https://homemadeguns.wordpress.com/
Don't look at this one. It's terrible. It's from u/lostmyeffingpassword.
Here's what's happening in UK. It's ugly over there, beware
https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1977167078731006120
https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1977917946383999170
https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1976747879944667433
https://x.com/ShadowofEzra/status/1971277377222180988
https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1970858689612640670
https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1975425419861237782
https://x.com/JBoutsikakisPPC/status/1980021179525013636
Given what's happening, there SHOULD be.
The problem is that it's going to be a civil war fought with rocks and sticks because the idiots gave up their firearms.
That's why I gave some links. Not that I recommend you go there.
Maybe bows and arrows and spears
u/#howl
I've left the UK because of this. My Guardian reading family thought the UK was Nirvana thirty years ago but I could see the cracks then. My hippy Uni friends just make up more ways to hate anyone that has more than them, its a national lefty sport. None of them have invested in anything, nada, just rent their life away working soulless jobs as, for example, fraud analyst at a betting company, you know? because gambling is good for you. Brexit was an incredible result but The Blob wouldn't allow any deviations other than self immolation the match was fixed. Every politician who campaigned for Brexit turned out to be a mixture of impotent, bought, weasel, or just utterly incompetent. With all three trad political parties fully signed up to the WEF and Christ knows what else? The only possible outcome is that the indigenous population would be ethnically cleansed, and that's what we are starting to realise, that they are ethnically cleansing us. So what you are seeing is the British waking up and it will not be pretty. Islam is 7% of the population in the UK and they are just starting to get rowdy, imagine at 14-20% with smuggled weapons and the Police running around with Gay Pride flags.
Doesn't a civil war require both sides to be armed, by definition?
That's why I am sending info so they can be.
That’s correct. Their dear King did this to them, he is the ones giving the Muslims all the power.
They wanted states rights to own slaves. If slavery wasn't an issue, they would have never tried to leave. Also, they did want control and land, which they were taking from the United States as a whole.
And what are you talking about with Massachusetts? As far as I'm aware, they have never formally tried to succeed from the union.
Slavery was a small part of it. As always, all roads lead to London.
At the beginning of the war, cotton impacted the livelihoods of one in five Englishmen in some way. Everyone was worried that the cotton embargo would destroy Britain’s financial might. But it turned out that there was a huge cotton glut in 1860.
There was too much cotton sitting in warehouses in England and it was bringing down the price of finished goods. So what the war did was rescue Britain from a serious industrial slump that was about to take place. For the first 18 months of the war, British merchants just used up the cotton that they had stored. Then, finally, when the cotton became scarce, truly, truly scarce midway through the war, there were other sources of cotton coming from India and Egypt.
By then, Britain had become completely invested in the war because of the war economy. Guns, cannons, rifles, bullets, uniforms, steel plating of all kind, everything that a war needs, Britain was able to export to the North and to the South. In fact, Britain’s economy grew during the Civil War.
Second of all, Britain was heavily invested because of the bonds. Both the South and the North needed to sell bonds on the international market to raise money to fight the war. The British were the largest holder of these bonds.
Interesting. I didn't know that much about Britain's involvement in the war, or the glut of cotton around that time.
For the South though, I would argue that slavery was their main contention and reason for going to war.
Here is a fascinating article written by Richard Poe on the Brits' involvement.
For some it probably was a simple matter of the right to own slaves, but for many it was the threat of tariffs.
Source
They did. But it never really went very far. Once during the war of 1812, but the war ended and made things moot.
Once before the "John Brown" days. But this was really an attempt to dissolve the entire union due to slavery.
A few years before the civil war, again an attempt to dissolve the union and create a northern non slave union.
Not sure what the 4th one is he spoke of. Perhaps it was when the movement was pushed in the press. Pushed by politicians, thru the press. Or when Maine seceded from Massachusetts.
But in a virtual blink of an eye, secession became a southern thing.
Secession talk was common up until the civil war. But after that, talk of seceding was virtually nonexistent. Really, still is. War will do that.
This was all taught at my school. With film and documentary. Not in the books.
One thing from the films that sticks out to me even today. The US government hanged John Brown. Eighteen months later they were marching into battle singing "The Ballad of John Brown"
From what I've read, there were some in MA who considered it, but the state as a whole never tried to succeed. As for the efforts by some in the north to create a northern confederacy, they were there, but a relatively small group. I'm not sure if I would call it an attempt, just a minority advocating for their own view. And yes, once the civil war kicked off, talk of northern secession was off the table.
Independence was a minority position at the beginning. Until people got together a talked about things.
But their children's position, to end slavery. A push to eliminate slavery, whether in one area or the country, was the position that caused secession and war.
THERE WERE MORE SLAVES IN THE NORTH!!! STATES RIGHTS WAS THE REASON!!! The South was making the North rich.
No, there weren't, at least not by what I could find. Even if you include the slave states who did not succeed, there were way more slaves in the south.
Several of the declarations made by Southern states specifically mentioned slavery as a reason. There were some complaints about political domination by the north, and that their tariffs and trade policies favored northern industries, but no one was saying that the north was being made rich by the south.
The states rights argument is the kind of rhetorical reframing that Democrats do all the time today. It's like hearing "our democracy." The rights the southern states wanted revolved around buying, owning, and trafficking in slaves. If a slave ran away, they wanted the right to recover their "property." Northern states often refused to recognize a human being as property resulting in a legal challenge. There were debates about legislation that disproportionately affected plantation owners and shipping. Their entire business model revolved around shipping to England's textile industry.
Anyway, long story short, the states' rights they wanted all revolved around slavery, so to say it wasn't about slavery (and economics, ie all wars are bankers' wars) is a mischaracterization. For the seceeding states, that was THE issue. Slavery was essential to their business model.
For Lincoln, defiance of the Union was the issue. He needed the agrarian south and its plantations and didn't want the loss of territory and control. Slavery was not a primary driver and he said so. He would have compromised on that issue in order to keep the Union intact.
As you said, it was about land/resources and the control of them.
Civil war is created by the evildoers which is the King and their minions.
"Civil War" is a very overused phrase in Elon's lexicon. He meant something to us once, but I don't think he's even remotely near knowing the plan. Being prepared is great, being prepared based on Elon's latest ketamine high is a distraction.
I know I'll get hate for this, but we've really gotta strip out the noise we've been hearing lately.
Taking it laying down would be even worse.
There's nothing worse than someone ready to do a battle that will never come. They'll do things like organize a no kings rally to favor oppression and think they're winning.
No harm to be prepared.
Be prepared for the right reasons, otherwise you're not prepared
“Whether you choose violence or not, it’s coming to you. You either fight back, or you die.”
https://x.com/TheBritLad/status/1983476562570973496
I will leave it at that.
When Islam is concerned, it's not really an exaggeration. Islam doesn't negotiate. It offers an ultimatum: submit, convert, or die. Britons are now faced with a choice if they want to keep their island theirs: remigration or reconquista. Given the number of fighting age Muslims they've imported, it will get violent. The Irish, for example, regularly burn down buildings designated to house the imported replacements. The British are putting up flags now, but they'll be using stronger methods if pushed - and Marxists don't back down any more than Muslims do.
The invaders are from a foreign country and are controlling their government. They've been taken over by a foreign entity. They would be taking their country back.
Hope so.
The link of mine isn't working, I don't know what went wrong but will try to fix it.
It works for me.
There must be fuckery afoot Watson, its Moriarty.
SEND LAWYERS GUNS & MONEY.....SHTF
Will soon be, I believe.