Monday, March 12, 2018

Worth Reminding the Progressives About This

Kurt Schlichter reminds us why the Democrats are going to lose any Civil War.  The parallels to 1860 are strong.  A Republican is elected President with 40% of the popular vote.  The slaveocracy (all Democrats) called him names like "baboon" (Cheetos is relatively mild by comparison). 

They were upset because they had won an important Supreme Court decision requiring every state to accept slavery because it is in the Constitution (Dred Scott).  Of course, slavery was in the Constitution and protected by it, unlike same-sex marriage and abortion. 

The slaveocracy (about 70,000 wealthy families) had successfully bamboozled the people of a few states into buying their claims. 

When Lincoln was elected, and before he took office, the slave states began secession.  So far, only California has talked about it, while engaging in South Carolina's 1828 doctrine of "nullification" (federal laws we do not like do not apply in our state).

Keep in mind that a civil war will have no real winners.  Look at the enormous costs, both financial and human, that the North suffered, as well as the South, and remind these idiots that this will be a big mistake.  At least eight million AR-15 and AK-47 pattern rifles have been sold these last few years, and the crazies seem intent on confiscating those and most magazine fed semi auto pistols (which are at least commonly used in mass murders, about twice as often as semi auto rifles).  If even 1% of those rifle owners decide it is Lexington, Barcelona (during the Spanish Civil War), or 1943 Warsaw, that is 80,000 battles that will get at least one or two federal agents or local police officers killed.  And there will be a mass uprising at that point.  I do not think LEOs entering or leaving federal buildings will be safe.


  1. The big problem is what was also happening while we were killing each other in the civil War. France invaded Mexico and England supplied arms to the South. In a second American Civil War what would Russia and China do: Invade Ukraine, finish seizing the South China Sea, attack NATO, Attack Japan, India, or S. Korea.

    In the minimum you would expect China or Russia to supply arms and possibly advisers to California (actually already awaiting that one).


  2. Now imagine that instead of belligerence conducted by two groups who shared a common heritage, a conflict between two groups where one side has zero moral constraints or standards. Nothing that would hold that one side back. Nothing that would make them say, "Oh no, we could not do THAT". A group that possesses a reprobate and depraved mind. And then think of things like chemicals and biological in their hands.

    It is illusory to propose that simply because one side possesses firearms that a sure victory is in the offing. When one side marches in parades to celebrate debauchery and infanticide, what morality exactly do you think would constrain them.

  3. Chemical or biological weapons would alienate most (all?) of the fencesitters and likely even some of their moderate allies. Rather like carpet bombing red cities would do.

  4. James: Yes but to progressives that's a feature not a bug.

  5. I'm sure the world would go crazy with war as soon as we started a civil war. China and Russia would go on empire building rampages. The Middle East might melt.