Until now, it wasn't. Given the very cordial side of American political life, one wondered where a possible civil war could come from.
The fact that Trump was a kind of populist was clearly a first step towards a more anti-immigrant state. But it didn't say much about how a civil war would develop in the future.
And he was more of an American-style populist, that is a rather soft one. And the American economy seemed to have improved under Trump. And when the economy is doing well, it's harder to introduce political tensions. So, there was apparently still no reason for the US to go to civil war. The elements that could trigger it seemed to happen in the future and therefore were still unknown for the time being.
But with what is happening now, a pattern is taking shape.
Indeed, during the presidential campaign, there was a very strong increase in tension between Democrats and Republicans. Until now, the American elections have been a tennis match between gentlemen in white suits. Everything was played with total fairplay and everyone respected each other. All of a sudden, in each camp, there was a demonization of the other camp that had never been seen before in American political life. You almost had the impression of being in France when an election opposes the RN (ex-FN) to another party.
Why this demonization of each camp?
Let's look first at the Democrat side.
First, the anti-immigrant nationalists are on Trump's side. And Trump has clearly been on this line, with the construction of the wall on the Mexican border. So, for the democrats, the Trumpist camp is composed of racists. Not Nazis, but not far away.
Trump also questioned the theory of global warming, something that has become almost a religion in the Democrat camp. And Trump's voters are following him down that road. In a concrete way, Trump pushed for the development of shale gas. He questioned the Paris climate agreements. So, for the Democrats, Trump is a public danger that threatens the planet.
Now let's look at the Republican side.
For some time now (2 or 3 years), anti-illuminati conspirationists has been on Trump's side, and Democrat politicians are considered by a small but growing number of Republicans to be the devil's representatives on earth. For them, Democrats are illuminati agents whose plan is to create an evil dystopian society, or even to bring the devil and his demons to earth.
And even without going that far, many Republicans totally reject the society that the Democrats want to impose, where homosexuality, ultra-feminism, political correctness and therefore censorship, mass surveillance, euthanasia, idiocracy, etc.., are promoted in a practically dictatorial way. It is indeed a real daily mass propaganda that is made in the media on these themes. Thus, even without the evocation of supernatural occult forces, the Democrat camp seems to be leading America towards a dystopia for a good part of the Republicans.
The two camps thus have more and more valid reasons to hate each other. And you can count on the elite-paid agitators to continue to heat up the minds at boiling point.
And this already high tension can only increase with Trump's contestation of the election results. It is obvious that this will introduce a huge break in American political life, regardless of who wins.
If it is Trump who is finally elected, the Democrats will say that he stole the election thanks to his control of the Supreme Court. He would be seen as a dictator who carried out a coup d'etat.
And if it's Biden, Republicans will say the Democrats stole the election by cheating on absentee ballots. Either way, hostility between the two camps will crank up a notch or two.
Incidentally, even before the election, Trump was already warning that he would be very vigilant about a possible fraud. This meant that from the outset, the contestation of the result was foreseen.
And of course, the elite will make sure that hostility between the two camps increases in the future. Trump will certainly not be an isolated element, an "accident of history" as left-wingers would like to believe. In fact, the idea is already being raised that he would run again in the 2024 elections in case of defeat. This is what the JDD says:
""If the election were to be stolen and Joe Biden were to win, Trump would then announce that he would run again in 2024, it's far from over."" This promise, made in mid-October, two weeks before the chaotic election of November 3, is signed by Steve Bannon, the former éminence grise of the president and one of the architects of his victory in 2016."
And here:
"While he has not yet admitted defeat in the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden, U.S. President Donald Trump is already thinking about a new candidacy. This is what says journalist Jonathan Swan of the Axios website, who has been following the Republican candidate's election campaign for several weeks."
And even if this was not the case, an equivalent of Trump will run, perhaps not in the next election, but in the elections afterwards, or in 2032.
And we can be sure that these election cheating stories will continue and get worse. In turn, violent opposition between Republicans and Democrats will develop, leading to civil war.
Hence, you understand the interest of introducing the story of the manipulation of the 2016 elections by the Russian secret service. At the time, it seemed rather bizarre to me. I wondered what the elite was trying to do with it. Now it's clear. It was only a premise for the fraud story of the 2020 election. A precedent had to be set so that the 2020 election didn't seem to come out of nowhere. With the precedent of 2016, the possible fraud of 2020 seems much less surprising.
It is possible that a future president will give more power to the states, allowing some to secede after a contested vote. A civil war in the United States will most likely start like this. After thinking about this, I did some research to see if the idea has been put forward recently. And indeed it has.
We have for example politico.com which says in this article (January 17, 2019):
"One Solution to the Shutdown? Give More Power to the States.
The increasing frequency of federal shutdowns tells us that the problem is deeper than a disagreement over immigration or health care or the debt ceiling."
And here on usnews (April 12, 2017):
"Washington Isn't the Answer
Give states the power to innovate outside of President Donald Trump's polarized Washington."
On the Washington Post of July 12, 2019 (here):
"How liberals learned to love federalism
The left was skeptical of giving power to the states. Until the Trump era."
And on ThoughtCo.com (January 16, 2020):
"A Definition of Federalism: The Case for Reinvigorating State's Rights
Promoting a Return to Decentralized Government
This is what the battle over federalism looked like in the United States for many decades: Conservatives sought to limit federal power over state and local governments, and liberals tried to expand it."
This is probably why the American states have retained so much power in the USA. Otherwise, it is clear that it would have been almost entirely taken away from them in the 20th century.
So, when politicians defend the idea that the states have more power, it will not be for the good of the people, but to follow the plan of the elite.
Reading an article by Henry Makow, one sentence made me think about how things could happen. The sentence is the following:
"Democrat governors and mayors will order instant lockdowns of their states, cities, and towns to punish their citizens."
So, we can think that what will happen is that there will be massive riots (phoney of course) all over the country. As a result, the governors of the different states will establish a curfew or a confinement. But that won't be enough. And a number of states will see their institutions taken over by the rioters, who will carry out a kind of coup d'état. Some state officials will join the rioters. Since the brutal confrontation should normally lead to the intervention of the army, there will instead be a phase of negotiation between the central government and the rioters. Then, when this fails, there will be a power struggle. But the rebels will already have sufficiently established their power to be unstoppable (seditious states will probably have allied themselves with each other). As a result, the central state will be obliged to acknowledge its defeat and accept the independence of the states.
The central government's inability to destroy the sedition will be explained by the fact that the majority of the country will be at a standstill because of riots, strikes and the confinement imposed by martial law. And it will be said that a large part of the soldiers refuse to shoot at the rioters. There could also be a serious financial crisis. That would allow media to say that the central government no longer has the financial means to fight the sedition. And some soldiers may go unpaid for months, which would explain their defection.
With recent events, you can think that it is the Democrats who will be the seditious ones. But in the future, it could be the other way around. The Democrats would then be in power. And the military would be on the Republican side. That would make it easier to explain why the rioters are not swept away by the military and can take power so easily in the states in question.
That said, the elite have many options for the practical realization of this phase. So I could be completely wrong about this part of my analysis. The general analysis (states that become independent following a contested election) must be correct. But the exact way it is going to happen (riots and the seizure of power by rioters over local governments) is less so.
PS:
Already, people on the forums are talking about the fact that these elections could lead to a civil war. One can be sure that most of them are agents of influence who are preparing minds for this possibility, not for now of course, but for the future. Moreover, it serves to overwhelm search engine results. It will be their reactions that will be referenced in the first pages of Google. And honest sites like mine will come last (or won't appear at all).
PS2 :
We can also think that Trump's first election was very strange. First of all, Americans have always voted for moderates. And generally speaking, Anglo-Saxons have always been presented as measured and reasonable people. Latin, Germans or Slavs were seen as warm-blooded or rigid or tough people who could easily elect dictators, but Anglo-Saxons were seen as moderation itself, not at all able to fall into these flaws. And indeed, until then, they had never failed to live up to this reputation.
Moreover, as elsewhere, the country is more and more full of leftists, feminists, and so on. And just about everyone is against racism, everyone is hyper tolerant, sensitive, generous, benevolent, open, full of good feelings and humanity. Even older people have become cool, since now most of them are from the baby boom and flower-power era. In 2016, a 76-year-old is someone who was 20 years old in 1960. People born in the 20s or 30s, who could still be considered quite traditional and rigid, were already no longer much of a deal. The grumpy, rigid, cold, reactionary grandfathers, it's almost over. And for all these people, the populists appear as people of the past, anomalies.
So, first, Americans have always been moderates. But on top of that, the evolution of American society was moving towards even more moderation, liberalism, tolerance, etc... And this even among most elderly people. And now, a right-wing populist, not looking cool at all, vulgar, sexist and clearly anti-immigration, shows up. Logically, he should have been swept away in the elections.
The overwhelming majority of women should have been repulsed by this character. It should also have been the case for blacks and latinos. And also of a good part of the white men. That's a lot more than the majority. Let's say 80% of women voted Democrat, that's already 40%. 90% of black and Latino and mestizo men, who make up at least 15% of the population, that's 13.5% for the Democrats. We're already at 53.5%. Let's assume that the majority of white males, who make up 30 % of the population, voted for Trump, and let's say only 40 % voted for the Democrats. That's 12 % more for the Democrats. So they are at 65.5 %.
That's more or less what Slate magazine said in May 4 2016 (Wikipedia): "Slate magazine says that "Donald Trump is not going to be president", because to do so he "would have to win unprecedented shares of the voters who hate him: blacks, Latinos and women"". And for once, they were absolutely right. So he should never have been elected.
And if he was, it is clear that it was because the election was rigged by the elite. Of course, a lot of the elections have been rigged before (except probably those where the elite was sure that the people were going to vote the right way by a very large majority), but this time it was rigged big time.
In fact, it surprised everyone that the U.S. elected a populist. It's the last country (along with England) where people would have imagined that such a thing would happen. This can be seen on Wikipedia for example: "In the presidential election of 2016, Republican Donald Trump won a surprising victory that thwarted almost all predictions". The elite was therefore forced to provide the explanation that it was the revenge of the white man who had suddenly woken up. Yeah, of course... US White men were more ostracized, vilified, blamed, mocked, despised and castrated than ever before. But they would have found the mental resources to be proud of themselves again and to speak out loud and clear for a candidate who was not at all politically correct. And this all at once, without warning. Very credible... But in any case, even then, it would not have been enough, because the balance of power would have remained more or less the same as the one described above. Even if 70% of white men had voted for Trump, it would still have been 62.5% for the Democrats.
And incidentally, we can think that he could never even have been the Republican candidate. He would necessarily have been considered not unifying enough and therefore having very little chance of being elected. Therefore, he would never have won the primaries. If that was nevertheless the case, it was because the primaries were rigged as well.
PS3 :
What is also interesting is that in the United States, we can see that conspirationism has partially exited from marginality. It is becoming more mainstream. I hadn't given this aspect of the problem much thought. So I thought that conspirationism was going to develop more and more, but would remain underground. But indeed, it does make sense. For conspirationism to take an important part in future events, it has to come out of the underground, at least partially.
PS4 :
Regarding the way the US civil war is going to start, I saw on January 7, 2021 a message from a guy on the forum of a mainstream French newspaper mentioning the idea that Biden might be assassinated by a pro-Trump madman.
In my opinion, since the civil war will start 20 years from now, it shouldn't concern Biden. It would be too early for it to be of any use. Now, it is true that it could be a milestone. So, you never know. But I don't think so. At worst, there could be an attempt, but I don't see a successful attack.
On the other hand, it is quite possible that, in the future, an American president (right or left) could be assassinated shortly before the outbreak of the civil war. That would add a very strong element of dramatization and hysteria.
This is probably part of the reason why the elite staged various fake attacks on American presidents even after 1945 (Truman in 1950, Kennedy in 1963, Gerald Ford in 1975, and Reagan in 1980). Precedents had to be set to explain the major assassination, the one to come.
PS5 :
Another person raised the idea that the National Guard could play a role during the beginning of the civil war. This is very possible, given that part of it depends on the states.
PS6 :
We can also think that maybe that is why weapons are not banned in the USA. To have millions of armed civilians is interesting for a possible civil war. Of course, the fighting will be fictitious. But the fact of having armed civilians will justify certain events. It is the justification that is important for the elite, to maintain the credibility of their stories.
PS7 :
We can also understand why anti-illuminati conspirationists have made Trump one of their heroes for the last 1-2 years, and why the elite have set up the Qanon movement. This is against all logic, since it is very clear that Trump is a member of the elite. The idea that Trump is an opponent of the elite is totally grotesque. That's why a lot of propaganda has been put in place on conspirationist websites and on other, more mainstream ones.
Since the goal here was to introduce a big division between Republicans and Democrats and not just between Trump and the rest of the world, Trump's rebellion against the election result had to gain a certain amount of popular support. Therefore, the conspirationist fringe in the Republican camp had to be developed and made more uninhibited. Classic supporters could not have put forward the idea that the elections had been rigged and that the parties of the left were the representatives of evil on Earth. To defend this idea, a large pro-Trump conspirationist movement was needed. Hence Qanon. But to be able to do that, they also had to make Trump look like an opponent of the elite. Otherwise, right-wing conspirationists would have had no reason to support him. It was easy to develop right-wing conspirationism. But making Trump pose as one of them was totally ridiculous. That was the weakness of the plan. So the elite set up a big, crude propaganda plan to impose the idea. And Trump did his part by making a few conspirationist statements.
And that's also why anti-illuminati conspirationist sites were able to give all these predictions that Trump was going to contest the elections and that something was going to happen towards the end of December or the beginning of January (a prediction that turned out to be true with the assault on the Capitol on January 6). How could isolated guys have known this? Well, they knew because these sites are creations of the elite.
PS8 :
This right-wing conspirationist movement in the USA introduces a big quirk.
In Europe, anti-illuminati movements are rather left-wing. So, my idea (for Europe) is that the conspirationist movements are going to ally themselves with the Muslims against the white democrats and the white nationalists (both anti-conspirationists). They will lose and that will be the end of the conspirationism.
And normally, it should have been the same in the USA, so that at the end of the war, the two white geographical zones would be ideologically united, and so that conspirationism would be crushed everywhere.
But for the US, this does not seem to be the case. Normally, it is also the nationalists who will win in the USA. But if they are conspirationists, it means that anti-illuminati nationalism will win in this country. So Europe and the US will not be on the same wavelength at the end of the war.
So there is something wrong.
First of all, what we can say is that the elite is trying to muddy the waters as much as possible. They don't want people to understand that there is a central power that dominates the world. So they're going to do everything they can to keep people away from that idea.
So, it is possible that what is happening now is just an episode to cloud the issue and that in 20 years, it will be the left-wing people who will be the conspirationists in the United States. In that case, the final result in the US would be the same as in Europe.
What is also possible is that in Europe as well as in the US, the elite will make people believe that they have been defeated. This is the same principle as in the film "my name is nobody". If people believe you are dead, they will no longer try to defeat you. So it is possible that the elite will implement such a plan. The world will seem liberated, when in fact it will not be.
In this case, in Europe, we will have the following situation. As in my previous forecast, the anti-illuminatis will win at the beginning (with the Muslims). Then they will be defeated by an alliance of normal people and nationalists apparently on the illuminati side. But, there should be a further stage, where the illuminati winners will be replaced by others, who will not show themselves as such. As a result, the illuminatis will appear to have been eliminated.
But, well, we'll see in the future what it's all about. Things will become clearer little by little.
In any case, what is quite certain is that in the end, the white countries will be on the same wavelength regarding this issue.
Publié par hexzane527 à 23:51