Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: The Singularity of Civil War Is Near

  1. #1

    Exclamation The Singularity of Civil War Is Near

    All this talk of civil war assumes one fact that is not in evidence:

    That there will be any forceful pushback against the Marxist mobs.

    You can not have a war if only one side shows up.

    And that is where we are today: one side of this conflict is so de-moralized, dis-jointed, ineffective and adrift as to be no opposition at all.

    All they want is some form of "normalcy" to return, so they get back to the serious business of beer consumption and watching the football.




    The Singularity Is Near

    https://amgreatness.com/2020/08/09/t...arity-is-near/

    Can we, for the sake of our children’s children, find at the last moment a way to reverse course, to step back from the brink, to find a future timeline that avoids the dreadful singularity of civil war?

    By Malcolm Pollack • August 9, 2020

    It’s obvious to all, at this point, that factional division is reaching a breaking point in America. Like a pair of locked-together tectonic plates pulling slowly in opposite directions, the strain has been increasing for a long time now—and when seismic ruptures finally occur, they happen suddenly, and release enormously destructive energies.

    Some years back, John Derbyshire referred to this pent-up tension as a “cold civil war,” and here in 2020 more and more of us are getting the feeling that the term is apt. Is it? (The question has also been the subject of an ongoing weekly discussion between the radio host John Batchelor and historian Michael Vlahos.)

    Scholars have argued over the nature of civil wars since the Romans first gave us the term. As described in David Armitage’s fascinating book Civil War: A History in Ideas, they have settled, over time, on a three-way taxonomy:

    Secessionist: Civil wars are those in which one part of a nation wishes to separate itself and go its own way. Both of the wars fought on American soil, it could be argued, fall into this category: not only the one we now call “the Civil War,” but also the one we proudly refer to as the American Revolution.

    Successionist: Civil wars are conflicts in which factions vie for control of a nation’s political system. In these conflicts the form of the nation is not at issue, just who shall occupy the throne. History is rich with examples.

    Supersessionist: Civil wars are those in which two factions, with incompatible visions of what the form of the nation should be, vie for sovereignty over the nation’s territory. The French and Russian revolutions were of this type.

    Throughout history, civil war has been regarded as uniquely evil. It pits neighbor against neighbor and brother against brother. It is the form of war in which, no matter who wins, the nation loses. Charles de Gaulle once said, “All wars are bad . . . But civil wars, in which there are brothers in both trenches, are unforgivable because peace is not born when war concludes.” Montaigne said, “Civill warres have this one thing worse than other warres, to cause every one of us to make a watch-tower of his owne house.”

    One of the peculiarities of civil war is that it is hard to say, except in retrospect, when a nation has passed the point of no return. There is rarely anything so distinct as Caesar’s fateful crossing of the Rubicon. It is, rather, like falling into a black hole: there is an “event horizon,” at some distance from the singularity, beyond which nothing can escape. To a space-traveler falling through it, there is no visible difference, no noticeable boundary—but once you have crossed that fateful border, there’s no possibility of turning back. All future timelines must pass through the singularity.

    Is that where we are today? For the answer to be “no” means either that one side in this great political conflict will simply admit defeat, or that there will be some softening of grievances, some sort of coming together in a newly formed political center. Does that seem likely?

    Looking at the yawning rift in American politics—the fundamentally incompatible visions of society and government that the two factions hold, the dehumanizing mutual antipathy that finds freer expression every day, the unforgettable damage already done, and the implacable fury with which they grapple for every atom of power—can any of us imagine some way forward in which Right and Left just “bury the hatchet” and “hug it out”?
    Which Way America?

    Comity requires a minimum of commonality—but the social and political axioms of “blue” and “red” have moved so far apart as to be wholly incommensurate. Even the most basic axiom of all—that the United States of America, for all its flaws, is essentially good and worth preserving—is now the subject of acrid, even violent, disagreement. (Our nation’s “newspaper of record” has even gone out of its way to insist that the premise is not debatable, but false.)

    If we have crossed the event horizon, then what sort of singularity—which of the three forms of civil war—are we falling toward?

    Although the 2020 election will be bitterly contested—it may even turn out, in retrospect, to have been the singularity itself—the stakes here are much larger than who gets to spend the next four years in the White House. No matter who wins, the underlying strain will only increase. (Indeed, it will probably increase sharply: if you think things are tense in America now, just wait till mid-November or so.) If civil war is coming, then, it isn’t of the “successionist” variety.

    Will the conflict be of the “secessionist” type? Alas, no. Would that it were!

    If we look at the current state of American affairs as a failed marriage, the best solution would be some sort of divorce. A secessionist solution might very well be welcomed by all, and avoid civil war altogether. The problem, though, is that, unlike our previous civil war, the two sides do not occupy distinct and contiguous geographical regions, but are, rather, mixed together county by county, or even house by house. Nobody has yet arrived at any plausible plan for the factions to disaggregate—and without physical separation, it is hard to imagine a realistic means of political separation.

    That leaves the “supersessionist” type, which seems closest to the mark.

    An Existential Fight

    “Red” and “blue” have profoundly different visions of the scope and structure of the federal government, and of the role of government in American life generally. They differ also on fundamental questions of religion, ethics, morals, and even human nature. Red believes that the American founding was a work of astonishing insight and inspiration and that it represents the best compromise yet struck by the minds of men to enable the possibility of ordered liberty and the individual citizen’s pursuit of happiness and prosperity.

    Blue seems to believe increasingly that the whole thing was a sinister power-grab by a cadre of rich white males, designed to preserve and consolidate their immoral supremacy, and that the whole thing is so rotten that it should be torn up by its roots and replaced with something fairer and nobler. (Blue has already revealed that it wishes to see the Second Amendment, the Senate, the Electoral College, and our nation’s borders abolished—and its grievances hardly end there.)

    We are fighting, then, not over who shall rule over the existing system, nor about whether the United States should be broken up into two distinct nations, but about whether the United States as currently constituted should continue to exist, or should be wholly replaced with an entirely new regime.

    Yes, the idea of civil war is always repugnant. But there is another form of conflict that is very closely related to civil war—indeed they are often quite the same thing—that has exactly the opposite emotional polarity, and is especially well-related to civil wars of the supersessionist type: revolution.

    Consider the difference. As David Armitage reminds us, “Civil wars, by the conventional understanding, betoken the blighting and collapse of the human spirit, while revolutions affirm and actualize it.” Civil war is a sickening thing, a noisome evil—but revolution is something to stir the heart, a pathway to fame and glory. (That the latter is so often just what the victors later call the former is quite beside the point.)

    A Narrowing Presentism

    A characteristic of revolutions is that they rupture the fabric of history. In periods of high civilization, however, that fabric is strong: healthy societies exist not only in the present, but extend both backward and forward in time. The citizens of a robust and prosperous polity are taught from childhood to have a reverent appreciation for what their ancestors have bequeathed them, and a sense of duty to preserve, cherish, and build upon it for generations yet unborn. (Just so was my own generation raised, long ago in mid-20th-century America.)

    To rupture that fabric is far easier when it is already weakened—and this is precisely what has happened in America, and in the West more generally, over the past half-century. Insofar as the American past is taught or remembered at all today, it is as a litany of sins, deserving not propagation, but denunciation. The result is that American culture has, to a very great extent, lost its extension in time, and exists in an increasingly narrow present.

    Roger Kimball has called this, in a lovely coinage, “temporal provincialism.” We might also call it historical “stenosis”: a pathological narrowing of the channels through which the life-blood of the past flows into the present and the future. And in the sense that the present is always being born from the womb of history, it brings to mind the tying off of an umbilicus—though that is really far too optimistic a metaphor. A better one is the cutting of a flower.

    This narrowing presentism tears at a fundamental requirement of civilization: that its citizens see themselves as a living bridge between past and future. If the past is rejected or forgotten, then we have no estate to bequeath to posterity, other than what we can build, ex nihilo, in the present. To create a viable nation from scratch, however, is a daunting task, and one that rarely succeeds. Revolution may make for an exhilarating present, but it destabilizes the future.

    Civilization depends also on high “time preference”: we defer present consumption to profit from the increased relative value of the things we build for the future. But too-rapid technological and social changes, and of course the deliberate obliteration of history, work to diminish confidence in the surety of the future and drive time-preference toward the present. This in turn manifests itself in hedonism, anomie, present consumption, loss of social cohesion (why pull together when there’s nothing to pull for?), and declining birth rates. This all feeds back upon itself in an intensifying, destructive cycle.

    These are dangerous times. Civil war is nothing to wish for. But under the name of “revolution,” it can be a powerful attractor, especially in an era of pathological presentism. Have we already crossed the event horizon? Can we, for the sake of our children’s children, find at the last moment a way to reverse course, to step back from the brink, to find a future timeline that avoids the dreadful singularity of civil war? Only future historians can answer that question. But one thing is certain: things that are falling tend to accelerate. Time is short.
    “It is not true that all creeds and cultures are equally assimilable in a First World nation born of England, Christianity, and Western civilization. Race, faith, ethnicity and history leave genetic fingerprints no ‘proposition nation’ can erase." -- Pat Buchanan



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    There will be no "civil war".

    There might be a slaughter and a more authoritarian government but there won't be a civil war unless the country folk wage it.

    These whining city folk are merely a nuisance to big business and government.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    There will be no "civil war".

    There might be a slaughter and a more authoritarian government but there won't be a civil war unless the country folk wage it.

    These whining city folk are merely a nuisance to big business and government.
    There won't be mason dixon line next time. It'll be more like city limits signs.
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is getting silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It started silly.
    T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men

    "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato

    We Are Running Out of Time - Mini Me

    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm
    I part ways with "libertarianism" when it transitions from ideology grounded in logic into self-defeating autism for the sake of ideological purity.

  5. #4
    Supporting Member
    Phoenix, AZ
    Cleaner44's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    4
    Posts
    9,194
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    There are a ton of people that have been arming themselves to the teeth this year. There is only one side right now agitating for war, but if it comes down to it, the Marxists are going to find them selves very out-numbered and very out-gunned. As long as Antifa is fighting inanimate buildings, they are safe. When they move into residential neighborhoods, they will find armed resistance.

    I don't think there will be a civil war but if there is, it won't be the Marxists on the winning side.
    Citizen of Arizona
    @cleaner4d4

    I am a libertarian. I am advocating everyone enjoy maximum freedom on both personal and economic issues as long as they do not bring violence unto others.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    There will be no "civil war".

    There might be a slaughter and a more authoritarian government but there won't be a civil war unless the country folk wage it.

    These whining city folk are merely a nuisance to big business and government.
    "Country folk," and militias for that matter, are a red herring in my opinion. The majority of money, weapons, military experience, and able bodies to oppose the left can be found within the suburbs.
    "I shall bring justice to Westeros. Every man shall reap what he has sown, from the highest lord to the lowest gutter rat. They have made my kingdom bleed, and I do not forget that."
    -Stannis Baratheon

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody's_hero View Post
    There won't be mason dixon line next time. It'll be more like city limits signs.
    Unfortunately, I think that a civil war would have the appearance of a race war, and will even be described as such for propaganda purposes (for some people it even would be a race war). Consider the makeup of the left; the primary engine behind the political left is bitchy, white, single women. They won't fight. The ones who will fight will be primarily white Antifa males, black males, and likely Latino males (the latter two having more testosterone). It will be just like when certain women start $#@! with strangers, forcing their boyfriends into violent altercations. We'll just have to make sure their homes burn too.
    "I shall bring justice to Westeros. Every man shall reap what he has sown, from the highest lord to the lowest gutter rat. They have made my kingdom bleed, and I do not forget that."
    -Stannis Baratheon

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm View Post
    "Country folk," and militias for that matter, are a red herring in my opinion. The majority of money, weapons, military experience, and able bodies to oppose the left can be found within the suburbs.
    Suburbs are a mixed bag though.....From one house to another there's dissent now, even in the same house frequently, given the publix-skools they've all been attending.

    Oh sure some burbs will constrain some city folk but the $#@! won't get real until it's 100 miles out from the big cities, you know where the folks who have been cussing the city dwellers and their wayward ways for generations and putting up with their politicians live.. I can't see Chicago or St Louis moving into central Ill., or Dallas and Ft Worth moving into central Tx.

    30 days in and the farmers decide who eats.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Suburbs are a mixed bag though.....From one house to another there's dissent now, even in the same house frequently, given the publix-skools they've all been attending.

    Oh sure some burbs will constrain some city folk but the $#@! won't get real until it's 100 miles out from the big cities, you know where the folks who have been cussing the city dwellers and their wayward ways for generations and putting up with their politicians live.. I can't see Chicago or St Louis moving into central Ill., or Dallas and Ft Worth moving into central Tx.

    30 days in and the farmers decide who eats.
    That's when bait piles will show up.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    If a civil war does break out, the Marxists are going to realize very quickly that they are outgunned.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.3D View Post
    That's when bait piles will show up.
    I laughed out loud!
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dr.3D again
    .

  13. #11
    Per registered decision, member has been banned for violating community standards as interpreted by TheTexan (respect his authoritah) as authorized by Brian4Liberty Ruling

    May God have mercy on his atheist, police-hating, non-voting, anarchist soul.
    Last edited by Voluntarist; 08-26-2020 at 08:07 PM.
    You have the right to remain silent. Anything you post to the internet can and will be used to humiliate you.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm View Post
    Unfortunately, I think that a civil war would have the appearance of a race war, and will even be described as such for propaganda purposes (for some people it even would be a race war). Consider the makeup of the left; the primary engine behind the political left is bitchy, white, single women. They won't fight. The ones who will fight will be primarily white Antifa males, black males, and likely Latino males (the latter two having more testosterone). It will be just like when certain women start $#@! with strangers, forcing their boyfriends into violent altercations. We'll just have to make sure their homes burn too.
    Yes, we are currently in a proxy war. So that the real evil does not have to step out of the shadows. That's the way it has always been done. Until we face those that are controlling both sides, we are going to continue having the same never ending cycle. And that point in time is rapidly approaching of us breaking free of the cycle. Antifa/BLM/Dems/Repubs/deep state and whomever else have already been exposed, even to some non-trivial extent to normies. When the proxies inevitably fail, I pray for those behind a lot of this wickedness. We all should be. Those seeking vengeance or revenge will be no better than those that originally put on the shackles.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    I laughed out loud!
    .
    Covered.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    I laughed out loud!
    .
    covered. lol

    We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!

  17. #15
    The people on the Right are more disciplined, have more guns, have the SUVs, make up most of the economy, have more money, have most of the military, police, and security forces, and have more knowledge of the land. I used to think they would obviously win a Civil War. But lately I have doubts.

    1: The Left is willing to eat its own. I don’t think many Republican or Right leaning people, even in the establishment, would shoot their own people for falling out of line easily. This would not bother most of the Left.

    2: The Left has more ideological conformity. Progressives, Anarchists, Communists, and Social Democrats all want a larger government, global revolutions, and a more egalitarian society. The only thing Libertarians, the religious right, the racial right, and Wall Street Republicans agree on is that they are not Democrats. Some of these groups will not work together out of principle, while the Left will have no issue cutting deals with whoever is needed to win.

    3: People on the Right have jobs and families. They can’t just show up at rallies or leave home for months or years at a time. People on the Left can disproportionately leave home to fight for something.

    4: Antifa, black nationalists, and various deep state groups that are decidedly left leaning are not above kidnapping families to get what they want. Will the Right do that?

    5: The Left, even if their people are less disciplined, have more organization with their think tanks, government departments, organized protests, and so on.

    6: If the Left thinks bombing a city is in their best interest they will do it and claim that the Right blew up their own city for some reason. The international media will report whatever the Left says to report.

    7: The Right will not be looking for foreign help and won’t be eligible for much. The Left would ask for every NATO member’s military, Mexico’s military, accept every international Antifa, every international volunteer, recruit terrorists, and offer any foreigner citizenship for help.

    8: The Left will not care if their people are starving, have crumbling homes, have no consumer products, and rapidly declining life expectancy. If they can squeeze extra resources from their people, they will. I don’t see the Right committing to total war in the same way.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Cutlerzzz View Post

    3: People on the Right have jobs and families. They can’t just show up at rallies or leave home for months or years at a time. People on the Left can disproportionately leave home to fight for something.
    Here's where it all goes South for the left..

    "Leaving home" and expecting to be able to feed even just themselves by either labor or conquest is something completely foreign to the vast majority of would-be leftist soldiers. Sure as a group they could take a farm here and there but the cost would be astronomical. Once they eat the farms larder and livestock then what? Sacrifice XXX soldiers for the next meal..That ASSumes that the other farmers just cower in fear and don't launch an offensive of their own.

    Any uprising will be confined to urban areas and will probably be quelled in the burbs, if not, even large bands of organized city-dwellers will be starving and ineffectual within weeks.

    Those of us out in the sticks are so isolated that we have the luxury of picking and choosing which side of a fracas we support, even if only with food...

    Cities might fall but it'll stop there.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    All this talk of civil war assumes one fact that is not in evidence:

    ...




    The Singularity Is Near

    https://amgreatness.com/2020/08/09/t...arity-is-near/

    Can we, for the sake of our children’s children, find at the last moment a way to reverse course, to step back from the brink, to find a future timeline that avoids the dreadful singularity of civil war?

    By Malcolm Pollack • August 9, 2020

    It’s obvious to all, at this point, that factional division is reaching a breaking point in America. Like a pair of locked-together tectonic plates pulling slowly in opposite directions, the strain has been increasing for a long time now—and when seismic ruptures finally occur, they happen suddenly, and release enormously destructive energies.

    Some years back, John Derbyshire referred to this pent-up tension as a “cold civil war,” and here in 2020 more and more of us are getting the feeling that the term is apt. Is it? (The question has also been the subject of an ongoing weekly discussion between the radio host John Batchelor and historian Michael Vlahos.)

    Scholars have argued over the nature of civil wars since the Romans first gave us the term. As described in David Armitage’s fascinating book Civil War: A History in Ideas, they have settled, over time, on a three-way taxonomy:

    Secessionist: Civil wars are those in which one part of a nation wishes to separate itself and go its own way. Both of the wars fought on American soil, it could be argued, fall into this category: not only the one we now call “the Civil War,” but also the one we proudly refer to as the American Revolution.

    Successionist: Civil wars are conflicts in which factions vie for control of a nation’s political system. In these conflicts the form of the nation is not at issue, just who shall occupy the throne. History is rich with examples.

    Supersessionist: Civil wars are those in which two factions, with incompatible visions of what the form of the nation should be, vie for sovereignty over the nation’s territory. The French and Russian revolutions were of this type.

    ....
    Time is short.
    Perhpas time is short and challenges are enormous but luckily America has a strong leader at the helm currently who can repeat history following foot steps of his hero and last civil war savior honest Abe Lincoln:




    Dinesh D'Souza's next film to draw comparisons between Trump and Lincoln

    Conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza, who was recently pardoned by President Trump, is making comparisons for his next film between the Democratic resistance to Trump and how Democrats didn’t accept President Lincoln’s reelection during the Civil War.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/media/3...mp-and-lincoln



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-13-2018, 06:41 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-16-2018, 12:21 AM
  3. From the Big Bang to the Internet — to the Singularity?
    By Ronin Truth in forum Science & Technology
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-04-2014, 08:09 AM
  4. AI/Singularity Fear Mongering - A response
    By mczerone in forum Science & Technology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-20-2013, 03:53 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-17-2012, 02:21 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •