America's Uncertain Future

[The South Falls]

OEP, what is it with you and rising against the left?

Where have I said or advocated such?

Never mind, I was tired. I'll concede you didn't say such.


One question.

If the left was some deep state, wouldn't they crush the right-leaning militias?

[Conserative Morality]

Not at all. It relied on the focal support of small bands of rural people into order to attack those from the cities through the usage of propaganda, military and civilian sabotage, enabling and encouraging dissent against leaders in the urbanized setting also attributed to this. You can see this example most commonly in Afghanistan for example. Where the vast majority of the fighting employed by the Taliban is in a rural setting against a superior organized foe.

I really don't know what else you call 12,000 government soldiers, better armed and better trained, pinning down a force of some 300 and then, astoundingly, being beaten back, except a total lack of support for the ruling government by even its supposed backbone, mate. Even the shittiest governments can usually muster up a few thousand people willing to die for them, but the Batista regime didn't seem to even have that. To quote El Che himself on the matter,

The enemy soldier in the Cuban example which at present concerns us, is the junior partner of the dictator; he is the man who gets the last crumb left by a long line of profiteers that begins in Wall Street and ends with him. He is disposed to defend his privileges, but he is disposed to defend them only to the degree that they are important to him. His salary and his pension are worth some suffering and some dangers, but they are never worth his life.

[Olerand]

Where have I said or advocated such?

Never mind, I was tired. I'll concede you didn't say such.


One question.

If the left was some deep state, wouldn't they crush the right-leaning militias?

That, again, in my mind, wouldn't be a civil war. If the American "left" ever took the State, it would be a coup, and a post-coup cleanup.

[Ifreann]

No they aren't. Contrary to the popular belief that America is up to its eyes in guns, most American households don't have any guns, and most of the minority that do, only have one or two guns.

And?

The very large majority of privately held guns in the US are in the hands of a rather small minority of people.

Yes, primarily those Militia types I was talking about. I'm still waiting for an actual point from you.

And being highly trained in the way of the firearm as you surely are, you are aware that it is somewhat impractical to use ten guns at once.

Would you like to try to make an actual point, because you're currently just making a strawman with this and we both know it.

The point, which I thought was obvious, is that this fantasy of yours of Republicans putting down their beers and assembling into a crack fighting force when civil war is declared is exactly that. A fantasy. The militia types you are talking about would be too few to be of any particular consequence, and most other Republicans would be about as familiar with firearms as most Democrats.

A dozen lads that play soldiers on the weekends isn't going to conquer a town of thousands and put half of them against a wall, much less a city of millions.

I believe you'd like to read up on the National Guard before debating further.

Let me guess, you think that the National Guard will join the militias in hunting down and executing unarmed leftists. Hilarious.

[Uxupox]

Not at all. It relied on the focal support of small bands of rural people into order to attack those from the cities through the usage of propaganda, military and civilian sabotage, enabling and encouraging dissent against leaders in the urbanized setting also attributed to this. You can see this example most commonly in Afghanistan for example. Where the vast majority of the fighting employed by the Taliban is in a rural setting against a superior organized foe.

I really don't know what else you call 12,000 government soldiers, better armed and better trained, pinning down a force of some 300 and then, astoundingly, being beaten back, except a total lack of support for the ruling government by even its supposed backbone, mate. Even the shittiest governments can usually muster up a few thousand people willing to die for them, but the Batista regime didn't seem to even have that. To quote El Che himself on the matter,

The enemy soldier in the Cuban example which at present concerns us, is the junior partner of the dictator; he is the man who gets the last crumb left by a long line of profiteers that begins in Wall Street and ends with him. He is disposed to defend his privileges, but he is disposed to defend them only to the degree that they are important to him. His salary and his pension are worth some suffering and some dangers, but they are never worth his life.

Numerical superiority sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. In the grand scheme things what matters is the geopolitical strategy that is enforced and at play during a war and consecutively during the battle. Che was a master at this using groundbreaking strategy at optimizing the mission essentiality, the objective of the enemy and their composition, what he had available to use at his means, the time of operations to enforce his objective and above all inciting the rural population to engage in a form of dissent against his enemies. He might have been a very bad and idealistic administrator (abysmal even) but he was a master of his craft.

[Jebslund]

The partisans part could have happened. Trump said during the election that if he lost he wouldn't go away.

The partisan part did happen. It doesn't take long to find people on the left who legitimately believe the "Not My President!" bullshit and think his entire administration is illegally in place.

And, two-to-six year ago, it didn't take long to find people on the right who legitimately believed the "Not My President!" bullshit and thought Obama's entire administration was illegally in place.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

I'm surprised there seems to be such an appetite for unrest. Give me a quiet life any day.

[Conserative Morality]

Numerical superiority sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. In the grand scheme things what matters is the geopolitical strategy that is enforced and at play during a war and consecutively during the battle. Che was a master at this using groundbreaking strategy at optimizing the mission essentiality, the objective of the enemy and their composition, what he had available to use at his means, the time of operations to enforce his objective and above all inciting the rural population to engage in a form of dissent against his enemies. He might have been a very bad and idealistic administrator (abysmal even) but he was a master of his craft.

My primary argument isn't that Che was bad at guerilla warfare or that his strategy was flawed, but only that it was enabled by a population and repressive apparatus that did not actually support the ruling administration with any sort of enthusiasm (thus the previous statement about relying on the passive support of the population that resented their rulers).

[Northeast American Federation]

The partisan part did happen. It doesn't take long to find people on the left who legitimately believe the "Not My President!" bullshit and think his entire administration is illegally in place.

And, two-to-six year ago, it didn't take long to find people on the right who legitimately believed the "Not My President!" bullshit and thought Obama's entire administration was illegally in place.

But you'd be hard pressed to find as many (if any) legislators calling for impeachment every other day, nor would you be likely to find Tea partiers and the like lighting things on fire, rioting, harassing and assaulting people on a consistent basis, and doxxing everyone they don't like.

[Conserative Morality]

And, two-to-six year ago, it didn't take long to find people on the right who legitimately believed the "Not My President!" bullshit and thought Obama's entire administration was illegally in place.

But you'd be hard pressed to find as many (if any) legislators calling for impeachment every other day, nor would you be likely to find Tea partiers and the like lighting things on fire, rioting, harassing and assaulting people on a consistent basis, and doxxing everyone they don't like.

Is this a joke?

[Trumptonium1]

I'm surprised there seems to be such an appetite for unrest. Give me a quiet life any day.

Quiet is boring.

[Frievolk]

And, two-to-six year ago, it didn't take long to find people on the right who legitimately believed the "Not My President!" bullshit and thought Obama's entire administration was illegally in place.

But you'd be hard pressed to find as many (if any) legislators calling for impeachment every other day, nor would you be likely to find Tea partiers and the like lighting things on fire, rioting, harassing and assaulting people on a consistent basis, and doxxing everyone they don't like.

You really don't remember anything about 2008-2016, do you

[Thermodolia]

To be honest, I am pretty sure that the recent events are probably going to spark a civil war: maybe not now or in a couple years, but I imagine that 2021 will be when another American civil war breaks out.

All I can hope for is that when the structure of America inevitably collapses due to lack of maintenance, that Canada is no longer aligned to the US, and is aligned to Brussels or Beijing, just so we won't be going down the same path as them.

Canada will more than likely collapse as well. The loss of your largest trade partner will not do you well, not to mention the refugees and the violence they will bring will end Canada

[Northeast American Federation]

But you'd be hard pressed to find as many (if any) legislators calling for impeachment every other day, nor would you be likely to find Tea partiers and the like lighting things on fire, rioting, harassing and assaulting people on a consistent basis, and doxxing everyone they don't like.

You really don't remember anything about 2008-2016, do you

Go find me a video of Tea partiers lighting cars on fire, smashing windows, and beating people then.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

To be honest, I am pretty sure that the recent events are probably going to spark a civil war: maybe not now or in a couple years, but I imagine that 2021 will be when another American civil war breaks out.

All I can hope for is that when the structure of America inevitably collapses due to lack of maintenance, that Canada is no longer aligned to the US, and is aligned to Brussels or Beijing, just so we won't be going down the same path as them.

Canada will more than likely collapse as well. The loss of your largest trade partner will not do you well, not to mention the refugees and the violence they will bring will end Canada

There is also the Mexico dilemma, and considering it ain't doing so great even with a stable America...

[Conserative Morality]

You really don't remember anything about 2008-2016, do you

Go find me a video of Tea partiers lighting cars on fire, smashing windows, and beating people then.

Have fun.

Nearly a month after the election, on the night of Dec. 6, Johnson, 33, pulled into a Shreveport gas station behind the wheel of his GMC Yukon adorned with Obama bumper stickers. Wearing an Obama T-shirt, Johnson purchased a soft drink and was returning to his vehicle when he was jumped by three white men shouting "Fuck Obama!" and "Nigger president!" The pummeling left Johnson with a broken nose and a fractured eye socket that required surgery.

"Obama" was spray-painted on a black man's car, which was then torched, in Otter Creek Township, Pa. Racist graffiti and an apparent reference to Obama's win were spray-painted on a high school gym and at a local skate park in Kilgore, Texas. At North Carolina State University, four students spray-painted racist and threatening graffiti aimed at Obama, sparking an anti-racist rally attended by 500 people.

Only hours after Obama's election, a predominantly black church in Springfield, Mass., was torched. Three white men were arrested just days before Obama's Jan. 20 inauguration and charged with conspiring to deprive church congregants of their civil rights.

[Thermodolia]

The American Left has no guns relative to the Right, which is well armed and who are well trained in their weapons.

No they aren't. Contrary to the popular belief that America is up to its eyes in guns, most American households don't have any guns, and most of the minority that do, only have one or two guns. The very large majority of privately held guns in the US are in the hands of a rather small minority of people.

You have actual proof of this right? Because I remember that you got shot down the last time you made the claim that only the rich have lots of guns.

And being highly trained in the way of the firearm as you surely are, you are aware that it is somewhat impractical to use ten guns at once.

You do realize that you can carry three or more different guns right? Switch to a different gun when your ammo in one runs low.

It's not a matter of ubermensch; it's a matter of one side having the ability to rapidly form into unit level combat groups to eliminate the other side, which doesn't have the same ability.

A dozen lads that play soldiers on the weekends isn't going to conquer a town of thousands and put half of them against a wall, much less a city of millions.

These guys aren’t playing soldier dude. They are very much like the militias the troubles. The vast majority of these militias aren’t weekend warriors but people who believe the end of the world is right around the corner. Theres a reason why the Preppers have massive overlap with the militia movement.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

I'm surprised there seems to be such an appetite for unrest. Give me a quiet life any day.

Quiet is boring.

So is conflict most of the time.

[Conserative Morality]

You have actual proof of this right? Because I remember that you got shot down the last time you made the claim that only the rich have lots of guns.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/15/the-gun-numbers-just-3-of-american-adults-own-a-collective-133m-firearms

Most of America’s gun owners have relatively modest collections, with the majority of gun owners having an average of just three guns, and nearly half owning just one or two, according to a 2015 survey by Harvard and Northeastern researchers, which gave the most in-depth estimate of Americans’ current patterns of gun ownerships.

But America’s gun super-owners, have amassed huge collections. Just 3% of American adults own a collective 133m firearms – half of America’s total gun stock. These owners have collections that range from eight to 140 guns, the 2015 study found. Their average collection: 17 guns each.

You do realize that you can carry three or more different guns right? Switch to a different gun when your ammo in one runs low.

You do realize there's a reason that most modern militaries don't encourage soldiers to carry three or more different guns, right?

... right?

[Uxupox]

You have actual proof of this right? Because I remember that you got shot down the last time you made the claim that only the rich have lots of guns.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/15/the-gun-numbers-just-3-of-american-adults-own-a-collective-133m-firearms

Most of America’s gun owners have relatively modest collections, with the majority of gun owners having an average of just three guns, and nearly half owning just one or two, according to a 2015 survey by Harvard and Northeastern researchers, which gave the most in-depth estimate of Americans’ current patterns of gun ownerships.

But America’s gun super-owners, have amassed huge collections. Just 3% of American adults own a collective 133m firearms – half of America’s total gun stock. These owners have collections that range from eight to 140 guns, the 2015 study found. Their average collection: 17 guns each.

You do realize that you can carry three or more different guns right? Switch to a different gun when your ammo in one runs low.

You do realize there's a reason that most modern militaries don't encourage soldiers to carry three or more different guns, right?

... right?

don't need to carry more guns when you can give it too somebody else who doesn't have any.

[Conserative Morality]

don't need to carry more guns when you can give it too somebody else who doesn't have any.

But response was to:

You do realize that you can carry three or more different guns right? Switch to a different gun when your ammo in one runs low.

[Great Minarchistan]

Who is this pinnacle?

p much three quarters of the founding fathers

[Western Vale Confederacy]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/15/the-gun-numbers-just-3-of-american-adults-own-a-collective-133m-firearms


You do realize there's a reason that most modern militaries don't encourage soldiers to carry three or more different guns, right?

... right?

don't need to carry more guns when you can give it too somebody else who doesn't have any.

He also seem to have forgotten that carrying guns isn't just about the pew-pew factor.

Try walking with three fully loaded guns on a march of many kilometers, you'll see that it will start to get quite heavy.

[Uxupox]

don't need to carry more guns when you can give it too somebody else who doesn't have any.

But response was to:

You do realize that you can carry three or more different guns right? Switch to a different gun when your ammo in one runs low.

I don't think even anybody carries more than 2. though carrying around 7 to 9 magazines of 27+ rounds is the norm.

[Cekoviu]

although there's certainly political polarization, saying there's going to be another civil war is a pretty big exaggeration imo.