A new civil war?

By Nathan Barton

Warnings or threats or attempts at self-fulfilling prophesy?

All kinds of articles and comments are appearing in June about an upcoming civil war.  A war between the “liberals” and the “conservatives.” A war that might actually merit the title a lot more than the 1861-1865 conflict (actually a War Between the States which did include a number of civil wars).

See the source image

The Tranzi Robert Reich was done the honor of having his strange little diatribe reposted by Freedom Net Daily at the beginning of the month.  “The American Prospect” is a boldly “progressive” publication, but isn’t really so much American as Transnational. Hence my branding it Trazi, as is Reich himself. (Who has also very accurately been described as a liberal fascist – NOT a “Nazi” or in the way people usually sling the word around.).

His fearmongering is typical of the breed. In A second American civil war? Robert Reich writes, “Imagine that an impeachment resolution against Trump passes the House. Trump claims it’s the work of the ‘deep state.’ Fox News’s Sean Hannity demands every honest patriot take to the streets. Right-wing social media call for war. As insurrection spreads, Trump commands the armed forces to side with the ‘patriots.’ Or it’s November 2020 and Trump has lost the election. He charges voter fraud, claiming that the “deep state” organized tens of millions of illegal immigrants to vote against him, and says he has an obligation not to step down. Demonstrations and riots ensue. Trump commands the armed forces to put them down. … The United States is premised on an agreement about how to deal with our disagreements. It’s called the Constitution. We trust our system of government enough that we abide by its outcomes even though we may disagree with them. Only once in our history (in 1861) did enough of us distrust the system so much we succumbed to civil war. But what happens if a president claims our system is no longer trustworthy?” [ Thanks to Freedom Net Daily, where Steve Trenward noted: Seems like last time, it ended with an assassination – SAT]

Since then, the other wing of the boots-on-your-neck establishment have chimed in.  Representative Steve King says we are heading to a second civil war.  My oh my.

A commentator reminds us that we are the land of “more guns than people” in another article. Again in Freedom Outpost, this writer potificates about how the very uncivil behavior of progressive politicians and their allies in the media and academia is fracturing the Fifty States more than ever.  And thus pushing and encouraging people to resort to violence. Which will, in King’s words, lead us from Harpers Ferry to Fort Sumter.

Fortunately, some people DO note that even making claims like that increases the possibility of armed civil war.

And also fortunately, all of this rhetoric indicates that most people have little understanding of what civil war is.

As Gareth pointed out, there are a lot of events in American history (as in English history before it) that can be labeled as civil war, and we actually are involved in just such a struggle right now.  The fact that it is not overtly violent (lots of folks aren’t shooting constantly at each other), makes it no less war.

In England, although the fight between Royalists and Parliament in the mid 1600s is “the English Civil War,” there have been many: even William the Conquerer’s invasion in 1066 was really a civil war: he claimed the throne. Ditto for the fight between Maud and Steven a half century later.  The War of the Roses.  The restoration of the Stuarts and then their getting kicked out in the Glorious Revolution of 1688.  And of course, the attempt to again restore the Stuarts in 1745.

All of which led to the first and successful civil war in North America: the one we usually call the Revolutionary War or the War of American Independence.  It was a civil war.  NOT called such, because it was successful from the American point of view.  Whereas the 1861-65 one (the War between the States) was unsuccessful, from the CSA point of view.

But the Progressive Era of 1900-1920 (more or less) was also a civil war between the old Republic (term used intentionally) and the Progressives (also Imperialists) of T Roosevelt and W Wilson. (The Progressives – advocates of an all-powerful central government, bureaucracy and democracy – won).  Some consider the first seven-eight years of the FDR Administration to be a civil war as well. Again, the Progressives won.  The later 1960s-mid 1970s are cited by some as yet another civil war in the Fifty States, with an odd shifting of alliances and positions and the vast change wrought in society and government, from the assassination of JFK to the election of Jimmy Carter. That dust-up was obviously not totally bloodless: not just assassinations but things like Kent State and various other related acts of violence.

And the last twenty-plus years, from our point-of-view in 2018, might also be considered a civil war. Maybe less bloody even than the 60s and 70s.  As those things are usually counted.  It has been a war between so-called Liberals and Conservatives. \

The historian’s definition of a civil war is the fight for the control of a government and a society. And that is what we’ve been engaged in for decades, at a level of effort far greater (except for the direct bloodshed) than American wars in the Middle East in the same period.  The effort, the time and treasure, spent on determining the nature and future of American government and society, is trillions.  It is less volatile, at times. But it changes (and destroys) lives daily.

What all these people are fearful of is that the nature of the war will change from a largely covert and verbal sparring to become an overtly violent fight.  To a situation where it will no longer be insane, perhaps drugged, killers going after unarmed and unprotected victims. But rather, where there are death squads and obvious assassinations, and where the military occupation of much of the Fifty States will be blatantly military, not disguised as “to serve and protect” by “civilian” police forces.

Is that to be feared? Or welcomed?  You should decide. For me and mine, a pox on BOTH their houses.  Whether overt or covert, we need to (and will) defend ourselves against them all.  With whatever tools are necessary. That is what free people do.

About TPOL Nathan

Follower of Christ Jesus (christian), Pahasapan, Westerner, Lover of Liberty, Free-Market Anarchist, Engineer, Army Officer, Husband, Father, Historian, Writer.
This entry was posted in Commentary on the News, Nathan's Rants and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to A new civil war?

  1. beau says:

    those who talk of a civil war are ignorant buffoons. they have no idea how ugly, how destructive, such things always are, so they are speaking with a void of knowledge, as usual.

    should such an undesirable event as a civil war take place, those keyboard warriors so devoutly trumpeting such will likely have to face real firearms shooting real bullets. what will they do then?

    if/when the talk of civil war becomes fully mainstream and seemingly possible, it would be time for an amicable (or, as amicable as it should be) divorce and each side (or sides) go their own way. such a solution would be infinitely better than millions dying only for one side to bring into its fold members of the other side, subjugated, with the seething hatred of those subjugated toward those who have subjugated them and the same from the other side, ie, no peace, ever. this would not be a solution, rather, an amplification of the problem leading to conflict in the first place.

    the only solution is division, peaceably.

    Like

    • MamaLiberty says:

      There are almost as many “sides” as there are people. Life is not neatly divided in two or even a few “sides.” The only division that will result in peace and prosperity is individual self ownership. The only way for that to happen is for everyone to stop controlling the lives of other people and mind their own business. They they can associate – or not associate- voluntarily. And those self owners have to be prepared and willing to defend themselves completely from those who would be their overlords.

      The desire/lust to control the lives and property of others is the root of all evil. It is the root of all non-voluntary government.

      Like

    • tpolnathan says:

      Beau, your point about the destructiveness of war (“civil” or otherwise) is absolutely correct, but humans are contrary people who do not let that bother them. Never have, and likely never will. We’ve indeed seen millions die when a peaceful resolution was not only possible but logical and relatively easy to achieve.

      Divorce or division is seldom peaceful, especially (as Mama Liberty points out) when all the sides are controllers and forcing everyone to take sides I think her answer makes sense, what do you think? If we mind our own business, at the neighborhood and local and state and even international level, we can work together (voluntarily) to resolve issues. And avoid war and the mass killing which should cause revulsion even in our political “leaders” and social/economic “elite.” But as Mama points out, that requires self-control which they do NOT have.

      Like

      • beau says:

        those who would enslave, or eliminate, those of us who want to be free will never, ever stop until they are victorious, or vanquished. they are controllers and they do not have self control, being convinced of their moral and legal superiority, and it is this malady, this illness, this sickness that drives them on.

        they will never, ever stop their drive to bring us all into the ‘fold’, whether one agrees, or not. they are of the same caliber of ignorant fool as the red guards were in china and the fervent revolutionaries in russia and other political cesspools all over the planet – and they are here.

        there are only two broad solutions i can visualize, given the nature and depth of the divisions now evident with one side escalating their level of verbal and physical violence daily: separate, or revolt. the only seeming alternative is a gulag where many of us are ‘reeducated’, or simply eliminated.

        we are indeed living in interesting times.

        Like

      • tpolnathan says:

        Beau, you make some good points. The controllers are not giving up.
        PS – sorry for the delay in posting your comments: found out my spam filter is working overtime!

        Like

  2. Rocketman says:

    I don’t think that “deputizing” the millennials is going to work at all. Most have very negative feelings concerning the federal government and if their handed a weapon then they’re likely to use it on the people that gave it to them.

    Liked by 1 person

    • tpolnathan says:

      We treat millennials (and other generations) as though they were homogenous groups – only natural. But there is considerable variation, and the right techniques could make at least some of them into suitable storm troopers or occupation troops. Even if that is only one in twenty, that is a lot of people.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Larry Arnold says:

    Or it’s November 2020 and Trump has lost the election.
    Didn’t we already play this game, before the 2016 election? “What if Trump doesn’t accept the results?” Turns out it wasn’t Trump we had to worry about. Not sure how Reich can make that argument, again, without at least a bit of irony.

    the military occupation of much of the Fifty States will be blatantly military
    I don’t see how that could happen. The “military” can’t control Afghanistan. There just aren’t enough U.S. boots to patrol either the red states or the blue cities, much less both.

    Liked by 1 person

    • tpolnathan says:

      Larry, we did indeed play that game in 2016. And I recall something similar for several elections in the past decades as well.

      Of course, that doesn’t mean that they took it out of their playbook. Fear of coups and the unknown and the great unwashed deplorables and us lovers of liberty are always good for a few votes and a few dollars – and maybe, just maybe, THIS time they will hit the jackpot. I suspect that Reich assumes the electorate has a very short memory span.

      I agree that the US military doesn’t have the ability to put boots on the ground stateside. But of course, that doesn’t mean that they won’t be forced to try. After all, the military doesn’t do all these things overseas (or stateside) just because the brass think it is a good idea. They do it because Congress and the White House tell them to. And because most senior officers and virtually all senior bureaucrats and political appointees do not have the guts to honor their oath to the Constitution.

      But of course, there are ways around not having enough boots that I am sure will be attempted by Congress and whomever else. We know how blind, stupid, and arrogant the politicians and “elite” can be.

      There is the Schumer solution: draft all the 18-20 year olds that they can, and hope enough are physically capable of wielding truncheons and bayoneted rifles, and can be brainwashed into using them on the public. There is the Hessian Solution of hiring mercenaries: both real and ersatz ones. Nigerians and Afrikaaners and Brazilians (and others – not picking on those particular peoples). Either individually or as units, or hiring foreign military units and pretending they are freelancers: Chinese and Thai and Burmese and maybe even Argentines and Egyptians. (Or Afghanis, Kurds, and Syrians.)

      And of course, a little more far-fetched: the RoboCop Solution. Or simply federalize not the National Guard but the state and local police forces.

      And never forget the Lincoln Solution: “we are coming, Father Abraham, a hundred thousand strong” volunteers. Would our current snowflakes do this? It was the same question that was answered “Yes” in 1930s Germany about the 1920s bohemian generation. And in America in 1940 after the Depression.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s