John Robb claims that conditions are such that in November civil war engulfs this country via the actions of just five people:
One candidate declares victory. The other cries foul. Protests go national. Violence, looting and active engagement with police.
Calls for calm ignored. Martial law is declared in different areas. Internet is turned off in different areas.
Violence grows. The global economy collapses due to uncertainty over US economy (ill conceived financial derivatives ensure that virulent US contagion spreads to every nook and cranny of the global financial and economic system).
The US, suddenly impoverished, extremely angry, and mortally betrayed stumbles into civil war.
Read his blog post for the details of how it might be done.
I did RTWT, about 10 minutes before you posted this!
And, with the way we’re seeing things go so far this election cycle, entirely within the realm of not just possible, but pretty high up on the probability scale.
I hate it when ancient Chinese curses actually work.
For another take on the same notion, involving a similarly small number of perpetrators to start the explosion, read Enemies Foreign and Domestic by Matthew Bracken.
For yet another, review the origin of WW 1.
I have read it. And the sequels. I liked the first one best.
Of course, we can rest assured that this will never happen, because US politicians are far to honest or ever pull off a false-flag op, or threaten to pull a gun if their opponent pulls a knife, right?
I contend that he gets a bit hand-wave-er-y in places – for instance, none of the somewhat impressive riots so far have resulted in martial law, nor internet shut downs – and his estimation of the number of people necessary implies a remarkably high level of coordination, but…
Yeah. I’m not going to say he’s outright wrong.
“Somewhat impressive”? I respectfully submit that the Nika Riots are the standard by which impressiveness should be measured, with the Gordon Riots taking silver, and the New York Draft Riots bronze.
Yeah, the Nika Riots was pretty hard to beat. To think it all started over a chariot race. Makes the Chicago Bulls loss riots look downright cute.
It’s not the same country that it was in 2000 and the cast of characters is also a butt load different.
Even if the relief valve on the pressure cooker works, I’m not sure it can vent enough of the build up to avoid blowout.
It’s plausible. Pretty scary to imagine when you think on it for a few minutes.
I am calling BS on this. The scenario is so contrived as to be fantastical. Chill the F out people!
I disagree, it seems plausible.
The main question is what the powers that be intend. As earlier comments point out, we’ve had major riots without this outcome. A Constitutional government would not do those things no matter how big the riot gets (since martial law is not authorized by the Constitution under any circumstance, nor the suspension of any part of the Constitution such as the 1st amendment).
But such things might well be considered worth doing by the lawless government we have had for the past century. Especially by one who considers FDR a role model, and who has been working very hard to divide the country every way possible.
Note too that there is a healthy dose of Xanatos Gambit here. If the plan goes off without detection, there are riots. If the plan gets detected, the People assume that the plan was put into place by the campaign that benefits from it, and there are riots.
Five notes? I can name that tune in three notes. (It’s a mental exercise that is well practiced for me, having whiled away long boring hours in High School figuring out how small a team it would require to take every soul in the school hostage. Since our school was sprawling with several outbuildings, I never got below 9.)
A plausible scenario. I suspect however that the outcome of the November
elections have already been decided and the necessary actions taken.
Clinton is and has been the DNC candidate for this election, that choice was
made years ago as payback for the Clinton’s support of the current criminal
infestation of the White House. The Clinton cabal is among the most ruthless
and efficient political machines currently in existence. You do NOT cross them
and walk away unscathed. So the DNC simply MUST support her and give
her the nomination. Who she runs against really isn’t all that important.
As Stalin said it’s not who gets to vote that matters but who gets to COUNT the votes. The DNC has taken this to heart. After their failed attempt to manipulate the outcome of 2000 with the ‘hanging chad’ and the ‘dimpled marks’ and the court challenges the DNC decided they weren’t going to lose again if they could help it. They embarked on a plan to get the country to use
electronic voting machines. Such machines are MUCH easier and far more
efficiently tampered with than the cumbersome effort required to subvert a system based on MILLIONS of pieces of paper. All you do is buy, bribe, blackmail, coopt, corrupt and suborn the people and companies that make
the voting machines. They are based on the ANCIENT WindowsXP platform,
have essentially ZERO protections against malicious attacks and are EASILY
altered to give the desired outcome. In 2012 Obama won MORE than 100% of the voters in a number of precincts in large cities such as Philly. A statistical IMPOSSIBILITY unless the system is corrupt. So it really doesn’t matter who runs for the GOP or who ‘we the people’ vote for. The outcome is
almost certainly already programmed.
How do different states handle voting? I can only remember voting in Florida and California. In Florida, almost the whole town voted in one place. In California, they split up the voting so only a few hundred people vote in the same location. (The first time I voted around here, I voted in someone’s family room.) To have an impact around here, you would have to call in hundreds of bomb threats, not one or two.
So, it would depend on how various states handle the voting if it’s even feasible.