I highly doubt a civil war unless THEY start the fight, mis communicating thinking enough people are black pilled they won't fight back when that's only true in the deepest blue inner cities.
The thing about civil wars, you rarely want to be the instigator, it's usually best if you're the one responding as it sort of gives you more legitimacy (they attacked so we have to defend our lives, family and community). It's kind of funny the left full misconstrued this as the right not willing to fight back when looking at the amount of gun sales and organisation in the background, I'd say they're ready, just need the left to do something really dumb first though.
The thing about civil wars, you rarely want to be the instigator, it's usually best if you're the one responding as it sort of gives you more legitimacy
I dunno man, they've spent a long time conditioning the masses to accept any manner of tyranny if they come up with a good enough pretext for it.
'The person who shoots first is bad' might fly with the subset of people who are -
Perceptive enough to see through obvious propaganda
NOT perceptive enough to see the underlying issues and aggressions that sometimes makes violence an inevitability
but how many people are in that cohort? Awake enough to question, but not awake enough to see the war that's already happening and the outcome it leads to?
I mean, you're right, which side fires the first shot will define how the narrative plays out. But if they want to fire first they'll come up with some bullshit, lie-filled appeal to emotion to justify it, and a frightening amount of people will lap it up and beg for more.
I dunno man, they've spent a long time conditioning the masses to accept any manner of tyranny if they come up with a good enough pretext for it.
And look at how many believe them nowadays, the mainstream media will always puppet but more people watch a UFC commentator comedian podcast than them and the national chant was fuck the president. They overplayed their hand and their authority is slipping through their fingers like sand.
Another best example was the recent Nordstream 1 sabotage, the mainstream media, NATO leaders and country leaders all tried to say Russia blew up their own pipeline. What was the main sentiment people had: "why the fuck did the US blow up the pipeline are they trying to start WW3!?" They've lost too much creditabilty due to ineffective domestic governance that outside their useful idiots, they don't have enough support to stop a mass uprising if they go tyrannical.
It is heartening to see people reject obvious lies, but I worry many of those aren't actually independent thinkers, just the easily led types who happen to be pointing their tribalism in the right direction.
I'm probably being too blackpilled pilled here, it's just frightening how easy it is for liars with power to lead the masses to destructive conclusions. But there is hope. Thanks.
I highly doubt a civil war unless THEY start the fight, mis communicating thinking enough people are black pilled they won't fight back when that's only true in the deepest blue inner cities.
The thing about civil wars, you rarely want to be the instigator, it's usually best if you're the one responding as it sort of gives you more legitimacy (they attacked so we have to defend our lives, family and community). It's kind of funny the left full misconstrued this as the right not willing to fight back when looking at the amount of gun sales and organisation in the background, I'd say they're ready, just need the left to do something really dumb first though.
I dunno man, they've spent a long time conditioning the masses to accept any manner of tyranny if they come up with a good enough pretext for it.
'The person who shoots first is bad' might fly with the subset of people who are -
Perceptive enough to see through obvious propaganda
NOT perceptive enough to see the underlying issues and aggressions that sometimes makes violence an inevitability
but how many people are in that cohort? Awake enough to question, but not awake enough to see the war that's already happening and the outcome it leads to?
I mean, you're right, which side fires the first shot will define how the narrative plays out. But if they want to fire first they'll come up with some bullshit, lie-filled appeal to emotion to justify it, and a frightening amount of people will lap it up and beg for more.
And look at how many believe them nowadays, the mainstream media will always puppet but more people watch a UFC commentator comedian podcast than them and the national chant was fuck the president. They overplayed their hand and their authority is slipping through their fingers like sand.
Another best example was the recent Nordstream 1 sabotage, the mainstream media, NATO leaders and country leaders all tried to say Russia blew up their own pipeline. What was the main sentiment people had: "why the fuck did the US blow up the pipeline are they trying to start WW3!?" They've lost too much creditabilty due to ineffective domestic governance that outside their useful idiots, they don't have enough support to stop a mass uprising if they go tyrannical.
It is heartening to see people reject obvious lies, but I worry many of those aren't actually independent thinkers, just the easily led types who happen to be pointing their tribalism in the right direction.
I'm probably being too blackpilled pilled here, it's just frightening how easy it is for liars with power to lead the masses to destructive conclusions. But there is hope. Thanks.