN wrote that “The day before leaving office, Trump issued an order declassifying most of the binder’s contents.”
An interesting aspect of this is the role Mark Meadows played in efforts to get the binder away from Trump. As this (discussion of redactions) was ongoing, Mark Meadows, President Trump’s chief of staff, informed Mr. Solomon of the pending declassification and invited him to the White House to “review several hundred pages of declassified documents and to discuss a plan for publicly disseminating the entire binder to the American public.”
As Mr. Solomon and his staff were reviewing the documents, they received a call from the White House asking that the documents be returned because the White House inexplicably wished to make some additional redactions to unclassified information under the Privacy Act.
Which is odd, because as Mr. Solomon’s filing notes, “the binder was not subject to the Privacy Act.” But for some unknown reason and “without the President’s knowledge or consent, one of the President’s subordinates [possibly Mr. Meadows himself] decided that redactions consistent with the standards of the Privacy Act should be applied to the binder before it was publicly released.”
According to the filing, Mr. Meadows “promised Solomon that he would receive the revised binder.” But as Mr. Solomon notes, this never occurred and the documents reside within the DOJ to this day.
Evidently Trump had his own copy of the binder.
Another is the panic that evidently set in as the DOJ under *President Joe Biden frantically started to try to get possession of this binder. Another is the evidence that the whole raid on Trump’s private residence was an effort to regain possession of this binder, though without admitting this. ( a US official familiar with the matter… said the FBI was not looking specifically for intelligence related to Russia when it obtained a search warrant for the former president’s residence last year.”)
Regarding the subsequent efforts to regain possession of this single binder by filing criminal charges against Trump asserting his illegal taking and retaining classified documents is this: President Trump’s stated legal position that he “always considered the Crossfire Hurricane binder a Presidential record and never intended to give up control over it.”
In other words, the binder was composed of presidential records that President Trump is legally allowed to have under the Presidential Records Act.
The poor Biden DOJ is freaking out, stepping all over itself. It knows Trump has the goods. They tried to head this off by refusing to make the binder information public, in spite of the stated intention of then-president Trump to do so and in spite of Mark Meadows’ assurance to John Solomon that this would be done. Then when they realized that the Meadows chicanery had not given them all copies of the binder they sent an armed FBI SWAT team to Trump’s private residence to search for it–while having a spokesman assure us that “that’s not really the reason we’re here”. Then they filed federal criminal charges against Trump for having various unnamed but super-duper-serious classified (or maybe just REclassified) documents in his possession, still studiously refraining from mentioning this one time bomb that has them so scared.
It’s a very good article with a lot more detail than I have quoted.
If Trump had documents proving Russian collusion was a hoax and/or the 2020 election was stolen, he would have released it years ago. There are zero reasons for him to hold on to them and every reason to release them. He doesn’t because they don’t exist.
Are you implying that the Russian Collusion story was NOT a hoax? Are you actually saying that if there was proof it was a hoax that proof would have been presented by now?
Oh, casper, you never cease to amaze us with your talent for simply not understanding even the most obvious. Russian collusion in the 2016 election was proved to be a hoax. Where have you been? It’s been all over the news for about 6 or 7 years now. It’s been proved that people in high positions in federal agencies committed perjury to convince a court to allow surveillance of American citizens just because they posed a threat to Leftist power. It’s been conclusively proved that Christopher Steele lied, that the whole thing was part of a scam put together and paid for by the DNC, which actually DID “collude” with a Russian agent to invent the story they then peddled. You poor pathetic sap, still waiting for proof the Russians didn’t collude with Trump, as the rest of the world passes you by.
No, casper, the documents would merely provide more proof of the illegal acts of federal agencies and employees, probably even up into the Obama White House. They would not have to prove the whole thing was a hoax, as that has already been done, but would provide evidence and proof of the precise roles various people played in the hoax. But you just keep squatting on your rock over there in Hawaii waiting to see if anyone ever comes up with anything to prove that “the Russians” didn’t do something somehow some time about that election. In the meantime, the entire administration will continue throwing everything it has at finding something that “doesn’t exist”.
And BTW, the binder they are so frantically trying to recover has nothing to do with election fraud. Where did you come up with that? Seriously, do you even know what Operation Crossfire Hurricane WAS?
The potential danger of this binder has been explained. Maybe the words were too big. Or maybe they weren’t in an approved source of information which seems to provide your belief system.
Basically, if you want to set up a narrative and are willing to lie to make it suit your needs, it is important to know that the person who is the target of the narrative doesn’t have absolute proof you are lying. The government has one copy of the binder. They know what is in it. Did you even read my post, with its quotations and link? And they know that if they present a different story and Trump’s copy is then produced they are caught out in their lies and possibly liable for criminal charges. So they are between that famous rock and hard place. It is imperative to present some story that makes them seem less culpable of various crimes and misdemeanors, but the only way to do that is to lie, and the only way to lie with any confidence in getting away with it is to recover the proof that these would be lies.
I know, this is way too complicated for a mind like yours, as you illustrate by your silly post, as you always illustrate when you post.
Kind of circling back (to invent a whole new phrase ) to the citizenship issue:
Basically there are two ways to be a citizen: Through the natural process of being born to citizen parents, and through government intervention via a legal process, such as naturalization.
If we consider what is called “birthright” citizenship as citizenship conveyed through a legal process, then it would be closely related to naturalization. (Work with me here—you may disagree with where I’m going, but don’t start to melt down quite yet.)
OK–if we consider “birthright” citizenship as another citizenship conveyed through a legal process such as naturalization rather than by the natural process of inherited citizenship, could we then apply the same rules to it?
Where I am going is the fact that naturalized citizenship can be revoked. So why can’t “birthright” citizenship be revoked? A naturalized citizen has officially revoked all allegiance to any other country and has taken an oath of allegiance to this one, and even so can have that citizenship revoked for acting against the country.
Someone just arbitrarily named a citizen due to location of birth (based on a legal action, not on natural law or inheritance) has never revoked his or her allegiance to his or her native country and certainly has never declared or sworn to allegiance to ours. On the contrary, we see exhibitions of loyalty and allegiance to those countries INSTEAD of to the United States, as Tlaib’s Palestinian flag outside her office as a member of the United States Congress as one example.
So why can’t the “birthright” citizenship of people who act against our country and form of government, who express a desire to overthrow our government (like the marchers with hammer and sickle flags promoting Communism as their goal) or anyone who advocates or allows Sharia law to be practiced in our country have their citizenship revoked?
I have no problem with the 1st Amendment allowing people to express dissatisfaction or disagreement with aspects of the way our government is run. I do have a problem with advocating for its demise, and/or supporting a form of government so antithetical to ours that it could not co-exist with ours.
To put it bluntly, to be an American one should have to be an American.
Malone has a lot of good ones today:
BTW, this is aimed at the people who are calling US Fascists. Was there EVER a bigger disconnect from reality?
It’s just the latest in their disconnect from reality. The list keeps growing. From the 180 turnaround of the “feminists” when their idol Bill Clinton was accused of rape, when they suddenly forgot about respecting women and believing them and backed Carville’s “what do you expect when you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park?” and “she’s too ugly to rape” to the gutting of Title 9’s support of women’s collegiate sports because of the New Leftist dogma of men pretending to be women, the disconnects from reality are numerous and stark. And ugly.
Now we have, in the name of “anti-racism”, the very systemic racism they pretend to be fighting as their beloved colleges now openly admit students on the basis of their race and reject others on the same grounds. Now, after hurling the epithet “anti-semitic” at Trump and conservatives in general, they are massing in the tens of thousands to demand the elimination of Jews.
But probably the funniest disconnect is their incessant claim that the Right is “fascist” while openly supporting the most fascist people and politics in American history. The unholy alliance of the federal government and Big Pharma in the ginned-up Covid Panic was a classic example of fascist collusion with industry, and they still howl that Trump was/will be a “dictator” while fawning over their own tinpot dictator threatening to shut down freedom of travel for those who refuse to bend the knee to him and stripping people of their jobs and military positions if they do not submit.
This article came as somewhat of a shock this morning. Unless the media hides it under a rock, I’d expect to see some poll numbers changing.
I saw that yesterday and it was a real WTH moment. Not just general support for the new building (which is massive) but a full-throated over-the-top declaration of fandom for the agency. Not just a lavish new building, but in the Beltway (or close enough to count) and only fitting for such a wonderful group of important people.
It reeks of “if I lick your boots enough will you stop kicking me?”
Exactly!
I’m going to have to take the time to listen to this long interview.
“We Are Going To See ‘Collisions’ All Over The Planet” – Pushback Against Tyranny & Control Will Accelerate In 2024
Catherine Austin Fitts (CAF), Publisher of The Solari Report, financial expert and former Assistant Secretary of Housing (Bush 41 Admin.), says the top story (out of 20 top stories) of 2023 was massive, documented pushback to tyranny and control by the evil Deep State globalists.
CAF explains, “Our top story of 2023 is ‘The Year of Pushback.’ It was so long, and it was so big, we had to make a special page and move the other 19 top stories to a whole different section on another page.”
That’s a great story to start off the new year with.
Civll disobedience is a beautiful thing. From the conversation above
… we might be facing an invasion of sorts, as foreigners and foreign intrigues inflame enough Americans to start some battles. But a civil war among Americans?
I have to admit, I don’t consider many of these Gen Z’ers to be Americans. I see them as weaponized Leftists and combined with the influx of millions of foreign military aged men, we could very easily have a war brewing.
Areas of the U.S. may end up looking like “war” zones, but it’s not going to be a war in the sense that we normally think of war. More like wide-spread violence to foster chaos and fear, something the Left is very good at.
That’s what I have been getting at, and what has come up in personal conversations as well. I think it more likely that the Left will continue its strategy, as you said, to foster chaos and fear, and will do this by stirring up human sacrifices/cannon fodder and sending it out to do battle.
But I also see this as both self-defeating and a tactic of diminishing returns. It wouldn’t take long for people to catch on to the fact that the Left is playing that old game of “Let’s you and him fight”.
I look at the emotionally warring factions and think about which of them are likely to pick up guns and go to battle.
The whole Gender Wars group? Not likely. Unless these groups (gay, lesbian, trans, poly, furry, whatever) also have militant factions capable of this, I just don’t see it. Not when the media representatives are whining about the fear that putting a children’s playground near a place they romp might lead to them not being allowed to run around naked on a “gay” beach, whimpering that this beach is the only place where he feels it is “safe” to swim. That is, that his personal sense of “safety” is dependent on being able to swim naked in public. Armed conflict from this group? I don’t think so.
Abortion fanatics? Ditto. It’s way too big a leap from sign waving and dressing up like female genitals to carrying guns and risking, you know, actual consequences.
Election fraud participants? Ditto.
Squealers about MAGA? I think their violence would be limited to stealing yard signs and maybe keying cars with Trump stickers.
When I try to assess the true violent aspects of the Left and its enablers, I come up with black gangs and the Antifa types. The professional rioters only want to fight where there is very little resistance due to collusion with law enforcement, and there really aren’t many of them. As for ghetto gangs, another ditto. Their comfort zones are their own neighborhoods and their motivation is tribal. They aren’t going to load up on troop carriers to go somewhere else to shoot at people who are going to shoot back.
No, I see it all coming down to civil disobedience, and that can only escalate to real, national, danger if enough military and law enforcement types decide, when push comes to shove, to be on the side of the tyrants and not the people.
The Civil Rights movement showed us how civil disobedience can be effective. So what if thousands of people in an area just refuse to wear masks? Or get jabbed with some experimental drug? Is the National Guard going to go into the neighborhoods where these people grew up and live and work to round up their neighbors and friends and relatives? What would it take to push the nation into a national tax rebellion?
Gotta love the Babylon Bee.
Another article on natural born citizenship