The Second American Civil War: Part Two
A Further Elaboration
Last week’s article has very quickly become the most viewed and interacted with article I’ve ever written. I suspected it would be such, as topics of import tend to lend their importance on shitty articles written about them (a similar effect comes when writing about Shakespeare or his plays.)
I had always planned a part two to the piece, though I received so many questions, comments, queries, concerns, and well-worded points that I believe my audience (the smartest and best-looking audience on the Right-Wing,) has done a better job of elaboration than I could have ever done. In addition, I gave an interview with my very good friends at the Iron Age Archives (who can be found here,) which elaborated on a good many points. Therefore, this article is dedicated to giving responses to as many questions and points that I feel capable of answering, and have yet answered.
Quite a few questions were overlapping or broad, and I’ve sought to consolidate them in order to keep a semblance of brevity to this piece. Feel free to scroll until your question is answered, or to gaze upon only the questions that interest you. At the end of the day, some or all of what I say/predict could be completely wrong (and God do I hope it is.) Yet I believe my model/wargame of the 2ACW to be sound enough to tack my name to it, and I will answer all questions from my own framework.
Without further ado, my elaboration:
What will be the Role of WMDs in the conflict? Will they be used/who will be using them?
Weapons of Mass Destruction, or WMDs are any weapons that fall into the category of Chemical, Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear (CBRN.) This is everything from Nukes to Nerve Agents. The U.S. Government currently possesses massive stockpiles of all four kinds of WMDs, a large portion of which are aged but still effective.
I remind the dear reader that a WMD’s primary strategic use is mass terror. E.g., we did not use nukes on Japan to kill a combined five-hundred thousand people, for if we wanted civilians dead, the fire-bombings would be more than adequate (and killed far more than the Nukes did.) No, WMDs are used in a similar way to how cavalry charges were used in the early middle ages; to produce a morale shock.
The key objective of any war is not to fight and kill the enemy. Rather, fighting and killing the enemy is a means by which you achieve the key objective of any war: Breaking the enemy’s will to fight. If a five-foot seven man swings haymakers at a six-foot four man who doesn’t want to block them, who wins that fight? If you have soldiers under your command on paper, arms and equipment issued to them officially, but they’re thrown their guns down and their hands up on all sides of the line, do you still have an army? The answer to both of these questions is obvious.
Morale is still the “X” factor in any war, even modern ones of the highest attrition. WMDs will be used by both sides in order to wear away or potentially break said will, should the circumstances favor such a tactic. Given how I believe Team Red will have the Morale advantage over Team Blue, and fewer concentrated population centers to use WMDs against effectively, I believe the majority of WMD use will actually come from Team Red, if they’re used at scale at all.
You see dear reader, the use of WMDs in warfare is something that makes the “Species self-preservation” alarm go off in the lizard brain. Not just in the victims, or the victims' compatriots, but even in the offenders and the offenders' compatriots. Using WMDs in many ways makes one side a pariah to most with a moral compass or a sense of consequences (white people.)
If you believe this won’t stop either team from using WMDs, you’re correct. It will, however, stop the use of WMDs at scale. Becoming a pariah galvanizes your enemies and wavers your fair-weather friends, which is the exact opposite effect that WMD use is intended to create. I.e., the initial morale shock may only be the means for hardening the opponents resolve, and sends a message that the user is insane and must be destroyed before they destroy everyone else.
Do I believe WMDs will be used during the conflict? Without a doubt. Nerve Gas attacks will be used here by the same Gov’t who lied about Syria doing the same. The purposeful unleashing of plagues, whether they be the old bubonic plague or new monstrosities synthesized in U.S. labs, will likely be inevitable and they will add their victims to the growing death toll. Team Red may have to resort to such during its own sieges.
Nukes, however, are an entirely different matter. As I said in the previous article, nuclear warheads today are drastically reduced in explosive power compared to what they were during the height of MAD. So the effect of “Wiping a city off the map” is no longer the case. This drastically reduces the potential for morale shock, while the consequences of crossing the line remain the same.
The supermajority of nuclear missile silos are located in Team Red states. While it’s not outside the realm of possibility that Team Red will staff at least some of these silos, I don’t believe any of these crews as they currently sit will fire on any target within the United States. Should brainwashed ideologues be put in charge? That’s a different story.
What specific segment of the population, specifically of military age males, will do most of the fighting? Are they even capable of such?
Almost all of the approximately sixty-million able-bodied men from age eighteen to age fifty will participate in this conflict in some way, shape, or form. The majority of this number will be uniformed, whether on front line duty or in rear depots, supply, intelligence, etc.
The sixty million may fall down to around thirty-five million after refugees have left, food crises have abated from the worst, diseases are fairly commonplace, etc. Given how Team Blue will have the population advantage, I believe they’ll have about twenty-five million military aged men across four islands, as opposed to Team Red’s ten million across a common front.
What role will foreign powers play within the conflict? How will the conflict affect the world at large?
There will be a worldwide economic crisis the likes of which have not been seen since the Bronze Age Collapse, the Fall of the Roman Empire, or the Sinking of Atlantis. The entire world is dependent entirely upon the United States in ways that cannot be fully understood. U.S. food shipments feed the fastest growing countries on Earth, and the sudden halt of those shipments (no matter how expected) will set off a chain of food crises that the other food power in Russia cannot fill.
In essence, Governments will largely cease to be, and most places worldwide will devolve into warlordism, isolationism, or older forms of governance. Asia is possibly an exception, though they certainly will not be striving (or succeeding if they do) to fill the America-sized hole in world economics. If there’s one thing you can trust the Orient to do, it’s handle their own backyard and build bigger walls around such.
Russia, should it get its shit together, will start looking at a now disorganized Europe like a Dog at a Bone. In addition, the world’s need for grain will shift to them as the one (relatively) stable food power. Should they take Ukraine, this will become all the more impactful.
Europe, with the collapse of the E.U. (Germany is too retarded to make a move to center Europe around itself,) will look at Russia with resigned deference. Things like national prestige, stories of glory and conquest, and European humanism will be trifles compared to a heated house, food on the table semi-regularly, and somewhat secure streets. Europe has been ruled by one power for nearly a century, and they’ve gotten used to it. What’s to stop them from following inertia and just accepting the other power as a new Suzerain?
Africa will remain completely unchanged. In fact, it will return to a semblance of ordered chaos which has always characterized the dark continent. Perhaps the Boers will reassert a semblance of self-rule in South Africa, and may become a haven of peace and stability in a chaotic world.
All of South America will begin to resemble Colombia, in that the “Gov’ts” will become archipelagos of cities surrounded by chaotic hinterlands fought for between cartels, paramilitaries, natives, and any other manner of undesirables. The one (or two, or three) exceptions to this may be Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay, who after initial economic shocks will re-assert their perpetual place as the whitest (though Paraguay is not white) run nations in South America. Brazil will probably fall to regional infighting that very much exists but no one particularly cares to learn about.
Australia and Oceania may accept the Chinese yoke for similar reasons that Europe may accept the Russian one. Whether China is capable of ruling from the other side of the Pacific remains to be seen.
In short, chaos and instability to a lesser or greater extent worldwide. Some or all of this could be true/false.
What will happen to Mexico or Canada specifically?
Both countries will more than likely cease to be. Canada’s continual territorial integrity is at the grace of the United States’ trade interests. Cease the trade from the American side of the Great Lakes, so too ceases Canada. Quebec and Alberta are the most likely instigators of a split, and other regions may follow. Honestly, Alberta/Quebec may even throw in with Team Red and Team Blue respectively, and post-war be included in the United States.
Mexico will return to being what it has been for most of its history. A “Central” Government in the Valley of Mexico trying desperately to assert control over the Cartels and Zapatistas in the far flung Deserts of Chihuahua and Jungles of Chiapas respectively. Illegal border crossings will shift from one side of the Rio Grande to the other, where American smugglers, military forces, and all other manner of vagrants will violate Mexico’s territorial integrity.
Strange as it is to say, Mexico will likely come out of this better off than anyone else, at least better off than Canada. Mexico is a nation with a history five-hundred years old. That does not vanish overnight, even if/when America collapses. The end of American shenanigans with Cartels and Governments may see a resolution between the two, one way or another.
What specific crises will bring about the conflict? Economic collapse? Further Gov’t overreach?
While one can never predict with any certainty which match will end up being the one to light the fire (most of Europe believed that the First World War was about to begin in 1911 during the Agadir Crisis,) I ask the dear reader: is America a tinderbox? Walk up to a normal everyday normie and ask them the same question, is America a tinderbox?
A response some make is, “America is always like that.” America is always semi-combative with itself, it is true. But what we’re seeing now is polarization, the likes of which we've never seen. The only thing that’s lacking is a figure or figures around which to center the poles.
Team Red does not have this problem at the current moment. Trump is Team Red’s man, and will continue to be so until he dies, retires, or falls out of favor with the Zeitgeist. While I don’t believe he is Caesar per se, a Marius or a Sulla or even a Crassus is not out of the question. The reason I draw on the kitsch Romanisms is to illustrate a wider point:
It does not matter how charged either side is, when there exists no node to direct that charge.
When those on our side of things make the claim that there is no will to resist the regime, I must fundamentally disagree. At the mere suggestion of the possibility by Trump, crowds surrounded the capital (which is more important than whether or not 1/6 was a “Federally Instigated Op.”) That is will, if I’ve ever seen it.
The point is of all the possible straws to break the camel’s back: an Economic Collapse of any kind, some Government Gun Control measure, crackdowns/martial law, none of these are necessary to kick off 2ACW. The will is present at this very moment right now. The only thing lacking is a figure, or figures to begin it. If/when Trump or some equivalent figure returns, 2ACW could be kicked off over someone at McDonald’s getting Trump’s order wrong.
Things don’t need to suck for people to recklessly rush into destruction beyond their wildest imagination. As a matter of fact, things sucking prevent a people from rash action. Whether it ends up being a currency crisis or something else, only God knows.
What makes you so sure that Team Red will even stand against the Fed Gov’t in the first place?
The previous question covers many of the reasons why I believe this will occur. The differences between Team Red and Team Blue are intractable, and the decline in IQ that’s accelerated in recent decades predisposes a populace to war. The wisdom and ability to perceive the consequences of such is largely gone, which is really fucking bad for preventing war.
The key here is the local elites. Team Red elites in Team Red states will (more often than not) pursue their best interests within their own bounded rationality. Their first best interest is their survival as elites. The decline of competency within the Federal and Global elites is obvious when you look at the choice they’ve forced local Red State elites to make:
Support the Global Elite OR Remain as a Local Elite. Not much of a choice, isn’t it? The WEF and adjacent globalist bodies (and no, it’s not the Jews. Not primarily at least,) have forced Team Red Elites (whose status is often built on industries specifically targeted by Team Blue Elites such as Oil, Natural Gas, Agriculture, Manufacturing, Mining, etc.) to choose between reigning on Earth or serving in Hell. Not much of a choice, when the crisis reaches its peak.
How will the dollar/bitcoin be affected/play a role?
The dollar will remain the currency most commonly accepted in stable areas of the United States because of our ever-present principle of inertia. However, there will be a Red Dollar, a Blue Dollar, and probably some (or many) unofficial currencies used with both sides by war profiteers.
The dollar's continual use does not mean its continual value. As a matter of fact, the dollar will likely bottom out and the world will scramble for either a currency that can take its place, or an entirely new financial system (as the latter may meet less resistance than the former.)
Americans, however, are far removed from the days before greenbacks, where not only each state but each bank had its own currency (the big “DIX” on the back of bonds from the Citizens’ State Bank in New Orleans giving the south its nickname of “Dixie.”) More likely than not, something resembling what was called “The Dollar” before the war will remain in use during the war.
In regards to de facto currencies, you can bet on Gold, Silver, Gems, other precious metals, antibiotics and medicine, food and water in certain instances, and in all likelihood, Bitcoin. The latter will be difficult due to the almost certain collapse of the global internet during the 2ACW (as, you know, its entire physical infrastructure is located within the United States.) Yet anything scarce has value, and said value will be exacerbated by the inertia of its pre-war use.
Do the elites want this to happen, in order to destroy the United States?
If they do, they’re retarded. The elites need a tangible tool to hold control over the world. They can’t just do it vis a vis currency manipulation, debt slavery, or endless PSYOPing (and they’re getting diminishing rates of return on all three.) They need a stick to back their carrot. Without a unified United States in their possession, they have no means of carrying out their objectives. If they actively wanted to cause this, they’d be cutting off their own arms.
Will the War in Ukraine/a potential WW3 be the direct initiator for 2ACW?
I’m the contrarian on these sides of things when I say that the Ukraine war will not bring about WW3. As a matter of fact, I believe it will be resolved by the end of 2022. I am on the record saying this, and if I am wrong please mention always and often.
Ukraine has not escalated fast enough to become an initiator for WW3. The U.S. has not committed all of its QRF units to Poland which would be the direct preceding action for any military engagement. While the 101st Airborne has been committed to its first European deployment since the 1970s, they are merely relieving the 82nd Airborne already present.
While the U.S. is committing more forces to Eastern Europe as a whole, increasing its presence from two to four combat brigades perpetually, this is neither drastic nor unexpected. Were the U.S. committing two divisions to Europe, that is when we should be worrying. Until that point, we can take the languiditity of the Fed Gov’ts deployment as evidence of their lack of commitment to a full-scale war.
Plus, if the mainstream media switches its narrative, that means negotiation is becoming more and more of a possibility. The war in Ukraine will be remembered similarly to the invasion of Manchuria, or Mussolini’s war for Ethiopia.
Will the 2ACW even happen after the initial economic collapse kills a large portion of the population, a la One Second After?
Top-heavy as our society is, it’s functionally impossible for everything to immediately fail simultaneously. While people talk of the “Vulnerability of the Power Grid,” they fail to mention how local power grids can easily be separated from the wider grid and be brought back online with relative speed, even in a wartime situation. They also forget the countless on-site backup generators, personal power machines, and any other number of fail safes that can keep a semblance of civilized society limping on until some central supply is reestablished.
Most of the people who die will do so from misfortune or incompetence. The former applies to those who will be caught in the death zones of cities and surrounding metropolitan areas, by virtue of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The latter refers to the legions of soyboys, effeminate broken men, urban professionals with zero survival skills/capability to learn, and I hate to say, women and children, who will die for similar reasons.
Yet I believe the deaths will be disproportionate. Centered around the megacities and metropolitan areas on both coasts. It will thin out the streets to be sure, but a semblance of order will reassert itself and quickly. Even in the cities.
My point is that no collapse is ever total, and from a day-to-day perspective, it may not even seem like a collapse. I do not foresee the 2ACW being any different.
While Team Red vs. Team Blue is helpful for classifying White Americans, what about the large populations of Browns/Non-White Americans? Will 2ACW be a Race War?
A mistake many on the RW make is projecting their competent and wholesome internal desires onto the world. In this instance, the colored world (used in this instance to refer to all non-whites, including Slavs to a large extent.) While the border between where the white world ends and the colored world begins is fuzzy at best, to claim that the difference does not exist makes you a part of Team Blue.
When considering the role non-whites, be they Blacks in the Mississippi Delta who’ve been in America as long as most Old Stock, recent arrival Hispanics from Guatemala, Indians in tech-heavy locales, or even New York Jews on Wall Street, the mistake is to assume they are capable of acting in a world where White Supremacy not only exists, but is a basic fact of foundational reality.
Whites and those who mimic them are the only beings capable of influencing the world at the scale at which we are talking.
It follows then that if the white world are actors, then the colored world are non-actors, or factors. Though the words are only separated by the letter “F”, the difference could not be greater. Actors as defined in this piece are those capable of acting with the understanding that said actions have consequences, and allowing the potential consequences to loop back and affect the actions in the first place. This means that actors are things whose actions cannot be predicted with relative accuracy. This is no small thing, and it’s something that only the white world is capable of.
Factors on the other hand are things whose actions can be predicted with relative accuracy. This isn’t to say that they aren’t threatening or capable of causing risk. Minefields are also threatening, and wild animals are capable of causing risk. Few would argue that minefields and wild animals are actors, rather they’re factors which must be considered in most if not all circumstances of military action. Comparing the two, a wild animal is more dynamic and therefore has a higher potential for causing risk. But that potential risk is something that can be predicted and then mitigated with relative accuracy.
While the colored world may pose more complex risks than minefields or wild animals, they are not at the level of actors. At the scale of the 2ACW scenario, we must assume that anything which is not an actor is a factor.
To answer the question directly, the 2ACW will not be a Race War in which it’s Team Black vs. Team White. The colored world, if they side with anyone instead of acting in a similar manner to trees, rocks, and deer (which is their most likely course of action,) will side with Team Blue, and even then not totally.
The ones who do will march and take orders from the whites in charge of Team Red and Blue much like they did under the British Empire.
During 2ACW, where do you foresee the worst fighting taking place?
I have attempted to assert the point that Team Read is a geographically contiguous front, and Team Blue is split into about three or four islands. These are:
The Left Coast of California, Nevada Oregon, and Washington state, with the Mojave Desert, Sierra Nevada, Cascades, and Northern Rockies acting as a natural great wall.
The Rocky Mountain fortress of Denver and New Mexico.
The Rust Belt of Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Illinois, centered around Chicago.
The Atlantic heartland from Virginia northward.
If this is the picture of fronts we’re working with, then the primary strategic objectives of Team Red and Team Blue are obvious: Team Blue will attempt to establish a land connection between as much of its territory as geographically possible, and Team Red will seek to further the land divide between Team Blue’s islands as possible.
While the Left Coast may seek to unify with the Rocky Mountain fortress vis a vis Arizona or Utah, it’s more likely that the Left Coast will play defensive behind the Rockies due to its isolation from the power center on the East Coast. The Denver Fortress’ hinterlands in Red Colorado and New Mexico are also sparsely populated and easily occupied due to no natural fortifications, which means the Denver Fortress will be reduced to the city it’s centered around.
While harsh fighting may initially take place around the St. Louis-Illinois border (St. Louis being the most likely choice for a Team Red Capital, though Austin, Atlanta, Dallas, or Houston are also contenders,) the most strategically pressing objective for Team Blue will be to unify its Atlantic and Rust belt islands along the shores of the Great Lakes in Ohio and Indiana, two states more than likely to flip Team Red. If this is the case, northern Indiana and Ohio will experience the harshest fighting of anywhere in this scenario, likely devolving into WWI level trench warfare.
Why will there be a Civil War specifically, if it doesn’t benefit the elite? Why not a national divorce or some other nonviolent means of resolving the intractable differences?
I outlined the issues between the Federal/Global and Local Elites in an earlier answer, though this is worth restating. The Red State Local Elites’ survival as elites is incumbent upon opposition to the Federal/Local Elites. I.e., the Federal and Local Elites will very easily throw them aside should they achieve uncontested consolidation of the U.S.. A national divorce along Team Red/Team Blue lines would rob Team Blue of natural resources, geographic contiguity, and infrastructure. These are important enough things to fight over.
More directly, a Civil War will probably happen as the desire for a national divorce by Team Red is rejected by Team Blue, and the lines are drawn one way or another.
If you classify Team Red and Team Blue as the two sides, why wouldn’t Red counties in Blue States or Blue Cities in Red States throw in with their respective sides? Will there be Sieges/Guerilla warfare in Red/Blue States?
Red(ish) areas in Blue States, E.g. Southern Illinois, Eastern Washington and Oregon, Northern California, Western and Southern Virginia, Western Pennsylvania, as well as Rural Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and a large chunk of New England may feel sympathies for Team Red. However, I ask the reader whether or not it’s easier for a city to hold its hinterlands, or for a city's hinterlands to take its own city? The latter is much more difficult, as the center can always bring the periphery in line, but the periphery often finds performing the task vice-versa an insurmountable challenge.
Red areas will flip if occupied quickly, but those that aren’t will find themselves (willingly or not) hitched to the Team Blue wagon (as they will provide the majority of fighting men to Team Blue.)
What about Blue Cities in Red States? Most important ones are the seats of Red State Gov’ts and can easily be occupied (St. Louis, Austin, Atlanta, Nashville.) Others will choose the path of least resistance, seeing how many of their number have fled Team Blue areas. The pressure exerted by a Red hinterland which outnumbers its own center will become obvious.
This raises the point as to why won’t Red hinterlands in Blue States flip after the massive die-offs early in the war? By that point Team Blue will have solidified enough de jure and de facto control over said hinterlands that there’s no reason to resist unless Team Red occupation is imminent.
That being said, you will see Guerilla war in both Team Red and Team Blue territory. Likely more in Team Red, as it has all the more land to occupy and all the fewer people to occupy it with.
Why will the war devolve into Red sieges of Blue Cities, if the Blue Cities will be largely emptied from food crises?
Team Red maintaining its unified (if overextended) geographic front at the expense of Team Blue unification more or less decides the outcome of this conflict. Barring aggressive and fortune-favored action by Team Blue to unify one or more of its islands, this will continue to be the case. Defeat in detail of each Team Blue Island one-by-one will then become the default strategy.
Directly addressing the question though, Team Blue having a lot of its populace die does nothing to change the fact that its power is centered on its cities. Its cities and met areas may be stripped of bodies, but they will still very much be occupied. The only way for Team Red to declare victory is to occupy the cities which Team Blue is centered around.
What will post-war America look like?
Different. Far different. Cities which you’ve known your whole life as synonymous with culture and affluence will be nothing but war-torn hulks of metal and concrete, full of unexploded munitions. Once booming towns teeming with like will seem as though they’re inhabited by ghosts, both in big cities and in small town America.
Large parts of America may become no-go zones similar to some places on the Franco-German border today. Trade routes will have shifted enough for inertia to move in a different direction. Cities once thought backwards and provincial will become centers of civilization.
The center of America will likely shift from the coasts to the Mississippi river. The administrative capital will almost certainly move from D.C. America will look inward, cautiously rebuilding itself, though I’m unsure whether it will be broken like Europe was after the First World War.
The South will be flying higher than it ever has before. It will have been largely spared from conflict, likely a karmic mercy given its devastation in the last Civil War. Atlanta, New Orleans, Nashville, Charleston, will all boom like California in the 20th century, and the rest of the country will be much wiser to what being a conquered people feels like.
America will live on. Whether scarred or broken, is only for time to tell.
What’s the Metaphysical take here?
The 2ACW will be the event which ends the crisis period of Western Civilization. America, the center of Western consciousness since 1918, will become itself again through the greatest struggle it has ever undergone. Christ will be praised from coast to coast, though in far different ways than we may imagine now.
America will be primed to rule as an Empire should. Knowing damn well the consequences for a dereliction of duty. And America will be an Empire again, for when America remembers what it is, the only place to move is forward, upward, and outward.
Then, and only then, will the sons of the West touch the stars as was their destiny since their birth on the Pannonian Steppe.
Agree with your assessment of the Rust Belt being fought over, especially due to the strategic necessity of residual industry for arms production. However, I think that you are incorrect about the suburbs not being fierce areas for fighting & that red areas in blue states will not be fought over for long. To the contrary, suburbs are on the outskirts of cities and are generally purple in orientation, so any attempt at conquest by Team Red of Blue cities will have to go through those areas. Second, the consolidation of Red areas in Blue states is actually one of the first objectives of Team Blue. Therefore, members of Team Red in blue states MUST prevent, delay, & harass via partisan warfare or conventional means any attempt by Team Blue to complete this objective. In other words, resource and area access denial.
I'm not so sure nukes won't be used. Biological warfare has the potential for blowback, unless you've vaccinated your own population (in the case of a virus) ... although non-contagious weapons such as anthrax could be effective. In any case, if it becomes more important to remove a city than to take it, nukes may come into play. Not right away, but after years of bitter warfare, the moral cost may be judged negligible when weighed against the morale cost.
There's also the utility of nuclear blackmail. Say there's one, just one, missile sub whose crew throws in with Team Red. They don't need to fire their payload; they just need to threaten to do so, and the threat alone could be sufficient to cause one of the blue islands to surrender.
Then again, the Navy is the bluest of the services, and I can't think of any reason why Team Blue wouldn't use similar tactics against Team Red, especially when the latter have fewer, and smaller, cities.