Menu Close

Forum

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Mathematical Modelling

"Yawn, yawn,  won't click on this one", I can hear you thinking now.

Go on.  Have a look at what they're thinking Down Under:

https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/model-predicting-united-states-disorder-now-points-to-civil-war/12365280

It's nearly four months old, and the author's last paragraph at the bottom will make you throw up, but it's definitely worth a read.

Doug, took your challenge and read the article. I would argue that his chart is wrong.  Prosperity under Trump has increased for most of the nation and I’d even wager that those benefiting by the great unemployment rate and increase in wages pre Covid are not the ones in the streets today. The dissatisfaction is by many, that they are like the hyenas in The Lion King.  A leader (with bad intentions and ulterior motives) works them into a frenzy and sets them loose.  No independent thought. No reasoning.  No consequences reflection or concern.

This “civil war” would be over in a couple of days if arrests and prosecution is done in droves.  The media is held accountable for false reporting and the politicians are required to uphold fair and impartial law and order.

A little off topic but the Durham report needs to result in arrests for anyone that committed treason in an effort to overthrow a duly elected president, no matter how high it goes.  The Democrat party trying to rig elections has to have severe consequences

I don't think the author -- or anyone who writes similar things about the possibilities of the US coming apart -- is thinking about the short-term situation, which, I agree, has gotten better under Trump ... if we ignore the virus problem.

But long-term, the problem is, we're outnumbered.  The Democrats are now the natural majority party, and, whereas fifty or even twenty years ago, this was not a real problem ... things have changed.  They're being taken over from within by a new breed of Leftist -- the identity-politics type -- working along with more traditional hard-core communist types, and aided by groups like the DSA who, while not hard-core communists or even consistent identity politics Leftists, will not resist them ... and they're pretty effective. The results of fifty years of growing leftwing control of the educational apparatus are beginning to appear.

I know that many people are very confident that we will win, even by a landslide, in November. Certainly, if we had someone like Richard Nixon at the helm, it would be a slaughter. But ...  well, I'll keep my fingers crossed.  But we had better get ready to respond to a big defeat in the election ... which will mean, first of all, countering rapidly and as forcefully as we can, all the Russian trolls and crazies who will try to provoke our side into doing something stupid.

Then, assuming the Democrats win, we had better be ready for a "militia-witch-hunt", starting with those militias which have neglected to work on their 'community work', and which are basically just a bunch of armed men organized in quasi-military fashion. All the foolish tweets and posts that their members have made, all the boasts and threats spoken into the hidden recorder of an informer ... are going to come back to bite them in the behind.

We'll have to defend them, and, at the same time, show them how it's really done.  But we too will probably come under fire, at least from the mainstream media. So we had better all be prepared for negative publicity.

All real conflicts go back and forth. We may enter a period in which we are on the defensive, and even taking serious hits.  We have to keep cool heads, do the right thing, and prepare for when the pendulum swings back.

Which it will. If the Democrats take over running the US, they will then be responsible for all the failures, all the problems. They will have to deal with the frustrated ambitions of their crazier supporters, and with the aggressive moves which our foreign adversaries will probably make .... they must be licking their chops like wolves, in Moscow and Beijing,  thinking of dealing with Senile Joe or Ms Harris, in negotiations.

But maybe we'll win in November and then our tasks will be different. Let's hope and pray for that!

The author is a propagandist.  The chart shows "good feelings"  through the war of 1812, where the white house was burned.  Also through the great depression, and WWI and WWII.  The Spanish Flu also has zero affect according to the writer.  It's just plain stupid and obviously wrong.

Here's the kicker:  "The professor, who grew up in the 1950s, in the shadow of Roosevelt's achievement, sees a "new wave of progressivism" in the mass peaceful protests of the Black Lives Matter movement. He believes the present has also brought out the best in some Americans."

The "peaceful protests of the BLM movement?"  Please, this is either an absolute moron writing or a pure marxist propagandist.  Either way, it's gibberish meant to make you think one way, when reality is the other.The entire article is class and race warfare.  Classic marxism.  I'm voting for the the writer is a pure marxist propagandist.

There may be a civil war coming soon, but it will be the result of enemies, foreign and domestic, attacking the US Constitution and our Republican Democratic processes out in the open as they are now.  The final straw is the attack on the election system and the electoral college.

I doubt that our foreign enemies will sit this out.  Once the civil war starts I expect the our foreign enemies to take full advantage.  Our in-country domestic enemies will also be going all-out, as they are beginning to even now.  The only thing that is sure is whatever you think will happen will change, and rapidly.  Be prepared to change plans rapidly, be flexible, and don't insist on winning every battle.  This will be a guerilla war.

May our Constitution be restored, and protections put in place to preserve it that our founders did not see.

For the Republic

 

I think predicting the future in detail -- such as whether, in an American civil war, the Russians and Chinese would directly intervene -- is not really possible. I think both countries are already intervening, via the internet, trying to create violent conflict here. And there may well be money changing hands.  But as for boots on the ground .. .well, it's possible, but it would be a millstone around the neck of the side that accepted them.

There have been a number of other people either predicting, or worried about, the possibility of an American civil war. Some on the Right, some on the Left, like Goldstone.  We need to be aware of these signals -- they're not exactly "firebells in the night" but they do indicate how some of the chattering classes have begun to think.

For my money, there is not going to be a real civil war anytime soon. Many more things have to change, before that could happen.  And if there is some sort of civil war, or an attempt to provoke one, the side that will win is the side that has the armed apparatus of the American state on its side: no one, Left or Right, is going to defeat the 82nd Aireborne. If that state has effectively disintegrated -- which is what happened in the Russian Revolution -- then all bets are off.

The most important thing is for our side to keep its cool, even if provoked.  If we lose the coming election, and the vicorious Dems attack the Constitution, and us, in various ways ... we must not be provoked into a battle we will inevitably lose. While the other side has democratic legitimacy, and the support of the majority of the American people, we have to fight within certain limits. But within those limits, at the moment, there is so much we can do.

 

 

I guess it depends on your definition of "real civil war".  I call a civil war when citizens are attacking and/or killing citizens over politics.  Under that definition, we are in one right now.  Antifa is the poster child.

Personally, I don't care about "democratic legitimacy".   Any mob that has destroyed the COTUS and SCOTUS as thoroughly as the Dem/Communist party has, has no legitimate right to any office.  They are by definition in direct violation of their Oath of Office to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic".    Therefore they have NO RIGHT to hold office of any kind,  or for that matter to hold US citizenship, for they have become enemies of the founding documents of the Country.

It's really quite simple.

For the Republic

 

 

Probably preaching to the choir, but vote, vote, vote. Now is not the time for complacency.

Quote from azpat on October 15, 2020, 6:49 PM

I guess it depends on your definition of "real civil war".  I call a civil war when citizens are attacking and/or killing citizens over politics.  Under that definition, we are in one right now.  Antifa is the poster child.

Personally, I don't care about "democratic legitimacy".   Any mob that has destroyed the COTUS and SCOTUS as thoroughly as the Dem/Communist party has, has no legitimate right to any office.  They are by definition in direct violation of their Oath of Office to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic".    Therefore they have NO RIGHT to hold office of any kind,  or for that matter to hold US citizenship, for they have become enemies of the founding documents of the Country.

It's really quite simple.

For the Republic

 

 

Yes, we're using the word 'war' differently.  You're using it in the broader, metaphorical sense, as in 'war on drugs' or even 'war on terror', both of which involve violence but neither of which fits the situation I believe we need to think  about.

I'm using the word 'war' to refer to an armed conflict in which the aim is to determine who shall be the government of a certain area. 

This covers conventional wars -- who should govern South Vietnam, Iraq, Japan, Hungary, where the contending parties each already represent a government, one of which is trying to displace the other and assume its authority, while the other is trying either just to defend its territory and repel the invader, or where it has identical, symmetrical aims, trying to extend its authority to the other government's territory.  We should also include those conflicts where two parties are fighting over who will assume dominance over an area currently ruled by neither.

Note that such wars can preceded by low-level acts of violence that don't quite reach the level where we would normally see them as acts of war, although in retrospect we might want to do so.

Then there are wars within a single country, so-called civil wars.  In the English Civil War, each side sought to become the government of the whole country. In the American Civil War, one side sought to retain its newly-established authority over the territory where another government sought to reestablish its rule. (A 'war of secession', which may be applicable to our own country some day, as some have speculated.)

In both cases, most (but not all) of the fighting was done by conventional military forces: bodies of armed men whose full-time occupation, at least during the extent of hostilities, was in the armed forces. Nowadays, they usually wear distinctive uniforms (which should, according to the often-ignored rules of war, give you some protection if you are captured), and everyone in the military is in a chain of command. Normally, each side nominally controls a swathe of territory, although that control may be shaky.

Then there are those civil wars which we call 'guerilla wars' -- and note that they can overlap with conventional civil wars, just as the latter can overlap with conventional state-to-state wars: Vietnam saw a mix of all three. (And I should add 'acts of terrorism', which can be seen as distinct from acts of violence carried out by guerilla forces, although, again, there is overlap.) Vietnam saw all four, lucky them.

In a 'guerilla war' one side represents the established state [although they may be the forces of allies of that state], and the other only exercises temporary authority, because its units do not, until getting towards the end of the war, try to stay fast and hold territory where they become the government.  This sort of war depends heavily on geography: its natural terrain is that where a significant guerilla force can hide successfully between actions: jungle, mountains.

In the sense that I am using the term 'war' -- in the senses spelled out above -- the United States has not had a civil war since 1865, and is not in one now.  We're not even in a primitive guerilla war stage, and even the acts of terrorism carried out by both Left and 'Right' are trivial compared to those -- mass bombings for example -- that a really determined and competent group would carry out.

I do not believe the US will ever see serious guerilla war, even if it has a civil war.  But it might see a 'conventional' civil war.  However, so long as the current state retains democratic legitimacy in the eyes of most of the population,  and thus retains control of its armed forces,this will not happen.

It won't happen because any attempt to wage war against the American state on its own soil that cannot be handled by the police, will be met with the full force of the military. Any" battles" will be over in a few hours, and even most of that time will be occupied by putting the 'rebel's into body bags, or sweeping up their ashes.  Anyone who does not understand this has watched Rambo too often.

You say you don't care about "democratic legitimacy", and I agree with you in the example you use: AntiFa are enemies of civilization, period.  But what I'm talking about is this: if the government of America -- all levels -- is seen by the majority of the population as "legitimate" -- ie holding power by fair means, even if you don't like the people holding power -- then the real force behind the state -- the armed forces -- will remain loyal to it.  (I could be wrong here, but I hope I'm not. This is the distinction between a Third World pseudo-democracy, where, if the military doesn't like the outcome of an election, it just takes power, and a real one, like ours is -- so far.)

And, operationally, this means: no matter how insolent, how provocative, how unfair,  how outrageously, our enemies act ... getting away with attacking police stations, assaulting conservatives in the street ... we must not respond by trying to initiate a civil war, so long as the government that is permitting these things is seen as legitimate by the majority, and thus retains the loyalty of the armed forces.

I think this is obvious to everyone, I'm just spelling out.  Our response in the circumstances above may include the threat of violence -- armed defenders of shops -- or even of violence itself ... returning fire if we're fired on ... but these are not necessarily precursors to civil war... they are just legally-justified self-defense.

We have a good model to follow: America's Black population in the South, during the nearly twenty-year struggle  to establish their rights. They remained largely non-violent, although the threat of an organized armed force to defend themselves was there, during the last period ... and their leadership, despite carrying out mass non-violent protests, was always protected by armed bodyguards.  But they exposed the unfair racist violence of the South, including of its governmental authorities, and got what they were, rightly, fighting for: equal protection under the law.

Our situation has some similarities  -- we're becoming a persecuted minority -- and some differences, but the lesson there is clear. You may be morally justified in shooting someone, and even -- in some circumstances -- legally justified, but there is always a third element to take into account: are you tactically justified in doing it?  How will it affect our movement? How will it play out in the court of public opinion? (Which, to be sure, is run by partisans who hate us. But they must have material to distort. We're not yet at the stage where they can just make things up out of whole clath.)

The latter does not have to exercise an absolute veto on our acts -- if an AntiFa demonstrator is charging at you with a big knife, you had better defend yourself kinetically, even if, as it will, the mass media spin it as you shooting someone who was running to cut some flowers to make a bouquet for the grave of a Medal of Honor winner.

Yike,  over 1000 words.  If you've read this far, te salud!

Quote from Fireeagle on October 15, 2020, 9:31 PM

Probably preaching to the choir, but vote, vote, vote. Now is not the time for complacency.

Yes, yes, and yes again!

What every single patriot should do, is to make a list of friends and relatives and acquaintances, who you know to be patriots themselves. Then phone, or write, each one, and say something like, "I hope you're going to vote, or have voted ... do you need any help getting to the polls?"

The Left are natural collectivists, and they intuitively know how to mobilize groups. We are natural individualists, and have to learn how.

One idea: for people who are actually going to vote on 3 November, if you know a bunch  of like-minded people in your area, have a "Voting Breakfast" at someone's house, and then go to the polls in a group. You might be able to persuade people who might otherwise have stayed home, to actually cast a vote, if you do this.   Variations on this are possible as well.