Republicans Are Talking "Civil War." Democrats Are Preparing for One.
The Democrats As The New Confederates: In Come the "Trans-People."
About two months ago, Georgian Republican, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene became the first ranking politician of any of the two major political parties to publicly give voice to a hot topic some writers on Substack and plenty Twitter accounts have for some time now been opining on. That “hot topic” would be the likelihood or, depending on how much thought is put into it, the apparent inevitability of another civil war eventually breaking up in the US of A.
Even if the people or sources that could provide material evidence to support assertions to that likelihood or inevitability might be hard to come by, those Substack posts or Twitter comments might not, just because of their speculative quality, be totally clueless, and maybe should not be dismissed out of hand. I, for one, do not. That is because, one thing about civil wars is, they do not tend to announce themselves far in advance. Although signs and smoke messages get written all over the place before they happen, most common folks are not good at reading them, and many of the people who end up leading the charge are often first in being surprised— though maybe less so than the next person. Point in case, Lincoln. He was decided on preserving the Union even at the cost of preserving the slavery system. And, had it depended on him, the Civil War would have never happened if he could have found the way to convince the Southern Democrats to introduce programs to the end of attaining to what we in our days would daub “the ethical treatment of slaves,” not too different from the vegan-vegetarian Pita’s demand concerning food animals.
What usually happens when a civil war is on the offing, is that the signs and the signals, the tall-tales, the insinuations and innuendoes, hardly ever show themselves for what they are, and never appear all together and at once in the same places. Rather, they are always the stand-ins for something else than what they portent. Therefore, whoever seeks to do an interpretative reading on them must at once observe carefully and methodically everything that goes on around him and beyond, constantly asking himself pertinent questions as to what things are harboring— and constantly read them off what are established facts from the relevant history. In other words, he must not limit himself to what the media allows or determines to be the “news,” or news-worthy. The “news” itself oftener being where things go to hide their true meaning, especially these days, it must often be ignored. That is what the art of being a "political tea-leaf reader” consists of.
The “rule” to acquiring some skills at such reading is considering a potential civil war scenario as an endless chessboard across from which sit two Grand-Masters. The pieces there are not really "pieces"; although that is what we are allowed to see them as. But that which we are allowed to see on the chessboard, are in true amassed troops hatching up a potential assault on the enemy. And each square of the board hides a trench; a barricade; a fortification; a false-structure; a battlements complex; underground tunnels; and every façade hides a booby-trapped shallow cave. Likewise, those so-called board squares are in true militarized positions from which attacks will be launched, and the movements from, to, and around them are tactical advances or tactical retrieves or hide-and-seek operations, and ambushes and divertimenti. It is to these ends that no "piece" really moves alone or separated from each other— though that is not what the chessboard lets us see happens.
Divertimenti, I said, because that is where we are now, in Biden America. In this America, while some Republican leaders and some in the rank-and-file in that party talk or produce mostly Twitter commentaries about a prospective, not-yet dated but presumably on-the-offing civil war, it is the Democrats who seem to be preparing for one. At the very least, the Biden Democrats have been taking steps, putting in place policies, and aligning the forces that could play a warring hand on their favor, when and if another civil war breaks up. For it could come to pass that, whenever in the near or not-so-distant future the deep-seated, multifarious and wide-spread divisions rending apart the fabric of society would heat up to their boiling point. In such case, exacerbated by the inability or refusal of the political establishment to overcome the ongoing social, political, and cultural fragmentations, a new civil war could explode in our face; that would happen either by carelessness on one of the sides, or by design on the part of the other.
And it looks like it is the Democrats who seem to have a civil war design, while the Republicans, although not the RINO's, of course, just talk about it. Some of them, anyways. And so, as though on the allegorical chessboard evoked above, it's the Democrats, not the Republicans, who are laying down the case, amassing and arranging the troops, scouting and reconnoitering the terrain, sounding and filling up the positions, setting the traps, and self-confidently waiting for the Republicans to abut themselves into the ambushes set up for them. So methodic and consistently does the Biden administration go about it, that it could be argued that already some policies and new laws have been put in place to that effect. And appointments have been made; institutions, commissions, and mechanisms have been proposed and/or created; speeches and statements have been produced and put forward in press-releases and interviews by the President himself, whose bellicosity could hardly be read as something else than as a glove-off hidden warning of the hell to come. Itemized by their tactical significance toward preparing the launching of a civil war or, what could be the same— preparing for a civil war that could be launched, there are ten clearly defined steps taken by Biden that await only to be mobilized toward the desired effect.
Here there are:
First: Succinctly but unmistakably, in this video from Nov. 9 2022, President Biden established as the long-term strategy of his government never to allow Trump to ever again become president of the nation. That is, Biden is resolved in “demonstrating” to Trump that he will not be allowed back to the White House, even if he run and were to win new elections. Although at the time he made fleeing reference to availing himself of legal means "[by the legitimate effort of the Constitution"], at the same time and in the same breath Biden declares that he himself, that is, personally, will make sure that Trump “does not become president again.” And that was after making a veiled threat against Trump: “We just have to demonstrate to him that, he will not take power, if he does run.” Although it’s clear from the context that Biden does not say “if he does win,” that is, Trump, it is unusual for a sitting president to make a personal commitment to preventing his opponent to winning an election. Now that Trump has been indicted and arrested and being processed by the courts there can be but negligible doubts none of that is happening independently of the personal will of the sitting President. Legally incapacitating Trump to run is the main tack of a well-structured, pin-pointed strategy that cannot countenance failure of any kind or at any step. Therefore, Biden is running again is the second tack in his strategic finality of keeping Trump from winning at the next national elections.
Second: As the next tack of such a "Never-Again-Trump" long-term plan, Biden has been quick on his feet, stuffing his Cabinet with a viciously extremist woke personnel that, in the in-your-face bragging vulgarity of the White House Press spokesperson, "for the first time in history" is composed of a majority made of minorities of women, feminists of all the sexes and genders they claim there are (187?), blacks, and-and-out and closeted homosexuals, "transsexuals," so-called transgenders, and so-called non-binary elements. These are all of them political hires; their most qualifying qualifications are their loyalty to their lefty ideology and to the flag of their sexual and/racial advocacy.
Third: Biden and his allies, both in the Democrat and Republican parties, and his supporters among elite groups elsewhere, have since early in his presidency made patent that disarming the American population, thereby hollowing out the Second Amendment even while refraining from mounting a direct, overt challenge to it, is central to a political strategy that would have contemplated hedging "MAGA domestic terrorists" toward a civil war. Otherwise said, only a party that would be buckling itself up for the eventuality of a civil war would be so proactive in seeking to disarm the population. As it happens, that is an expedient approach to provoking an adequate situation to which triggering a civil war, or to exacerbating a situation to which a civil war could be the most fitting response. Such a strategic tack is being carried out by the Biden government in a historical moment of overt political division throughout the nation, in which precisely the "MAGA" Trump followers Biden who daubs "domestic terrorists" happen to be the staunchest defenders of the constitutional right the citizenry has to bear arms— and who for that very reason, are uncompromising in upholding the Constitution. Their true political appellative is "Constitutionalists," not terrorists.
Fourth: Just as in the name of "diversity" the nation has ended up with a ghetto government Cabinet, so have the institutions in charge of national security been stuffed with race-sex-gender-based ideologues, in the name of "inclusion." Claiming its political appointees to belong to a diverse array of "minorities," they in fact compose an institutional ideological majority. What erstwhile were impartial, pointedly professional organizations, like the FBI and other three-letter entities in the business of national security, have fast been converted into ideologico-political prosecutorial offices whose main programs consist in enforcing the Democrat fixation on keeping the "MAGA domestic terrorists" under watch and in check. They are well-disposed to harassing and even raiding the houses and properties of their leaders, and to take their weapons from their followers, under spurious pretexts.
Fifth: Everywhere that it has been viable to do, the judiciary and the higher command of military echelon has been turned to "justice warrior" or to "social justice" activists of proven anti-Trump credentials. So, the politicization of the judiciary and the law, on the one hand, and even if less obviously so, of the military, is now a fact already bearing its fruits: the continued denunciation, threat, prosecution and persecution of Trump's followers— and of Trump himself.
Sixth: The Biden appointed authorities across the country, with the explicit and/or implicit support of Republican Biden's allies, and of Democrats everywhere that they have constituted themselves into "the power that be," have consistently been countenancing, as though a matter of policy, the continued threat to public peace by blacktivists and "inner-city" citizens, and have thus as a matter of fact implicitly encouraged rioting, looting in the form of "crash-and-grab," and the thievery, vandalization, and destruction of public and private property. They have also by the same means implicitly encouraged the anarcho-disruptive militant activities of the ANTIFAS liberal "warriors," and have publicly taken side in favor of the latter whenever there has been confrontations or altercations between the "justice and social warriors" self-identified as ANTIFAS, and "MAGA" Trump sympathizers, which the Biden FBI and the Justice Department have designated as "domestic terrorists."
Seventh: In what can be read as both an implicit and explicit invitation by Biden and his government, unrestrained, unregulated, and uncontrolled illegal immigration has become the undeclared official protocol for foreigners to land on the American soil. By some counting, about five million or maybe more people have entered illegally into the country. None of the agencies or government appointees and in charge can claim to know who these people are or where exactly they come from. Although it's generally acknowledged the baulk of those five million or thereabout hail from various Latin-American countries, nobody can tell where the rest of them is from, nor where precisely they took off in the countries where it is assumed they are from, or if they arrived from other countries previous to arriving to, say, Mexico, before crossing the borders int the US of A. That suggests that to all effect and consequences— for all that is known about that peaceful invasion not necessarily for peaceful purposes, the US of A could be giving safe harbor to thousands upon thousands of career criminal; professional gangsters and mobsters; trained foreign fighters and agents; for-hire hitmen and henchmen of both genders, a great number of them male homosexuals. It has been amply noticed by the independent media that the larger numbers of illegal immigrants recently freely pouring through the open borders have been adult males, with neither wives or children as they land. Although only anecdotally, cities across the country that daubed themselves “immigrant sanctuary” have experienced an increase of homosexual sighting among recent immigrants.
Eighth: Together with banking and financial policies that set an arbitrary cap on the amount of moneys citizens are allowed to withdraw within a given cycle, and which also set a cap to the amount of cash they are allowed to deposit directly in their accounts, taxation policies an initiatives have been put in place to issue firearms to tax agents, a new tax police is being created army of (the number is set on the hundred thousands) training in physical restraining, and in the wielding of lethal weapons is being provided them.
Ninth: Resorting to the same ruse of hollowing out the Second Amendment without however challenging the Constitution head-on, there might soon be in the hand of the government a way to eviscerate the First Amendment without needing to make any statement to that effect. That is what the bill already introduced to Congress, referred to by its underwriters as the "Restrictive Act," will seek to accomplish. "Restrictive" is of course a euphemism, and the very fact that the Democrat and Republican Senators authoring the bill (Mr. Warner Mr. Thune, Ms. Baldwin, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Moran, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Sullivan, Mrs. Gillibrand, Ms. Collins, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Romney, and Mrs. Capito) needed to resort to an euphemistic formula says it all about not only the Orwellian essence of its ulterior aims but also about the proto-fascist nature of this newly-minted, sneakily nazi-Stalinist bill. For it does not really "restrict"; it has been conceived to as a lead to the suppression of freedom of speech in the internet and in all other electronic means of communication.
The "Restrictive Act" is in fact deceivingly dangerous a tool as only Hitler or Stalin would have fashioned if any of them had be around in this electro-technological age. It authorizes the most intrusive, far-reaching, convolutedly Procrustean wireless surveillance on unsuspecting and even innocent citizens. Just like the Espionage Act of 1914 before it, it has or requires a very low burden of proof; it allows for the government to fabricate "evidence" against a target as it goes; and it makes it easy to be found in "violation" of. The desired result is thus achieved of making it practically impossible for anybody not to become at least a "Person of Interest" who uses the internet for any other activity than to watch kitty videos, porn, or selfies of their own asses on OnlyFans, for instance. On the other hand, once targeted by it, the "restrictive" act shows its real ugly face by making virtually impossible to mount a successful legal defense against it. And yet, unlike the Espionage Act, the "Restrictive" one is far deeper and ampler in scope. Vis-a-vis it, a citizen need not be a spy: any citizen can be made into one by the law, and then be prosecuted by it. In short, the "Restrictive Act" is a repressive instrument with legal, political, prosecutorial and persecutory applications all at once.
Tenth: Bringing to full cycle what began with, and at first implemented by the mainstream media in deference to the "First Black President," Barack Obama, the Biden administration has gone the extra mile in recruiting the news business establishment as a reliable, biased ally. A case unique maybe in the whole history of the nation, the American mainstream media both covers up and shill for the Democrat government. While it demonstrates itself highly efficient in denouncing, "exposing," exaggerating, magnifying, and outrightly lying in all matters that pertains or relate to Trump and his MAGA followers, hardly if ever does the media investigate, question, denounce, or criticize the hand-off, laissez faire attitude of the Biden administration toward, for example, massive illegal immigration or the rioting, looting, crash-and-grab, the almost routine attempt against public peace wherever blacks lead the charge. As a matter of course, the media consistently shows itself to be partial to and biased in all matters concerning the identitarian minority groups which the Biden government behaves as a representative or bespoke-person for—blacks, illegal immigrants, "transsexuals," "transgenders," and homosexuals, although not necessarily in this order. Demonstrably, the American mainstream media is every bit the propaganda arm of the Biden government as much as the Biden government is the cheerleader and spokesperson for all and any of the "identities" above.
There you have it. These are the ten political, legal, ideological, and propagandistic pieces already tactically positioned on the national chessboard. They are already ready to serve their pinpointed strategic finality at the chosen time that a civil war would be started by the government on its opponents, or whenever the government would be successful in getting its opponents (the opposition) to take steps toward a situation that could be best countered by a civil war.
The question you would like to ask me is: What kind of event (s) could be catalyzed into the launching of a civil war by the Democrats? Any one of these three, or a combination thereof, could potentially be it. That could get started by any of the following events:
A) As contemplated in the strategic finality of keeping Trump out of the White House by any “constitutional” means outlined by Biden in the video before he even got sworn in: 1. The government presses on with getting Trump indicted in those States yet to formally charge him with a civil, State, or Federal crime. 2. A State that has already indicted Trump (New York), finds him guilty of a civil but not of a federal crime; yet, it also finds the legal antecedents to justify sentencing him to prison time, with or without additional penalty. Or, as it could also be, the court returns no prison time, but imposes on him clipping financial damages, of the kind that would make him running for office hard to overcome.
B) 1. Trump is acquitted of civil charges in one State, but gets sentenced in another, where State laws forbids candidates on his situation running for office. 2. Trump gets acquitted of civil charge in one State, but is found guilty of State laws violation in another. In this case, he could still run for office, but not in the State whose laws he has been found to be in violation of. (That would be a "constitutional effort" by Biden, to prevent a Trump 2024 victory. 3. Trump gets indicted on a civil charge; but, because he remains legally qualified to run again in 2024, the technicalities are found to order him to prison, and on top of that, hefty, and again, clipping financial punishment are imposed on him— or either/or.
Any of the sketches above are likely scenarios. A hypothetical example: in any of the two potential but highly plausible scenarios above Trump sympathizers and followers, whether MAGA or not, would have been provoked to react in accordance with the gravity of the situation created by the Biden courts. Next, they are found by the Biden government and the Biden media to have "overreacted." That is, Trump followers and sympathizers would have reacted with an intensity that the government would be well-placed and prepared to exploit, making it serve its well-tuned strategy, alluded to above. Barring any effort from some wings inside the government or the military, that would do it. We would very likely have another civil war in our hands.
However, although less likely, it is also possible that: 1. All charges against Trump get dropped, both civil and criminal cases getting dismissed, letting him free to make a 2024 run for office. If such were the case, it can be expected the Biden administration to; a) find the way to come up with new accusations against Trump in the hope of them leading to new charges, bogus as they might be. The aim here would be to keep him distracted from campaigning by getting him tied up in the courts; or b) let him run for office while accelerating the conditions and shaping the situation to stir up problems serious enough as to lead to a civil war. That would be if Trump wins the elections under conditions in which the results cannot be challenged, questioned, or denied— however much Biden would have tried to prevent it.
In such case, whether still being the government (before the transition would take place), or afterwards, from the opposition (immediately after the transition takes place) that most decisive and unique chapter of American history might likely reinsert itself in our national life. We just might live to rename the American Civil War of the nineteenth century the “First America Civil War.” To understand at a glance the reference, it would suffice to mentally revisit old notes on American history. There, one rediscovers some of the writings on slavery which do not fail to call attention to the role played through those dark times by some sexual practices and sexual interests in the relationship of the Southerner slave-owners, the originators of American Democrat politics with their slaves. As a matter of historical fact, complicated as such relationship was (but precisely because it was indeed that complicated), understanding it can shed much needed light on the present historic moment, namely, on why we might be moving toward the Second American Civil War— brought to you by the Democrats, again.
We could gain the kind of understanding needed here, if we were to ask whether there is in our own days any social, racial, sexual— or in two words, any identitarian demographic the Democrats of today have an especial relationship with that might in any specific way resemble or evoke the kind of relationship the Confederate Democrats of the South had with their slaves back then. Such a pragmatic approach can lead to rediscovering without much ado the historical reason for the First American Civil War to have happened. But first, the thought must perish that the war was the direct outcome of Lincoln's struggle to set free the slaves, or to end the slavery system. For, it was far from it.
As some historians have long ago suggested, if the relationship between masters and slave in the South were a bit complicated, they were also a lot messy. For, the slaves were not only the means of assuring subsistence and material wellbeing for the master and his family. The practice of the masters getting, as Will Smith would put it, "giggy" with their slaves, was neither so unusual nor too much of a secret. That was well-known even by the Northerners, whom were said by the Southerners to oppose slavery for no other reason than that they could not get from the slaves they didn't own what the latter did, they being slaveowners. Thus, as an addition to the virtually "forced-free" labor forced embodied by the slaves, such labor force was the literal embodiment of the means for the master to satisfy or placate his sexual or erotic urge. Understandably, at least from a statistically standpoint, given that in those times the number of white women in the colonies was significantly smaller than the number of men of any race. We leave the Natives out of this account, since they lived out of easy reach for whoever they didn’t want to get “giggy” with.
So, how singular indeed such relationship was! It should here be noticed in passing that interracial male-on-male homosexual relation, or "bromantic" attachments, were not so uncommonly heard of, even if as gossip— but there are plenty bibliographical references available. There were then two sides, each one as powerful as the other in master-slave relations, which can be said to have been double-binding also in a literal sense.
It was on account of this complex, double-binding relationship that the master, always a Democrat, was dissuaded from doing away with slavery. To some extent, it can then be said it because of love as much as because of work and profit that, far from being well-disposed to freeing his slaves, the master wanted, needed, sought, and fought to preserve as much as to expand, the slavery system. Thus, the Southern Democrats sought to bring slavery first to the northern states that did not have slaves but which helped slaves to escape the South, namely New England. And they also sought to acquire new territories wherever available, where new slavery farms could be set up toward the biological reproduction of the slave population. Obviously then, it was the resolve of the Southern Democrats to expand slavery which in the end led them to start the First American Civil War, which they lost.
And here we are again today. The Democrat again is the Party that maintains a very singular relationship with the minority groups of our time. Of course, neither of our minority groups live in enslavement; all to the contrary. But it is nonetheless an undeniable truth that under a guise or another, and in one form or another, all the minority groups, although some more than others, constitute a sort of collective love object of the Democrat elites. Again: it is not that the Democrat Party keep slaves; for it does not. It is that as the Southern Democrats of the past, the Democrats of the present also maintain a very telling and even titillating rapport with some of those groups. For example, with homosexuals, which it renamed "gays" for better interrelations. And today’s Democrats enthusiastically maintain an even more titillating rapport with the statistical micro-numerical quantity of so-called transsexuals and transgenders. These demographics are so small in their numbers that all of them together couldn’t say an election one way or another. So being it, one is justified in asking why that is.
Yet, one cannot help noticing that, not unlike the Southern Democrats slave-owners, the Democrats of today too spare no effort, pull no punches, and push as hard as the Confederate Democrats did to expand and to grow the numbers of their chosen minority. And again, it is not either that the Democrats are again seeking new territories to expand and to grow the numbers of homosexuals and so-called transsexuals and transgenders. But from Biden down, that Party pushes really hard to force the practices derived from those sex-based "identities" into the minds, hearts, and whenever permitted, into the bodily orifices of Americans of men's and women's, of course, and also into the orifices of any other sexual quantities in-between. In other words, Biden's Party appears to be bent, or at any rate, prepared to place the expansion and growth of transsexualism, transgenderism, and homosexualism at the service of its endgame strategy of keeping Trump from again capturing the White House.
Very much like the slaveowners Southern Democrats of the past, the Democrats of the present might under a given circumstance decide the preservation of their especial relationship with their chosen minority to be worth a Second American Civil War. Even before he stepped into office and ever since, Biden has demonstrated he will stop at nothing to get his way. So, there is no reason to underestimate him— or, by the same token, to discount or dismiss this post on account of what it attempts to shed light on.
One would wise to bear in mind that (the way things are looking for Trump right now), the Biden courts just might create the ideal circumstance for him to show the world what else he is capable of. In the end, it would satisfy historic logic that a Union that formally came into being from the First American Civil War could end up in a Second. That would be America coming full-circle