Comments by "buddermonger2000" (@buddermonger2000) on "Why the 2024 Election will start a Civil War" video.
-
40
-
On the note about their percentage of the population, I'd like to add that small percentages are actually a significant portion of the population. Take 3%, like he said the communists were in the Russian Civil War. It sounds like it isn't very large, since it shouldn't be, but the working age population of almost any country is only 60%. So that's already cutting off almost half of the population, and thus your 3% is almost 6%, at least in relation to who your actual opponents are. If you cut another half to get just men, you already have all working age (fighting age) men in just 30% of the population. Your 3% is now 10%. If you cut off below 30 you get to about 10% or less, and now your 3% has become 30% of your cohort. Now imagine 1 in 3 young men taking up arms. Give them those arms and suddenly they can dominate their cohort, and once they've done that their only resistance is the over 30 crowd who, though most of the modern population, are less capable in their overall physical capabilities and have far more to lose. Once you're above 45 you're basically incapable of fighting. And thus you're only fighting another 10% who is already slightly weaker. And every other cohort, quite literally cannot fight. Thus, by the time you get down to the relevant percentage, you've already wiped away the vast majority of the population who can actually oppose you, and so a small percentage only has to win against a relatively small share of the population. Because once that share falls, there's simply no more resistance to be offered. You've Nickled and Dimed your way to a very large percentage of the truly relevant population.
35
-
27
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
@pincermovement72 They mostly are. They're not prime candidates. You can revise the upper number to 50 and lower to 16, but beyond that, it just doesn't really work very well anymore. You're drawing from non-prime cohorts and getting into the role of auxiliaries only. That can still be helpful, but they're not really fighting except in that most desperate immediate didn't have enough rifles for everyone due to a shortage at that location. Yes, you will have men who perform well and shine through, but it's in no way the norm, and for most purposes, it just doesn't work as well. You're not sending your 50 year olds to storm trenches. If you do that, you're asking for a waste of life. They're very much like women in service. It's not impossible, it's not even really that difficult to do, however, as prime fighting ages are concerned, they're really not. And it's what I was really trying to get across.
4
-
@senhox970 The biggest thing is that this works with an actual civil war, which can only kick off if the army participates. Either it fractures, and there are now relatively equal professional forces with which to base a force on force conflict, or it almost unanimously picks a side and crushes the rebels or the government.
If the military splits allegiances and you have lower officers breaking off, then there's no longer an easy win for the military and you have a conflict.
To give a point of reference, say in the invasion of Ukraine, Ukraine's forces really did simply fall over without much of a fight and Russia really did win in 3 days. That's what it'd look like if the army remains united and only picks one side. If it fractures, then you get the Ukraine war as it actually happened since there's now enough resistance to stop a knockout now. In that environment, recruitment, mobilization, production, now all play a role. And in that environment, that's when you see some guys go to a local bar to pick up some more boys and raid a federal building.
3
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Perceval777 So in that context I used the qualifier of "basically" which means that while yes they are there, they're so small they're negligible. They're a tiny minority who are, very often, LARPing and just hating on Christianity. Though I'll admit you are what you do and if you LARP hard enough you'll eventually start to believe. The point is that if you go on the street and ask what a pagan is, they'll look at you blankly or maybe reply about them in a premodern concept. They're probably about 0.1 of 1% if that they're so small.
I think otherwise you do have a pretty good understanding, but the nationalists in America, unless they're specifically white nationalists, aren't actually super government hungry, as they're fundamentally of the American national tradition which was created in liberalism. So it'll never truly escape that unless it's trying to pull on a European precedent such as that even less existent faction of American monarchists (rent a Hapsburg I guess).
On the note about their percentage of the population, I'd like to add that small percentages are actually a significant portion of the population. Take 3%. It sounds like it isn't, since it shouldn't be, but the working age population of almost any country is only 60%. So that's already cutting off almost half of the population. If you cut another half to get just men, you already have all working age (fighting age) men in just 30% of the population. If you cut off below 30 you get to about 10% or less. Now imagine 1 in 3 young men taking up arms. Give them a gun and suddenly they can dominate their cohort, and once they've done their only resistance is the over 30 crowd who, though most of the modern population, are less capable in their overall physical capabilities and have far more to lose. Once you're above 45 you're basically incapable of fighting. Thus, you're only fighting another 10% who is already slightly weaker, and possibly less willing to fight. Every other cohort, quite literally cannot fight. It's pretty crazy.
1
-
1