On Secession and Civil War – Will there be breakup by 2030?

by SIMPLICIUS THE THINKER

I often mention my long-held forecast that I predict the United States will either devolve into civil war or secession by the year 2030. Hearing this, many have asked me to expound at length about my thoughts on this, why and how I see it unfolding. So I’ve decided to finally treat the topic in a more in depth manner than the usual comment reply allows.

I.

The truth is, this is a popular prediction to make for many people on the ‘Right/Alt-Right’, but few actually delineate the specific mechanisms by which it can happen. And it is here that I believe I can shed some pertinent light as to the exact process, already in motion, that I believe will lead to these scenarios.

First, let us define a few basic ground terms so that we’re on the same contextual page. Just like how many people euphemistically say “WW3” when they actually mean “nuclear war”, when in reality WW3 has no direct, inherent relation to nuclear war per se, as it can simply be a global conventional conflict akin to WW2, similarly here, many people vaguely invoke ‘civil war’ without understanding what the term might actually imply.

Particularly in today’s cultural climate, when they conjure up ‘civil war’, many people are subconsciously referring to some sort of Rwandan Genocide-style conflict between the two opposing sides of Liberals and Conservatives, where the actual civilians have taken up arms and are battling it out in the streets. This notion of a ‘civil war’ is driven by endless memes posted by both sides which depict things like armed antifa leftists against conservative militiamen rifling it out in some dystopian suburban battlefield, perhaps akin to Seattle’s CHAZ ‘Autonomous Zone’.

 
Yet the historical precedent for ‘Civil War’, at least as it’s known in the U.S., is more synonymous with secession in the sense that it was two opposing governmental forces backed by conventional standing armies engaging in real military combat, rather than the a ragtag free-for-all of citizens armed with kitchen knives and .22 pistols in the city park.

In fact, to further confuse the point, the American Civil War was conceptually no different than a Revolutionary War, like that of 1776. And many people have pointed out that the Revolutionary War itself was in actuality a Civil War, which means that to some extent the U.S. has already gone through two civil wars, to make a rhetorical point.

This is all to make the point that what I’ll be mostly concentrating on here is not the Rwandan-style conflict that Twitter trolls envision as the model of a ‘civil war’, but rather the other variety.

The Rwandan-style one has the least chance of happening because it presupposes some sort of de-centralized, stochastic ‘free-for-all’ where people just happen to take up arms against the fellow man. Sure, there will be sporadic armed conflicts occurring regionally, owing to the growing racial and political divides in the country. But there exists no real formalized mechanism by which the two sides can even cohere into some semblance of organized, opposing armies with a central command, staff structures, etc. This is mostly a juvenile consideration, at least for any time in the semi-near future, of which we’re speaking. One could perhaps envision such a scenario much farther down the line than is possible to predict: some sort of weird, lawless, dystopian post-apocalyptic Mad-Max-style future in the year 2100, or something like that. But for our purposes, this is unrealistic and unworthy of serious deliberation.

II.

There is a third option some people refer to when invoking civil war: that of ‘people vs. the government’. I’ll treat this one briefly on its own, because there are a few important considerations here.

Firstly, this idea has gained traction as numerous American politicians have wielded this cudgel as a threat against upstart Americans who might like their chances in an uprising. Biden himself has remarked on at least two or three different occasions that ‘Americans need F-15s not AR15s to fight against the government’, implying that U.S. citizens can never defeat the government unless they’re armed with high level strategic weaponry, as opposed to mere small arms.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1564706079036116994

Democrat Eric Swalwell infamously threatened Americans with nukes if they resist the gun confiscation policies he’s pushed.

 
Technically, such a circumstance would not fall under ‘civil war’ but rather just a plain old revolution or armed uprising. Ultimately, this is all just semantic quibbling. However, I bring it up to note that most of the people throwing around these terms or discussing these topics are not even on the same page as far as consistency. So I wanted to delineate the various concepts so I could address each in turn, and readers can follow what I’m saying.

As to this option of the people vs. the government, I’ll say the following thing: The heaviest detractors of this possibility are typically anti-gun rights leftists who use the canard of ‘you can’t win against F-15s’ as a way to discredit the need for the 2nd Amendment. They usually paint a scenario where a bunch of ragtag AR15-armed civilians go up against a fully lock-and-stocked U.S. military with its full panoply of fighter jets, missiles, tanks, etc.

But the critical nuance they miss in this flawed hypothetical is the following question: who is it that’s supplying this mighty military force with all its fancy arms? Who is supplying it with fuel? Recall how in the current discourse about the dire Ukrainian munitions supply situation, we were shown CNN segments of blue-collar American workers toiling away in the last remaining of American factories which are left to even produce such munitions.

Do these anti-gun people believe that the military itself produces these arms, and their own gasoline, fuel, etc.? My point is that, it is the civilian infrastructure which wholly comprises the backbone of the U.S. military’s capability. Without the gas, fuel, munitions, etc., the mighty U.S. war machine is kaput. What will Abrams tanks do when the civilians who run the refineries shut them all down, the civilians who truck the fuel to depots all revolt? Civilians build all the F-15s, F-22s, and B-2 bombers that the U.S. government so haughtily brandishes like a saber. If it was a true ‘civilian vs. government’ battle, where will the government get all of its equipment? Even small arms factories are run by civilian workers.

 
In short, the government and its ‘mighty military force’ wouldn’t last in a true prolonged conflict against the population of the U.S. Of course, it all depends how many people would be on the revolting side in this hypothetical scenario. But let’s not forget that the U.S. has an estimated 400 million guns, and 393 million of those are in civilian hands. There are reportedly something like 70-100+ million gun owners. The U.S. military has about 800k total ground troops. Even with all the planes and tanks in the world, can 800,000 go against 100,000,000? You could argue they couldn’t even defeat the Vietcong’s less than 1 million, much less 100m. Not to mention that most Americans are far heavier armed than the typical Vietcong and their bolt-action rifles.

But like I said, those are just slightly absurd hypotheticals to put some things in perspective; in reality, this is not the type of scenario I expect to occur. It’s simply a quick two cents thrown into the debate to refute the typical leftist canard that the U.S. military is invincible, when in fact they entirely rely on the civilian sector to even function.

III.

As we build towards the actual scenarios which I believe have a strong chance of happening, let’s lay the final bit of groundwork by first seguing into the current socio-political climate in the country:

Among all US citizens, 43% said civil war was at least somewhat likely. Among strong Democrats and independents that figure was 40%. But among strong Republicans, 54% said civil war was at least somewhat likely.

It’s undeniable that a growing portion of the country is beginning to not only believe in the inevitability of ‘civil war’, but is outright hoping for one.

 
These are findings from a Chicago University study:

 
It shows that at least 1/5th of Americans agree, across party lines, that it will be necessary “sometime soon” to take up arms against the government. This goes to 45% amongst strong Republican supporters.

CNN did a piece covering a study that showed the U.S. is headed toward some form of civil war. A University of California researcher used a system of metrics designed to gauge the proximity and likelihood of civil war for other foreign countries, but applied the same calculations to the U.S.

Professor Barbara Walter explains she’s studied civil wars for thirty years and has spent the last few of them working for a CIA taskforce which uses such metrics to prognosticate ‘where the next civil war will occur’ in the globe.

The anchor summarizes: “What’s remarkable is the research isn’t based on sentiment (or political ideology), but based on metrics and markers and signs and facts that the U.S. uses to determine the state of other country’s democracies and proximity to upheaveal.”

Professor Walter explains, when turned against the U.S. itself, these same proprietary calculations reveal that the U.S. is at the edge of what the CIA would deem the cusp of the “RISK” to “HIGH RISK” categories. Normally, a country at ‘high risk’ would be placed on a special CIA watchlist, as upheaval there would be considered imminent.

Walter, the Post said, concludes that the US has passed through stages of “pre-insurgency” and “incipient conflict” and may now be in “open conflict”, beginning with the Capitol riot.

Citing analytics used by the Center for Systemic Peace, Walter also says the US has become an “anocracy” – “somewhere between a democracy and an autocratic state”.

These findings, however, are already more than a year old, and the country has likely slipped even further into the danger zone. Now, several prominent politicians like Marjorie Taylor Green have even begun to do soft-calls for a ‘national split’ which in some ways can be considered merely a safe euphemism for civil war.

North Carolina representative Madison Cawthorn was likewise seen invoking the specter of civil war, stating that he hopes it doesn’t happen, but is confident that conservatives would win:

 
Flying under the radar of these discussions is the fact that many U.S. states have nurtured growing secessionist movements, which have advanced quite a ways in recent years.

There is CalExit or ‘Yes California’. Their page explains:

Introducing Pacifica

The CalExit 3.1 ballot measure establishes the country of Pacifica in the San Francisco Bay area and along the central California coast. It will have a population of about 9 million people, more than 75% of which are Democrats and 61% of which are of a minority race.

In 2017, a Reuters poll was said to show that 32% of Californians supported CalExit. However, since that time it has reportedly dropped, as once the government got whiff of the movement’s danger, they sprang swiftly into action to kill it with counter-propaganda. But there are many other movements.

The strongest of them is in Texas.

 
Just last month, in March, 2023, Texas representative Bryan Slaton filed the ‘TEXIT’ act:

 
The official version can be read here: https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB03596I.htm

The main portion of it states that in the November 7 general election, Texas voters would be permitted to vote in a referendum on the question of whether Texas should reassert its status as an independent nation.

SECTION 1.  (a) At the general election to be held November 7, 2023, the voters shall be permitted to vote in a referendum on the question of whether this state should reassert its status as an independent nation.        (b)  Notice of the election shall be given by inclusion of the proposition in the proclamation by the governor ordering an election on any proposed constitutional amendment to the state constitution and in the notice of that election given by each county judge, or, if no constitutional amendment is proposed, the governor shall order and each county judge shall give notice for an election proposing the referendum required by this section.

Section 2 of the bill describes all the actions that would immediately go into effect on December 7, 2023, only if the resolution is passed by majority vote of the people’s referendum.

The bill itself can be tracked here: https://fastdemocracy.com/bill-search/tx/88/bills/TXB00063968/

However, it should be noted that previous attempts with similar bills have failed, owing to the Texas state assembly refusing to even put it to a vote. Now the bill has been submitted and there is no telling whether the state assembly will vote on it or not; it appears to be quite an arbitrary process. However, if they do vote and the bill passes, then it opens up the referendum for secession on November 7 later in the year.

SurveyUSA polling found that whopping numbers of Texans and southerners in general support secession:

Each of the six southern state surveys began with respondents being asked if they would support their state peacefully becoming an independent country along with other conservative states. While a majority of Texans like the idea, with 60% saying yes (32% say “definitely yes,” 28% say “yes”), results in the other states are less positive. Louisianans are evenly split; 50% say yes, 49% no; in the other four states, majorities oppose, with “no” and “definitely no” leading by 6 points in Alabama, by 8 in Mississippi, by 10 in Florida, and by 13 points in South Carolina.

This means that if the referendum were actually allowed to be held on November 7 in Texas, it could likely pass and the state would secede. However, the political games of establishment opposition figures actively work towards sabotaging the preliminary bill which establishes the referendum from even passing.

Texas has even begun proceedings towards creating its own gold-backed currency as a blowback against federal CBDCs and a preemptive action to protect itself against exactly the type of welfare subsidization of much weaker blue states. This type of action is just the first shot across the bow of the many tectonic movements we’ll see towards independence in the next few years.

Read more