There seems be quite a contradiction between the above and what he says here:
Unless what Rod Drehr outlines is some kind of more covert resistance.
Maybe. Psychopaths in power fear the population - that's a generally proven fact, I think. It's probably more true now in America than ever before. Add to that the notion that conservatives in general have less of a tendency to be socially disruptive. That's also generally true, I think, but maybe less and less, given the insanity in America, and the perception of a growing need to rise up and protect their country.
The PTB still fear them and hate them - even if their general tendency is to NOT start a revolution or seek revenge. Even if the population does nothing, just their thoughts and beliefs are enough to cause fear, if the censorship industry is any indication. So I don't see much contradiction.
Anyways, it's food for thought. Civil war in America? According to the
moral tastebuds specific to their political orientation, the conservative attitude has to do with respect for authority and social structure. It would take huge shock to cause the right-leaning population to take up arms against their own institutions like the military, national guard, and police - who they sort of worship. And they would need to do exactly that in order to take out pathologicals, because the psychos would send armed force agains them and easily denounce any populist uprising as traitors, or Iran-backed, Putin stooges, and agents of the Chinese, etc.
Before it even comes to an actual civil war, if history is any indicator, the population would need a vanguard of conservative elites to rally them, organize them, and keep them oriented properly. I don't think we're even close to that point. Trump, Vance, Gabbard, RFK Jr, Musk, Tucker Carlson, and the host of conservative YouTubers just don't seem like a wartime council to me. The deciding factor would be American military cohesion itself, if it ever came down to it. I just don't see US military forces overcoming their programming and turning on their superiors en masse. Who knows!
Anyways, I think Cooper's a good historian because he doesn't do black and white narratives. Just like with WW2, where he kinda tore apart the whole 'Hitler-Germany-bad/Churchill-England-good' narrative, he's looking at the nuances in the upcoming election. The point he made, and I think it's a good one, is that a broad-scale conservative revolution is not likely to happen in the case of a stolen election.
