American society is highly divided one. The last time Americans were so opposed to each other was back in the 19th century, and it didn’t end well.
When even the national security experts agree that there are at least 30% chance of a second American civil war, a wise man stops to think. It is one thing for the fringe websites and obscure radio stations to predict civil war, but these are the men that usually know what they are talking about. Not all of them agree that the second civil war is imminent, but even the skeptics aren’t ready to dismiss the possibility of it.
One thing is certain. Second American civil war will be nothing like the first one. And we are not talking about the difference between muskets and M16s, but rather the entire concept. Last time there were two clearly defined sides, with a clearly defined territory and clearly defined forces. If the recent conflicts in the Middle East have thought us anything, it is that there is nothing distinctly defined in modern warfare.
SOURCE: USATODAY.COMIt will be messy. A second civil war on the US territory would be more similar to what we have witnessed in Yugoslavia during the nineties. “The war among brothers” as it’s called in Balkans would be a grain of salt compared to which lengths could a civil war in America escalate. The number of victims would be closer to what we have seen during the civil wars in Russia or China in the 20th century.
It is hard to imagine how much of an impact would a war on US soil had on the rest of the world. The US interest in rest of the world would become things of secondary interest which would countries such as China, Russia, and North Korea try to use.
SOURCE: REDDIT.COMThe effect that it would have on America as a country and their citizens would be even more devastating. If such thing as a new civil war occurs, it could result in cataclysmic consequences in which law and order would be hard to restore. Also, this type of conflict would change the outline of global politics. The outbreak of civil war in Syria took thousands of lives and created millions of refugees. It brought the entire Middle East into conflict, and not to mention the involvement of world powers such as America and Russia. The US civil war could also create refugees who would seek refuge in Canada or even Mexico. And who knows how would these neighboring countries react. To see the mess which civil war creates you need to look no further than Syria.
Perhaps the best example of how a second American civil war would play out is the rise of ISIS. The Islamic state came to being not as a single offensive force that conquered vast patches of territory, but as a confederation of loosely connected groups each taking their own neighborhood and connecting with each other in a fascinating display of network violence. This could be a clear blueprint for any conflict on American soil.
Groups like Antifa and Alt-right, who lack any centralized structure and are both incapable and unwilling to coordinate on the national level can use their decentralization to their advantage. They would wage asymmetric warfare, aimed at maximum effect through violence and casualties. Any future homeland conflicts would have to be looked through the prism of modern insurgencies in Arab countries and the inability of U.S. military to decisively stop them, despite the vast firepower it has at its disposal.
SOURCE:THEBLAZE.COMWe have learned repeatably from conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria that modern armies deal poorly with insurgent campaigns, especially in urban areas and that United States military isn’t an exception. The one factor that may be different is that in the past the military was deployed in foreign lands and communication with native population was difficult and cultural barriers too high to effectively employ “hearts and minds” campaign, essential for any counter-insurgency campaign to work.
In case of the second American civil war, the situation would be even worse, since the civilian casualties would have to be kept at a minimum, something modern armies aren’t always prepared to do. A string of terrorist attacks could easily bring the nation to its knees, and if perpetrators are US citizens of appropriate ethnic background (e.g., white), it would be very hard to stop them. That is why thinking of civil war in traditional terms can be a fatal mistake, as it would leave us unprepared for the real shape of the second American civil war.
Two aspects of America would ensure that any civil conflict would spread out like a wildfire. First, the number of weapons Americans have in their homes. There are estimated 357 million weapons in civilian hands in the country, a staggering figure made worse by the fact that population at the time, according to estimations from 2017, was 325 million. That means that there are 30 million more weapons than people living in America.
Most of these are civilian guns, but a vast number of them is easily transformed into a fully militarized version in a very short time. Add to this various organized civilian groups that are essentially paramilitary organizations, like several militia organizations and border watch groups, just itching to start using their shiny guns, and the recipe for disaster becomes clear. Closely connected to them are preppers’ organizations, who would see American 2nd Civil War as a fulfillment of their doomsday prophecies. Although some of these can be dismissed as wannabes, a significant number of these groups’ members have a military background, which could make them formidable opponents.
The other factor is American military. Although constitutionally obliged to support the existing government, in case of an open civil war, there is no telling what might happen. The wholesale desertion of entire units isn’t an unimaginable scenario and something that can top the scales of conflict very fast. Complete company of Abrams tanks or a battalion of marines are forces to be reckoned with, especially if all they are facing are civilian groups.
—“Ukraine was NEVER an anarcho-capitalist society and was never even close.”–
(a) Define Ancap. (anarchic) voluntary Polycentric polylogical (clan) law. Voluntary commons (none). Voluntary Military (gangsters, clans), usury, irreciprocity, blackmail, all permitted. In other words, migratory shepherds of the deserts trying to hold superior farmland, when it is farmland that created demand for infrastructure (commons), demand for armies, taxes, states to fund them. (b) Define State (territory, monopoly of violence, monopoly of rule, hierarchy, bureaucracy (c) ukraine has been a territorial possession not a state, since the golden horde. It was a territorial possession with wide latitude from the 12th century to the fall of the soviet union. If it was not a State, then what was it? What is the name for a stateless territory, not under control of an empire? So we have anarchic territory, territorial possession, and state. What other conditions of social order exist?
UKRAINE: —“Part of Scythia in antiquity and settled by Getae, in the migration period, Ukraine is also the site of early Slavic expansion, and enters history proper with the establishment of the medieval state of Kievan Rus, which emerged as a powerful nation in the Middle Ages but disintegrated in the 12th century. After the middle of the 14th century, present-day Ukrainian territories came under the rule of three external powers:
1.the Golden Horde
2.the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland – during the 15th century these lands came under the rule of the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland, then of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (from 1569)
the Crimean Khanate (from the 15th century)
After a 1648 rebellion of the Cossacks against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky agreed to the Treaty of Pereyaslav in January 1654. The exact nature of the relationship established by this treaty between Cossack Hetmanate and Russia remains a matter of scholarly controversy.[5] The agreement precipitated the Russo-Polish War (1654–67) also called The War for Ukraine. In consequence, by the Eternal Peace Treaty, signed in 1686, the eastern portion of Ukraine (east of the Dnieper River) were to come under Russian rule[6], 146,000 rubles were to be paid to Poland as compensation for the loss of the Left Bank of Ukraine[7] and the parties agreed not to sign a separate treaty with the Ottoman Empire.[8] The treaty was strongly opposed in Poland and was not ratified by the Sejm (parliament of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) until 1710.[9][10] The legal legitimacy of its ratification has been disputed.[11] According to Jacek Staszewski, the treaty was not confirmed by a resolution of the Sejm until the Convocation Sejm (1764).[12] After the Partitions of Poland (1772–1795) and the Russian conquest of the Crimean Khanate, the Russian Empire and Habsburg Austria were in control of all the territories that constitute present day Ukraine for a hundred years. A chaotic period of warfare ensued after the Russian Revolutions of 1917. The internationally recognised Ukrainian People’s Republic emerged from its own civil war of 1917–1921. The Ukrainian–Soviet War (1917–1921) followed, in which the bolshevik Red Army established control in late 1919.[13] The Ukrainian Bolsheviks, who had defeated the national government in Kiev, established the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, which on 30 December 1922 became one of the founding republics of the Soviet Union. Initial Soviet policy on Ukrainian language and Ukrainian culture made Ukrainian the official language of administration and schools. Policy in the 1930s turned to russification. In 1932 and 1933, millions of people, mostly peasants, in Ukraine starved to death in a devastating famine, known as Holodomor. It is estimated by Encyclopædia Britannica that 6 to 8 million people died from hunger in the Soviet Union during this period, of whom 4 to 5 million were Ukrainians.[14] Nikita Khrushchev was appointed the head of the Ukrainian Communist Party in 1938. After Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland in September 1939, the Ukrainian SSR’s territory expanded westward. Axis armies occupied Ukraine from 1941 to 1944. During World War II the Ukrainian Insurgent Army fought for Ukrainian independence against both Germany and the Soviet Union. In 1945 the Ukrainian SSR became one of the founding members of the United Nations.[15] After the death of Stalin (1953), Khrushchev as head of the Communist Party of Soviet Union enabled a Ukrainian revival. Nevertheless, political repressions against poets, historians and other intellectuals continued, as in all other parts of the USSR. In 1954 the republic expanded to the south with the transfer of the Crimea. Ukraine became independent again when the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. This started a period of transition to a market economy, in which Ukraine suffered an eight-year recession.[16] Subsequently, however, the economy experienced a high increase in GDP growth. Ukraine was caught up in the worldwide economic crisis in 2008 and the economy plunged. GDP fell 20% from spring 2008 to spring 2009, then leveled off.”—
2) –” Icleand, usa…”–
Iceland and the US Colonies were COLONIES under the ownership and protection, like ukraine, of empires and states. There were given limited rule by permission of those powerful states. This is as I said earlier, the only conditions under which the pretense of liberty (meaning preservation of local rule and custom) is possible. Furthermore, these were borderland (distant) territories, and settlers provide value in expanding territories because they prevent competing states from taking those same territories, yet require little cost for the state to hold that territory. In other words, settlement of new territories by the disenfranchised, poor, adventurous, or undesirable functions as purchasing an option by a state.
3) —“Thirdly people overcome the incentive to free ride without a state all the time.”–
Of course they do. They free ride on the production of commons made possible by the centralization of rent seeking in the state. They free ride on the empire or state that protects their territory from competitors. They free ride on the commons produced by others. That is what people go to cities for: to free ride on the commons. On the other hand, the scale of these societies (communes) is limited since the incentive to ‘cheat’ increases with increases in numbers, scarcity, opportunity SO the question isn’t that SOME people overcome the incentive to free ride out of some strange moral obligation, but the MAJORITY do not. And in fact, almost everyone, literally, demonstrates the minimum avoidance of free riding he or she can get away with. That’s research that just came out over the past few years and was published again yesterday. So, no, you’re claiming that people act irrationally, (not free riding) when in fact the opposite is true: people are rational actors: they seize every opportunity that they can to free ride. In fact, that’s the point of libertarianism: to free ride on empires or states by not paying the cost of access to commons, having the ability to engage in trade with members of those states, the technology produced by them, the discounted goods and services produced by them, the defense that’s provided by them.
Net net is either you produce sufficient commons to deny competitors your territory, or you are captured by those who produced sufficient commons to deny you the territory. That is why there are no anarchic societies: they cannot compete for territory. Worse, evidence is that they cannot compete for people unless they give something away for free. In the past this was land. In the present, instead of land, it’s credit.
I’m about 10k* smarter than you are, and I have many more years involved in the libertarian movement than you do, and much greater mastery of not only libertarian (jewish diasporic ghetto ethics) than you do, and I have far more understanding of all the competing theories of sexual, social, economic, political and military organization than you do. Libertarianism is just common property marxism. There is no difference. A monopoly. It’s just jewish ethics dressed up in the language of germanic law. I don’t do sophisms. I stop them.
-cheers.
—“Ukraine was NEVER an anarcho-capitalist society and was never even close.”–
(a) Define Ancap. (anarchic) voluntary Polycentric polylogical (clan) law. Voluntary commons (none). Voluntary Military (gangsters, clans), usury, irreciprocity, blackmail, all permitted. In other words, migratory shepherds of the deserts trying to hold superior farmland, when it is farmland that created demand for infrastructure (commons), demand for armies, taxes, states to fund them. (b) Define State (territory, monopoly of violence, monopoly of rule, hierarchy, bureaucracy (c) ukraine has been a territorial possession not a state, since the golden horde. It was a territorial possession with wide latitude from the 12th century to the fall of the soviet union. If it was not a State, then what was it? What is the name for a stateless territory, not under control of an empire? So we have anarchic territory, territorial possession, and state. What other conditions of social order exist?
UKRAINE: —“Part of Scythia in antiquity and settled by Getae, in the migration period, Ukraine is also the site of early Slavic expansion, and enters history proper with the establishment of the medieval state of Kievan Rus, which emerged as a powerful nation in the Middle Ages but disintegrated in the 12th century. After the middle of the 14th century, present-day Ukrainian territories came under the rule of three external powers:
1.the Golden Horde
2.the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland – during the 15th century these lands came under the rule of the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland, then of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (from 1569)
the Crimean Khanate (from the 15th century)
After a 1648 rebellion of the Cossacks against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky agreed to the Treaty of Pereyaslav in January 1654. The exact nature of the relationship established by this treaty between Cossack Hetmanate and Russia remains a matter of scholarly controversy.[5] The agreement precipitated the Russo-Polish War (1654–67) also called The War for Ukraine. In consequence, by the Eternal Peace Treaty, signed in 1686, the eastern portion of Ukraine (east of the Dnieper River) were to come under Russian rule[6], 146,000 rubles were to be paid to Poland as compensation for the loss of the Left Bank of Ukraine[7] and the parties agreed not to sign a separate treaty with the Ottoman Empire.[8] The treaty was strongly opposed in Poland and was not ratified by the Sejm (parliament of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) until 1710.[9][10] The legal legitimacy of its ratification has been disputed.[11] According to Jacek Staszewski, the treaty was not confirmed by a resolution of the Sejm until the Convocation Sejm (1764).[12] After the Partitions of Poland (1772–1795) and the Russian conquest of the Crimean Khanate, the Russian Empire and Habsburg Austria were in control of all the territories that constitute present day Ukraine for a hundred years. A chaotic period of warfare ensued after the Russian Revolutions of 1917. The internationally recognised Ukrainian People’s Republic emerged from its own civil war of 1917–1921. The Ukrainian–Soviet War (1917–1921) followed, in which the bolshevik Red Army established control in late 1919.[13] The Ukrainian Bolsheviks, who had defeated the national government in Kiev, established the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, which on 30 December 1922 became one of the founding republics of the Soviet Union. Initial Soviet policy on Ukrainian language and Ukrainian culture made Ukrainian the official language of administration and schools. Policy in the 1930s turned to russification. In 1932 and 1933, millions of people, mostly peasants, in Ukraine starved to death in a devastating famine, known as Holodomor. It is estimated by Encyclopædia Britannica that 6 to 8 million people died from hunger in the Soviet Union during this period, of whom 4 to 5 million were Ukrainians.[14] Nikita Khrushchev was appointed the head of the Ukrainian Communist Party in 1938. After Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland in September 1939, the Ukrainian SSR’s territory expanded westward. Axis armies occupied Ukraine from 1941 to 1944. During World War II the Ukrainian Insurgent Army fought for Ukrainian independence against both Germany and the Soviet Union. In 1945 the Ukrainian SSR became one of the founding members of the United Nations.[15] After the death of Stalin (1953), Khrushchev as head of the Communist Party of Soviet Union enabled a Ukrainian revival. Nevertheless, political repressions against poets, historians and other intellectuals continued, as in all other parts of the USSR. In 1954 the republic expanded to the south with the transfer of the Crimea. Ukraine became independent again when the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. This started a period of transition to a market economy, in which Ukraine suffered an eight-year recession.[16] Subsequently, however, the economy experienced a high increase in GDP growth. Ukraine was caught up in the worldwide economic crisis in 2008 and the economy plunged. GDP fell 20% from spring 2008 to spring 2009, then leveled off.”—
2) –” Icleand, usa…”–
Iceland and the US Colonies were COLONIES under the ownership and protection, like ukraine, of empires and states. There were given limited rule by permission of those powerful states. This is as I said earlier, the only conditions under which the pretense of liberty (meaning preservation of local rule and custom) is possible. Furthermore, these were borderland (distant) territories, and settlers provide value in expanding territories because they prevent competing states from taking those same territories, yet require little cost for the state to hold that territory. In other words, settlement of new territories by the disenfranchised, poor, adventurous, or undesirable functions as purchasing an option by a state.
3) —“Thirdly people overcome the incentive to free ride without a state all the time.”–
Of course they do. They free ride on the production of commons made possible by the centralization of rent seeking in the state. They free ride on the empire or state that protects their territory from competitors. They free ride on the commons produced by others. That is what people go to cities for: to free ride on the commons. On the other hand, the scale of these societies (communes) is limited since the incentive to ‘cheat’ increases with increases in numbers, scarcity, opportunity SO the question isn’t that SOME people overcome the incentive to free ride out of some strange moral obligation, but the MAJORITY do not. And in fact, almost everyone, literally, demonstrates the minimum avoidance of free riding he or she can get away with. That’s research that just came out over the past few years and was published again yesterday. So, no, you’re claiming that people act irrationally, (not free riding) when in fact the opposite is true: people are rational actors: they seize every opportunity that they can to free ride. In fact, that’s the point of libertarianism: to free ride on empires or states by not paying the cost of access to commons, having the ability to engage in trade with members of those states, the technology produced by them, the discounted goods and services produced by them, the defense that’s provided by them.
Net net is either you produce sufficient commons to deny competitors your territory, or you are captured by those who produced sufficient commons to deny you the territory. That is why there are no anarchic societies: they cannot compete for territory. Worse, evidence is that they cannot compete for people unless they give something away for free. In the past this was land. In the present, instead of land, it’s credit.
I’m about 10k* smarter than you are, and I have many more years involved in the libertarian movement than you do, and much greater mastery of not only libertarian (jewish diasporic ghetto ethics) than you do, and I have far more understanding of all the competing theories of sexual, social, economic, political and military organization than you do. Libertarianism is just common property marxism. There is no difference. A monopoly. It’s just jewish ethics dressed up in the language of germanic law. I don’t do sophisms. I stop them.
-cheers.
We believe that conservative states in the US should preserve liberty and traditional values by seceding from the US and forming a loose federation. We believe that this could resolve the culture war. Or, if a civil war starts, secession could be the solution that ends a civil war.
We believe that conservative states in the US should preserve liberty and traditional values by seceding from the US and forming a loose federation. We believe that this could resolve the culture war. Or, if a civil war starts, secession could be the solution that ends a civil war.
Time burns and the wyrm turns, and every day the window shifts, options decrease, opinion shifts, the pattern of behavior shifts, opposition is emboldened, defense is agitated, more and more give up hope of compromise, uncertainty increases, and all that it takes is a few of the right injustices to fan sparks to fire. I love being right because it increases the incentive to devote attention to other candidate thoughts, but I wish I need not be right. They have no idea. This is going to be worse than the fall of Rome now. The barbarians need not burn physical plant if they burn everything that makes it possible. And conversely, one need to do much other than turn off the incentive for it all to fall down.
Time burns and the wyrm turns, and every day the window shifts, options decrease, opinion shifts, the pattern of behavior shifts, opposition is emboldened, defense is agitated, more and more give up hope of compromise, uncertainty increases, and all that it takes is a few of the right injustices to fan sparks to fire. I love being right because it increases the incentive to devote attention to other candidate thoughts, but I wish I need not be right. They have no idea. This is going to be worse than the fall of Rome now. The barbarians need not burn physical plant if they burn everything that makes it possible. And conversely, one need to do much other than turn off the incentive for it all to fall down.
I’m more informed than you can imagine anyone could be. So no, Trump’s strategy is simple: 1)Nobody rides for free – any more. 2)Treat Leaders and Countries like CEOs and Companies, acting in rational self interest. 3)Leave the door open for negotiation. 4) Let minions negotiate.
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
OPTION THREE: Trump is forcing europeans to pay their own way: he’s Mr Consistent on that issue. He is not Russia’s or anyone else’s. Russia is not presently a threat – but taking Crimea and the Donbas, and threatening Scandinavia demonstrated Russia is still a threat to Europe.
#Russia’s state TV discusses Trump defunding more than $770 million in military projects designed to shore up European defense against Russia.
Host Evgeny Popov says that could mean only one of two things:
“Either Trump is ours, or we [Russia] are not a threat.” https://t.co/jNSqvBUisw
RT @Outsideness: The great thing about imaginary kids is their extreme enthusiasm for the Green New Deal. https://twitter.com/RebelNewsOnline/status/1169447408956321792
