Friday, June 25, 2021

UPDATED: Is America Fracturing?

My Dutch friend sent me a link to a longish piece at Zerohedge that raises once again the issue of civil war in America. The piece begins with a lengthy and very interesting analysis of where Turkey stands vis a vis NATO, the EU, Russia, and China's Belt and Road project. But halfway through the author shifts gears. But the theme is similar--just as the old Cold War alliances are shifting and even fracturing, so too in America:

New Alliances Forming In The US...Civil War Is On The Table

The focus of the article is singleminded. The one issue raised is The Border, although state finances are drawn into that mix. Basically here's how the author sees a civil war developing.

We've seen that Texas and Arizona are very much concerned with the flood of illegals pouring across the border with Mexico, and are trying to address the situation with their own resources. More striking than this open conflict with the Zhou regime's policy of attacking American sovereignty, however, was the recent announcement by Florida governor DeSantis that Florida would send law enforcement resources to assist "fellow Americans"

“Helping our fellow Americans in their moment of need is always the right thing to do. The governors of other states have sent resources to Florida in the past to help respond to natural disasters. With the federal government unable or unwilling to enforce our laws and secure our border, Florida is ready to step up to the plate and do our part.”

“Florida is stepping up to the plate. Texas and Arizona, you’ve got a storm, and we’re coming to help you.” – Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivey

Securing the borders and enforcing the laws of a country are the most fundamental responsibilities of any national government. In effect, what is being recognized here is that our federal government has in a major way abdicated those key responsibilities. For individual states to assert that they are taking over functions that have historically been exercised by the federal government is stunning in its implications. We probably haven't seen the end of this, although the hope is that perhaps Election 2022 may resolve this. Our author, however, sees this as possibly leading to an actual civil war if the federal government responds as expected by attempting to punish these states financially:

Here’s what happens next:

  • The Biden admin scraps wall building and border enforcement (already taking place)
  • Texas takes it upon themselves to step in and stop illegal immigratioin (already taking place)
  • This causes Biden’s handlers to get angry, forcing them to wake him from a nap
  • Now we have Florida helping Texas… oh, and Arizona as well. It is inevitable now that Biden will stumble out onto a podium somewhere with a blistering verbal attack “Krzwepilians bgterrr opswillvst” or something to that effect against the 3 musketeers, and then the Federal government will begin taking steps to reign in these recalcitrant upstarts. Wait for it!

I think we’re not far off the Federal government using their power to cut funding in these states.

This is obviously quite speculative, but the possibility does exist. If that should develop a response as the author envisions is also possible:

With their funding cut, the states will say, “Hold on, this is a two way street,” and subsequently refuse to send tax receipts to DC. And BOOM! We are into a civil war. It may take some time to develop, and there may be a bunch of things that get fought over and ruled upon, but when you boil it down to the rawness of it all, there is an ever increasing risk or, dare I say, inevitability to it that individual states say, “The hell with you lot,” and seek to go their separate ways. In theory this can happen without too much stress, but in reality Marxists never back down, so it won’t be pretty.

He goes on to point out the wildly differing financial conditions of Red states versus most Blue states. This type of fault line is one which could definitely aggravate divisions on other matters, such as The Border. Here is a summary similar to others I'm sure you've seen (I've edited out all detail except for the debt ratio):

States With the Most Debt

  1. New York - a debt ratio of 273.8%.
  1. New Jersey - debt ratio is 441.7%.
  1. Illinois - a debt ratio of 468.7%.
  1. Massachusetts - liabilities are at 305.5% of total assets.
  1. California - a debt ratio of 120.5%. 

States With the Least Debt

  1. Texas - debt ratio is 62.5%.
  1. Florida - debt ratio is 40.9%.
  1. Alaska - third-lowest debt and the third-highest net position.
  1. North Carolina - a debt ratio of 30%.
  1. Tennessee - a debt ratio of 17.3%.

The point as I see it with regard to these financial fitness numbers is twofold: there are issues beyond the border that divide the states, and nothing gets people's attention more quickly than pocketbook issues like, Who's gonna pay for all that debt? Further, the very real geographical divide is also apparent. Just as importantly, but what should be apparent after a moment's reflection, is that the five Blue states are dominated politically by a few large cities, but in almost every case contain large, productive Red tracts that are geographically contiguous.

I suggest, however, that there are other flashpoints that are also becoming ever more apparent as the Zhou regime relentlessly chooses to infuriate the normal parts of the country by pushing wildly unpopular policies—gun control, open borders, anti-white indoctrination in the schools, promotion of sexual curiosities, on and on. People are getting angry.

Again, however, beyond given policies, crime has become a major concern in ways that we haven't seen in nearly 30 years. A lot has changed in those 30 years, and one major change is that the legacy media no longer has a stranglehold on information. People are finding out about the policies they detest, and the violence of life in America's big--and very Blue--cities is on full and graphic display.

Interestingly, The Atlantic has a relatively perceptive article in the wake of Zhou's attempt to give crime the weather treatment--talking about it but not doing anything about it. As the article notes, that approach is unlikely to prove satisfactory to the country at large--nor to the voting public in particular. There's nothing particularly nuanced about the title:

Baiden Doesn’t Have an Answer to America’s Crime Spike

The president has few levers he can pull on to reduce the country’s murder rate.

Doesn't have an answer--full stop. Not only that, but the author in this very liberal magazine doesn't really attempt to conceal why Zhou "doesn't have an answer." It's not because of some outrageous or unprecedented complexity of the problem, it's about prog politics, pure and simple:

... the president has few levers to affect crime quickly, and faces political hazards in every direction. Biden has championed police reform, and many progressive Democrats have pushed for sharp reductions in police budgets.

The result was an unsatisfying announcement yesterday, delivered by a meandering Baiden and Attorney General Merrick Garland, about new federal efforts to fight gun violence.

The obvious thing to do is to hire more police, although the author carefully avoids mentioning that police are quitting their jobs in droves--in precisely the most affected cities. Commendably, he does note that this issue, too, is driven by politics--ignore the mystification of "what drives crime":

What drives crime—both up, as is the case now, and down, as occured from the ’90s until recently—is not well understood. Money can be used to, for example, hire more police officers, but training cops takes time, and besides, many departments are already struggling to fill open, funded positions, according to a survey from the Police Executive Research Forum.

Writing checks to hire cops might be politically untenable for Baiden. Although the president pointedly distanced himself from Democrats who have called for defunding the police, a huge increase in federal funding to departments would likely spark an insurrection on his left flank, ...

Yes, departments are struggling to hire--although the reasons are left unspoken, since they too implicate Dems. Note too that the author hints at his real concern: time. It takes time to hire and train police--even if you can find qualified hires--and November 2022 is rapidly approaching.

The problem is, the author says, that "six in 10 Americans view crime in the country as a major issue." That's a bit disingenuous, because the study he cites--which was co-sponsored by The Atlantic--doesn't just say that crime is one of many major issues. It's major issue number one. So much so that of the first five issues (out of ten) four could be said to be crime related. That strongly suggests that crime is far and away the biggest issue for ordinary Americans. Another interesting aspect is the contrast between #1 "Crime in the US" and #10 "Crime in your community." What that suggests to me is that most people feel safe in their own community, but they're very much aware of the crime problem in other communities--big Blue cities--and fear that that crime problem could come to them. There are nuances to the demographic breakdown of the study, but there's precious little good news for Dems. And so the author concludes:

Baiden has been careful not to overpromise, warning, “There is no one answer that fits everything.” That’s certainly the case, but it’s unlikely to absolve the Baiden administration in the public’s mind, during what may be a very violent summer ahead.

The other major issues--CRT, anti-white indoctrination, the war on normality and especially on women--are and have been for the last year or more on full display across the country. We're beginning to see major pushback at the grass roots level, especially with regard to government run schools. Most people send their kids off to these schools and avoid knowing too much about what goes on in them. But what goes on is being forced on parents' attention now, and they're very unhappy about it.

Again, over the last few decades the military has been considered a trusted institution. That's changing as more and more people become aware of the Left's attempts to take over and make over the military. Tucker Carlson did a brilliant take down of the despicable Mark Milley's attempt to defend CRT indoctrination of the military--especially the officer corps--in the name of education. Basically Milley claimed that, in order to understand our communist enemies, he has gone to the sources and read Marx and Lenin and Mao. Therefore, he disingenuously maintains, it only makes sense to read CRT authors in order to understand "white rage", which he says was behind the attempt of our grandparents to "assault this building and try to overturn the Constitution of the United States of America" on January 6. Tucker pounced. Why, he asks, doesn't the general go to the sources to understand "white rage", just as he did to understand communism? Why go to third party sources, the CRT ideologues? Why not read "white supremacist" authors? Check out Tucker's brutal takedown:

Mark Milley is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He didn’t get the job because he’s brilliant, or brave, or because the people who know him respect him. He isn’t and they definitely don’t. Milley got the job because he’s obsequious. He knows who to suck up to, and he’s happy to do it. Feed him a script and he’ll read it. Yesterday, the man in charge of the nation’s weapons, explaining that he’s working to understand a concept called "White rage:"

MILLEY: I do think it's important, actually, for those of us in uniform to be open-minded and be widely read. And it is important that we train and we understand. I want to understand White rage, and I'm white, I want to understand it. So what is it that caused thousands of people to assault this building and try to overturn the Constitution of the United States of America? What caused that? I want to find that out, I want to maintain an open mind here and I do want to analyze it. It’s important that we understand that because our soldiers, airmen, sailors, marines come from the American people, so it is important that the leaders now and in the future do understand it.

CARLSON: It's hard to believe that man wears a uniform. He’s that unimpressive. Notice he never defined White rage, and we should know what it is. What is White rage? Well, like drapetomania, it’s one of those diseases that only affect people with certain melanin levels. It’s a race-specific illness. That’s what Mark Milley has learned from reading about it. That’s why he’s making his soldiers read about it too. They need to know.

MILLEY: I’ve read Mao Zedong. I've read Karl Marx. I've read Lenin. That doesn't make me a communist. So what is wrong with understanding, having some situational understanding about the country for which we are here to defend? And I personally find it offensive that we are accusing the United States military, our general officers, our commissioned, our noncommissioned officers, of being "woke."

CARLSON: So Mark Milley reads Mao to understand Maoism, he reads communists to understand communism. But, interestingly, he doesn’t read white supremacists to understand white supremacy. Why not? Go to the source. He’d be fired for that instantly, and that’s the one thing he doesn’t want.

All of that feeds into most of the other issues that are roiling our communities. What is key, is that one by one the institutions that people trusted as a bulwark against chaos are being revealed as, at best, run by feckless time servers or, worse, co-opted by radically ignorant Leftists. They've taken over the courts, Congress, our schools, the churches, and finally the military. That's the danger point--where are normal people to turn? Are there no institutions to stand up for them? That is the kind of situation, the feelings of alienation, that can spark revolutionary movements.

Incredibly, at this point in our history the political establishment--all three branches of government--saw fit to insert the barely compos mentis Zhou into the White House. For examples of how truly he--but, more importantly, his highly educated handlers--are out of touch with the country they claim to rule, check out this article:

Baiden Goes Over the Slide With Incredibly Offensive Comment Plus More Confusion

Briefly, Zhou first confused the Tuskegee Airmen with the victims of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study--or, more likely, never knew there was a distinction. Then he gave us to understand that Hispanics--to whom he applied the offensive Leftist term Latinx--were refusing the Big Pharma injections because they're all a bunch of illegals who are afraid of being deported:

I suppose there's good news in this display, embarrassing as it must be for those who remember what America once was.

Unfortunately, the suspicion that must occur to more and more people is that, just possibly,  nothing can be done. to fix things. The rot has penetrated too deeply and there are no fixes that our constitutional order is any longer up to implementing. "Anything that might work is politically impossible, and anything that is politically possible won’t work. Cosmetics, moral preening, lowering of standards, party politics—none of these will fix the country. ...  Instead, the elites will double down on what isn’t working and nothing will get better, except the monthly sales at gun shops."

UPDATE: Re the military. Just to show that the military is either unfamiliar with the Constitution of the United State or doesn't actually give a rip ...

Where was Barry when the Left was calling Trump "literally Hitler" and a tool of Putin? He was right there with the Left. And to show that our generals aren't very smart--not smart enough to understand that their past Tweets are searchable--Barry McCaffrey on Donald Trump. "Who talks like this about a public official?" Yep, Barry does.


  1. Where is the quote on "Anything that might work is...." from?

    On TX etc. keeping $$ from the regime, how much can be stopped, given that so mush $$ goes to DC, via income tax withholding takes from every paycheck?

    1. Exactly my thought, too. Secession of that sort would be very messy. I suppose states could order companies to stop withholding.

    2. Or perhaps States could indemnify people/companies who decide to withhold their federal taxes. The story needs updating as events of the past five years have added huge possibilities and even necessities. But anyway, some of what you talked about is in story form at

  2. I would not say that America is fracturing now.

    However, if the Democrats maintain or even increase their memberships in the US Senate and US House of Representatives in the 2022 elections, then the political situation will deteriorate very quickly.

    Aside from the question of whether the Democrats will resort to election fraud again, Democrat victories in the Congressional elections will demonstrate that a growing portion of the electorate wants to socialize our country.

    The portion of the electorate that values personal freedom and a free-market economy is declining. That portion literally is dying off because of old age.

    I fantasize that the 2022 and 2024 will demonstrate a huge political backlash against Democrat politics, but I am becoming more pessimistic. We might already be caught in an unescapable downward spiral.

    1. "Democrat victories in the Congressional elections will demonstrate that a growing portion of the electorate wants to socialize our country.

      The portion of the electorate that values personal freedom and a free-market economy is declining. That portion literally is dying off because of old age."

      What are you basing on, Mike? Polls? Surveys? Gut feeling? Party Media? Is it possible this is a propaganda point we have unthinkingly absorbed?

  3. One good development in recent days is that we all can recognize and rejoice that Merrick Garland did not become a US Supreme Court justice.

    We sure dodged a bullet when that nomination was blocked.

    1. He seems a shocking mediocrity--at best.

    2. Doesn't this seem to be true of so many of these collectivist stooges? For every clever one that gets to the top there are 10 that are mental midgets whose primary qualification is mouthing the ever changing party line.

  4. Glad to be of service. Thought he touched on the easiest way the whole thing might unfold.

    McCaffrey is obviously not too bright: he misspelled “Columbia” as in “Columbia University”. Now we know what’s wrong with Milley, just another leftist product of the so-called “Ivy League”.

    I’ve said it before but it bears repeating: if you’re upset with SC picks - including Trumps - then a GOP nominee/POTUS has got to turn away from the “Ivy League” schools. Enough already, both parties are drawing from the same well.

    How much difference can there really be?


    1. Justice Amy went to Rhodes College (Memphis) and Notre Dame Law.

    2. Isn’t Notre Dame considered “Ivy League”? Think it is.


    3. The distinction may be increasingly meaningless if Ivy League products are the ones teaching in the schools.

      That's how it is in my profession.

  5. From just a meta-view, it is hard for me to imagine a "revolution" among the states in this country toward the federal government, regardless of what happens. I say that for three reasons: 1) The dependence on the fed by the states, and the whole "pork" system that rules our national politics. 2) Many of us conservative traditionalists are of an age where we are or will become dependent on SS and/or pensions. How many of us will or can give that up when push comes to shove? 3) How many of the Millenials and Zoomers will fold when the feds promise and actualize student loan forgiveness?

    The states as individual entities have no means to deal with the national debt, pension fund obligations, the teachers' unions, federal employee unions, etc. Where is all of this money currently coming from? You guessed it. Who will rebel at the cost of not getting all that money? You guessed it.

    1. Likely so, but, as if on cue, You Know Who has posted with:
      < Extreme federalism is, local sheriffs, constitutional officers, rebuking unconstitutional decrees, and refusing to comply with federal agencies.
      Extreme federalism is executed, along the same concept of “sanctuary cities” or “sanctuary states” defying federal law.... >

    2. @diss

      Not so sure. We may need to think outside the box and question our assumptions.

      The federal pork you say states are so dependent upon... What exactly can Texas, for example, not live without? Medicare/medicaid/ welfare subsidies are by far the biggest transfer to states.

      Even so such fed payments are only about 1/3 of state revenues. Could Texas come up with other solutions for these welfare programs? Many of these programs come with massive strings attached that can cost states almost as much as the subsidy. Could they find other revenue sources?

      SS income and (federal) pensions? SS may be dead in 5-10 years anyway as the fund is broke or nearly broke now. Same w federal pensions from a government 30 trillion dollars in debt and risking financial collapse. Again it may be possible for states to come up with a better solution than these bankrupt programs, especially if they find a way to divert SS/FICA withholdings to state coffers.

      Your third point is hard to understand. Are you saying that the feds will somehow buy off youngsters with debt relief? If so, how does that affect state assertions of sovereignty?

      No, I don't think any of these are insuperable obstacles to states. The more daunting one is political leaders w the will and courage to risk being labeled a modern Jeff Davis and every other hyperbolic epithet from the press. And the larger threat of corporations leaving the state under threat of boycotts and seizures by the feds in blue states. Corporate taxes matter.

      Ultimately it's hard to see any state doing much unless the feds crossed a true, red line. What that may be, no idea.

      Too fer

  6. Sorry this is so long, but it's got some good points.

    I'm not in agreement on the logic behind the civil war theory. I've done some analysis on that subject and where it hits a few points that are prevalent it's naive over all.

    Immigration would never spark this, nor would sending a handful LEOs from other states. We've had thousands of national guardsman sent to Texas by state governors in the past 15 years and on more than one occasion.

    Nothing went boom...

    IMHO, Texas is showboating on immigration, declare a state of emergency and put the guard into place again DeSantis is trying not to be outdone and in keeping up with Abbot and past Rick Scott manauvers using LEOs in place of the guardsmen. Note Florida has the 3rd highest population of illegals and yet not a finger lifted here to combat that. He could tell Biden to quit bussing and flying them in but doesn't. Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts is also doing the same thing, sending LEOs to TX last week.

    Betcha Ricketts, DeSantis and Abbott all run for president.

    The debit ratio by state is something else I've hit on in the past. What's more critical is the dependencies of federal grant and program dollars annually to state operating budgets, not the debit otherwise. No state is financially independent enough to operate without those dollars in their budgets for very long.

    Those dollars are also great leashes to keep state subservient. If any state just simply stood up and stopped accepting those bribes and got their houses in financial order it would send a big message to DC!

    As stated in other comments, the idea of tax receipts hurting the fed (at all) or sparking all of that is just blighted.

    If Texas, Florida and others seriously wanted to hurt the feds their ammo lays within the energy sectors. Specifically within oil, fuel and natural gas production and logistics. If you put embargoes on the pipelines in the right 2-3 states incrementally in rotation you would send a serious message. Ye who strikes out in that venture better be wise about it. A day or two too far would put the whole nation into a unrecoverable financial state and you would own the death of millions from starvation and disease.

    Arizona may be independent enough, the two political parties are very weak there. However Florida, Texas and most other red states are beholden to their perspective parties and so subservient to the Fed that none will even exercise their basic 10 amendment rights let alone use harsh (vs semi harsh) words towards the Washington establishment.

    Lastly... I'm uncertain why anyone would believe the majority of red states would be so offended by Biden. A half dozen of them are currently engaged in protecting his adminstration in feverishly burying voter fraud.

    Zerohedge seems to be pretending to not know a lot of things about finance and politics.

  7. Folks it wasn't just slavery that pushed the South to secede in 1861. It was just like these days.....overpowering Feds ruling like they have a mandate. The South( Florida, Texas etc) will follow their own traditions and fight for their people. OK....follow the money. Money collected in those days was in the form of tariffs ( the only sources of money for the Feds) were sent to the Treasury and disproportionately distributed to the states......heavy to northern states with representatives. Bartering products ...cotton, etc....were exported aboard....returned to the states with a tariff for an uneven financial transaction. So whats this got to do with today....same deal...omnipresent Feds with unlevel playing ground....same game, uneven justice system, financial distribution etc.. Thats why you are going to see more Governors sticking together as we're seeing with the Troopers from Florida and Nebraska sent to the Texas border when the Feds should be taking care of the matter. Finally, I always wondered what our ancestors were thinking in I know.

  8. Regarding military and constitution ...

    Uhhh the UCMJ ... not very constitutional friendly.

  9. Devilman - Great Point! And on top of that revoking Guilani's law license - way deep into Banana Republic Territory.

    Lastly... I'm uncertain why anyone would believe the majority of red states would be so offended by Biden. A half dozen of them are currently engaged in protecting his adminstration in feverishly burying voter fraud.

    1. @ Ray,

      Thank you, I thought I was long winded but I've always been a big proponent of the States being our only legit answer to our federal issue, war being one of dozen drastic but "valid" solutions.

      On Giuliani, I honestly can't defend him. We all believe there was fraud, know there was fraud in come cases and are finding more every day. Some of his comments on PA were dead wrong and when proven wrong he doubled down on the stupid. He knows the difference between speaking clearly when speculating or offering opinion vs stating speculation as fact. Now he's being held accountable and he isn't the only one that's going to get dragged through mud for it. (We all are)


      Early on in the election fiasco putting Rudy in a court room in Michigan was nails across a chalkboard. Especially after not ligating for almost 2+ decades. I've no idea what their legal team was thinking. (Typical Trump like staffing choice) But Rudy's mess he left behind in Michigan is one of the reasons why Deperno cant any get traction there now.

      To be fair I've never liked Giuliani because of his drama queening. If the man says "Rico" one more time I may shoot him myself. I may also just be old enough remember him being a neocon shill of big government, the police state, IC, FBI, CIA, DOJ and the post 9/11 Bush years... Blah! He is no friend of liberty or the constitution, never has been.

      Now that I'm thinking about it, I guess there are a lot of reasons I dislike the guy... lol

      Giuliani and several others (Woods, Lindel, Hoft Brothers) went friggen nuts (and still are) on spewing even the most outlandishly insane theories and some of them known to be wrong in the moment. In my opinion stating fact, or as Mark has pointed out several times "being accurate" is more important than propaganda to us.

      For myself, It's hypocritical to loathe guys like Michael Avenatti for being BS propaganda but then cheer or defend a juxtaposed version of of him just because it's designed to bolster my political beliefs.

      No one is perfect but Im trying to do better, and so should they.

    2. "nails across a chalkboard", etc.
      Can you steer us to 1+ sources, which do justice to what you say about Rudy's conduct here?

  10. What would happen to the country if one day DC and its leadership(?) and beauracracy just disappeared? Would the states remain together, would some combine? Would the Constitution be followed, by any, by all?
    Just a thought exercise with it a more than zero possibility of occurring at some time.


    1. @0311

      Now there's a gedanken experiment that I would love to see actualized.

  11. We can all agree that we live in tumultuous times, more so than any since 1850s. Perhaps perilous would be a better term.

    It's been a long time coming. Since the birth of the collectivist ideologies in the late 19th century, the revolutionaries have been plotting and grasping for power. Dostoevsky wrote about them in their infancy. Their first infiltration was seen here in the early 20th century with first, Wilson, then FDR. I agree here with Tom Luongo that there are, at bottom, only two essential political philosophies-- collectivist and individualist (i.e., free choice/ sovereign power for the individual as the ideal political state). Communism, fascism, socialism...these are labels and obscurities for the collectivist ideology.

    The collectivists all share a belief in concentration of power in the state and the sublimation of all to the state, whether that is an EU government of experts or a CCP or a global new world order or the benevolent rule of Big Corporations directed by Big Brother.

    These collectivists have been infiltrating and seizing positions of power and influence for the better part of 100 years. A remarkable persistence which surely reflects something innate in humans to control others. This is not to suggest a global cabal or Master Plan. But like attracts alike and history is replete with examples of how a very few can change nations. Collectivists encourage and support each other much like the early Christians eventually took over Rome.

    What we have right now is the premature coup of the Collectivists, precipitated by Trump's election and impending reelection. They would have preferred 8 years of Hillary Clinton to cement in place the controls set in by Obama and others before him, but Trump threatened to disrupt it all. So 2020 was the coup and 2021 is the mad scramble to cement everything before freedom loving Americans can react or threaten the revolution.

    This is why we see the Administration rushing to implement every crazy, destructive scheme regardless of the seemingly obvious political consequences. They simply do not have a choice. They must get certain programs and controls in place and then trust that the "greatest voter fraud operation in history" will bail them out again in 2022. They are taking huge risks even while their propaganda media gaslights all of us about the dangers.

    Ultimately the collectivists will fail for the same reason they always fail; collectivism is economically unsustainable. There won't be a civil war here because of any state actions. The financial and economic system will collapse. We already see high inflation and even Bank of America analysts have warned that hyperinflation is a real possibility. (Ht Zerohedge).

    The collectivists know this and are counting on taking advantage of the crisis to complete the transformation of the US into a China like oligarchy where we are the serfs. It will be up to the military and local LEOs and states to stop it. Where we go from there is anyone's guess.


    1. If The financial and economic system collapses, some of these monsters will be fine with that, insofar as it leads to greater suffering of Deplorables than of Dem voters, esp. if these Dem activists then get to lead the mobs inflicting Revolutionary Justice upon the Deplorables.
      For many of these activists, it's all about their whims, regardless of long-term consequences.
      "How romantic!"
      See Warren Beatty etc., in the film "Reds".

    2. aNany-

      “ If The financial and economic system collapses, some of these monsters will be fine with that”

      That’s Cloward-Piven strategy to a “T”.


    3. @Moab

      That's the mother of all comments. In a mere 495 words you've pretty much rounded up the all the suspects and nicely laid out how we got to this point. Now we just need a 495 word solution set.

  12. "like attracts alike", esp. among intellectuals/ technocrats, using lockdowns to build totalitarian power for intellectuals/ technocrats (esp. scientists).

  13. O/T, but maybe important, from Denninger yesterday, at :

    "Fortunately there are enough un-vaccinated people, that the Marek's Disease sort of disaster will not happen, so long as enough people refuse, as, if the *mutation* produced by all the idiots who took the jabs is more-virulent, it still leads to shunning, as soon as it finds an unvaccinated host, and thus loses the genetic lottery."
    As such, refusal is not only good for public health, those who refuse are in fact the *firebreak* that prevents a stab-caused disaster, that could rip through the population, and kill 10% or more of the population."