We Are Not on the Verge of a New Civil War

The red and the blue are not the blue and the gray.

|

America is not on the verge of a new civil war. That may seem like an uncontroversial thing to say, but the apocalyptic rhetoric has gotten pretty thick out there, so I took the time to write an article for the L.A. Times explaining what the second-civil-war cliché gets wrong. Here's an excerpt:

Thure de Thulstrup

[W]hile the country is filled with reliable Republican and Democratic voters, much of that reliability reflects what political scientists call "negative partisanship." Put simply, that means their votes are driven less by love for one party than by fear and hatred of the other one. In the last election, a large share of Donald Trump's support came from people who did not like him but found the prospect of a President Hillary Clinton more terrifying; much of Clinton's support came from people whose position was the exact opposite.

The atmosphere that produces negative partisanship can fuel a paranoid loathing of the other party's members. In its most concentrated form, it can drive people to aggressive violence. This is the sort of ill feeling that pundits invoke when they talk about a new civil war.

But that atmosphere also means that the two purportedly warring sides don't command as much loyalty as those red/blue maps imply….American politics are structured in a way that naturally tends toward two-party rule, but many Americans are clearly chafing at those constraints.

Other topics covered include why the political class is more polarized than everyone else and why you shouldn't mistake an alt-right/antifa brawl for the state of the nation. To read the whole thing, go here.

NEXT: Total Eclipse, Afghanistan Plans, Dick Gregory and Jerry Lewis Dead: A.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. People have too much to lose financially, generally, to engage in any kind of combat at home. (Plus the two factions are right now too ill-defined to choose up sides coherently.) Now maybe after the coming collapse those sides will become aligned based on economic factors, but by that point we’ll all be too busy fighting the zombie apocalypse anyway.

    1. The rest of the USA vs cities is pretty well defined. Not much food to be grown in cities.

      1. Yep, those folks have nothing to lose by cutting off cities, which we all know produce no economic value.

        1. Nothing that can’t be replaced.

        2. And, why the childish sarcasm?

          1. You must be new here.

            1. Oh ok, he’s that guy.

              1. they are all that guy.

                1. Ha Ha.

                  You said ‘they‘!

          2. Because the very concept that the “rest of the USA” doesn’t need cities because “not much food to be grown in cities” is naively childish.

            1. I’ll never understand the “come down to my opponents ” school of thought, but you be you guy.

            2. Please. Look at how grocery stores get cleaned out during even mild events like blizzards.

              Most Milennials can’t even change the oil in their fucking car and are hopelessly addicted to their iDigitalUmbilicus–you really think they’d be capable of getting enough food to survive for the winter if the shit really did hit the fan?

              1. Yes, because cities versus rural in the US isn’t Cities versus the rest of the food producing world.

                1. Yes, because cities versus rural in the US isn’t Cities versus the rest of the food producing world.

                  Assuming that those same logistical networks would survive with minimal disruptions in a full-blown internal breakdown of the social order is stretching it. Mega-Cities 1 and 2 would probably be relatively okay, along with the cities along the Mississippi and maybe the Ohio Rivers, but places like Denver, Salt Lake City, Austin, Chicago, Montgomery AL, Phoenix, etc.? They’re going to have a much tougher road to hoe.

                  1. And if it’s all out war you’re making the assumption that the cities wouldn’t just take over the rural areas and make them their bitches. Also, you’re making a big assumption that Phoenix would unite with San Francisco in the event of war.

                    1. And if it’s all out war you’re making the assumption that the cities wouldn’t just take over the rural areas and make them their bitches.

                      Which is, in fact, what happened about 5,000 years ago. That battle’s done been over for a long, long time.

                  2. tougher road to hoe

                    “row”

                    1. It’s an urban idiom – i.e. a place so tough you can’t even get prostitutes to hang out there.

          3. Because what loveconstitution said was too stupid to warrant any earnest response.

            1. This applies to his responses generally.

            2. Aw, lefties butthurt that their talk of civil war is being thrown back in their face with actual strategies for winning.

              You lefties sure are easy to upset.

        3. I for one would miss that snapchat feature where you can get funny ears superimposed on a selfie.

        4. The cities don’t matter. The big business (tech, finance, tourism, etc) that gives it revenue do.

          California makes a bunch of money on info and investment that’s not even in the state. If the feds blew up Disneyland and Google California Prime Minister Antonio Villraigosa will sue for peace.

          1. It’s adorable that you think that given a choice between capital in the city and the hard-working peasants in the countryside that you think the Feds are going to choose the hardworking peasants to defend.

        5. Hugh Akston|8.21.17 @ 10:44AM|#
          Yep, those folks have nothing to lose by cutting off cities, which we all know produce no economic value.

          In a modern civil war, you fight with what you have. There would not be much production of things because resources would not be easily moved around to production facilities.

          Farms would be about the only place producing much of anything.

      2. Really? Where do you think the zombies will find the most ‘brains’? (food, not necessarily intelligence)
        A glance shows that IF the war is ideological, LA and New York against the world, assisted by Chicago.
        Not gonna last long.

        1. Really? Where do you think the zombies will find the most ‘brains’?

          Not where I live.

        2. You forgot Boston. And Houston. Everyone forgets Houston.

          1. Everyone forgets Houston.

            Not I. Not that voice.

        3. “Where do you think the zombies will find the most ‘brains’?”

          I understand there was a brain-eating zombie outbreak in Washington DC last week, but it came to nothing. They starved.

      3. “The rest of the USA vs cities is pretty well defined. Not much food to be grown in cities.”

        No, the cities don’t produce much (if any) food. However, they produce the engineers who design and build the machines that collect and transport the food. They produce the software that controls the supply chain. They supply (via production or trade) the clothing, televisions, furniture, building materials and most everything else that rural folk purchase at Walmart. They also produce the consumers for said food, which allows many farming communities to exist.

        The relationship is symbiotic. The only ones who can claim that they don’t need the cities would be the Amish. And even most of them would be affected when gasoline and heating oil can’t be delivered.

        1. Your post is moronic.

          1. It’s rare to see this kind of thoughtful, thorough, and subtle discussion in the H&R comments. Thank you for elevating the discourse around here.

            1. You have yet to elevate discussions around here.

        2. They also produce the consumers for said food, which allows many farming communities to exist.

          In a national de-scaling, the farmers are going to be far more concerned with growing their own food on their own land, for their own families and neighbors, irrespective of whatever currency the urbanites can give them in exchange.

          Urban areas are going to have bigger problems fending off the EBT-hordes who suddenly can’t buy their weekly 20 gallons of sugar water and processed chicken nuggets.

        3. Your elitism is too much to bear. I guess we in Dumbfuckistan can’t possibly be engineers. We’re too busy cleaning off our shit-kicker boots and fucking our cousins, right? Engineering is best left to city folk while we hayseeds just focus on (urban-designed apparently) monster trucks and tractor pulls. We probably don’t even know what a trigger warning even is, we probably think it’s a new must-have option on the next AR-15 we’re planning to buy because we’re all gun nuts too.

          THE LINES HAVE BEEN DRAWN: COSMOS VS YOKELS.

          1. There had better be a 10-15 question Internet quiz so I can figure out which side I’m on.

            1. It’s a Pournelle chart except you’re either with us or you’re against us.

              1. Too complicated.

                1. You won’t last two seconds in the zombie apocalypse. Or maybe, just maybe, you’ll outlive us all.

                  1. The zombies are clearly going to win, no question. I think I’d rather be on the winning team for once.

                  2. I know things.

          2. “Your elitism is too much to bear. I guess we in Dumbfuckistan can’t possibly be engineers.”

            The universities are located in the cities, and thus produce the engineers…wherever they may originate.
            And there’s an elitism from rural areas too. I’m sick of hearing about this real America that somehow only exists in Dumbfuckistan (your words).

              1. Eric’s a quick one.

                AND YOU’RE THE REASON THE ZOMBIES WILL WIN.

              2. You’ve been talking to my wife!

                But seriously, my whole point is that it’s simplistic and short sighted to act like rural areas are so much more important than the cities. We both rely on eachother for our ways of life, and the more people understand just how fucked we would ALL be without the other, the better.

                1. We both rely on eachother for our ways of life, and the more people understand just how fucked we would ALL be without the other, the better.

                  It’s this kind of wishy-washy compromisetarianism that makes you the enemy.

                2. This fighting among ourselves is just what the eclipse wants.

                  1. Now THAT was funny.

            1. You mean big cities like College Station, Texas; Corvallis, Oregon; Lubbock, Texas; Madison, Wisconsin; Ann Arbor, Michigan; etc.?

              1. You mean big cities like College Station, Texas; Corvallis, Oregon; Lubbock, Texas; Madison, Wisconsin; Ann Arbor, Michigan; etc.?

                Which sort of emphasizes that shoehorning every duality into a “Team Red-Team Blue” dynamic is a bit simplistic, since while none of these cities are “big cities,” they’re also hardly Team Red strongholds, either.

                1. No. BUt to counter Eric’s opinion, those cities, for the most part, could easily be supported by and basically are now, their surrounding areas.

                  LA, NY, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Miami, Dallas, DC… most of the East Coast, would be pretty much starved out in about 2 months.

                  LA would be gone in a week if someone shut off the water. I’m kind of surprised no one’s tried, it wouldn’t be that difficult.

                  Denver has a lot of rural farmland around it and I think would be fine. Minneapolis and Chicago also are swimming in rural farmland around them, let’s not forget they’re also major railroad hubs. Seattle and Portland are lush with farmland and have a pretty steady supply of fish and free power through hydro dams.

                  There’s a lot more open land out there than a lot of people think. Where I believe Constitution’s argument is better than Eric’s is that people barely know how to to their shoes. Granted necessity is the mother of all invention, but there would be a hard and fast learning curve in the first 2 months.

                  I spent a lot of time in rural WI, WA, OR, TX and MN. There are a lot more college grads and even whole colleges, out in the country than most people think. Most of the very wealthy inventors and engineers I know live where they can grow their own food and pump their own well water. City planning committees are easily avoided if you just live in the county.

              2. Who said anything about “big”? Those places aren’t going to be agriculturally self-sustaining either once the yokel hordes lay siege to all the eggheads in their ivory towers.

                1. once the yokel hordes lay siege to all the eggheads in their ivory towers

                  Tractor pulls are just warmup exercises.

              3. Let’s not forget Fayetteville, Ark, if we’re talking engineers.

                I work in software development, so hopefully no one lets the cat out of the bag that I’m a fifth-generation Ozarks hillbilly.

                1. WRONG. Fayetteville = big city. Go back to your cocktail party, cosmo.

                2. What does it say about me that everything I know about the Ozarks I learned from the Syfy original movie Ozark Sharks. I bet you can tell me whether or not that was based on a true story?

        4. So true, Eric. Most people don’t seem to realize how different and high-tech modern farming actually is, and thus, how fragile it is to the same kind of problems that would affect the cities. Would farmers, unable to run their high-tech equipment, really be able to revert to simpler times and utilize old-fashioned, inefficient equipment to maintain their farms? And even if they can, it would probably mean lower crop yields, and thus less food produced.

          1. I work with logistics and supply chain software heavily geared towards agriculture, and resource extraction industries. The companies I work with are completely dependent upon it to grow/extract/distribute anything without it.

            1. You’re proving your opponents point. The farmers can make enough for 10,000 people with your assistance, cut ties with them and the number goes to 1,000. But the farmer still get’s to choose who gets his food.

          2. And even if they can, it would probably mean lower crop yields, and thus less food produced

            Yup.

            Poor consumers.

        5. Actually, they don’t.

          The engineers who design the machines sometimes move to places NEAR cities, where their type of work is located. The people who build the machines tend to live outside cities. The people making the clothes, growing the food, making the computers, televisions, furniture and everything else that ‘rural folk'(and ‘city slickers’–I’m down with your hep jargon) purchase at walmart is made by other ‘rural folk’ in some other part of the country–or in some other country

          “Produce consumers” Yup. That’s EXACTLY what most cities produce. Think about that for a second.

          1. “Produce consumers” Yup. That’s EXACTLY what most cities produce. Think about that for a second.”

            Yep. It’s the salt-of-the-earth who produce everything.
            If you are in a rural area:

            You likely get your internet from a satellite company based in San Diego or Denver, or on cable/phone lines installed and subsidized by taxes collected largely from cities.
            You get your electricity from a city based company (or rural company using their infrastructure), and subsidized by taxes from the metro areas in your state (or god forbid from the federal govt).
            You (Azathoth) spend an inordinate amount of your (super productive) day on a computer who’s technology has evolved solely from the efforts of city-dwellers, on software produced by city-dwellers, on a website brought to you by city-dwellers, using the aforementioned city-subsidized electricity and internet. But please, continue preening about the uselessness of cities and their population in any capacity other than as consumers.

            1. W+Eric, you’re stating luxuries. We’re talking about needs.

          2. All of which is why the imagined rural/city divide is mostly bullshit and won’t devolve into civil war.

          3. Err no. Why do you sell food to city dwellers? What do you use the money you get from them to buy? And where do they get their money?

            Or are you into ‘rural marxism’? : the theory that all value is derived from rural farmers and the urban bourgeoisie lives only by exploiting them?

      4. Something like 80% of our fruits and vegatables come from the Central Valley of California.

        1. Yea, and the stuff is picked by legal and/or illegal immigrants. (I guess that’s besides the point, though).

          1. not anymore… haha.

            Trump strikes again!

      5. Starving the progtards out? That sounds awesome.

    2. Who said anything about fighting? Just let each state decide which federal government it wants to join.

  2. So has the left’s overreaction to the Nazis officially far surpassed the hysterical overreaction to Muslims on the right? “Anti-Nazi” protests when there are in fact no Nazis at the rally they are protesting are as silly and unnecessary as “anti-Sharia” marches.

  3. That doesn’t seem to explain why I loathe both parties and their members.

    1. That’s easy – it’s because you’re a hateful goon who’s going to die angry and alone.

  4. America is not on the verge of a new civil war.

    Technically America has never had a “civil war”. It has had two wars of secession.

    1. Dare I ask how you define “civil war?”

      1. By keeping a civil tongue in your head?

      2. The Geneva Conventions do not specifically define the term “civil war”, nevertheless they do outline the responsibilities of parties in “armed conflict not of an international character”. This includes civil wars, however no specific definition of civil war is provided in the text of the Conventions.

        So a civil war is what I say it is.
        And no war is civil.

      3. While slaughtering your felliw man, you’re wearing a tie.

        1. Exactly. There are rules – this isn’t ‘Nam.

          1. There were rules in the nam – one rule was ‘don’t win, it might keep me from getting reelected’.
            Seems that rule is never gonna get repealed.

  5. You mean all the Doomsday Preppers stocked up when there was a black POTUS for nothing?

    1. They were just ahead of the times – – – –

    2. No, we mean all the Doomsday Preppers who stocked up because there is an orange POTUS did so for nothing.

      1. Oh, we’ll survive the Orange Tyrant just fine. He is so inept that none of his agenda is passing.

        His first crisis will be the debt ceiling and Goldman Sachs has forecast a 50% chance of a total government shutdown because the Great Deal Maker is anything but that. The Loonies in Congress may take over until an adult arrives on the scene (Gary Cohn or Kelly).

        1. He is so inept that none of his agenda is passing.

          50% chance of a total government shutdown

          So, Trump is the libertarian moment?

    3. Most people Oreo for natural disasters idiot. There was nothing natural about that pinko subversive.

    4. You are just obsessed with skin tone, aren’t you. I’m not a fan of Barack, but he wasn’t just a point on the color wheel, buddy.

  6. We Are Not on the Verge of a New Civil War

    We are, however, closer than we’ve ever been since the last civil war to a new civil war.

  7. This is an amazingly incompetent article. Even by the standards of an organization that employs Steve Chapman.

    Look, I get that you trust fund babies aren’t going to rock the boat, but maybe you should get out of your non-profit bubble, that insures that you don’t have to accomplish anything, and go out there somewhere in the wasteland between I-5 and I-95 and talk to some people and, you know, do some journalism.

    Here, I will give you a hint where the lines are beginning to form. American nationalists vs. Globalists, urban vs. Rural, the alt-right vs everybody, Trumpland vs. The Clinton archipelago.

    1. Even by the standards of an organization that employs Steve Chapman.

      Are you referring to Townhall.com or Creators Syndicate? Because I’m pretty sure the latter is more of a contract relationship than an employment one.

    2. Farmers are starting to figure out who their friend is – and its not the Con Man Trump:

      Trump’s Trade Pullout Roils Rural America
      After the U.S. withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, other nations launch 27 separate negotiations to undercut U.S. exporters.
      By ADAM BEHSUDI August 07, 2017

      http://www.politico.com/magazi…..cts-215459

    3. Here, I will give you a hint where the lines are beginning to form. American nationalists vs. Globalists, urban vs. Rural, the alt-right vs everybody, Trumpland vs. The Clinton archipelago.

      You don’t need to drop any hints, Troy. I am aware that these are the lines that various dimwits think will turn into a civil war.

      maybe you should get out of your non-profit bubble

      In my experience, it’s the people most encased in bubbles who think we’re heading for a civil war. You’re a case in point.

      1. This site needs more of this.

        Jesse is an expert on CT and knows it when he sees it.

        1. Did you swallow?

        2. Au contraire, I bet he’s never even been to Connecticut:

      2. You don’t need to drop any hints, Troy. I am aware that these are the lines that various dimwits think will turn into a civil war.

        It doesn’t need to turn into “Unions vs. Confederates” for it to escalate into more widespread conflict, Jesse.

        Fuck, the late 60s and early 70s weren’t *that* long ago, and they were arguably a hell of a lot more violent than anything we’re seeing today. The point is that we seem to be entering a new period of upheaval where the country tries to figure out what the new social order is going to be for the next 40-50 years, and those periods usually aren’t done in a peaceful manner.

        1. Fuck, the late 60s and early 70s weren’t *that* long ago, and they were arguably a hell of a lot more violent than anything we’re seeing today.

          I agree. From the article: “It’s certainly possible to imagine America returning to the violence of the 1960s and ’70s, and beneath the overwrought language, that’s what some ? though not all ? of these civil war prophets seem to have in mind.”

        2. There’s still a lot of room between period of social upheaval with some street violence and civil war.

        3. Then we had better dispose of the progressives, lest they determine that order.

      3. So you are going to quit this sweet gig and go do some work, right? Or are you just virtue signaling over your butthurt?

        Maybe you haven’t heard but there are people openly talking about blowing up Mt. Rushmore. There is a purge of right leaning sites. For the first time in decades the people on the right are fighting back.

        Your solipsism is pathetic.

        1. I’m good with wiping the faces off Rushmore – what Libertarian wouldn’t be?

          1. Only if it’s voluntarily funded wiping.

        2. Or are you just virtue signaling over your butthurt?

          It’s like you’re a sentient mound of stupid clich?s.

          Your solipsism is pathetic.

          The projection is thick here. You live in a little bubble where people think your circle’s latest outrage-of-the-day (SOMEONE SOMEWHERE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT BLOWING UP MOUNT RUSHMORE!) means a civil war is on the horizon. And you have so little awareness of recent history that you think “people on the right are fighting back” is something new. Solipsist, heal thyself.

          1. It’s like you’re a sentient mound of stupid clich?s.

            Nailed it.

          2. “Sentient”
            Citation?

    4. Join the Proud Boys before the SJW’s get you!

  8. America is not on the verge of a new civil war.

    Just in case America is on the verge of a civil war, I will take John Cutter’s advice and bet on black.

  9. I think the talk of civil war stems not from the conflict of political parties, but over free speech. The only reason the KKK is still here is because their right to exist was upheld by SCOTUS via free speech cases (Brandenberg v Ohio, 1969. Capitol Square Review Board v. Pinette, 1995. Virgina v Black, 2003). The Klan isn’t going away and at some point it will be back at SCOTUS. If upheld again, the anti-klan people will be infuriated that our system of government would uphold rights for such people, and may turn against the government in general. As the protests grow bigger and become more violent, we jump on the slope towards large scale skirmishes.

    Civil war will depend on how big the sides grow and how angry they are.

    1. Civil war will depend on how big the sides grow and how angry they are.

      And I think all the evidence suggests that the angriest people are small groups on the lunatic fringes of the two major “sides.”

      The rest is butthurt partisan media playing with shadow puppets.

      1. “”And I think all the evidence suggests that the angriest people are small groups on the lunatic fringes of the two major “sides.”””

        I don’t think you need to be the angriest. Hopefully the numbers of angry enough will stay low enough.

        They have made it clear that this is only the start. They mobilized about 40,000 by some estimates to protest a conservative group in Boston. They are showing they have some good numbers and will respond to something they don’t like. I’m curious to see what kind of response the next conservative speaker at a college will receive.

        “”The rest is butthurt partisan media playing with shadow puppets.””

        I’m curious who is paying to charter busses for the Anitfa group.

      2. I don’t think we are close to it yet. But I do see us as starting to walk down that path. However, it’s a long path.

  10. The red and the blue are not the blue and the gray.

    magenta and periwinkle

  11. Will Twittertudes continue to leak out in the real world? Sadly, yes.

    Will people commit violence in large numbers because of Twittertudes? I doubt it.

    Fuckin’ GamerGate.

  12. I still think we’re close to a civil war, but I’ve been saying that for years. It’s not so much left versus right as people who can do math versus the innumerate vis-a-vis the government’s budget. A little government is a necessary evil, but beyond that government services are a luxury and the bill’s coming due for all the seed corn we’ve been eating. Government’s going to take care of its own first so you’ll see more and more crumbling infrastructure and cut-backs on government services combined with creative tax hikes disguised as fees and assessments (and asset forfeiture) before you see any pension and entitlement reform and by then you’ve pissed off a sufficient segment of the population and it’s going to be too little, too late. It’s the tragedy of the commons, really. All the rats grabbing as much free shit as they can carry before they abandon the sinking ship.

    1. A little government is a necessary evil,

      Someone just outed themselves as not being a Troo libertarian.

      1. Libertarianism is about the immorality of the initiatory use of force. A government which does not initiate force could fall under its perview.

        1. Add another to the un-Troo column.

        2. A government which does not initiate force

          And what does that mythical creature look like?

        3. Do you even monopoly of violence, bro?

      2. Hey, I’ve already outed myself as a rattlesnake libertarian. Libertarians believe everybody ought to leave everybody else alone, rattlesnake libertarians have guns and we can make you leave us alone.

        1. Are rattletarians considered cosomotarians or yokeltarians?

          1. How many rattlesnakes do you see slithering around the big cities? (Phoenix and Denver notwithstanding…)

            1. I see a good number of people in big cities shooting each other for one reason or another.

        2. I have a car, and cars beat guns 😉

          (I don’t really have a car)

    2. Government’s going to take care of its own first so you’ll see more and more crumbling infrastructure and cut-backs on government services combined with creative tax hikes disguised as fees and assessments (and asset forfeiture) before you see any pension and entitlement reform and by then you’ve pissed off a sufficient segment of the population and it’s going to be too little, too late.

      There was an article in the Denver Post talking about this exact thing–specifically, how TABOR has caused politicians in both parties to look for ways to get around asking the voters for tax hikes by increasing fees and service charges in various places. Since it’s a fee, they technically don’t have to ask the voters for permission to implement it. My vehicle registration, for example, is double what it was 9-10 years ago, with things like a “road and bridge” fee added on.

    3. “It’s not so much left versus right as people who can do math versus the innumerate vis-a-vis the government’s budget.”

      If a war emerged on those lines, it would be over in an instant, because those aren’t even close to being equally-sized groups.

      1. It would be even more unbalanced (though less ironic, perhaps) than if libertarians tried to take the country by force.

  13. It’s time to break the wheel, as the Khaleesi might say. Reds and Blues have different values and different ideas about what government should do. Why should they be constrained by geography to share one government? Let Democrats and Republicans elect their own governments, set their own tax rates, and establish their own government budgets and social safety nets. And let Libertarians and Greens do the same. Let civil disputes be settled in a neutral court. Let criminal disputes be prosecuted in the victim’s court, with appeals to a neutral court. Wanna bomb someone or declare war? It would require a unanimous vote of all governments representing over, say, one million people. We can have separate insurance companies and separate credit cards and separate internet providers, why not governments?

    1. Reds and Blues have different values and different ideas about what government should do.

      I think this is over-simple, and plays into the Duopoly’s central narrative.

      If we’ve currently got a conflict going between only two value systems – one “red” and one “blue – which one is for limited government and free trade?

      1. The one with polka dots on the flag.

    2. But what about the Grays?

      The Grays being that looming demographic bulge of Baby Boomers who are headed this way looking for their Social Security checks because nobody’s got the guts to tell them it’s a Ponzi scheme disguised as a welfare program disguised as an insurance policy. Social Security was never meant to be a retirement plan, it was a welfare plan for poor old folks too proud to take “charity”. The government sold it under the lie that they were taking a little money out of your paycheck every week and investing it for you and that “it’s your money, you earned it”. No, it’s a welfare program and unless you start means testing it there’s just not enough younger workers paying into the system to support the older ones drawing it down. Just like just about any government worker retirement plan. They’re massively under-funded and everybody just keeps denying the math. Except the ones eyeballing those fat juicy IRA’s and 401-K’s of the greedy rich bastards just sitting there compounding interest- you didn’t build that – and I’ll bet they’ve got an idea how they can make the books balance. They’re not going to call it asset forfeiture, it’ll just be a tiny little one-time administrative assessment or some such.

      1. Forget civil war; touch our 401Ks and that’s revolution for sure.

        1. You got that right. I have 20X my current salary, so I about ready to check out of work.

      2. “”But what about the Grays?””

        Ro Sham Bo was an ok CD.

    3. No. Communism has no right to exist. It is incompatible with anything that isn’t communist. Destroy them before they destroy you.

  14. I’ve got your civil war right here!

  15. Outside that world, people tend to hold a patchwork of beliefs that don’t always fit easily into categories like “conservative” and “liberal.” It is not at all unusual for public opinion to simultaneously shift leftward on one issue (say, health insurance) and rightward on another (guns). Those red/blue maps may seem to show a nation divided against itself, but by using just two colors, they obscure an enormous variety of opinion.

    GOD DAMMIT AMERICA CHOOSE A SIDE!!!!!

  16. [W]hile the country is filled with reliable Republican and Democratic voters, much of that reliability reflects what political scientists call “negative partisanship.” Put simply, that means their votes are driven less by love for one party than by fear and hatred of the other one.

    Evidently I have been a political scientist for several election cycles without being cognizant that I had such a title.

    1. Careful though, I’m betting you’re not a licensed political scientist.

      1. I suppose that I had better keep to being a stand up philosopher.

  17. I hate having to remind myself that shooting these ignorant fuckers (Antifa, KKK, BLM, white nationalists) is immoral.

  18. 1. Vaccines, GMO crops, and pharmaceuticals are engineered and manufactured by urban and suburban metro dwellers. It is their assets and lifestyle that will be threatened by the war, not your imagined black and brown horde of welfare recipients.

    2. Wars have two settings, hellish and slaughterhouse. People that live through war have two settings; broken and ruthless; broken, ruthless, and sadistic.

    3. The most important thing in total wars of survival between opponents of similar technological advancement is numbers of viable troops.

    4. The urban elite can and will secure the water needed to survive a long war.

    5. The dynamic of societal breakdown ignores that the urban masses are human beings in most Confederate –real/rural american– wet dreams. When there are no easier paths, humam beings will do what is needed to survive in a Darwinian sense. The delinquent punks of today can become the roving gun toting gangs of ten years later. Every farmstead becomes a castle under siege.

    6. Even the most blighted neighborhoods are flooded with guns; and the means to make improvised guns, bombs, mortars, and bullets.

    I can go on, but the end result is that numbers will win out in a total war of survival.

    1. 4. The urban elite can and will secure the water needed to survive a long war.

      Not if I close the valve in my mountain hideaway.

  19. We Are Not on the Verge of a New Civil War

    We’ll see.
    There are a lot of nut cases on the left and right out there who want a civil war.
    Be careful what you ask for, especially in an armed society.

    1. The armed society is probably what keeps things fairly peaceful.

      1. That and the fact that most people are pretty comfortable, even poor people. Most people aren’t going to risk the safety and security of their families and themselves for the sake of some ideological battle. I don’t think that most of the people figting in the streets have a lot to lose, being either young and idealistic or sad, fat losers.

        1. Exactly. People have to be under real threat of losing their livelihood to engage in a civil war. Like, “if they abolish slavery my entire family fortune will be gone” type of livelihood.

        2. Most people aren’t going to risk the safety and security of their families and themselves for the sake of some ideological battle.

          ^ This.

          An contra the breathless hysteria in the media, who love nothing so much as a dramatic narrative, 95% of people aren’t following these struggles at all and completely don’t give a shit.

    2. Tell me again, how many people in Charlottesville were shot?

  20. All this talk about fear and hatred of the other party misses those of us who feel plenty of fear and hatred toward BOTH parties and the various groups within them.

    When I’m surrounded by a bunch of authoritarian statists who want big government to “solve” MY problems, regardless of me not wanting their so-called help, I really don’t care what they call themselves, what color they wear, whether they are right or left, neo-nazis or antifa SJWs, etc. I just want them all to leave me alone and stay the hell away with their idiocy.

  21. Americans are too fat and lazy to fight another civil war.

  22. Fun fact number one; As of 2008, less than 2 percent of the population is directly employed in agriculture.
    Fun fact number two; From 1999-2009, roughly 50% of hired crop farmworkers in the US were noncitizens working without legal authorization.

    So how does this work out for those who say it will be farmers against the world?
    Which way will the ‘invaders’ go in the civil war?
    Given the level of society they prefer, will the Jihadists go city or country?
    To quote the admiral, all this bickering is pointless.

  23. Failure of imagination. Civil war is very possible. Here’s how it could happen …
    They succeed in impeachng Trump.
    2 things to consider:
    1: Millions of people are fanatically devoted to him andvsee him as their last hope.
    What do you think those people would do?
    2: What do you think Trump hmself would do?
    Do you really think he would just give up?
    That would go against the very core of his identity.
    He would fight.
    The most probable scenario I can think of is is he makes a speech to the nation imploring Americans to rise up and defend democracy.
    What would happen?
    Millions wouod join the militias.
    Youve got yourself a civil war.
    This is a very real possibility.

  24. Failure of imagination.
    Civil war is very possible. Here’s how it could happen …
    They succeed in impeaching Trump.
    2 things to consider:
    1: Millions of people are fanatically devoted to him and see him as their last hope. What do you think those people would do?
    2: What do you think Trump himself would do?
    Do you really think he would just give up?
    That would go against the very core of his being.
    He would fight.
    The most probable scenario I can think of is he makes a speech to the nation imploring Americans to “rise up and defend democracy”.
    What would happen?
    Millions would join the militias.
    Now you’ve got yourself a civil war.
    This is a very real possibility.

    Roger Stone is warning people about this, but nobody is taking it seriously.
    We should be because its real.
    http://www.politico.com/story/…..ent-242010

  25. very nice post. I like it. Thanks for sharing this information.
    Tinder is the best online chatting application. Try it.
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder for pc
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder download

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.