Following from the Quote Of The Day above comes this observation about the political scenarios following Charlie Kirk’s murder, in order of awfulness:
- Popular revulsion against aboveground leftists
- A period of Caudillismo
- Low-grade civil war
Read the article to have each explained.
I’m not so sure that the last two options are realistic in the United States, because at the end of the day I think that the non-hysterical-Lefties (i.e. most of the country’s population) is too civilized for the second scenario (the appearance of a Franco/Pinochet type as the head of government), and indeed the Constitutional subjugation of the Armed Forces to civilian authority is a great deal stronger than in other countries, especially the volatile Latino ones. I’m aware that Hitler’s rise to power came in an ordinarily-orderly society (Germany), but then again we’ve not just lost a World War and had to pay crippling reparations either.
In fact, I would suggest that Donald Trump is the closest we’ve ever come to a “strongman” head of state, and compared to (say) Augusto Pinochet, Trump is a complete softy. And I think he’s unlikely to turn into a modern-day tyrant because he has only three more years in power and he’s getting old.
As for the third scenario (when the switch gets flipped, so to speak):
…it’s not gonna happen. If the second scenario is unlikely, the civil war thing is exponentially less likely.
I know, I know, it’s a little disappointing as we all want to experience the Glorious Day (as Mr. Free Market describes it), but let’s be honest here: it’s been over a hundred and fifty years since our last exposure to that little game, and frankly, I think we’re out of practice. We still vote, for one thing, instead of manufacturing fake ballots.
Plus we have jobs to do, families to raise and laws to obey — unlike those assholes on the Dark Side.
But “highly unlikely” does not mean “impossible”. Something the Left needs to be aware of.
If there is a single, most infuriating lie the socialist historians peddle about the rise of Hitler, it’s got to be “crippling reparations”. There wore no crippling reparations. Germany didn’t pay jack shit. Seriously, look it up.
I say, enough. There’s no longer any need to protect the Germans’ tender sensibilities.
Not true.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z8vt9qt/revision/2
Why are you posting this nonsense? Do we not know the BBC is full of shit? Starting with:
“Blame – Germany was forced to accept the blame for starting the war under article 231 of the treaty, known as the War Guilt Clause.”
Article 231 does NOT blame Germany for starting the war. What the BBC is posting is a carefully constructed mistranslation originally pushed by Keynes (yes, that bastard).
“Reparations – Germany was to be made to pay for the damage suffered by Britain and France during the war. In 1922 the amount to be paid was set at £6.6 billion.”
Again, bullshit. The part they conveniently omit, is that Germany made exactly one (1) full installment payment against that total, in 1921. That’s it. Subsequently, it was paying small fractions of the agreed upon installment amounts. In total, Germany paid 7B RM, of which only 2B was German money, and the other 5B were foreign loans Germany later defaulted on.
If you look at the actual balance of payments, all German reparations paid after 1921 were basically Allies paying themselves. Pure fucking theater.
I repeat – Germany didn’t pay jack shit.
The only “serious” thing I see happening, and I believe it is inevitable, is the collapse of the financial system due to gov’t debt and the increasing inability to pay for it.
The cure for debt is NOT more debt, but people that are not held accountable for their behavior could care less, as long as they get theirs.
Hmm. Dunno Kim.
I can make a pretty good case for a modern equivalent to:
“but then again we’ve not just lost a World War and had to pay crippling reparations either”
We owe creditors about 37 trillion (and this does not include all the unfunded liabilities to the U.S. taxpayers (shades of reparations, anyone?)
We have not decisively won any war since WWII (yes, the soviet union collapsed, but we are still fighting that war – Putin et al) and have/are still spending trillions of dollars funding the war machine that could be going to making our continental defense and the Monroe doctrine watertight. Let the Eeooros fight their own wars while we concentrate on our playing fields (akin but not of Eton) while hemming in China economically while re-growing our own industry and reducing all imports.
The last straw to break the camel’s back is coming, of that I am sure and having lived through (and for a while in) the Allende and then Pinochet economy of Chile, agree this is not a high likelihood scenario, likewise neither is a U.S. strongman a la “man in the dark tower”.
What we do need, and might get, is a major revival of American values and the disappearance of the corrupted D socialist party, along with a good number of departing RINO types through exposure of the corruption and application of constitutional law. Of course, we are watching daily the reaction of a thrashing and dying body politic. Un-shielded lies and outright falsification of reality on full display.
Stay frosty and do not under any circumstances accept compromise. This is a “we win, you lose” scenario if there ever is one.
> In fact, I would suggest that Donald Trump is the closest we’ve ever
> come to a “strongman” head of state, and compared to (say)
> Augusto Pinochet,
President Wilson and FDR. But they were democrats, so the first one is ignored, and the sins of the second are absolved by his hagiographers.
Abraham Lincoln. Who himself recognized that in order to save the Union, and thus save the Constitution, he must violate that very Constitution. Who raised armies and spent monies without Congressional authorization; Congress was not even in session. Who suspended the Writ in vast areas of the nation, including areas not in combat. Who arrested opponents and put them in prison without trial.
He is the closest thing the US has had to a dictator.
Yet we celebrate him as our greatest president. Lincoln himself was torn by what he believed he had to do to save the union.
Lincoln did it because he thought he had to.
Wilson did it because he wanted to.
FDR did it because he thought it was right.
What broke the Weimar Republic was the Depression. The Nazis went nowhere (<5% of the vote) until mass unemployment appeared in 1930-32.
What spawned Franco and Pinochet was the apparent complicity of the plurality-elected Left government in violent subversion of the constitutional order.
As to Wilson: Jonah Goldberg quoted IIRC Robert Nisbet to the effect that the wartime Wilson administration was the nearest the US ever came to fascism.