There have been rumblings of a new civil war for several years now, as the political divide in this country has broadened. Many on the right consider it a bit of a joke, as there are more gun owners on the left than there are on the right. However, there are actually more gun owners on the political left than most of us realize. According to information from statistia.com, 16% of Democrats claim to own guns. While that is considerably lower than the 45% of Republicans who own them, it’s not something that can just be ignored. We’re all aware that Democrats have refused to accept President Trump’s victory in 2016, with those in the Congress and the press working overtime to find some ways to get rid of him. That’s what Mueller’s Russian investigation was about and that’s what impeaching the president was all about, their two most blatant attempts. But Democrat’s refusal to accept the results of elections is nothing new. They have a long history of contesting election results, including the infamous “dimpled chad” debate in Florida, during the 2000 presidential elections. Al Gore lost that election but didn’t want to accept the loss, so tried to get the results overturned on a technicality. Democrats used every trick in the book to win the last elections, even resorting to illegal activity if the information I’ve seen is true. There was a considerable amount of violence, as paid “activists” tried to affect the election. But even with all that, Democrats didn’t succeed in changing the vote and getting what they wanted. They’re still denying that Donald Trump won the election fairly and legally. I’m sure that the Republicans’ hands aren’t totally clean when it comes to the election process, but for some reason, pretty much every case of voter fraud I hear of works in favor of the Democrats. That’s highly suspicious and makes me think that they are clearly the less ethical of our political parties. Now, before Election Day has even gotten here, organizations tied to the Democrat Party are already talking about what they’ll do, if Joe Biden doesn’t win by a landslide. Put simply, the violence from the death of George Floyd is nothing compared to what they are planning on doing. Will it be War? Whether things get bad enough to turn into a war is yet to be seen. Up till now, the mobs of rioters have basically limited themselves to mostly unsophisticated weapons like bricks and Molotov cocktails. That’s probably not because they don’t want to hurt anyone, but rather, because they don’t want to end up in jail. Even so, more and more seem to be carrying firearms. Just the other day there was a face-off between the rioters and armed conservatives in Nashville. The fact that such a face-off happened isn’t all that surprising, as we’ve seen other such occurrences over the last several years when rioters clashed with counter-protesters. But what made this different was that it was hard to tell which side people were on. From the video, it looks like there were just about as many armed protesters, as there were armed citizens who were there to protect their city. The amazing thing was that no shots were fired in that confrontation, although there were plenty of angry words spoken… or shouted. Even so, it appears that nobody pulled the trigger. If they had, it would have probably been a bloodbath. It’s doubtful that we can have many of these confrontations, without them turning violent. There are plenty on both sides who are stoking the fires. But perhaps the most dangerous fire stoking going on is that there are those on the left who are telling their people that Republicans just can’t wait to kill them. Can you imagine going into a hostile situation with the understanding that the other side just can’t wait for a chance to kill you? How would that affect your thinking? How would it affect your actions? It seems to me, that it would put my nerves on edge, where almost anything could be misunderstood to be a threat. Unless I was highly trained and disciplined (I am), it would be easy to respond to that potential threat by pulling the trigger. Once I did it, others would follow. For that matter, it doesn’t even take someone pulling the trigger to turn that situation deadly. All it would take is someone setting off a fire cracker. I’m sure there are enough people in that crowd who don’t know the difference and who would react to the noise as if it were a gunshot. The problem is, there are those who would consider the loss of life in that situation just “the cost of doing business.” They don’t care about the loss of life if it serves their political needs. While they might not light that firecracker themselves, for fear of getting caught, they would probably have no compulsion against ordering it lit. The opening shot for the Battle of Concord, which stated the Revolutionary War, is known as “the shot heard round the world.” But it is not the only such shot. The Civil War was likewise started from a single shot, this time at Fort Sumter. World War I was started by the killing of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. The point is, all it takes is one shot to start a war. If both sides don’t take a big step back after that first shot, the war quickly escalates. What’s the War About? There are those who are billing this next civil war as a “racial war;” but that’s not true. All we need to do to see the fallacy in that statement is to look at the riots that have been happening. There have been as many whites involved in those riots, as blacks; and the whites are more likely to be the ones to start any real battles. The riots we have seen and any further violence is nothing more than a collective temper tantrum. Rioters are making demands of people, businesses, and governments, attempting to force them to bow their knee to the rioters’ demands. Like the demonstrations which have happened on various college campuses, they think that their demanding something should be enough to force everyone to go along and give them what they want. This is, by definition, terrorism, using violence to cause political change. While the president has declared that ANTIFA is a terrorist organization, he hasn’t done so for BLM. That one is a bit more difficult because it is hard to separate the BLM organization from the movement in most people’s minds. For that reason, any attempt to label the BLM organization a terrorist organization will be met with a lot of backlashes. While the riots we are seeing in this country have been birthed out of the Black Lives Matter movement, they have nothing to do with saving black lives. Rather, it is a Marxist revolution, intended to bring down the current order of things and replace it with socialism/communism. We can see this from the types of things that the left is demanding, such as defunding the police, tearing down monuments, changing names to just about anything that connects us with our past, and demanding redistribution of wealth. Quite literally, this war will be about keeping America or losing it. If it is won by the revolutionaries, it will no longer be the land of the free and home of the brave. It will be a socialist or communist country, descending into poverty. We will not only have failed ourselves, in losing this war but the world as well, as the next two strongest countries in the country are China and Russia. Neither of which will be spreading democracy across the globe. The Horrors of this next War Compared to the last Civil War, this one would be much more horrible. A total of 618,222 men died in the Civil War, 360,222 from the North and 258,000 from the South. That’s more than have died in any war our country has fought, before or since. Yet I fear that this next civil war will far outstrip that number, and that’s something I just don’t want to see. In most cases, you can’t tell a person’s political affiliation by their clothing, and in Louisville, they were mostly in tactical clothing. So that eliminates the visible affiliation shown by printing on T-shirts and MAGA hats. Nor will there be any clear geographic boundaries in this coming war. About the closest we could say is the coastal liberal enclaves, versus the rest of the country. But even that is a false boundary, as there are many conservatives living in those coastal areas, just like there are many liberal cities in the rest of the country, even in conservative bastions like Texas. Without any obvious uniform differences or geographic boundaries, it’s hard to tell how this war will go. Most likely it will be a war limited to urban areas, especially the larger cities. Since it will grow out of the current riots, it will probably start in the same places, mostly inner-city areas, largely inhabited by the very same people who the revolution claims they want to help. What we’re looking at is long-term battles for the streets of our cities. Without clearly defined armies and boundaries, it will be hard to win any battle. Rather, there will just be ongoing battles every night, which could go on for years. This is the future I see, one in which constant battles are being fought across our land. It will be urban guerilla warfare of the worst kind. Perhaps the only saving grace will be the lack of large weapons. But having seen how creative people can be in devising improvised weapons, I doubt it will stay that way. Many innocent lives will be lost, perhaps more than of the combatants. Both sides will break the law, one in trying to bring about change through revolution, while the other is trying to protect the country. But to succeed in protecting the country from lawlessness and revolution, those fighting will have to become lawless themselves. Otherwise, they will be limited to fighting a purely defensive war. That’s the only way the right can remain righteous in all this, fighting a purely defensive war. Using deadly force is still legal in all 50 states, although there are some which are limiting what you sort of firearms you can use. Even then, we’ve already seen examples of how left-wing prosecutors are going to try and villainize those who defend themselves, stretching credibility in an effort to charge them with crimes, while allowing those on the left to get off scot-free. Avoiding the War I have no desire to fight in this war, although that may not be possible. It is my hope that I can limit my involvement in protecting my home and family. But I swore an oath once when I received my commission in the Army and that oath doesn’t have an expiration date. The best way to avoid the coming war, assuming it does come, is to not be where the fighting is happening. That may seem a bit simplistic, but it has been what civilians have tried to do in past wars, through the centuries. Considering that the war will most likely be fought in the large urban centers, the best thing we can do is to move out of them. Even moving to suburbia would be advantageous, although I’d avoid areas inhabited by the wealthy. It seems those are beginning to be targeted, and with all the efforts from politicians on the left to villainize the wealthy, I’d say that the war will probably target them as well. If you can move to a rural area, that will probably be best. Not only are there not enough people in rural areas to attract the troublemakers who are doing all the rioting and who will probably be pushing for war, but most of the people in those communities are also conservative, so they’ll band together to protect their homes and their community. A Political Option Of course, the other possibility is to allow the nation to go back to being what it was when it was founded. As the country was settled, states were different. Our founding documents recognize this and created the dual-sovereignty system, recognizing the sovereignty of both states and the nation. This allowed states to be different, except in a few well-defined areas. Through the two-plus centuries of our country’s existence, the federal government has encroached more and more on state’s rights, primarily thorough their right to regulate interstate commerce. Since just about everything affects commerce and is affected by commerce, that has given federal lawmakers the opening they have needed, to be able to force the states into conformity and submission. If we were to go back to the original plan, allowing states more autonomy and individuality, that would allow states which want to embrace left-wing ideas to do so, while states which wanted to keep what they have, remaining conservative, could do that too. It would allow us to remain united as a nation, even while permitting our differences to peacefully coexist. But without that, I really don’t see any way to avoid this coming war. It’s just a matter of who fires that first shot. Resources  https://www.statista.com/statistics/249775/percentage-of-population-in-the-us-owning-a-gun-by-party-affiliation/
Along with the rest of the country, I’ve been watching what’s been happening with the BLM protests and accompanying riots. I am sickened by the mayhem and destruction, with people’s businesses and their lives being destroyed. Sadly, many of the people who have lost their businesses come from the very community that BLM claims they want to help. It is clear that BLM is not what they claim to be, or perhaps I should say that the BLM that we see in the news is not the BLM that started the demonstrations after George Floyd’s death. In fact, we can say that there are three different BLMs out there today: The BLM sentiment, which is a concern about black men being killed in confrontations with police (regardless of whether it is justified or not) The BLM organization, which was started by a couple of women who are avowed Marxists and whose statement of beliefs on their website includes strong support for the LGBT+ community and a desire to destroy the nuclear family The BLM protests that have been taken over by anarchist organizations, which are trying to foment a revolution, destroying the United States we once knew The true villain in this story isn’t actually the anarchists; they’re merely a minor villain. No, the real villain is the news media, which has been working hard to create a dangerous narrative; one that is fueling division in this country. I want to talk about this because I see it as a very real existential threat to our nation. While we are always faced with dangers from natural disasters and renegade nations, we also face internal dangers from our own fragmented society. The Roman Empire, one of the largest and longest-lasting empires in the history of the world, wasn’t conquered by any enemy; they were destroyed from within. How does such a thing happen? Author G. Michael Hopf postulated in one of his books, “Hard times create strong men; strong men create good times; good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. While there are plenty of examples to poke holes in that philosophical statement, there is also some truth to it. Hard times will not make all men strong; some will be destroyed by it. Nor will all strong men create good times. The idea of “might for right” is a great concept, but way too many strong men see their strength as a way of getting more for themselves, not for bringing about right for society in general. While it takes strong men to create good times, perhaps it is the latter half of that quote that contains the most truth. Of course, there are many kinds of strength. Moral strength and physical strength have nothing to do with each other. Likewise, intellectual strength is a whole different category. So when we talk about strong men or strong women, it helps to define what sort of strength we’re referring to. Even so, there’s no question that this country has been through some of the greatest “good times” that the world has ever seen in the last century. Not everyone has participated in that prosperity; but even those who didn’t have it much better than a huge percentage of the people living in the rest of the world. Our poverty can be looked at as great wealth by the people of some countries. Media Created Anger Few of us would even know about George Floyd’s unfortunate death if it were not for the media. Today’s media is able to gather and disseminate information faster than any nation’s intelligence service. Unfortunately, what passes for “news” today is more likely to be commentary than actual reporting; and like any commentary, it is more about the commentator’s personal views, than it is about the facts of the matter being spoken about. One of the bandwagons that the mainstream news media has been on for the last few years is that of reporting when the police kill a black man. I’m not sure if they have reported every such incident, but they’ve reported enough for it to be a problem. What makes the problem isn’t so much that the media is reporting it, but how they are reporting it. Regardless of what’s happening, who the black man the police show was, whether or not he was involved in a crime or whether he tussled with the police, he’s the victim. In this narrative, the police have been made to look like they are Jackbooted Gestapo, on the hunt for every black man they can kill. It’s not a true narrative, but it is being presented to the masses as if it was. How do you think this is making young black men feel? I’ll tell you. They’re frightened. While many of us can feel butterflies in our tummies when we’re pulled over by the police, the young black men I know are terrified of such an encounter. They’ve been told enough times that the police are out to get them, that they believe it. As with any lie, this one has just enough truth in it to make it believable. There are two truths here. One is that the police do sometimes shoot a black man. Since it isn’t reported when the police shoot a white man and it pretty much dominates the news for days when the police shoot a black man, there is a very real perception that black men are disproportionally targeted. The other truth is that police are more likely to pull over a black man for “driving while black” than a white one. Between the two, there’s enough truth to support the lie that is giving blacks the wrong perception. Would you be angry if you had been sold that lie? I know I would. And don’t try and say that you wouldn’t buy the lie; there’s no way that any of us know whether we would buy it or not until it was aimed at us. We all tend to believe what we are told, especially if it comes from a source we know and trust. The Other Side of the Media While much smaller than the mainstream media, there is a conservative media voice out there, mostly on the internet. We have our own commentators who look at the various things happening in our country and give us a conservative viewpoint on them. Those of us who are conservatives tend to believe those commentators while calling the mainstream media “fake news” just like progressives believe their media and call conservative news “fake news.” But just like the left stream media gives their people a particular narrative, ours gives us a particular narrative as well. Since it is commentary, rather than “news” it isn’t so much about what happened, as it is about driving a particular narrative. About the best thing we can say of that is that at least they are honest enough to say they are conservative commentators, rather than the other side trying to convince us that they are “neutral” news reporters. Here’s the problem though. When we allow our world view to be defined by those conservative commentators, we can become just as blind to reality as our cousins on the other side of the aisle. We can forget that there are people who have very real concerns, that are being buried under all the noise. When George Floyd was killed, just about the entire nation was on the side of the black lives matter movement. It was seen as a tragedy that shouldn’t have happened. Even conservative commentators were saying that. But something happened. People started looking into Floyd’s past and finding out that he had a criminal record. Even so, those conservative commentators were still saying that the way that police officers treated Floyd was wrong. That’s all changed now, as more information has come to light. It’s not that anyone thinks that Floyd’s death was warranted, but that people are getting sick and tired of how Georg Floyd and other black men who are killed by the police are being glorified as martyrs, while others are ignored and those who defend themselves are vilified. Again, it is the media that is making us aware of this; only this time it is the conservative media who are bringing the disparity to our attention. It’s another sort of false impression, affecting another portion of the population. The other thing that the right-leaning media is focusing on is rioting. Granted, rioting is a big deal and the destruction of property is something that should be covered in the news. The left’s narrative of “mostly peaceful protests” while businesses are burning in the background, is clearly false. But not all demonstrations turn violent and they’re ignoring that part of the story. Researchers with the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project have put out a report stating that over 90% of the Black Lives Matter protests have been peaceful, with only 220 escalating to violent clashes between the police and protesters or destruction of property. While I don’t agree with many of the conclusions in this report, there’s no question that the majority of those protests were peaceful, even if we expand the definition of “violent” that they are using. Yet what we are being told about is the violence. We’re being fed a perception that blacks in our country are a bunch of violent, hate-filled people who are bent on destroying our country. In reality, the majority of the rioters and looters aren’t black at all but are white. Most of them are from ANTIFA, not BLM. Yet the cameramen who are taking the video are managing to get their camera angles just right so that the clips we are shown are of blacks rioting, vandalizing, and looting. Then There’s Social Media If all this misinformation wasn’t bad enough, there are social media to add to the confusion. If you want to find the wrong perception of anything, just look at what’s posted on your Facebook feed or what people are tweeting about on Twitter. Even this is being manipulated, as the major social media companies are all run by left-wing technocrats who see it as their “duty” to be arbitrators of information. They are consistently suppressing conservative organizations and posts, even to the point of blocking or calling out as “false” some things the president has said. Sadly, social media has become a platform of disinformation and commerce, rather than being a place for friends to talk to each other online. It has moved so far from its roots as to be indistinguishable. We would all be better off without it. But if you can’t get off it, at least be wise enough to not believe anything you see there, other than the jokes. Don’t be Manipulated It seems clear to me that there are people behind the scenes who are manipulating the narrative for the sake of getting a certain result. That’s not a conspiracy theory. All of the major media outlets are owned by a very small number of corporations and they are apparently following the same playbook. So what’s that playbook? Since we can’t see it, all we can do is look at what they are doing. And what they are doing is sewing social discord, specifically racial and economic discord, creating division in our country by pitting one group against another. It seems more and more clear that these people are bent on starting a revolution, probably disguised as a racial civil war. The lies run deep. Talk to any homosexual or transgender person today and they’ll tell you that Christians hate them. Talk to most blacks and they’ll tell you that whites hate them. Little of this is based on truth, it’s the only perception. Where do those perceptions come from? Some come from the media, but in reality, the media is doing the same thing that everyone else does, they’re just doing it with greater authority. That is, they are assuming they know the thoughts and hearts of others. Those perceptions are reported as “fact,” allowing many others to believe the same thing. We must all be on guard for this. If there is one thing that we can do to bring peace and sanity back to our country, it’s to stop presuming what others think and believe about things. Rather, we should hear what they have to say so that we can learn how to understand them. Maybe it wasn’t you, but someone who just read that said to themselves, “I don’t need to ask them what they think, I already know.” That’s what I’m talking about. That person is the one who needs to ask the questions and hear what the other side has to say, more than anyone. But they’re also the one who is least likely to do it. If this country goes down; that will be a major part of it. We will fight a second civil war based upon false perceptions, rather than on the truth. And while we are doing that, we’ll all say, “If only the other side had listened” as we shake our heads in sadness and our country goes up in flames.