If you haven't read Chittum's book "Civil War II", well I have. Read on, you'll learn something - then you can ponder my question while reloading your 12 ga slugs (turning your compost pile?) :

Civil War II asserts that civil war in the US is INEVITABLE within 15 years or so, the break-up to occur along ethnic lines. His hypothesis: Mexico will "reconquist" :) the Southwest (with the help of illegal immigrants), from the Rio Grande to Santa Rosa California. The south will become an black state, African-American gangs are already quasi para-military forces. Northern tier is remnat "white" ethnic state. This author gives tons of warning signs, detailed analysis, etc. The book is NOT really racist, he treats the question as a foreigner might write about the various ethnic factions in Bosnia, or Hutus and Tutsis.

For those who hadn't heard this before, what is your first reaction ? Denial, cautious skepticism, or belief ? For those who are skeptical, why ? Can you apply that same skepticism to your thinking on y2k ? Are you a CW2 "DGI" ? I don't believe it myself, but I think it is an interesting test of our thought processes.

-RC

-- Runway Cat (runway_cat@hotmail.com), December 02, 1998

Answers

With all that Y2K is about to unleash, trying to guess at stuff like this seems to be to be ... what, optimistic???

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), December 02, 1998.

I don't believe in "Civil War II". If I did, though, I would know it's coming in 2000.

Y2K will change many, MANY things.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), December 02, 1998.

I disagree with Chittum on one point...If a Civil War did in fact occur, the South would not be a black state....I would think the North would be!

Archer

-- Archer (CSALives@aol.com), December 02, 1998.

I disagree with Chittum on one point...If a Civil War did in fact occur, the South would not be a black state....I think the North would be!

Archer

-- Archer (CSALives@aol.com), December 02, 1998.

Picture LA during the R. King riots: intense violence in certain places, while in the rest of the city it was business as usual. That's my picture of any future race wars, minus the y2k scenario which has to be the mother of all monkey-wrenches.

BTW, anyone notice what Chittum says about Y2K? He's such an off-the-scale Pollyanna that it's hard to tell if he's serious. Visit his site & prepare to be appalled.

-- Ben Dair (not@aol.com), December 02, 1998.

y2k itself could very well bring Civil War II, if it's something around a 5 to 8 on Y2K scale. Even if it's Infomagic's scenario, Civil War could still ignite and last as long as people themselves last to sustain a war. With a shocked, bewildered, panicking, starving multi-ethnic population of 260 million, anything can happen. All it would take is an eloquent leader to rock the boat a bit to start a momentum.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 02, 1998.

I've only browsed a little at the CW2 site. I think the idea that, as you put it, RC,

"Mexico will "reconquist" :) the Southwest (with the help of illegal immigrants), from the Rio Grande to Santa Rosa California. The south will become an black state, African-American gangs are already quasi para-military forces. Northern tier is remnat "white" ethnic state."

is possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. This country is such a mish-mash of ethnicities, that it will never be as clear-cut here as on other continents. There are more Mexicans here in the "northern tier" than our chittum probably realizes. Queens, New York (I live in nearby Brooklyn) has the largest ethnic mix of anyplace in the world. The whole country is mixed up.

IF...there is a CW2 (which, to some degree has occured several times) and things break apart, they will break into much smaller pieces. State-sized, or smaller, with regional alliances. Some will be ethnic based, most will be economic. Chittum is most likely an idiot who WANTS some sort of ethnic cleansing. Besides, UNLESS there is a Y2K type disaster, the powers that be will NEVER let this country fall apart...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), December 02, 1998.

I agree that CWII, besides being chittum's private ethnic-cleansing fantasy, is wildly unlikely so long as a strong central government exists. A devolution into the kind of anarchy he envisions can't happen in the presence of any sort of outside authority, especially one with army and police forces at its command. Chittum likes to point to the lack of discipline of National Guard troops in his island hurricane story, but they were isolated from any sort of regular army control, and I'll bet the NG commanders got battered, fried, chewed and spit out in the storm's aftermath. A y2k 10+ and all bets are off on anything we now consider "normal" behavior, but that's another story. After all, herr chittum doesn't believe in y2k anyway.

-- JDClark (yankeejdc@aol.com), December 02, 1998.

Coming? It's been going on for many years.

Lawyers and their ilk against the rest of us.

-- fly . (.@...), December 02, 1998.

The stirring up of racial conflicts in our country has been going on for many decades. It has been a well organized plan implemented by the communist. The tactic is to "divide and conquer". They know that it is easier to take over a group or society by getting the groups within it to "war" with each other. Most of the drugs brought into our country are targeted for the black kids in the inner cities... the rural white kids are their next target. Martin Luther King was befriended by a white communist party member to influence and help direct King's plans. It's ironic that the majority of blacks in our country today are supporters of the liberal/democrat party (who are the supporters of pro choice) given the fact that the founding woman of Planned Parenthood began the organization as a way to eliminate the black population.

The civil war is already going on...it's just that no one wants to acknowledge it. In this day and age it is politically incorrect to take a stand on what is moral or ethical...you might injure someone's self esteem...and they might become a victim.

Our society visibly took a nose dive when they did away with prayer in the schools and made abortions legal.

No sane person condones killing doctors, but when society makes a baby murderer out to be a hero, our society is in sad shape. You will find that people will get more emotional about killing animals or cutting down trees than they do about babies getting sucked down the sink.

We have a lot more to repair than just Y2k!

Texas Terri

-- Texas Terri (TYSYM@AOL.com), December 02, 1998.

Where can I find this book? I have been lurking on this BB long enough, and fianlly made my first post today.

My primary concern now is Y2k, but in watching the House Judicial Committee yesterday, I was reminded of my earlier sense that we were drifting toward a dangerous polarization, at least in the media. Most of those who are selected by the McPress to represent "the people" distort and inflame. This has been going on for quite awhile, and I have been saying to those close and dear that the inevitable result will be race war... There are too many out there who don't think, but react after feelings are inflamed by the "poverty pimps" (not my statement, but that of J.C. Watts).

Anyone who is interested might want to read "The Fourth Turning", written by the authors of "Generations", Strauss and Howe, I think... They predict that we will face a secular crisis soon, and hope that it will hold off until the year 2005, when the generational mix will be ready to handle it. They fear that if it starts before then that it will be like the Civil War... hmmmm....

All I can say is that at 55 years of age, the America that I now live in is totally different than the one I lived in 30 years ago. There are so many voices that seem to have a totally different concept of what this country is all about, and they are so shrill, loud, and ugly. When Y2k eliminates the entitlements,

-- Jackie Joy (jacquej@netsync.net), December 02, 1998.

You can order it from Amazon.com

Civil War II : The Coming Breakup of America Thomas W. Chittum / Paperback / Published 1997 Our Price: $12.95 (Special Order)

I really don't think Mr. Chittum is a racist. He expresses the utmost respect for the intelligence and military potential of all parties and ethnic groups concerned.

If you really want to be convinced that our Federal government is utterly corrupt, read Robert Groden's work on the Kennedy assassination. Regardless of your opinion of Kennedy, it is very clear that rogue government personnel conspired to assassinate him. I was a complete "sheeple" on this issue, believing in the media's "lone crazed gunman" lie, til reading this. Now I believe NOTHING the government says. (and I'm no Kennedy fan; this conspiracy is just an amazing litmus test. Amazing how the media can make any deeper questioning, whether on Kennedy or y2k look like evidence of being a crazed, gun-toting, racist, facist right-winger, etc. 'Course it should have been obvious to me that a poor marksman like Oswald could never have done that job with a crummy Carcano rifle anway, but I was totally brainwashed til this book hit me with all this MASSIVE real evidence.

-RC

"The second amendment is no more about duck hunting than the first is about Scrabble." - John Ross

-- Runway Cat (runway_cat@hotmail.com), December 02, 1998.

I've been wondering if all this talk, and all the billycaseysucks posts are an effort to sell chittum's book...

Terri, something you said sparked a thought...maybe people are expecting a revolution to look and feel a certain way, when all along, it's been happening and we just don't recognize it. Y2k proves to cause another revolution, which will disrupt the current one, and everyone is freaking out...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), December 02, 1998.

Is Gary North sending his flock of posters over here or something? Is it just me, or this forum is becoming more and more extreme? What happened to the ol' prepare for the worse and hope for the best Y2k talks?

*sighs*

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 02, 1998.

In response to:

"Is Gary North sending his flock of posters over here or something? Is it just me, or this forum is becoming more and more extreme? What happened to the ol' prepare for the worse and hope for the best Y2k talks?"

I don't think so...

Y2K awareness is growing. I access this group via the bboard, and don't request emails, so I only access what looks useful, and don't have a problem with the increased 'bandwidth'. In fact, until recently, very little new information was here. Now, I learn more here than anywhere else - and I check a LOT of sources.

If Y2K is anywhere as near as bad as Yourdon, North (or Milne!) suggest, human issues such as CWII, racial/ethnic differences and forms of government will be extremly significant.

-- Anonymous (Anonymous@anonymous.com), December 03, 1998.

Chris,

I was just thinking the same thing. Sounds like a bunch of extremists are moving in here. How can a newcomer anyone take Y2K seriously if you read this thread?

What if CBS or another news organization took clips from this thread. It would make us look ridiculous.

-- Dave (dave22@concentric.net), December 03, 1998.

Texas Terri,

>the founding woman of Planned Parenthood began the organization as a way to eliminate the black population.

That is a crappy racist lie, designed to discredit Planned Parenthood. Too bad you were taken in by it.

>they did away with prayer in the schools

Another lie.

No one did away with prayer in schools. Any student who wants to pray is and always has been legally free to do so. What the Supreme Court ruled was that it was unconstitutional for public school authorities to sponsor prayer, to prescribe prayer, or to make prayer part of the official school activities. I.e., public schools can't lend their authority to religious practice.

If you want to persuade people to your viewpoint, Terri, cut out the lies, stick to the facts, and take political discussion to a political forum.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), December 03, 1998.

Hold the phone a minute here!

All of us were "new guys" to this forum at one time (myself not very long ago at that), and depending on who you ask, most of us could be considered extremists!

The smart play is still to prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Can any of you think of much worse than a civil war on top of everything else?

If ANYONE is thinking of having a civil war (and who can doubt that?) isn't it in our collective intelligent self interest to discuss the ramifications and possibilities of such?

pshannon has it right--whatever happens will not be what we expect, at least in all details, maybe in major aspects. The best hope we have is to "rehearse", if only in discussion, anything and everything we can conceive of as possible and to consider possible responses. Believe me, when TSHTF, all that has been discussed here will flash through your consciousness with a speed and clarity that you will not understand until you experience it.

Even if absolutely nothing we consider and/or discuss comes to pass, the intellectual exercise will develop and strengthen our mental coping abilities and skills.

Preparation is the closest thing we have to a common denominator for us all. Preparation includes much more than stockpiling beans, rice and toilet paper (although TP & beer are essential to Life As I Know It).

By all means, let us prepare. By all means.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), December 03, 1998.

What does abortion and school prayer have to do with Y2K? Most of the information posted in these threads is based on hearsay and rumors.

-- Anti-Chainsaw (Tree@hugger.com), December 03, 1998.

"That is a crappy racist lie, designed to discredit Planned Parenthood. Too bad you were taken in by it." - No Spam

Believe it or not, I have seen a great deal of information that backs up Texas Terri's statement about the founder of Planned Parenthood. This was covered extensively in Texas a few years ago. I do NOT believe that is the case today, but I do believe it was true of the founder. No Spam, do you have evidence to the contrary? We are leaving for Colorado in about 3 hours, or I would take the time now to look up some of the references. I will do that when I come back, and check here to see any references you have provided.

>they did away with prayer in the schools

Another lie.

"No one did away with prayer in schools. Any student who wants to pray is and always has been legally free to do so. What the Supreme Court ruled was that it was unconstitutional for public school authorities to sponsor prayer, to prescribe prayer, or to make prayer part of the official school activities. I.e., public schools can't lend their authority to religious practice." - No Spam

While you are correct as to the ruling of the Supreme Court, this battle is still being fought. Watch the 700 Club online today or read the transcript of it's news stories. TODAY in Alabama this is being challenged in US District Court. "It's called Chandler v. James, a case in which a federal court has imposed unconstitutional restrictions on the religious and free speech rights of Alabama schoolchildren. An invasive school monitor has been out in full force, reporting on student prayer activities." STUDENT prayer activities. Not something sponsored by the school. No Spam, this is an ongoing battle. And, as to how this relates to Y2K, IMHO we will see more and more of our Constitutional freedoms disappear as the nation begins to panic and beg for intervention.

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), December 03, 1998.

Chris, thanks for your comments. My intent in bringing up Chittum's work was not to somehow condone or encourage the possibility of war of any kind, which would be truly horrible. I brought it up to get us thinking:

What makes someone an "extremist" ? Why do we believe certain future scenarios and not others ? What to we take as hard evidence, what do we dismiss without thought ?

As I said, I don't feel Chittum is racist. Ethnically based wars have happened through all history, all over the world. Would a reporter speculating on future Hutu/Tutsi relations in Rwanda necessarily be "racist" for bringing up the question ?

Finally, why should we be afraid of the "respectable" media ? Given their obvious collusion in helping the government cover up its shameful (and officially sanctioned) role in the Kennedy assassination (yes, I know I sound like a nut now - ask yourself whether YOU have reviewed the evidence from Robert Groden or a parroting received media opinion "lone crazed gunman"), our respectability in their eyes should be the least of our concerns.

Hardliner's comments were right on target.

-RC

-- Runway Cat (runway_cat@hotmail.com), December 03, 1998.

Hardliner you're right in that we have to be conscious of what's going on and prepare prepare. I don't doubt that there's groups out there waiting for the opportunity to start a civil war. I don't doubt that government conspiracies exists, and existed. KNOWING something is not the same as ENCOURAGING or APPROVING of something. It's knowledge vs. philosophy and values. All my comment was meant for was that lately there's more and more poeple posting on this forum with extreme views, on either side, which makes for a lot of flamings and rantings. I don't mean you personally RC, it just happens I have said it on your post that you started.

Was just a passing comment. I relalize things change and I have to go with it or leave it.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 03, 1998.

Gayla,

> information that backs up Texas Terri's statement about the founder of Planned Parenthood. This was covered extensively in Texas a few years ago.

Show me.

> do you have evidence to the contrary?

I don't walk around with stuff like that, but I'll try to find what I can. Looks to me like the burden of proof should be on the other side, though.

>We are leaving for Colorado in about 3 hours, or I would take the time now to look up some of the references. I will do that when I come back,

Thank you.

>STUDENT prayer activities. Not something sponsored by the school.

I've seen this allegation lots of times, but when enough detail is available it always boils down to a case in which the school authorities _were_ involved, not just the students alone.

Some prayer-in-school advocates think it should be perfectly all right to have a scheduled "minute of silence" or for a student to select and read a religious passage at the start of a school assembly [I was in that situation once as a student]. But that overlooks or ignores that in each such case there is still the element of structure, scheduling, promotion, or coercion by school authorities of a religious practice.

When I was assigned to select and read a religious passage at a school assembly, I did not yet have the adult resources to support me in what would have been a storm of outrage from my physically-abusive parents if I had revealed that my religious beliefs differed from theirs, so I felt that I had to "go along" with a religious practice contrary to my beliefs in order to survive. That experience was the dawning of my awareness of the reasons for Supreme Court civil liberties rulings.

Show me the details of the challenged "STUDENT prayer activities" to which you refer, and I'll point out the involvement of school authorities.

> this is an ongoing battle.

Sure is. Those of us with minority religious beliefs have to be on eternal guard against the unconstitutional intrusion of governmental support for majority religious beliefs.

>IMHO we will see more and more of our Constitutional freedoms disappear as the nation begins to panic and beg for intervention.

So pay your ACLU dues to support their efforts in defending our civil liberties.

Remember - one reason one so often hears that the ACLU is on the side of someone with unpopular or even disgusting views is that those are the "newsworthy" cases. Those who hold popular and well-received views usually have little trouble in obtaining legal counsel and defense elsewhere when _their_ rights are threatened. It's the unpopular people who have difficulty finding or affording adequate defense for the same legal rights that the popular people have, and the ACLU is their defender of last (or only) recourse.

A scanning of ACLU cases will show that many are for ordinary folks who've suffered unspectacular ordinary types of discrimination and can't get defense elsewhere. Those cases don't get reported in the mass media.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), December 03, 1998.

Texas Terri, Gayla,

Okay, I posted too hastily about Sanger. I've now seen enough references to Sanger's views to convince me that it's likely that Sanger was anti-black (and -others). I retract my "racist lie" response, while agreeing with Gayla that the founder's views are not represented in modern leadership and direction of Planned Parenthood.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), December 03, 1998.

I can't tell you how bad I feel being sucked into the Planned Parenthood issue -- because it surely doesn't belong on this forum.

The original association which is now known as PP was started by a public health nurse, Margaret Sanger. She worked with poverty-stricken immigrants, and was troubled by the vast number of the poor, their many failed pregnancies that resulted in stillbirths, and assorted social questions related to immigrants. Over time, Sanger came to believe (much like many other educated people of her day) in a concept called "eugenics". Eugenics taught that poverty and crime were the product of mentally defective individuals -- and that both poverty and crime could be eliminated if the defectives were prevented from reproducing.

This idea was quite prevalent among the elites and upper classes, and in public health circles through the teens and 20's of this century. Sterilization was NOT UNCOMMON for mentally retarded, institutionalized, and emotionally disturbed individuals....even into the latter half of the 20th century. Of course, Herr Hitler took this idea to its depths during his efforts to purge Europe of those he considered "lower forms of humanity".

As a reference for eugenics, I advise reading any Encyclopedia Brittanica from prior to 1965 -- after that, a good deal of this information has been "sanitized" because of the embarrassment following exposure of certain experiments conducted on humans (such as the Tuskeegee Experiment giving syphillis to black men). I am using an EB from '63 for the info on eugenics -- which, BTW, the EB treats as a viable system which should be "a matter for human society or mankind as a whole and not particularly for those who specialize in the science."

But, back to Margaret Sanger. According to the World Almanac Book of Who, 1980:

"Sanger, Margaret Higgins. Sept 14, 1883 (Corning NY)-Sept 6, 1966. Founder of the birth-control movement in the U.S. Founded the National Birth Control league, 1914, opened the nation's first birth- control clinic in Brooklyn, NY., 1916; organized the first American Control Conference, New York City, 1921; served as first pres. of the International Planned Parenthood Foundations (founded 1953)."

SO, "No Spam Please", please note that PP has its roots in the American eugenics movements (the first American Control Conference was to discuss means of controlling reproduction among the poor and immigrants) -- and THESE ARE THE FACTS.

This research took me about 15 minutes. This is not impossible to find.....but, I suspect what you actually didn't want FACTS -- you just wanted to "shout down" someone whose opinions you didn't like.

Eugenics is a pretty disgusting philosophy, if you want my opinion, but it still has plenty of adherents today....naturally, they're mostly from the elites who think they'd be immune from its rules. Isn't it amazing that we no longer have to have someone force us to get sterilized anymore? Sterilization is the most common form of birth control now practiced -- I see about six per week at our small rural hospital. And children used to be considered a blessing....just ask any woman who can't have them....

And, now that we've finished our history lesson, CAN WE PLEASE GET BACK TO Y2K????

Sorry about the shouting....

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), December 03, 1998.

Anita,

>SO, "No Spam Please", please note that

I jumped in on a "hot button" issue about which I do not have the sort of expertise upon which I base my Y2K statments. Mea culpa.

>This research took me about 15 minutes. This is not impossible to find.....but, I suspect what you actually didn't want FACTS -- you just wanted to "shout down" someone whose opinions you didn't like.

Please note that I did not accuse Texas Terri of originating the statement nor speculate upon her motives.

Judging by the order of postings, my guess is that you didn't see my preceding posting in which I demonstrated that I did research too [BTW, thanks to Mr. "X" for providing two helpful URLs!], and was willing to publicly admit my error, until after you posted your message. If we all refrain from assigning motives to others and attack just the statements rather than the stater, we'll get along better.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), December 03, 1998.

No Spam Please, and forum:

I think this entire thread owes its existence to the full moon -- notice other threads have similar bickering and nonsense passing as discourse. Now, with that in mind, and remembering that there are less than 400 days to "Year 00".....

No Spam said to Texas T: "That is a crappy racist lie, designed to discredit Planned Parenthood. Too bad you were taken in by it."

Please note the use of perjoratives, "crappy", "racist", "lie", "discredit", and "taken in". Note that there negative words imply, in total, that the writer, Texas T, is ignorant ("taken in"), and adheres to the desire to unfairly demean ("discredit"), and that she promolgates falsehoods by writing them on this forum ("crappy racist lie").

No Spam also wrote: "Please note that I did not accuse Texas Terry of originating the statement nor speculate upon her motives." Well, no, you didn't say she made it up. However, you said it was a lie (not "statement") -- and by using "discredit" you did, in effect, assign a motive to her.

Further, No Spam said: "...and was willing to publicly admit my error, until after you posted your message." Now, I'm pretty certain you are still willing to admit that you unfairly attacked Texas T with perjoratives, rather than addressing the issue of Planned Parenthood's origins -- both of which were errors. In fact, had you actually been simply "attacking the statement rather than the stater" (No Spam's words), you could have instead written simply:

'You know, I don't think that's true. I'd like to do some followup research. Anybody know a URL?'

Had you taken that neutral approach -- which wouldn't have given you such a big mouthful of foot to chew, nor hit Texas T over the head with rudeness -- your research might have been finished before I even had a chance to start my 15 minutes into the books.

May I humbly remind all on this forum that it is not necessary to "attack statments rather than staters"? We don't have to attack anything -- remember? We're all friends here. We have many thoughts and concerns in common. We can disagree without "attack", without "confront", while keeping our individual opinions intact.

As time runs out, it is more important than ever to keep our focus where it belongs.

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), December 03, 1998.

When interpreting my preceding message, please make the following typographical clarification:

In the last paragraph ("Judging ..."), add a comma after "posting" and delete the comma after "URL!]".

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), December 04, 1998.