The Breakup of the United States: Why It’s Such a Terrible Idea

Posted in Politics
Mon, Jan 12 - 9:00 am EST | 3 years ago by
Comments: 122
Be Sociable, Share!
    Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

    “We are divorced because we have hated each other so.”
    ~ Mary Boykin Chestnut, March 1861, A Diary From Dixie

    Lines of Departure - Breakup of US

    If you talk with enough Canadians, especially to include Canadians who love their country, you may get the sense of extreme pessimism regarding Canada’s future as a country. Most of the ones I know expect it to break up in their lifetimes into as many as six separate countries, some of which may petition the United States for entry in the Union.

    That may or may not happen; I would not, in any case, count Canada out just yet.

    If you talk with enough Americans, especially to include those who detest the United States, you will get the sense of extreme optimism regarding what a breakup will look like. Some are extreme to the point of insanity Lefties, who would really like to a) remove the US as a force against “progress” in the world, and b) create their own little socialist workers paradises in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts – or perhaps New England, plus New York – or out on the left coast or in the Chicago Autonomous Socialist Collective. Absent power, those don’t really bother me that much, frankly. I just don’t see the will or the competence to do much harm there, so long as the country remains one. I’m not too worried, either, over the laughably idiotic crew who expect and even look forward to a replay of 1861-1865, as if there has been no other change in the country in terms of population, industry, penchant for military service, etcetera.

    On the other hand, on the right there’s some of that same idiocy, with regard to expecting a replay of 1863, except that this time Pickett’s Charge will work. They look at things like this:

    United States - Red & Blue
    1

    and see how much more of the country is – take your pick – conservative or, at least, illiberal, and do a straight line calculation only slightly less simple minded that harking back to the last civil war.

    Forget it. That map is not the United States. This one is much closer:

    United States - Purple
    2

    The error includes missing population density, some kinds of economic clout, and propensity to enlist in the ground-gaining combat arms. On the whole, though, it shows a good deal of the problem.3

    The problem? In short, there are no red states; there are no blue states. There are instead, counties and neighborhoods and streets and the couch versus the bedroom after an argument with a spouse or significant other over political matters.

    “And so what?” asks the Pollyanna-ish reader. He (or the rarer idiot she) observes, “We split up and then there’s no more reason to fight?”

    That’s wrong for several reasons. One is that it is the moderate and right-wing tendency in the red areas that politically constrains the left-wing tendency of the blue. Remove the red from the blue and the real reds of the bluest blue states run amok, with moderates and moderation suppressed.

    Think here: Stalin in Birkenstocks, the spirit of Ho Chi Minh coming down from his gas tank in Boston,4 or a Pol Pot cognate with a degree in journalism from Harvard or Yale, rather than École Française d’Électronique et d’Informatique. Remember, too, that Bill Ayers’ Weatherman expected and, I daresay, wanted to kill twenty-five million Americans, one in eight of the population, one in five adults, to create their preferred society.

    It should not need to be said, in a world of bright people, but, sadly, we don’t live in that world: I am pretty sure that the same happens in the red states, where the removal of the political Left leaves all kinds of wingnuts, to include of the white-sheeted, pointy-hatted variety, to create or recreate their own particular fantasies, and run roughshod over moderates there.

    The second reason is that the history of revolutions is a history of the nuts rising to the top, rather the way feces floats. No, the American so-called Revolution was nothing of the kind. Rather, it was a conservative rebellion and counter-revolution against a Parliament gone expansively grasping, which was unilaterally trying to change the pre-existing deal. After all, other than that we threw off the United Kingdom, what changed? The vote and representative government? No, we had that before the “Revolution.”

    “Bu’…bu’….but, Congress? Bill of Rights? Supreme Court?” Yes, those were revolutionary in some ways, but they came after the Revolution was won, when peace and sanity reigned, and thus denied the nuts the chance to rise. “Bu’…bu’…but, we got rid of the King!” Poor George; he takes so much undeserved crap. A good constitutional monarch, “the finest gentleman in England,” pronounced Samuel Johnson, no mean judge of character. He was more than a symbol but also more than a tyrant. In any case, his hand rested upon us not merely lightly, but not really at all.

    So, no, no American Revolution, hence no precedent, unique to America, for the nuts not taking over.

    The third reason – no, my list is not exhaustive – that no separation is likely to be amicable, is that the red counties, neighborhoods, streets, and couches are not going to go gently into that long Progressive good night. They’re armed and they’ll fight. Similarly for the very blue Mississippi River Valley. They’ve been on the plantation before; they’re not going back without a fight.

    Why won’t they just leave? Why should they? And leave for what?

    Closely related to the third is a fourth factor, we are tied – at least I am tied – to any number of people in the blue and purple areas by bonds of affection, common outlook, common military service, blood, and the traditional sense of being American, where that has a particular set of meanings and values. I am quite sure that I am not unique. The heirs of Malcolm X, up in Detroit, are not going to sit idly by while the Klan rounds up their cousins. The heirs of Nathan Bedford Forrest, down in the deep south, are not going to ignore it when the first Gulag gets set up outside Chicago for unreconstructed Catholics and Baptists. Each is going to help their cousins and co-religionists, as each should. Blood will flow in rivers. Hatreds will grow like weeds in the sun. Atrocity and counter-atrocity and counter-counter-atrocity will… you get the idea.

    The short version is: Forget 1861-1865. Forget Sumter and Pickett’s Charge and even Antietam and Cold Harbor. Think, for a United States that begins to break up, of Beirut in the 80s, except written across a continent, written large, and written in blood.

    “In all, nineteen people, including refugees, the Dutch banker with his huge Doberman, in the apartment below me, and the beautiful blonde upstairs, whose name I never did know, died a Beirut death, which is the most absurd and scandalous death possible: death for no reason.”
    ~ Thomas Friedman, From Beirut to Jerusalem

    __________
    1 http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2012/statemap1024.png

    2 http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2012/countymappurple1024.png

    3 And what it misses can mostly be fixed with a few observations. 1) The blue sections tend to be very dense in terms of population; those are mostly cities and dense suburbs you’re seeing there. 2) The blue parts tend to be coequal with finance, education, and high tech – though that’s not absolute – while much or perhaps even most heavy industry has moved to red to escape unions and the Democratic Party. 3) Liberal myths aside, no, there are not that many blacks in the bleeding edge of the armed forces. Hispanics? Fair representation, yes, because “it’s the manly thing to do.” Blacks? There are some, of course, but their parents tend to push them into military fields that are marketable on the outside. The blacks in the combat arms tend to be overwhelmingly politically conservative, too. When you see red, think of people willing to bleed, and trained and willing to make their enemies bleed, too. Also remember that the supermarket is not, in fact, the source of food.

    4 Ho Chi Minh? Gas Tank? http://www.asergeev.com/pictures/archives/2005/433/jpeg/26.jpg That’s him in blue. It’s been redone on a new gas tank, too, with a slightly changed nose. The artist, a pacifist nun, always denied it was Ho. I don’t think anybody ever really believed her. Ah, what the hell; it’s not like a younger Ho wasn’t a baker at Boston’s Parker House, after all. Maybe that’s what Sister Corita wanted to memorialize. Yeah, and I have this bridge for sale. Cheap.

    Tom Kratman is a retired infantry lieutenant colonel, recovering attorney, and science fiction and military fiction writer. His latest novel, The Rods and the Axe, is available from Amazon.com for $9.99 for the Kindle version, or $25 for the hardback. A political refugee and defector from the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, he makes his home in Blacksburg, Virginia. He holds the non-exclusive military and foreign affairs portfolio for EveryJoe. Tom’s books can be ordered through baen.com.

    Note: If you follow the retail links in this post and make purchases on the site(s), Defy Media may receive a share of the proceeds from your sale through the retailer’s affiliate program.

    Don’t miss Tom Kratman’s other Lines of Departure columns. Click through the gallery below to read more.


    Social Justice

    Don't miss this three-part series on our social justice armed forces.

    Photo by zabelin/Getty Images

    Women in the Military

    Should women be required to register for the draft? Step right up, ladies!

    Photo by Getty Images

    The Kurds

    Tom Kratman sounds off on our gallant allies, the Kurds, and other fairy tales.

    Photo by John Moore/Getty Images

    Sorry Rodney

    Tom Kratman explores Islam and why we just can't get along. Read Part I, II and III of this series.

    Photo by Retrovizor/Getty Images

    Service Guarantees Citizenship

    Read this three-part series from Tom Kratman, inspired by Starship Troopers: Part I, II and III.

    Photo by Marko Marcello/Getty Images

    Immigration

    Tom Kratman explores why immigration doesn't work like it used to.

    Gun-Free Zones

    Tom Kratman discusses military gun-free zones and the ill-logic of the Left.

    Dear Germany

    Read this open letter to Germany regarding the "refugee" crisis.

    Photo by Adam Berry/Getty Images

    Sanctuary Cities

    Tom Kratman explores the real problem with sanctuary cities.

    Gun-Free Zones

    Tom Kratman discusses military "gun-free" zones and the ill-logic of the Left.

    Price in Blood

    Recently President Obama announced that the government would no longer threaten prosecution of those who pay ransom privately for the return of kidnapped loved ones. Read about the possible effects of Obama's ransom order.

    Torture

    Read Kratman's two-part series on torture:

    Jade Helm 15

    Don't miss this three-part series on Jade Helm 15. Is it necessary and should Americans be worried about it? Read: Part I, Part II and Part III.

    Does China Really Want War?

    Read Part I, II and III in Tom Kratman's series about the possibility of war with China.

    Breakup of the United States

    Be sure to read Tom Kratman's five-part series on the breakup of the United States:

    The Bergdahl Case

    If found guilty, should Bowe Bergdahl be sentenced to death?

    U.S. Navy

    No matter what you've read elsewhere, no -- our Navy is not big enough.

    Military Chow

    Read Tom Kratman's three part series on military food:

    The Soldier's Load

    Tom Kratman's series on the average American soldier's load is a must-read. Don't miss:

    The Left and the Military

    Ever wonder why the Left concentrates so closely on using the military to promote social change? Read part 1 and part 2 from Tom Kratman about the Left and the military.

    Defining Terrorism

    Don't miss Col. Kratman's five-part series on terrorism:

    Humanitarian Assistance

    Why does the military – not just ours, everyone’s, or everyone’s that matters – get tapped for disaster relief and humanitarian assistance over and over and over again? Read this column on the military and humanitarian aid to find out.

    Why War Games Fail

    It's another Lieutenant Reilly story. This time, we are talking about war games and why they fail. Read part 1 and part 2 in this series.

    Military Integrity

    Unfortunately dishonesty, fraud and a lack of integrity are sometimes not just accepted in the military, they are expected. Read this poignant piece about military integrity.

    Arab Armies

    Read this Lines of Departure column from Tom Kratman to find out why Arab armies are so generally worthless.

    The Purpose of War

    A military is about more than self-preservation. Security is a principle of war; safety is not. Risk is in the soldier’s job description. Read: The Purpose of War is to Win.
    Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

    Be Sociable, Share!

      Related Posts

      • KenWats

        Anything’s possible I suppose, but I can’t see either side really pulilng the trigger on a breakup of the union. There’s too much money to be made with the status quo. There’s just as much to be made shrieking about the other side and threatening, but I can’t foresee it actually happening- too many states and local governments get too much from the Federal gravy train.

        • Tom Kratman

          These things don’t happen because people act rationally, Ken; they happen because of emotions. I understand Beirut, which had been simmering for a while, began over a fight in a gas station.

        • Jono

          Or it could happen because a left-wing female president sends in her bully-boys to arrest a priest in what becomes a bloodbath.

          It seems to me that it is easier to see a second American Revolution, this time to reclaim the rights not of Englishmen but of Americans from Imperial Washington than a direct move into a breakup of the federation of states. Of course the second stage could, indeed, see us evolve into the nine nations.

        • Tom Kratman

          Jeez, didn’t somebody write a book about that? No, don’t tell me; it’ll come to me eventually…

        • KenWats

          Good point, maybe I’ve been watching The Wire too much. “Follow the money.”

        • Tom Kratman

          Did you ever look at what happened last time? We had a fair political balance. Even the election of Lincoln was manipulated (by secessionists) to make the North look a lot more extreme than it was. SC punched out. There went the balance in the Senate. The other lower south slave states, having lost their effective veto, then panicked in utter terror of what a doctrinaire north might do. Emotions, in other words. As a German statesman of the last century observed: “The masses of people do not reason; like animals they are driven forward by fanaicsm and hysteria.”

      • Jack Withrow

        I have no desire to see the US devolve into Beirut writ large. I saw what that looked like firsthand in 1982. And 20 years ago I would have said it could not happen here. But events of the last few years now make me think it is inevitable. Unprincipled politicians on both sides are pushing policies that will lead to that happening. The country is divided like no period in my memory including the 1960′s and I do not see it getting better, only worse. I don’t know what the spark will be that causes the initial explosion, but I am extremely fearful it is only a few months away in our future.

      • Neil

        All that, and you didn’t even get into the catastrophic geopolitical consequences of a breakup. I don’t think people understand how much of America’s wealth is the result of owning a big, contiguous chunk of real estate with lots and lots of paid-for infrastructure.

        We’re nowhere near the necessary conditions for a new Civil War. But you can see it from here. Because of the differences in economic opportunity in red regions vs blue (a high-low mix in the blue areas, with high-wage jobs supporting low-wage jobs plus transfer payments, and a more middle-class oriented red economy) and the intensification of cultural strife, the Great Sorting has begun. People are moving to different regions based on their beliefs and their preferred way of life.

        On top of that, the federal government is reaching the end of the gravy train. It won’t have the financial resources for much longer to transfer money from one region to another in order to maintain economic parity.

        It won’t happen immediately, but if the U.S. economy continues to decouple between regions, we could see another civil war in two or three generations. I’m not sure how to avert this.

        • Tom Kratman

          Future column.

      • ThalesLives

        Sir, I would assert that this state is inevitable at this point. The moderates you speak of are in increasingly short supply and, in any event, do not control the bullhorns. The American identity has been fracturing for some time, now. Certainly militant radfems do not see themselves as American (nations being a construct of the Patriarchy, or whatever). Militant Blacks similarly don’t see themselves as American (America being a construct of racist Whites). I could go on, but I’m sure you get my point.

        Sooner or later, conflict will erupt and the government will be unable to put the lid back on. Like your Beirut example, it could be a fight in a gas station that sets off the chain reaction. Who knows? For now, the elites, the bankers and media moguls, keep things under control, as much for their own gain as our safety. But the time will come when they can’t do it anymore.

        I wish America could breakup peacefully. I wish you were wrong; that each tribe of ex-Americans could form their own nations and leave the rest of us alone. But, as you say, that is impossible. America is already past the point of no return and simply awaits the grisly mechanics of dying. It’s a powerkeg sitting in a vat of gasoline, waiting for the right match.

        • Tom Kratman

          Yeah…we can’t. We’re too intermixed.

        • Steven Schwartz

          A question: what about the geographically non-contiguous micro-states of Neal Stephenson’s “Snow Crash” or “Diamond Age” as possibilities for a peaceful breakup?

          Realistically, I think the U.S. is too *large* to explode in such a way and, as you pointed out, too evenly distributed. The kind of co-ordination you would need if it were centralized is beyond the ability of people to remain undetected, and if it were not centralized, the power of the state would be too much to resist. We’ve seen neighborhoods go up in revolt. We’ve seen large chunks of cities do it — and they were put down as soon as someone had the will to do it, whether it was the local, state, or Federal government.

          I think we’re far more likely to face true fascism (waving the flag and bearing the cross) than dissolution into chaos.

        • Tom Kratman

          Who coordinated Beirut, Steven? How would one little cohesive microstate stop San Antonio from overrunning Austin? How many flare ups can the feds handle at one time? An infinity? No. If you think I am thinking “Conspiracy,” no. I am talking more than anything breakdown of the consensus for civilization and country.

          Like a lot of people on the left hand of the spectrum or the right, I don’t think you understand what fascism is, attaching excess importance to words, symbols, techniques, and tactics. The short version is that (so think I) it’s a philosophy for achieving greater unity, greater domestic peace, greater security, and greater production by engaging the emotions of man as he is. It’s okay, very few fascists understood that, though I think Mussolini did. In any case, that’s the purpose of the flag waving and parading; they are not purposes in themselves. As such, fascism is probably more rational and more intellectually defensible than communism, which requires either a) changes in man from what he is to what a red thinks he ought to be, or b) some intellectual slight of hand to change society to allow man to go back to the all around good creature he naturally is, while ignoring that man’s teeth include fangs.

        • Steven Schwartz

          “Who coordinated Beirut, Steven?”

          The dissolution of a city into chaos is vastly different than the dissolution of an entire country. Your sense of scale is getting to you.

          Yes, if we took Illinois, alone, and Chicago descended into interfactional chaos, it would take the rest of the state with it, because it so dominates in terms of population. But we’ve *had* entire chunks of one of our largest cities become a war zone, back in 1969 — and while it disturbed people, we came nowhere near the war of all-against-all that you seem to be afraid of.

          Part of it, I suspect, is that there was always one side convinced that the police/army/etc. were “with them” — and so they didn’t need to take to the streets. So long as they remain cohesive — and where is the internal strife there to anything like the degree you might expect before soldiers turn guns against soldiers, or police choose sides against police?

          (Militias against soldiers, perhaps — but then again, we don’t have militias on both sides aching for a fight, do we?)

          As to your little paean to fascism — “The short version is that (so think I) it’s a philosophy for achieving
          greater unity, greater domestic peace, greater security, and greater
          production by engaging the emotions of man as he is.”

          Except that “greater unity” comes at the cost of sacrificing everyone who does not fit that movement’s philosophy, as does “greater domestic peace”. “Greater security” historically has not been the case, and has come usually at the cost of nationalistically-driven wars.

          I find your support of fascism as “more rational” than communism rather disturbing as well, and the idea that communism requires changing people “from what they are” to “what a red thinks he ought to be” — while fascism, as repeatedly demonstrated, believes in discarding people who do not fit its bill and are willing to serve it as enemies of the state. That you find extirpating people more rational than trying to change them…

        • Tom Kratman

          No, it’s actually not vastly different because the important things, the emotions, and especially the hatreds remain whether in or out of a city. Take your example of Chicago taking Illinois. I actually commanded a recruiting company up that way and know it fairly well. The Chicago Autonomous Socialist Collective can try to take, say, Peoria, and that might work. Or it might not. The suburbs of Peoria, however, will probably fight. And Rome, GA will probably send help to the suburbs. And terror takes little to get going.

          I would say both sides are far more convinced that the police are against them. The military, I assure you, is 90% or more to the right of center, or well to the right of center.

          I didn’t say i support fascism, Steven, I said it’s more rational as based on man as he is, an emotional creature far more than a rational creature. Communism, however, based on the fantasy of the mutability of man, is utterly irrational, but dresses itself up as supremely rational. And, be it noted, if those really were the choices, fascism or communism, fascism (as opposed to nazism) kills fewer and is essentially devoid of racism. Bet you didn’t know that. Go look up the song, Faccetta Nera and translate it sometime. (I used to sing it while drinking with the current Chief of Staff of the Italian Army, a fine old Alpini officer.) What percentage of the population of Italy did Mussolini kill, Steven? What percentage of the USSR’s did Stalin?

          Myself, however, I am a conservative minarchical timocrat.

        • Steven Schwartz

          “No, it’s actually not vastly different because the important things, the
          emotions, and especially the hatreds remain whether in or out of a
          city.”

          I said *scale*, not rural/urban.

          Remember that we are talking about a country where a small minority of the people turn out to *vote* — let alone take up arms against their neighbors. And yet somehow, this small percentage of a small percentage is going to rise up, against the police (and likely the government) and start attacking their neighbors, and do it in so many places across the country that it becomes irrepressible, without co-ordination?

          I find this *highly* unlikely, to put it mildly. We’ve seen the largest cities in the U.S. aflame — and it died out in fairly short order (Watts, the 1968 riots in Chicago) — and what reason is there to suspect that the same would not happen again?

          The only scenario that makes much sense is a right-wing decision that the government was illegitimate, and trying to produce armed resistance to it — in which case it’s not the hatred of neighbor against neighbor, or group against group, but the decision of a group to try and secede. The closest we’ve seen to that was the ludicrous Cliven Bundy business, where only the restraint of the government prevented a staggering defeat for the Bundys.

          Communism, however, based on the fantasy of the mutability of man, is
          utterly irrational, but dresses itself up as supremely rational.

          Well, certainly, the beliefs of a man from 1780 are identical to those of 1880, and 1980, so we can predict they’ll be the same in 2080. :)

          Fascism is “rational” in that it is easy — presume people will be the worst we can expect, write off a portion of the population as “acceptable losses”, and hope that you’ve got the right leaders. Of course, if you object to its rationality from within, you are promoting disunity, and are an enemy of the state.

          “What percentage of the population of Italy did Mussolini kill, Steven? What percentage of the USSR’s did Stalin?”

          Well, shall we count the number of people Mussolini killed in his farcical attempts to recreate the glory of Rome through war?

          (Also: To remove Nazism from “Fascism” and to keep Stalinism as part of “Communism” is to engage in a bit of rhetorical trickery — ask any Trotskyist about the validity of Stalinism as Communism and prepare to be bored by a lengthy rant. ;))

          And I am inclined to prefer timocracy to fascism, but only in the way that one might prefer testicular to pancreatic cancer.

        • Tom Kratman

          If you wanted to address scale, it might have been good to say “scale” for what _you_ meant, rather than city. But any scale above small arms range probably doesn’t matter, Steven. And you are still thinking 1960s and relatively small scale rioting. We are not the country we were then. Check the demographics sometime. Check the current Democratic Party platform for their platform then. Check how much right and left hate each others guts, and don’t forget to multiply virulence by the numbers. We used to be moderate. We no longer are.

          No, fascism is more rational than communism because it takes a rational view of man as he is. It’s not about writing off x or y or z – that’s just you spouting the propaganda you need to to keep up your (socialist, is it not?) fantasy.

          And, Steven, the left has always been about the mutability of man, either to change him by education, training, social engineering, a bit of terror, and relentless nagging, or by assuming he is inherently “good” and is only rotten because of our rotten society. In either case the core principle is the same, reliable and easy mutability of man, whether in the future by following the precepts of the immortal Ilyich, or in the past, which past can be undone in the future.

          Okay, Steven, some numbers please? Count everybody Mussolini and Fascist Italy had killed as a proportion of the population of every place it had control of, then compare it to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, pick your commie, by the same scale. How’s Bennie the Moose come off in the murder stakes after that?

          I removed nothing, fascism and nazism just don’t have all that much in common but for some of the same foreign enemies. Yes, Nazism used the emotional tug, but the big thing for them was race. For fascists? No.

          You didn’t take my advice and translate Facceta Nera, did you? Tsk. Go ahead and do so, then explain how the Nazi regime had a song about the holy cause of liberating black slaves, fighting and dying to do so. It’s the frigging Battle Hymn of the Republic, in a Romance language vein, albeit by a different tune.

          As for Stalin, oh, puh-fucking-leeze! Almost every communist regime – given enough time – engages in murder on a scale that mere Nazis can only stand back and admire. It’s not a flaw in the system, Steven, it’s a feature. The only reliable way to avoid communist murder is to strangle it in the cradle when it appears to be about to take power or shortly after it has. Speaking of which, “Viva Pinochet! Viva! Viva!”

          I’m not sure you understand what I mean by timocracy.

        • Steven Schwartz

          And you are still thinking 1960s and relatively small scale rioting.

          Large enough in scale to have the powers that be call out thousands of troops to quell it, and have hundreds and thousands of arrests as a result of it.

          But you’re just arguing my point *for* me — unless you can generate many times that level of riot, which tended to take place in very *concentrated* areas of complaint, you’re not going to have a governmental breakdown; you’re going to have a governmental crackdown.

          Check how much right and left hate each others guts, and don’t forget to multiply virulence by the numbers. We used to be moderate. We no longer are.

          I’ve just been reading a history of the Black Panther Party, as it happens — you’ll have a hard time convincing me that “we” hate each others’ guts more than we did then. We may have drifted into a greater left/right division — primarily due to right-wing politics and policies — but conservative Democrats of nowadays would have been Republicans in the 1980s. (And, heck, Nixon would have been a left-wing Republican or perhaps Democrat. :))

          I will remind you again that we are looking at a country with very *low* turnout numbers. The great mass of people don’t care enough to vote — they’re going to care enough to take up arms against their neighbor?

          No, fascism is more rational than communism because it takes a rational view of man as he is.

          Fascism argues “Man is as he is, and nothing can be changed, so let’s get together in as big a mob as possible to defend ourselves against other men.” — recall that “nationalism” bit of fascism?

          And, again, do you believe that “man” is the same now as he used to be? And if so, how do you explain the fact that the world has changed so much, while “man” supposedly remains the same?

          “It’s not about writing off x or y or z – that’s
          just you spouting the propaganda you need to to keep up your (socialist, is it not?) fantasy.”

          If you believe national unity, under some set of beliefs, is the key to survival, you are going to write off (and, often, eliminate) those who do not accept that national unity. Fascism does not provide a space for the “loyal opposition”.

          “And, Steven, the left has always been about the mutability of man, either to change him by education, training, social engineering, a bit of terror, and relentless nagging, or by assuming he is inherently “good” and is only rotten because of our rotten society.”

          There are Pelagians on both sides of the political spectrum. :)

          And, again, I ask you whether or not such things as education *haven’t* worked? I mean, consider the state of racial relations in this country now, and in 1960. Or 1860.

          Okay, Steven, some numbers please? Count everybody Mussolini and Fascist Italy had killed as a proportion of the population of every place it had control of, then compare it to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, pick your commie, by the same scale. How’s Bennie the Moose come off in the murder stakes after that?

          Had they not been legendarily militarily incompetent, in multiple wars of choice, I’m sure Italy’s total would have been higher. :)

          Yes, Nazism used the emotional tug, but the big thing for them was race. For fascists? No.

          No, for Fascists it was Italian supremacy, causing them to launch one war towards their re-establishment of Roman supremacy, which only their own weakness and incompetence ensured would be the last.

          You’re giving Mussolini and the fascists credit for being “good” when what they were was incompetent in carrying out many of their goals.

          Go ahead and do so, then explain how the Nazi regime had a song about the holy cause of liberating black slaves, fighting and dying to do so.

          “Our law is slavery of love
          Our motto is FREEDOM and DUTY
          We, the blackshirts, will avenge
          the heroes that died to free you!”

          “Millions are looking upon the swastika full of hope,
          The day of freedom and of bread dawns!”

          The Horst Wessel Lied has the same “Oh, look! We are coming to rescue and free people, and feed them.”

          I am not so impressed by “Oh, look! We’ll give you a new king!” as some “holy cause”.

          ” Speaking of which, “Viva Pinochet! Viva! Viva!”"

          I can only presume you are either trying to present Pinochet as left-wing, or being sarcastic, given that the man is one of the more notorious human rights violators of the latter part of the 20th century. (when you force 2% of your population into exile, you have a serious problem. Remember that bit about “writing people off”?

          I’m not sure you understand what I mean by timocracy.

          Then do clarify — I went and looked up a definition, and it came back as “government by landholders”. Unless you particularly want to push the giant reset button and start again, that sounds like a recipe for calcifying the country, permanently installing inequalities on a grand scale, and making life worse for most citizens.

        • Tom Kratman

          You’re still seemingly stuck on the notion of things being done according to somebody’s plan. I am not talking about any such thing. I am not talking about making it happen. I am talking more about being unable to prevent it for sheer lack of will and the sheer extent of it.

          That, of course, is not all your stuck on. No diff to you between an absolute monarch and a constitutional one? No diff between racism to enslave a different ethnicty and freeing a slave of a different ethnicity? You make some silly points, Steven, but that is a real stinker. Or does every red song that mentions bread and freedom mean there’s no difference between Hitler and Lenin? Who knew?

          No, Steven, man as utterly malleable by nurture is a left wing thing. You will not find it on the right, except as a tool used to aid nature / eugenics / breeding. Yes, the Puritans were left wing.

          Yes, as a matter of fact I don’t think Man, as a species, changes much, if at all.

          I am giving them credit for very little but seeing man as he is. And, if you wish to continue the conversation, put up or shut up. You wanted to count all the dead. So count them, for all parties, everywhere, or concede you’re just talking bullshit.

          Nope, I am quite serious about PInochet. There is no particularly good reason to think Allende’s socialism would end up being any less bloody handed than any other. When the Chilean Legislature and Supreme Court BOTH called upon the Army to topple that regime, before it was too late to do so, and the Chilean Army and Pinochet stepped forward to do their duty, they likely saved their country from a megamurder, at comparatively trivial human cost, and most of that human cost being paid by the very ones who would have been running the Chilean Gulags. So, once again, “Viva Pinochet! Viva! Viva!”

          Timocracy means rule of the virtuous. That is often taken to mean rule by the wealthy, or by landholders, on the presumption that that is either proof of virtue or breeds virtue. I would not presume either, and do not – see above – really think it is possible to either breed it or train it reliably. But one can test for it. See, for an example, Heinlein’s Starship Troopers or my The Lotus Eaters.

        • Steven Schwartz

          You’re still seemingly stuck on the notion of things being done according to somebody’s plan. I am not talking about any such thing. I am not talking about making it happen. I am talking more about being unable to prevent it for sheer lack of will and the sheer extent of it.

          And what I’m saying, and have *been* saying, is that we’ve had conditions for “it” before, and the results haven’t been what you’re fearing.

          You are talking about something for which there is very little precedent on the scale you expect as if it’s inevitable, when we’ve seen little-to-no evidence of that happening.

          *That* is what I am saying. There is very little “sheer extent of it” save in the minds of those who want it, and those who appear to need something to fear.

          Again — when the vast majority of this country doesn’t vote in midterms, where are we going to get sufficient numbers of people to have the war you fear, *especially* when the communities, while they look heavily intermixed at 50,000 feet, are nowhere near as intermixed as they were in, say, Beirut?

          “That, of course, is not all your stuck on. No diff to you between an absolute monarch and a constitutional one? No diff between racism to enslave a different ethnicty and freeing a slave of a different ethnicity?”

          Between a puppet king of an authoritarian regime and a non-constitutional monarch? Not so much, no. And there’s no “racism to enslave a different ethnicity” in that song I quoted, is there? We don’t *know* what Mussolini would have done — save that we know he bent the political knee to the Nazis rather than resist them, which doesn’t speak well for his future as whatever level of “enlightened” authoritarian he was.

          Again — the failure of fascism to do more damage due to sheer incompetence is not something for which it should get *credit*.

          ” Or does every red song that mentions bread and freedom mean there’s no difference between Hitler and Lenin? Who knew?”

          Or it means that listening to a group’s propaganda music and attempting to claim that it is a reliable indicator of their values is a rather silly concept — which you started, by claiming that “Facceta Nera” was some sort of evidence for the goodness – or at least lack of evil — in the Fascist regime.

          (We can also make a side note that there is a difference, one which you appear to be ignoring, between Fascists and fascists. ;))

          “No, Steven, man as utterly malleable by nurture is a left wing thing.”

          It’s a small portion of humanity thing, actually — I don’t know many on the left who believe it, frankly.

          “You will not find it on the right, except as a tool used to aid nature / eugenics / breeding. Yes, the Puritans were left wing.”

          Not Puritans. Pelagians. Much longer history. :)

          “Yes, as a matter of fact I don’t think Man, as a species, changes much, if at all.”

          Then how do you account for the massive changes in human behavior?

          “I am giving them credit for very little but seeing man as he is. And, if you wish to continue the conversation, put up or shut up. You wanted to count all the dead. So count them, for all parties, everywhere, or concede you’re just talking bullshit.”

          Well, let’s see: I’ll point out that without the fascist national expansionist policies of Germany and Japan, we would not have had World War II. So let’s start by putting 2 billion in the “fascist” camp. Compared to that, Stalin’s 60 million seems rather small, doesn’t it? Especially when you consider that 60 million is over 26 years, rather than 2 billion in 6?

          And I am quite serious — even your precious Mussolini believed in national expansionism. Again, Italian military incompetence is not grounds for moral good.

          Nope, I am quite serious about PInochet. There is no particularly good reason to think Allende’s socialism would end up being any less bloody handed than any other.

          You mean like Swedish socialism, known for its bloody purges? ;)

          When the Chilean Legislature and Supreme Court BOTH called upon the Army to topple that regime, before it was too late to do so, and the Chilean Army and Pinochet stepped forward to do their duty, they likely saved their country from a megamurder, at comparatively trivial human cost, and most of that human cost being paid by the very ones who would have been running the Chilean Gulags. So, once again, “Viva Pinochet! Viva! Viva!”

          I will say this, then: If you are ever killed for your political beliefs, you will have deserved it — because that same logic: “Being paid by the same people who would run the gulags” can apply to you — you are a “trivial human cost”.

          It is people like *you* who, if it happens, will cause the collapse of America as a civilized society, with your notion that your fellow citizens are “trivial human cost” to protect against an abstract idea, because of what *might* happen if that idea comes to pass. Thousands of people die because you’re afraid, and that’s a “trivial human cost?”

          “Timocracy means rule of the virtuous.”

          It is rare that I find someone actively supporting a political system in which they would be disenfranchised; I applaud your dedication, even as I shake my head at your foolishness.

          “That is often taken to mean rule by the wealthy, or by landholders, on the presumption that that is either proof of virtue or breeds virtue.”

          Indeed, that’s how Solon and Aristotle defined it, I believe. Your definition is a tad idiosyncratic, though I suppose it applies closer to the one Plato used to describe Sparta — which, given your statements above, makes perfect sense.

          “But one can test for it. See, for an example, Heinlein’s Starship Troopers or my The Lotus Eaters.”

          Given that Starship Troopers assumes its point, and then claims to prove it, I’ll choose some more reliable means of government, thank you.

          Military dictatorship hasn’t really worked out well for most of the times it’s been tried, and there’s really no demonstration aside from Heinlein’s claims that it tests for “virtue” rather than any one of a number of other traits.

        • Tom Kratman

          Steven, I doubt you have the first clue of what the conditions are. Really. You give every indication of being in a left wing echo chamber. Get out a bit. Look at the right wingers. They hate your guts and want you dead. When they talk about guns and zombies and using the former to kill the latter? Zombies are YOU, Steven. I think you must have presupposed that I thought this breakup would come from the left? What blinders are you wearing?

          You claim midterms prove what? I’d say that they prove nothing at all, except that about half the people are modestly content. They will remain content when things start to collapse? Your reasoning for this is…???

          I don’t see massive changes in human behavior, Steven. I see temporary accomodations, even as I see death camps, gulags, Srbenice, and 6-800k human being hacked by machetes.

          Steven, please stop being an idiot. It makes it hard to be polite. I offered the fucking song as an illustration that fascism – in the only country ever expressly Fascist – didn’t have a lot of racism – none, really – to it. Take all other interpretations and interpolations that you are trying to attribute to me and shove them.

          Steven, I believe you said you’re a socialist. That makes you an unindicted co-conspirator in mass murder. It is never wrong to kill a socialist when socialism gets close to the levers of power; it is always an act of legitimate self defense. So Viva Pinochet! Y otras vez, Viva!

          Sweden is social democrat, Steven, not revolutionary socialist. The means of production remain in private hands, the economy is not planned, and competition is fierce. So, once again, please stop being an idiot and please stop presuming that everyone else is an idiot. And please take your silly as shit talking points and sound bites and, as with the previous request, shove them.

          I always find socialists confronted with Starship Troopers hilarious. “No, I am devoted to this philosophy that has proven an economic, moral, social, political, disaster everytime it or anything like it’s been tried, but that thing that’s never been tried is just plainly doubleplusungood.”

          It’s not a military dictatorship, Steven. It’s a representative democracy with a unique poll tax. To claim it’s a military dictatorship, when soldiers at any rank are not allowed to vote or hold public office, means you either don’t know what a military dictatorship is, or you don’t know what’s in the book.

        • Duffy

          The really great part about this Column is that the Author always responds to comments, with the authors responses usually running to 3 times the length of the original column and as worth reading as the column, and sometimes, even better. The really funny thing about Socialism is those who advocate it, and actually believe it, do not perceive the inherent problem with Socialism. “Just because they had Social in the official name of the party, does not mean that the Nazi’s were Socialist!” No, the Nazi’s had Socialism in their platform, the bulk of the SA were members of the German Communist party before they became Nazi’s. And in their lay the inherent problem with Socialism. In order to work, the people running a Socialist state need to control nearly everything within the state. Of course Hitler was not a socialist, he was a power mad megalomaniac. Just as were Stalin, Lenin, Mao, 3 Kims, Pol Pot, the Castro brothers, Hugo Chavez, and Che. And understand, everyone on the list that is still alive, are the richest people on the planet. So much for Socialism. Because that is why Socialism is useful to totalitarian states, the power required to keep it going, is useful if you can get their hands on it. And once you have that power, you really do not have to deliver on all the promises. How Socialist was the Soviet Union before it fell? How Socialist is China now? What is the difference between China now and China 300 years ago besides the name of the ruling class? What is the Difference in China between Mandarins and Communist Party members, do they actually do anything all that different? North Korea, Socialist? No, that is a Dynastic King ruling through divine right, in a manner the the Kings of Silla, Goryu, and Joeson would envy and approve of. And that is the problem with Socialism. It does not work very well under most circumstances (any governmental system will work fairly long if you can shift the cost of your defense on someone else, the downside is if the place you shifted that cost decides it is not going to play, well there goes the boat) and once that power is concentrated, it take a lot change it. Food for thought, Steven, Mussolini the consummate Fascist….was a member of the 2nd International. If you do not know what that means, you are not really qualified to comment on either Socialism or Fascism. They are not polar opposites, they are competition for the same kind of supporters.

        • Tom Kratman

          I’m familiar with that Argument, Duffy, but I really don’t buy it. I think the socialism was false advertising, since they didn’t actually take control of the economy until 1943, and then only as a war measure. Britain under very non-socialist Churchill probably was closer to socialism, 1940-43, than was National Socialist Germany.

          The thing that distinguishes Nazism from Socialism is precisely that penultimate but core article of faith, man as improvable or perfectable by nature / breeding (Nazi) or by training/education/social engineering (which includes terror)/and relentless nagging, and in any case man as mutable, as malleable clay in the hands of those with a dream. Nazis can use some of the same techniques, yes, as malaria can look and feel a lot like pneumonia, but they remain fundamentaly different diseases. So, too, different political diseases…

          Of course, as you impliedly point out, a lot of political extremism – at the leadership level – is nothing of the kind; it’s just political opportunism and fraud imposed on the great unwashed.

        • Steven Schwartz

          The first thing I’ve learned: Don’t post when you’re angry and at work, you make sloppy mistakes. Point taken in re: Sweden, and Starship Troopers not being a “dictatorship”. We’ll get back to that later.

          Now, to respond to other points:

          Look at the right wingers. They hate your guts and want you dead.

          I have. I am related to some. I know a fair number of others through work, etc.

          They don’t want me dead. What they want is for a straw man that’s being created for them by Fox News and the GOP and extremist demagogues to go away; when confronted with the real people, the situation differs.

          (Which is also, BTW, why the purple marbling is important — it’s a lot easier to prevent a war when the sides *are* so intermixed.)

          You claim midterms prove what? I’d say that they prove nothing at all, except that about half the people are modestly content. They will remain content when things start to collapse? Your reasoning for this is…???

          That many people will react to threats against their stability by reacting against those starting it — like the reaction against militias brought on by the Oklahoma City bombing, like the reaction against “protestors” brought on in some places by Occupy. That there is a massive inertia in those people that will react against the people trying to start the kind of community-based war you’re afraid of.

          “I don’t see massive changes in human behavior, Steven. I see temporary accomodations, even as I see death camps, gulags, Srbenice, and 6-800k human being hacked by machetes.”

          And the fact that most people in the world find these things *wrong*, even as they are carried out, when we see much evidence in *support* of these behaviors a few hundred years ago?

          This sounds like someone saying “Well, I don’t see a change in diseases and their effects on humanity” because people still die of Ebola, even though hthey no longer die of smallpox, and we have treatments or cures for a wide range of other conditions.

          People don’t need to be perfect to be better.

          I offered the fucking song as an illustration that fascism – in the only country ever expressly Fascist – didn’t have a lot of racism – none, really – to it.

          If you are going to continue going “Only Italian Fascism is fascism”, then we are going to go back to “Stalinism isn’t communism, it’s Stalinism”. You do not get to define one term narrowly, and defend it, and accuse others of the broad practice of the other term. At least not if you believe in honesty in your rhetoric.

          Steven, I believe you said you’re a socialist. That makes you an unindicted co-conspirator in mass murder. It is never wrong to kill a socialist when socialism gets close to the levers of power; it is always an act of legitimate self defense. So Viva Pinochet! Y otras vez, Viva!

          Anarcho-socialist, actually, which is another on of those policies that has never been tried on a large scale. On the small scale, it has often worked out quite well. On the largest scale it was tried, it wa attacked by authoritarian powers with military force and destroyed. I know you might believe that makes it inherently wrong, since you appear to be well on the way to “might makes right”, but it remains the case.

          And I hope you realize that your claim of “legitimate self-defense” makes it equally legitimate self-defense to kill an authoritarian if they got close to the reins of power — or any “timocrat” who agreed with you. It is, in fact, precisely this kind of thinking that *leads* to the kind of war of communities that you seem to be decrying above. Congratulations — you’re a self-fulfilling prophecy for mass murder.

          I always find socialists confronted with Starship Troopers hilarious. “No, I am devoted to this philosophy that has proven an economic, moral, social, political, disaster everytime it or anything like it’s been tried, but that thing that’s never been tried is just plainly doubleplusungood.”

          That’s because we’ve repeatedly seen the so-called “morality” of the military, and seen it often to be no such thing unless it is being constrained from above. That’s because, in general, societies do better with a less limited franchise — of course, that’s not always the opinion of the people who used to hold the limited franchise, but that’s their problem. It’s funny — all the people who propose it are the people who would already get to vote in it; they risk nothing, and gain power from it.

          Oh, and of course, we’ve already seen from your statements here that your notion of “virtue” includes killing thousands of people solely because of their political beliefs — which rather stands as another argument against the selection ability of military service to pick for “virtue.”

        • akulkis

          “You’re still seemingly stuck on the notion of things being done according to somebody’s plan.”

          Remember, collectivists like Steven can’t even imagine, let alone comprehend, a large-scale activity not being controlled by so-called masterminds. This is why they utterly detest free market economics — the fact that an economy can work the left’s holy priests constantly meddling in everybody’s daily lives absolutely horrifies them.

        • Silva

          Thanks for informing me the Italian Fascists were Gnostics, freeing the Abyssinians from the tyranny of their mortal coils.

        • epyon2005

          “Waving the flag and bearing the cross”

          How is any of that indicative of Fascism, unless by cross you mean the Iron Cross, which at that point in Germany, was only symbolic of past German martial glory and not the glory of Christ.

        • Steven Schwartz

          The point the quote is making is that fascists in this country will claim to be patriotic American Christians, because that is the form the kind of ultranationalism and authoritarianism associated with fascism would likely take. (See, for example, the Falangists in Spain.)

          This is *not* to say that Christians are fascists — but that fascists would use Christian symbology.

      • Mark Andrew Edwards

        I see the break up as a disaster and a tragedy and very likely inevitable. There’s an increasing polarization in society and a lack of mutual respect. The elected class and the chattering class don’t respect the proles. We unwashed masses sure as hell don’t respect them. Liberals hate and fear gun owners while we watch, chew and wait with one finger on the trigger guard.

        My writing group is a mix of liberals, libertarians and me. We mostly get along because we all are passionate about writing and want to support each other. But we still almost broke up over the rhetoric after Sandy Hook.

        Meanwhile the gyre keeps getting wider and wider.

        • Tom Kratman

          I do sometimes wonder how many people would have to be killed to save the country. It’s probably fewer than are going to die if we break up.

        • Dexter Scott

          “Lesser pain now to avoid greater pain later” is just the sort of choice we are incapable of making. Indeed, we wouldn’t have to make this kind of choice if we’d made better choices previously.

        • Tom Kratman

          If it were only pain we might be able to do it. It isn’t. It’s accepting a vast sin and wickedness to avoid worse later. It’s _that_ that makes it so impossible. I’m pretty ruthless, but _I_ don’t _want_ to be the one to push the button on 10 million people who believe they’re doing the right thing.

      • Ori Pomerantz

        Historically, most revolutions were aided by high food prices. Hungry people are angry people, and when people think their situation is hopeless it is much easier to get them to risk their lives.

        This is one factor against a civil war in the US. We’re a long way from having people not be able to afford food. I’m not sure not having access to other luxuries would have the same effect.

        • KenWats

          Turn off everybody’s wifi and see what happens :)

        • Harry_the_Horrible

          Don’t forget to knock out cable and dish, too!

        • ThalesLives

          We’re not as far from this as you think. The American economy is very fragile and has been running ridiculous deficits for decades. When the money spigot stops, all bets are off. If the government ever has to do a major cut to the welfare state, you will have a lot of angry proles running around demanding “their due.”

      • treephrog

        I have thought for about two years now that the only way to save this country from a civil war would be a civil split, so I’m delighted to see this article, and a deeper thinker than myself tackling the subject (not that that’s saying much…).
        In the “it would be nice” vein, the ideal would be if we came to a realization that we have two fundamentally diametrically opposed viewpoints on too many things. (Strangely, we’re so opposed that we can’t even do anything about the things we agree on, like the NSA’s unconstitutional spying on us…but maybe that’s more a function of “power corrupts”, and those in power in either party have no inclination to do anything about it.)
        Realizing this, what if we could come to an agreement: that half is yours and this half is ours. Everyone has one year to move, or lose your opportunity. Get in line like everyone else! I realize “which half” would probably be an insurmountable obstacle in itself, but I can dream, can’t I? Maybe, “I cut and you choose?” Hell, I *love* the geography of California and the West, but I would gladly give it to them to be rid of them.
        What I think would happen would be something along the lines of Slovakia and the Czech Republic. One went with a free-market fiscal set-up, while the other went socialist. They voted whether or not to keep a unified currency, and fortunately it was rejected. Guess what? Within 5 years, the socialist side was voting for market reform, because the clear split allowed the clear results of their policies to be seen. Now, they’re good friends again, from what I understand.
        To quote the Beach Boys, “Wouldn’t it be nice…”
        *sigh*

        • Tom Kratman

          Same issues as I mentioned; we’re too close to separate, and even if we could, same problem as last time, namely that the United States – or its successors – will not tolerate a military rival in this hemisphere.

        • treephrog

          Oh, I’ve never thought it was remotely possible, just have wondered if we would ever hate each other enough to at least have the conversation. And I need only read one of your books, then watch today’s news, nearly any given day, to know how much better your perception is on these matters than my own.

          I do have one question, prompted by your comment: Given the left’s anti-military bent, would they likely raise enough of a military to be a problem? Or would we be the one enemy they would not be able to tolerate, certain that we would try to take them back over? Frankly, I would pay out my own pocket to see them go, and wouldn’t dream of taking them back (which I would absolutely anticipate them requesting, sooner or later) except under the most stringent of conditions. But I don’t think they would believe that of us.

        • Tom Kratman

          One notes neithr Lenin nor Trotsky nor Stalin nor Mao had a problem with having a military.

        • treephrog

          True, nor has hypocrisy ever stood in the way of grasping for power on the left. But I would be willing to bet, given the usual leanings of rank, that their early military, after the migration, would be a case of too many chiefs and not enough indians! Plus it’s fun to note that even the aforementioned guys couldn’t trust their militaries and had to keep them liberally salted (if you’ll pardon the phrase) with zampolits.

        • akulkis

          And the only way that Stalin was able to stop the constant retreats was to remove all power from the political officers.

        • Ori Pomerantz

          True, but they never convinced themselves and their followers they are the non-violent ones.

        • akulkis

          Almost all of the military would go to non-Socialist-land, and so even if the Socialists got 50% of the equipment, they wouldn’t know how to operate it — even if they could maintain it (assuming that they retained the industrial base to produce the necessary parts and supplies).

          For example, I can’t think of any combat aviators of any branch who are lefties. Maybe some exit, but you can’t maintain air superiroity with an airforce consisting of 1500 aircraft and 5 pilots.

      • http://batman-news.com Rick Randall

        It would be Beirut for sure, not even the former Yugoslavia in most places.

        You know it’s bad when Serbia/Bosnia/Croatia is your “unrealistically optimistic” outcome…

      • Duffy

        It is a solid essay. I for one can tell you that in spite of their protestations to the contrary, most of my family is Democrat. I even suspect both of my sons, whom I love dearly, might be on the other side of that divide. I also suspect that a Civil War, as you point out is not inevitable. But I fear, like someone else in the thread stated, an economic dislocation my drive the country into a violent episode. And I have seem how people handle the kind of mixture we have in the US now, it was called ethnic cleansing, and both sides participated in it. It may or may not be called ethnic cleansing if it happens, but the general idea is the same.

        One thing I would point out however, the lines before the and during the Civil War were not all that well delineated. See West Virginia for an example. And that was almost repeated in Eastern Tennessee. Most people do not realize that the people who lived in the Appalachians, the “Hill Billies” were usually pro-union, anti-slavery and had a decided hate for the Aristocratic Slave owners who ran most of the South. Tennessee and Alabama both put several Union regiments in the War. On the other side, it was questionable in the first years of the Civil War if Indiana (and Illinois and Iowa) would remain in the Union and contribute to the war effort. If not for the decidedly Unconstitutional actions of Indiana Governor O.P. Morton, the Civil War might have had a different outcome. (By the way, I think what Morton, and what Lincoln did, while Unconstitutional, were also appropriate. The Constitution is not a suicide pact)

        • Tom Kratman

          And northern Alabama. But you are still painting a picture of fairly cohesive areas without a huge amount of intermixing. A Tennessee ridge runner, for example, is not close to a Memphis slave dealer.

        • Drang

          As I’m sure Tom is are aware, there were actually relatively large areas of the Confederacy that would have gone Union, if the US Government had been able to get troops to them in 1860. Including Eastern Tennessee and much of Texas; Sam Houston (Governor of Texas 1859-1861) opposed secession, and left office because of it. It is reported that Lincoln told him that the Union was in no position to support him, so he should accept the inevitable, despite the fact that he predicted ruin for the Confederacy.

        • Tom Kratman

          Yes, but those areas, while inside seceded states, were generally quite local and cohesive, unlike, say, Austin and the area around it.

      • Jack Withrow

        Col, Am I correct in assuming your next column will put forth some ideas on how to prevent the US turning into Beirut writ large?

        • Tom Kratman

          No, I’m going to continue to play with why it’s going to suck.

        • Stephen St.Onge

          Hi, Tom! Didn’t know you’d started this series of columns.
          As someone who believes peaceful dissolution is both possible, desirable, and imperative, we’ll continue to disagree, as we have before in the ‘skellar. But since you seem to expect the country to fall apart anyway, what do you think the death toll then will be? Why do you think the death toll from attempted peaceful disunion would be lower? Or do you not think that?

      • Frank Clarke

        Yup, pretty close to the way I see it…

        http://tinyurl.com/TipgPt2

      • Lawrence

        Look at it this way, trade would plummet, City’s would be warzones as utility’s fail and people kill each other over cans of beans and the first winter most major city’s would burn. That’s just the initial breakup and not counting weather and other disasters. Soon enough Militia’s would form to police area’s and them fighting each other. And that would still happen even if there were greater states because things like communications would be out. People wouldn’t even know what was going on in the US, they would barely know what is happening next door.

        • akulkis

          Metropolitan Detroit is living just fine despite the fact that the City of Detroit is literally in ruins.

          City people think that the rural fold are entirely dependent upon what happens in the city…. but an embargo of food shipments into cities for even a week will show who is dependant upon whom.

      • http://www.angry.net/blog2 Angry Webmaster

        Interesting article and not that much I would disagree with. Except for the real nutters, I can’t think of anyone who would want a violent separation. (The last time was bad enough thank you)

        What I do see as a possibility is a few people, probably on the right, saying “Enough is enough” and rather then “Starting the revolution without you” decide to try and change a few minds in the power structure. Probably by emptying the contents of the craniums of the more recalcitrant members of the power structure all over walls and the street.

        I do think we may be headed for some sort of break, just not necessarily a breakup. I think a breakup would be the first steps to complete collapse.

        I suspect the comments here and in other places might provide good material for another novel. :)

        • aceofwands

          You are probably closer than you realize. From April 2014.

          The Pig Trap

          “These people are playing with matches… I don’t think they understand the
          scope and scale of the wildfire they are flirting with. They are fucking around with a civil war that could last a decade and cause millions of deaths… and the sad truth is that 95% of the problems we have in this country could be solved tomorrow, by noon… simply by dragging 100 people out in the street and shooting them in the fucking head.”

          http://taxicabdepressions.com/?p=1193

        • Steven Schwartz

          “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

          H. L. Mencken

          Having seen his list of so-called “constitutionalists”, it’s pretty clear that his “kill 100 people” would be an example of just this.

        • aceofwands

          With the thirst for genocide on the part of the American Left, 100 would be getting off cheap. Unfortunately, they actually think they can win.

          ‘Homeland Security’ Employee Preparing For Coming Race War, Advocates Mass Murder Of Whites

          http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/08/homeland-security-employee-moonlights-race-warrior/68600/#disqus_thread

          http://patdollard.com/2013/08/homeland-security-employee-preparing-for-coming-race-war-advocates-mass-murder-of-whites/

          WATCH – Democrat Icon/MSM Hero/La Raza Founder: ‘We Have Got To Eliminate The White Man. We Have Got To Kill Him’

          http://patdollard.com/2014/04/watch-democrat-iconmsm-herola-raza-founder-we-have-got-to-eliminate-the-white-man-we-have-got-to-kill-him/

          “The tattoo on his face says, “Kill Whitey” in block letters,”

          http://nypost.com/2013/06/22/kill-whitey-panther-is-held-on-gun-rap/

          Calypso Louie is feeling his oats.

          http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=125485

          Kill The White People http://www.infowars.com/blacks-screamed-kill-the-white-people-before-brutal-murder-of-zemir-begic/

          NBP at gun range http://www.breitbart.com/video/2014/12/31/malik-shabazz-to-black-panthers-2015-time-to-build-army-go-to-gun-range/

          Bill Ayers calls for genocide…

          http://patdollard.com/2014/05/mediaite-spiritual-godfather-bill-ayerss-plan-to-genocide-the-garbage-people/

          “The
          Voice Of Dan Abrams: Mediaite Writer Loses It After Reading Unfavorable
          Comments, Calls For Genocide Of The GOP ‘Garbage People’ Who Are ‘Half
          The Country’”

          http://patdollard.com/2014/05/the-voice-of-dan-abrams-mediaite-writer-loses-it-after-reading-unfavorable-comments-calls-for-genocide-of-the-gop-garbage-people-who-are-half-the-country/

          And
          in other news…here are roughly 90 articles all collected at a single
          link describing the path the left wants to go down to save the planet
          from man. I do not think they will start with themselves.

          “This is where environmentalism is headed:
          Environmentalists ultimately want to wipe out the human race.”

          http://www.akdart.com/enviro86.html

          “David Attenborough, British broadcaster and environmentalist, is at it again, claiming that humans are a plague.”

          They
          have a plan that was developed over 100 years ago and they are sticking
          to it and will not stop until they are stopped or are successful.

        • Steven Schwartz

          And I could generate a significantly longer list of right-wing extremists who want to purge the population — what’s your point? There are people all over the political spectrum who believe that violence and eliminationism is the answer.

          Of course, many more people on the right than left have turned to it, advocated it, etc. Just go to Stormfront, for example. Or look at Dave Neiwert’s work at Orcinus.

          My point, which you appear to have completely missed, is that killing any 100 people wouldn’t do the trick, and thinking like that is counterproductive in terms of solving real problems. You might have your list of 100. I might have mine, save that I would never execute it.

          (Just to pick an example, one of the people taxicabdepressions listed as one of the potential “rescuers” of the country might make my list of 100 people we’d be better off shipping overseas — save that I think he may be too useful screwing over his own party and making a buffoon of himself. If I thought he would truly be effective? *boom* onto the boat he goes.)

          But no list of 100 people would solve the problems, except perhaps as an implicit threat of “We killed 100 — what makes you think we’ll stop?” At which point we are headed down the road to authoritarianism I don’t think you want, rather than any kind of road to freedom.

        • Tom Kratman

          I figure about ten million, personally. 4 million unreconstructed common law felons, so we can chop the police back to being constables of the peace, 2 million wingnuts, and 4 million moonbats. I might be lowballing it, though, through misplaced optimism, I admit.

        • Steven Schwartz

          I find it ironic that you think the war you so (allegedly) do not want you ascribe as likely to start from the right, yet you want to kill twice as many people on the left.

          Also, do tell — if your name showed up on the list of “wingnuts”, would you resist your execution? Or would you display your virtue and willingness to put the good of the country before your own personal well-being and submit?

        • Tom Kratman

          Why do you think there’s a necessary correlation between numbers, cause, and effect?

          Oh, and of course I would try to take as many with me as possible. WHat does THAT have to do with anything?

        • Steven Schwartz

          “Why do you think there’s a necessary correlation between numbers, cause, and effect?”

          Because I assumed, though I now realize incorrectly, that you would want to minimize casualties.

          I’d be curious as to why you think so many more from the left would need to die, given what you’ve said about where you think the trouble would start.

          “Oh, and of course I would try to take as many with me as possible. WHat does THAT have to do with anything?”

          You list as one of your possible measures of “virtue” Heinlein’s willingness to put one’s self on the line to protect one’s society. It seems you’re quite willing to pass out death warrants to other people for the social good — I was wondering if you were willing to accept other’s judgment on the same, or not.

          If society would be demonstrably better off without you, by one of your own proposed standards of “virtue”, you should depart it. Yet you say you would resist, violently, doing so. Just pointing out a little problem with your definition of either virtue or your governmental system.

        • Tom Kratman

          There are more lunatics and more dangerous lunatics on the left. The right can hardly even make muster, at its worst, when compared to a Mao, a Stalin, or a Pol Pot. And conservatives, who are not even right wing, don’t qualify at all in the atrocity stakes.

          One of the things you really should work on, Steven, is expanding your frame of reference, and not assuming the world, the world of thought, or the world of what you think is logic stops on the inside of your skull. Because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it cannot be understood, only that you do not understand it. And, please, PUH-FUCKING-LEEZE! stop reading into my words things that are not said, or fairly implied, but appear to be required for you to maintain your political and philosophical delusions. In order for your statement to make sense, I would have to have said that those condemned to death have a moral obligation to go along with it. I, of course, never said that, never would have said that, and have no reason to imagine that anyone would have said that.

          Now put on your dunce cap, take a piece of chalk, and go write on the blackboard 5000 times, “I will not assume that my lack on understanding means anything beyond that I do not understand.” Do not, in the process, substitute “Kratman” for “I” or “my.”

          Now here’s a clue for the socialistically brain-impaired. The oblligation to give of oneself to society means to a society of which one is a a part. The hard lefty, as a general rule, and the rabid righty, as a general rule, are not part of this society. Rather, they tend to be moral and intellectual parasites. The lefty, in particular, tends to be an intellectual bedu, wandering from place to place, overgraving on the tender brains of the young, bringing all-bedu-like, a moral and intellectual desert wherever the lefty travels, before moving on, leaving that wasteland behind.

          Though it will not admit it, society and civilization are at war with them, and they with it. Thus, the rules do not apply as they do to me, me being, in a way you are not, a member of society who has given and risked much for that society. But if society were to cast me out, my obligations to it cease, and I can kill them as readily as they would kill me. Clearer now?

        • Steven Schwartz

          “The right can hardly even make muster, at its worst, when compared to a Mao, a Stalin, or a Pol Pot.”

          Let’s see: Franco, Mussolini, Hitler. Three, right in the same time period — we didn’t even need to go throughout much of the 20th century.

          “And conservatives, who are not even right wing, don’t qualify at all in the atrocity stakes.”

          Conservatives aren’t even right wing? Where on earth do you get your definitions? What are “conservatives” allegedly, then? Moderates? (Wow — that’s one well-shifted Overton window.)

          No; conservatives don’t qualify at all in the atrocity stakes except by sitting by and letting other people commit their atrocities for them, so their hands are “clean”.

          ” And, please, PUH-FUCKING-LEEZE! stop reading into my words things that
          are not said, or fairly implied, but appear to be required for you to
          maintain your political and philosophical delusions.”

          I’ll stop when you do. :)

          ” In order for your statement to make sense, I would have to have said
          that those condemned to death have a moral obligation to go along with
          it. I, of course, never said that, never would have said that, and have
          no reason to imagine that anyone would have said that.”

          Well, given how far beyond the bounds of reasonable political discourse you’ve gone in other cases, I can’t tell what you do and don’t believe.

          Most people, for example, do not believe that pre-emptive assassination of their political opponents is justified. Yet you’ve said you do.

          “Now here’s a clue for the socialistically brain-impaired.”

          As opposed to the timocratically morally crippled?

          “The hard lefty, as a general rule, and the rabid righty, as a general rule, are not part of this society.”

          Indeed; perhaps neither of us are a part of this society, since at least one of us appears not to accept its fundamental tenets.

          (Hint: It’s the one cheering on political violence.)

          “Thus, the rules do not apply as they do to me, me being, in a way you
          are not, a member of society who has given and risked much for that
          society. ”

          And, apparently, while failing to understand the rules under which the society operates. Why should a law-abiding citizen be less a “member of society” than someone who advocates political violence?

          ” But if society were to cast me out, my obligations to it cease, and I
          can kill them as readily as they would kill me. Clearer now?”

          Clearer. Disturbing, but clearer.

          I hope you never have to suffer the fate you so willingly condemn others to; but I also hope that should it be required, the people who carry out that fate for you do so efficiently, to save other people’s lives from your moral vacuousness.

        • Tom Kratman

          What percentage of their own citizens did Stalin kill over and above killed in open war? Mao? Pol Pot? I gather you’re not just morally but mathematically impaired if you can equate them with any of those righties, who killed tiny numbers of their own.

          Steven, I’ve tried to be polite. It isn’t worth it with you, and it isn’t possible for me with you. God knows I have tried.

          You’re an idiot. You cannot grasp the simplest things. You cannot refrain from adding in things that are not there. Consider yourself plonked.

        • Steven Schwartz

          “What percentage of their own citizens did Stalin kill over and above killed in open war?”

          Did you not see my earlier comment about how people who start a war of choice, at least to most people’s eyes, bear some responsibility for said war?

          And given that WWII was started by choice by one of those people, I am putting those dead in that column.

          ” God knows I have tried.”

          I was trying too, until you told me (and even a bit past then) that you considered me a potential fair target for assassination, and a reasonable expense for a right-wing dictatorship.

          ” Consider yourself plonked.”

          Then feel free not to reply.

        • akulkis

          Franco, Mussoline and Hitler, even when grouped together as a single entity, are a piker compared to Stalin.. and even more so compared to Mao..and if you look at percentage killed, they are all distant also-rans compared to Pol Pot, who slaughted over 20% of his countrymen, for offenses as trivial as “wearing glasses” — yes, he truly issued an order that all citizens wearing glasses were to be murdered…and they were.

        • Steven Schwartz

          I find it interesting that the right wing wants only to look at total body count; never motivation, despite the fact that they wish to claim some kind of moral high ground.

          Hitler wanted to kill people because of who they were — immutable characteristics from birth. Stalin did not. Now, I think Stalin was a monster, but I do draw that distinction between “These people died because of their actions” and “these people must die because of who they are.” Hitler, by that model, was much closer to Pol Pot.

          Of course, we could also look back to people like Innocent III, if we want to look at depopulating monsters — but funny how that name never comes up much. Perhaps too lost to history.

        • PeaceMaker

          Steveie Baby Sugar…………. “These people died because of their actions” and “these people must die because of who they are.”
          Ask the Ukrainians if anyone died because of who they are.
          Best guess is around 11Mil died because they just happened to be Ukrainians. Uncle Joe did not like them

        • akulkis

          I predict that pouring hydroflauric acid on my arm would poison me so severely that it would result in my own death, does that mean I am advocating my own suicide by such means?

          Typical leftist. Your thinking is so addled that you believe that prediction of ANYTHING == advocacy of that thing.

          Of course, it’s probably because among you and your lefty friends, the only things you ever predict are what you hope for, and nothing else, because you have completely lost (or perhaps never even developed) the ability to conduct dispationate analysis of relevant facts, and cause/effect consequences.

        • Steven Schwartz

          “does that mean I am advocating my own suicide by such means?”

          No; but I was addressing Mr. Kratman and his alleged possible “solution” to his predicted war.

          “the only things you ever predict are what you hope for, and nothing else”

          I find this hilarious, given that the normal accusation around, say, environmental issues is “You predicted this terrible thing, and it didn’t happen, so why should we listen to you?” when th answer usually is “Because we took steps to prevent that terrible thing.”

          To use your own example: Your prediction about acid is correct. However, if your *solution* to that was “So I will pour a strong base on my arm in the hopes of counteracting that strong acid!” I would question the wisdom and honesty of your methods and prediction.

        • KenWats

          10 million is roughly the military and civilian casualties of WWII Germany. Granted, this is coming from a larger population base, but that’s a whole lot of people.

        • Stephen St.Onge

          10 million is about sixteen times the armed forces casualties of the Civil War Between the States, in a country with ten times the population. Say 1.7 Civil Wars, adjusted for population.

          That is, btw, only counting combat casualties. When premature deaths in the South are counted, it may be just one Civil War.
          Not that it matters, because Tom is thinking of a planned killing, which ain’t gonna happen without a Civil War starting anyway,

        • aceofwands

          “And I could generate a significantly longer list of right-wing extremists who want to purge the population…”

          Would love to see your list, but be careful, for when we look back on history, the wars and assassinations, attempted assassinations in this country have been caused by the dem-leftwing progressives. I am sure your perceived list will not square well with actual historical events.

          For the left only embraces killing when the left agrees with it and show indignation when the roles are suddenly reversed and the left becomes the target.

          “But no list of 100 people would solve the problems,…”

          A list of two, JFK and RFK, kept Teddy from seeking the high office.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Would love to see your list, but be careful, for when we look back on
          history, the wars

          George W. Bush would beg to differ.

          (And are you saying Roosevelt should have stayed out of the war? ;))

          and assassinations, attempted assassinations in this
          country have been caused by the dem-leftwing progressives.

          I suspect the casualties of the Murrah Building would disagree with you. As would Alan Berg. And we aren’t even going to count the people killed by police for political reasons, almost all coming from the right, without any bother with “due process” or law.

          Oh, and James Earl Ray.

          “For the left only embraces killing when the left agrees with it and show
          indignation when the roles are suddenly reversed and the left becomes
          the target.”

          Rather how the right behaves as well — after all, one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.

          A list of two, JFK and RFK, kept Teddy from seeking the high office.

          As I said before — your killings would be only for the purpose of terror — scaring other people away. Of course, as we’ve seen from history, other people pick up the banner and keep moving forward; perhaps not immediately, but they do.

          (Oh, and if killing 2 stops 1, what does this say about killing 100 to stop millions?)

        • aceofwands

          “George W. Bush would beg to differ.”

          You must be referring to the Bill Clinton/Jamie Gorelick failure. You need to wrap your head around “Operation Able Danger” which identified the 911 hijackers two years before the actual attacks took place. These two stalwarts of American exceptional-ism deliberately hid the findings 8 months prior to the 2000 election…odd they would do that.

          http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&projects_and_programs=ableDanger

          “Murrah Building”

          You mean the Karmic payback for Clinton/Reno burning women and children at Waco?

          “As I said before — your killings would be only for the purpose of terror…”

          That all depends on how far the left wants to push their “fundamental transformation” or “destroy the constitutional republic” plan they have been working on for the past century. Display, or participate in being an active domestic enemy, and yeah, you’re screwed dude. Don’t believe me?…in 1968, Mayor Richard J. Daley issued a “shoot to kill” order because Chicago was on the verge of being burned down during the MLK riots, and he was a democrat. Time for you and your side of the political spectrum to learn what the historical record has to teach about human nature.

          Human nature will always supersede a failed political ideology when survival is in play…and liberalism is definitely proving to be a failure.

          Your examples are very lean at best when compared to the genocidal icons of the left…Stalin, Mao, Che and the leftie radical and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.

        • Steven Schwartz

          “You must be referring to the Bill Clinton/Jamie Gorelick failure.”

          Actually, I was referring to the war in Iraq that he took us into for no good reason.

          “You mean the Karmic payback for Clinton/Reno burning women and children at Waco?”

          Ah — I see your game. If the right-wing does it, it’s payback, and therefore justified, while if the left does it, it’s evil. “Heads I win, tails you lose”. Thank you for displaying your rhetorical honesty.

          No, I’m talking about the most deadly domestic terror attack, carried out by right-wingers — far more violent and deadly than anything the Left in this country has done.

          “in 1968, Mayor Richard J. Daley issued a “shoot to kill” order because
          Chicago was on the verge of being burned down during the MLK riots, and
          he was a democrat.”

          And hardly a liberal. You do realize that
          many democrats in the 1960s were more conservative than their Republican
          brethren? (Say, the Dixiecrats vs. Nelson Rockefeller)?

          “Your examples are very lean at best when compared to the genocidal icons
          of the left…Stalin, Mao, Che and the leftie radical and domestic
          terrorist Bill Ayers.”

          And do take your Hitler, your Pinochet, and all the rest — oh, and domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh, whose body count was orders of magnitude higher than Ayers’.

          (By the way — you were asking for examples in this country, so I gave them to you. Now, of course, you move the goalposts.)

          (Also — you do realize that many on the left *loathe* Stalin with a passion? You do seem intent on conflating all of th Left into one big thing — in which case, again, do please defend Hitler and the Hitler-wannabes at Stormfront; I look forward to it.)

        • aceofwands

          You are dense, had Clinton/Gorelick arrested the 20 hijackers discovered during “Able Danger”, the 911 attacks would never had happened…DUH!…meaning, there would have been no reason to go to war in the first place…DUH!. Your failure to connect these two simple dots shows an inability on your part to comprehend and separate facts from the cartoons you have generated in your head, which Tom has already pointed out to you. The links below show how deluded the left is about Bush, and you are one of
          them…”Actually, I was referring to the war in Iraq that he took us into for no good reason.”. WTF! is that?…the democrats created the reason, but yet, you blame Bush.

          “The only mistake
          Bush made, was listening to the Democrats about WMD.”

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUeIrUsApuE

          Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction

          19 famous statements starting with Bill Clinton on Feb. 4, 1998
          http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

          Human nature and historical records show, spoiled brats such as liberals are, will always be put down when their thirst for power exceeds the tolerance of the masses. The historical record shows, (just one example) in 1979, Vietnam
          was forced to invade Cambodia to put down Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. In America your Pol Pot wanna-be Bill Ayers has proclaimed his plan for the genocide of 25 million being necessary for the communist take over of the country. If you think people will stand-by and do nothing, then you are living
          in a delusional cartoon of your own making. You may feel it is a rampage against you and your ilk, but who cares?

          Your next problem is thinking the US Military will ride to your rescue. If 99% of the US Marine Corps. thinks along the lines of one of their retired generals, then that avenue quickly closes.

          Gen. James Mattis:
          4. “Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they’re so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact.”

          http://freebeacon.com/national-security/the-best-from-mad-dog-mattis/

          One can hardly imagine he is talking about those folks determined to save the Constitution, but rather those people Hell bent on destroying it.

        • Steven Schwartz

          “You are dense, had Clinton/Gorelick arrested the 20 hijackers discovered
          during “Able Danger”, the 911 attacks would never had
          happened…DUH!…meaning, there would have been no reason to go to war
          in the first place…DUH!.”

          A quick check points out that there are many conspiracy theories about Able Danger, and the most reliable sources we have suggest that they would not have been able to do so, especially given when the task force was formed.

          You’re free to believe conspiracy theories, if you wish.

          (Also — there is significant evidence that the Bush administration wanted to wage war in Iraq, and 9/11 was merely a convenient excuse. It is *known* that they lied to the American people, and to parts of their own administration, regarding WMDs and their threat from Iraq. So, no, GWB still gets the blame for the Iraq war.)

          “Human nature and historical records show, spoiled brats such as liberals
          are, will always be put down when their thirst for power exceeds the
          tolerance of the masses.”

          And the same is true, by and large, of conservatives — when any group goes too far out on a limb, and can’t bring the people behind it, well….

          “If you think people will stand-by and do nothing, then you are living in a delusional cartoon of your own making.”

          I don’t think Bill Ayers still holds that position. Nor would *I* stand by and let someone do it. Just as I would not stand by and let followers of the ideas of Cleon Skousen (like that Bundy lunatic) do the same.

          “Your next problem is thinking the US Military will ride to your rescue.
          If 99% of the US Marine Corps. thinks along the lines of one of their
          retired generals, then that avenue quickly closes.”

          If 99% of the USMC is prepared to violate its oath to the Constitution, we have bigger problems — like heading towards a military dictatorship. Fortunately, I don’t believe that to be true.

          “One can hardly imagine he is talking about those folks determined to
          save the Constitution, but rather those people Hell bent on destroying
          it.”

          As I’ve said before in this thread, one man’s “freedom fighter” is anotehr man’s “terrorist”. I find the way people are attempting to define “religious freedom” as an example of destroying the Constitution — not to mention people advocating shooting people for their political beliefs. You, apparently, not so much. (Or are you prepared to disavow Mr. Kratman’s doctrine of justified assassination in self-defense?)

        • epyon2005

          Wasn’t the guy who bombed the Murrah building an agnostic who said science was his religion?

        • akulkis

          If the 100 are all in the legislative and at the highest levels of the executive branch, that’s all that will be needed for the remainder to get a clue to either learn to fly right, or turn in their resignations immediately.

        • Steven Schwartz

          In other words, “Do what we want or we’ll kill you” — or, as I said, “the road to authoritarianism” — but apparently you *do* want it.

        • Loog Moog

          truth is that 95% of the problems we have in this country could be solved tomorrow, by noon… simply by dragging 545 people out in the street and shooting them in the fucking head.”

          Fixed that for ya…

        • Tom Kratman

          The people would just elect replacements every bit as bad. To quote somebody or other, “We need to elect a new people.” See, forex, Starship Troopers or The Lotus Eaters for how to do that. And even those won’t work forever.

        • aceofwands

          Baseball will suffer as well. I have heard, political assassinations are a national pastime in third world countries…are we 3rd world yet?

        • Steven Schwartz

          You do realize you’re quoting a satirical take on the East German government, advocating what the satirist said the East German government would say, don’t you?

        • Tom Kratman

          I want to say it came from Berthold Brecht, no?

        • Steven Schwartz

          You are correct.

        • aceofwands

          Got it…

      • Ivan the true

        The idea of regional conflict in the US is rather absurd. The greatest threat is economic collapse, and that will have a completely different set of outcomes, none of which are based on regionalism. When(not if) it happens, it will make the Civil War look like a cake walk.

        • Tom Kratman

          Who said regional, Ivan? If you think I did, go back and reread the column. Look expressly for the bed v. couch split.

      • TEEBONICUS

        Your analysis is probably closer to correct than not, so I propose the best solution.

        Get rid of all political factions left of center-right. Constitutionally abolish them anywhere in the United States. Let them speak, but hold no political office, or any bureaucratic position in any government, from president down to dogcatcher. And no voting, either. The way around it is to exempt them from personal income taxes, therefore there would be no “taxation without representation”.

        You’d be amazed at the problems that would solve.

        • Tom Kratman

          No it wouldn’t. They’d just migrate to something else and take it over. “The long march through the institutions” should show how easy that is. And then who gets to decide what isn’t center right? Eventually they will. And the precedent having been set, goodbye center right; hello Gulag.

        • TEEBONICUS

          There can be no march through institutions they are constitutionally forbidden to inhabit.

          Remove any restrictions on civilian ownership of weapons (for the legitimate political faction, of course), and of locally organized militias to stand against central authority, if necessary. Mortars, full-auto, night-vision, RPGs, the whole shebang

          Goodbye, Gulag.

        • TEEBONICUS

          (Tom, of course you realize that the whole thing is a spoof, don’t you? Unfortunately, nothing is ever that simple.)

        • Tom Kratman

          Based on some of the inane comments I get, no, I had to take it at face value. Thanks.

        • James

          Thats the bad part when you can’t tell the spoofs for the real crazy rants because the crazy has become so normal.

        • Tom Kratman

          One more increment of evidence for the case, yes.

        • Tom Kratman

          Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, TEE?

        • akulkis

          In that respect, the Nazis did get it right — they literally removed all Communists from all institutions by force of law. Those who remained, undiscovered, were too afraid of being ousted to voice their idiotic Marxist yearnings.

      • 175jfs

        Bring it on. They’ll get a big surprise.

        • Tom Kratman

          We are all going to get a big surprise if this comes to pass. Well…I won’t be surprised.

        • Stephen D. Clark

          Lord knows you won’t initiate anything. You’ll just whine about communists and tyranny and act real sulky, but, when it comes time for action, you’re waiting for someone else to start first.

        • 175jfs

          Speaking of whiney and sulking.

        • Stephen D. Clark

          That’s exactly what I’m doing.

      • Dana King

        Hmm, there is nothing nutty or extreme about following the US Constitution. It would seem to me that anyone who believes otherwise, left, right, AND center, are the extremists, yet somehow you manage to paint a picture that no one is right. And what is especially precious and absurd is the assertion that “moderates” have any position at all that can be “suppressed” as the definition of a moderate is one who has no position other than the one that is politically convenient and consists of drinking 2 vials of poison instead of 4. That’s almost as ridiculous as James Madison having to argue with the Supreme Court when James Madison is the guy who wrote the damn constitution.

        • Tom Kratman

          For purposes of this particular column it makes no difference. Right or wrong are not the point; total societal collapse and kids of the two legged variety turning on spits over coals is the point. If you want a column that worries abut your conception of right and wrong, rather than predictable results of diverse and divergent people insisting on their version of right and wrong, I suggest you apply to everyjoe for space and write that column. If you object to someone exercising their constitutional right to free speech to point out the horrors of a breakdown, I suggest you exercise your constitutional right, write to everyjoe, and try to get me muzzled.

          Otherwise, fuck off.

          And you know what? When it breaks down? You don’t get any constitutional rights at all. Isn’t that a shocker?

        • akulkis

          Parties to contracts which they themselves wrote go to court all the time. These disputes, just like Madison’s, generally hinge on the idea that the contract’s author is trying to take the meaning of the document which the other party agreed to, and twist it to mean something which the other party did not agree to.

      • Mavwreck

        Is there a reason there are two “Tom Kratman”s commenting? One has a Disqus URL of https://disqus.com/by/tom_kratman/ (and the Genghis Khan avatar); the other points to https://disqus.com/by/tomkratman/ (with no avatar).

        • Tom Kratman

          Yes, it signed me out for some reason, and when I signed back in it was with a different account, google or FB, I’m not sure..

      • Simon_in_London

        The idea of either the Weathermen/Red Guard or KKK/Nazis taking power in these separated nations looks a bit unlikely to me. Most Red Staters hate the KKK and most Blue Staters outside of academia aren’t keen on Mao, either. I would think a Blue State nation would look a lot like a typical western European nation – perhaps guns would be taken, very likely speech-crime laws would be brought in,it would be a less free country but it would be closer to France or the UK than to Red China 1966. A Red State nation would likely end Affirmative Action & racial preferences and contract government size (except the military), but it would not re-enslave African-Americans. It might expand the death penalty, no gay marriage etc – America ca 1955 (but with blacks generally able to vote) mixed with a bit of a Latin American tone. Any nightmare scenario should centre around the civil war a breakup would likely cause; a peaceful separation would not be all that bad.

      • epyon2005

        I love how you call adopt the left’s terminology by calling the Klan ‘right-wing…’ even though when you look at what their ideology and what they want, they’re about as right-wing as god damn nazi’s.

        • Steven Schwartz

          “they’re about as right-wing as god damn nazi’s.”

          Which is to say, very.

        • akulkis

          You are utterly ignorant.

          Compared to Infrared, red light is a very short wavelength.

          However, on the full spectrum of light, red light is long wavelength.

          The Nazis are right wing ONLY when the spectrum is restricted to Nazism and Communism (which is, as a rabbi observed in the 1920′s, [pharasaical] Judiasm).

          However, on the FULL political spectrum, which includes anarchists, libertarians, monarchists, etc, Nazism is a very, very, very leftwing ideology, differing from Communism in only 2 aspects –

          1 Man is perfectable by breding/genetics (vs. the Communist idea that man is perfectable through some sort of state-mandated conditioning or another).

          2. Nazism was NATIONALIST Socialism, whereas Communism is INTERNATIONAL Socialism (again, in keeping with Pharisaical conceptions that the Jews should subjugate and rule all nations).

        • Steven Schwartz

          “, as a rabbi observed in the 1920′s, [pharasaical] Judiasm).”

          I would love to see your citation on this one — my suspicion is that you’re treating “living in common” as “communism” — in which case, early Christianity was communism before it was taken over by the Roman Empire. But that doesn’t fit your anti-semitic narrative.

          “However, on the FULL political spectrum, which includes anarchists, libertarians, monarchists, etc, Nazism is a very, very, very leftwing ideology, differing from Communism in only 2 aspects –”

          No. You are deliberately focusing down on a very narrow definition of “left” vs. “right” to try and come to this conclusion. There’s a reason the giant German industrialists were fine with National “socialism” — because it placed the emphasis far more on the “National” than the socialism.

          “(again, in keeping with Pharisaical conceptions that the Jews should subjugate and rule all nations).”

          If you quit reading the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, maybe you’ll do a bit better in connecting to reality.

      • Stephen D. Clark

        The complete bullshit of this idea is to expect “the people” to rise up. No way would anything like that happen.

        It would have to start in the Pentagon. Guns in the hands of private citizens today partake as much in dissolving the national government’s monopoly on violence as fists did in 1861.

        • akulkis

          On the plantations, slaves represented 95% of the owners’ income.

          Today, the Fedgov wants all of your income beyond what you need to keep yourself housed in a minimalist flat, wearing 2nd hand clothes, and having only the transportation to get to/from work and shopping. Much like the old USSR.

          Russia was hijacked by an ethnic/religious group… today, that same group has hijacked our government.

        • Stephen D. Clark

          I don’t know where you live, but about 20 minutes away from me are mansions on the beach worth $15 million and yachts at the marinas that cost almost as much. Lots of them. Lots and lots of them. There’s no shortage of millionaires where I live.

          As for “hijacking”: Try winning elections and see if you can hijack back.

        • Steven Schwartz

          “Russia was hijacked by an ethnic/religious group…”

          Well, I don’t think there are enough Russian Orthodox in this country to hijack it. :)

      • Harry_the_Horrible

        Thank you for this article. Whenever anybody talks about secession, I try to refer them to it.
        It is as good argument for trying get along as I can find.

      Be Sociable, Share!