April 18, 2016 at 9:27 pm #48370
I just don’t see civil war happening. General chaos and the worst kind of anarchy? Certainly – but a well organized, goal-directed civil war capable of “retaking” the constitutional republic that once was? I just don’t see it within the realm of reasonable possibility.
Just maybe, general chaos and the worst kind of anarchy would allow dedicated groups to create their own socioeconomic and political environments without what we think of a civil war. General mayhem will diminish after a while due to the lowered population levels. Anyway as long as we have the current governmental and economic structure things will be as they are.April 19, 2016 at 12:26 am #48377
GS , only 3% of the population actually took part in the American Revolution ………..and it changed the world . The civil war , the numbers were probably a bit higher , but probably not a whole lot higher . Doesnt take a majority of people fighting back to change things .
I “get” the “changed the world” reference to the American Revolution. But I’m failing to see the positive change in the case of the War of Northern Aggression (a.k.a. Civil War). And even in Revolution v1.0, the Constitution was already being subverted, as evidenced in some of Jefferson’s letters as early as 1820. And given that there were more combat deaths in the U.S. Civil War than in all wars from WWI through today (not to mention the countless civilian deaths and rampant destruction of the South’s infrastructure), I’m not sure if that’s a ringing endorsement for a relatively (whatever that means) small number of people to sacrifice their lives with little hope for a major change this time. Even if a bunch of AR-15s, .308s, .22s, .38 specials, and 9mm weapons somehow overwhelmed the United States Military (I don’t even want to hear about the Posse Comitatus act prohibiting that!), who’d be around to support the old order when almost nobody under about age 55 even understands it?
People understood (and LIVED) self-sufficiency in 1776. People have no clue about self-sufficiency 240 years later. Who would be there to hand out all the “free stuff” after the war was over, and “we” nominally “won” the Great American Revolution v2.0? This generation knows nothing about a perilous Atlantic crossing, short growing seasons, living without electricity or gasoline or motorized vehicles, etc. “We” would be blamed for the total breakdown of society, and frankly, many of the “locals” would likely be fighting against “us.”
Ben Franklin understood the perilous nature of the experiment when he was asked by Mrs. Powel what they had developed behind those doors – “A republic, if you can keep it.” He knew that the odds weren’t heavily in favor of success, and those folks were a whole lot better equipped to deal with the adversities of war, severe seasons (especially winter), dependency on only what could be grown locally, etc. Sorry, but I just don’t see it being supported, even if “we” seemed initially to “win” it for them. Let the war crimes trials begin! – I can almost hear the cries now. We’d be the terrorists and war criminals, and “the people” would be the prosecutors. I don’t even want to THINK about the courts,
If someone brings the fight to me, I’m sure as heck quite willing to make their day, and if I go down, I fully intend to even the score (at minimum) in the process. But I’m not initiating it. I go back to my earlier question: where do the revolutionary plans come from? How are the freedom fighters identified and organized? How are the plans disseminated (with appropriate OPSEC) and carried out? How does the training occur (not just individual Saturday afternoon range time practice)? How does the command and unit structure even get organized, before the conflict, so all the willing citizen-soldiers know exactly who they’re following, what their jobs are, etc., etc., etc.? And how does that force stand up to far more powerful weaponry, surveillance and commo capability, etc.? Heck – how do we even communicate, when there’s no established, standardized commo system (frequencies, mode [USB, LSB, AM, FM, encryption], etc.)? It all sounds good, even romantic in theory, but carrying out a successful operation requires planning, training, organization, standards, etc., that simply don’t exist, even if we disregard the vastly superior force “we’d” be up against. Forget Mosul, Fallujah, etc. – those guerrilla fighters knew how to do it, and had in one form or another been doing it for years before we ever arrived on scene. Where are our large numbers of trained, organized, and motivated potential guerrilla fighters today? And who’s going to lead them that they’d trust (not just at the top, but down to the unit and squad level)?
I expect that if anything really developed, we’d devolve very quickly into a situation that Selco knows all too much about – and NOT an organized, successful “take America back” experience.April 19, 2016 at 10:28 am #48382
Just like the original revolution , several events must take place before anybody is ready , nobody does it lightly . One of those events will be economic collapse ………..all the freebees and safety nets run out . People will need a scape goat .April 19, 2016 at 2:11 pm #48391
Agree Tolik that a collapse of the economy that may take the dollar out will start a revolution of some type. The left maybe the first to start it the minute all there freebees stop.April 20, 2016 at 2:44 am #48413
Scenario: The New Madrid earthquake fault in Missouri makes another big move again after the series of quakes just over 200 year ago (1811-1812). Or a repeat of the Charleston, MO, earthquake in 1895. From the New Madrid quakes, mild damage occurred as far away as Charleston, South Carolina, way over on the coast. It was felt in New England. And the 1895 Charleston, Missouri, quake had a massively greater damage area than the similar sized California earthquake of 1994, just over 20 years ago (see map in link below).
Not to bring up Charleston again, but Charleston, SC, had its own major earthquake in 1886, just 130 years ago. From that east coast quake with a magnitude estimated at 7.0, damage occurred as far away as central Alabama, more than two states away, and central Ohio, more than three states away. Look again at the difference between the 1994 California quake damage area, and the 1895 Missouri quake (6.7 and 6.8 respectively).
The point? If New Madrid breaks loose again any time soon, with an 8.0, a massive amount of damage will occur. The economy will tank, due to the incredible widespread nature of the damage done. It all has to do with soils and geology of the eastern half of the U.S. vs. California.
We can’t just plan on the basis of ever-increasing tensions between groups because of horrible government policies (or lack thereof). The “job” may be done for us by Ma Nature. Yes, it would break down into a lot of lawless behavior – Equador had looting breaking out within a few short hours of their devastating earthquake the other day. But between cleanup, search and rescue, and law enforcement, guess which one drew the short end of the lolliepop stick? Let another Camille or Katrina come roaring right up the Florida coast (either one), then start picking off cities in Georgia or Alabama, stall over Tennessee and dump feet of water over the entire southeast, and see what happens (look what happened just in Columbia, SC, last year with their relatively localized flooding).
There are many other things that can easily beat the government to home plate in scoring the winning run over the U.S., and even if one region isn’t directly physically affected, services could end up so deteriorated even in those “untouched” areas to such an extent that SHTF could quickly extend coast-to-coast. A major earthquake in the absolute center of the nation could wipe out so much that services would be overwhelmed, and chaos would occur on a domino basis around the rest of the country. The “freebees” would stop for everybody. And it would be obvious that the government was never meant to take care of everybody – “we” just didn’t want to consider that possibility. But the government would not be the primary target when the precipitating event was not government-caused, and they clearly were not in a position to do much about it anyway.
So it’s back to preparation, preparation, and more preparation, with consideration for EVERY kind of scenario, each of which would bring a different “flavor” to the S-portion of what HTF. The coronation of Earthquake Hillary is simply one precipitating possibility, with its own special “flavor.” (Not that that factor changes my initial response to this whole thread. )April 20, 2016 at 11:16 am #48428
The unique risk with national implications of another major New Madrid earthquake is the loss of bridges and assorted pipelines and cables crossing the Mississippi. The implications for the eastern third of the country are enormous.April 20, 2016 at 12:14 pm #48431
Into every empire a little rain must fall. The bolt out of the blue is more of a common occurrence in America than most people think. Look at Houston right now, 500 year flood. Before the new Madrid fault moved in the 1800s it was the mound builders who disappeared. For the USA to have survived here for a little over 200 years may be about average.May 13, 2016 at 9:19 pm #48738
Well look at this news about Bill Clinton WOW!
Flight logs show Bill Clinton flew on sex offender’s jet much more than previously knownMay 17, 2016 at 12:06 am #48760
Well, if Hillary becomes President, she’s announced that she intends to put Willie in charge of the entire economy, as the economy czar! Won’t that be fun?
In other news, Mitt Romney is trying to make sure that NEITHER Billary nor The Donald becomes President, by generating a 3rd party candidate. Of course “everyone” (meaning the talking heads on TV) is saying it’s stupid, and Reince Priebus says it would be “suicide mission for our country because … you’re throwing down not just eight years of the White House but potentially 100 years on the Supreme Court and wrecking this country for many generations.”
When Cruz suddenly suspended his candidacy and the power elite even declared The Donald to be the “presumptive nominee,” it just seemed much too sudden and much too easy. It just doesn’t feel right at all. I wondered at the time if they were counting on a lot of Trump voters to stay home in the remaining states (California, especially), since all the other candidates had only “suspended” their candidacy, and therefore any votes for them would still “count” – thus hopefully denying Trump a clear majority at the Convention.
Now I’m wondering if they’re taking a different approach. Suppose they pick just a handful of states to concentrate on for a 3rd party candidate, gain enough electoral votes to deny a majority to any candidate, thus throwing the election into the House. The vote in the House will be as constituted today, not after any changes to that body that go into effect in January. And the Republican-controlled House could then do all kinds of deals (and threats) to crown yet another candidate selected by the power elite. The 3rd party movement would only need to win a handful of states, counting on enough Democrat voters to reject Hillary and vote for Trump, while enough Republican voters would bolt the Party and vote for the 3rd party candidate (who would most likely come from the ranks of the Republican establishment candidates of course, despite whatever 3rd party they “hijack” as Reince Priebus termed the attempt). Remember – after all the vehement rhetoric against Trump, and the $millions of dollars spent on the Dump Trump movement, including powerful people like the Koch brothers, it just seems unlikely they are going to go away quietly and easily, or that they put up all that money without a very carefully contrived plan. I had the thought, listening to Priebus on TV, “Methinks he protesteth too much” against the Romney move. It may all be political theater at its “finest,” and my signature line kicks in yet again.
Final thought: if my conspiracy theory happens to have any basis in reality, the Democrats could easily pull back their voters that might otherwise vote for Trump because they’ve become fed up with Hillary. How? Simply by reminding them that if the vote goes to the House, the Republican-controlled House would select the 3rd party establishment candidate. And there would be so many disaffected Republicans that would simply stay home, that next January we would see the coronation of Queen Clinton – Russian reset, Libya, and Benghazi, all on steroids for round two.May 17, 2016 at 12:31 am #48761
GS all a big dream! 3rd party will not work.May 17, 2016 at 1:33 am #48766
Freedom, you’re right ONLY in the sense that they’d never come close to a 50% + 1 majority of the popular vote. But re-think the scenario. All they need to do is win a few electoral votes, siphon off enough votes from both Trump and Clinton to prevent anyone from getting over 50%, and then by the Constitution the election goes to the House of Representatives if the Electoral College can’t reach a majority decision. Who controls the House currently? It’s not necessarily who you think it is, because each state gets ONE vote in such a House-determined election.
I haven’t done the research to see how many states have majority-Republican House delegations, but unless it’s the Republicans controlling more than 25 of the states, then it gets even more dicey. IF the Republicans have more representatives in 26 of the 50 states, then it will potentially be the Republicans (mostly establishment politicians) that will select the next President if no one gets more than 50% of the Electoral College votes. It does not matter who gets more votes in the general election! Again – a 3rd party candidate only has to win a small number of states, potentially, for the Electoral College to become potentially unable to select the next President. Then the current makeup of the House of Representatives gets to make the selection from among the top THREE candidates. Think about it…. Will it happen that way? I have no idea. But yes, it is plausible, because of the idiocy going on right now in both parties, topped off by how the Constitution determines the final selection of the President of the United States. (Not a nice thought, is it?)May 17, 2016 at 8:30 am #48774
33 states have Republican controlled Houses.
May 17, 2016 at 10:24 am #48776
- This reply was modified 2 years, 10 months ago by 74.
Many of the states have closed there registration to get on the ballot. Also it would be the end of the GOP. Millions would leave the party including my self. Also they would lose the senate for sure since many would not vote for them. Like I said the end of the GOP. This would also mean they would start losing state election too.
Like I said it is a dream that will never work.
May 17, 2016 at 11:26 am #48778
- This reply was modified 2 years, 10 months ago by freedom.
I’m not certain the instigators of a third party care whether or not more than one party exists in the future. It’s clear we are ruled by an oligarchy. They probably would profit more under Democrat controlled government.May 17, 2016 at 6:03 pm #48781
33 states have Republican controlled Houses.
Is that the number of STATE houses controlled by the Republicans, or the number of individual states’ U.S. congressional delegations in the House of Representatives that are majority Republican? The makeup of the individual delegations in the House of Representatives (i.e. the majority party from each state) is what determines the voting if the Electoral College can’t come up with a “winner.” Each state in the House of Representatives gets a single vote – it doesn’t matter whether it’s Wyoming with one representative, or California with 53. So for the most part, it would be the party with the majority of congressmen in each state that controls that state’s vote for President. Talk about a recipe for the final nail in the coffin of “of, by, and for the People….”
I’m not certain the instigators of a third party care whether or not more than one party exists in the future. It’s clear we are ruled by an oligarchy.
Bingo! That’s the point, and why I believe we’ve passed the point of still having a constitutional republic. I prefer Doug Casey’s term for “them” – the “Dark State.” We have a few ideas about a few of the people in charge, but no detail, and we only only know what happens to us after it happens (and then, only if we’re really watching closely in the beginning).
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.