That and they're not deprived and pushed far enough into a corner yet. Its a combination of that and logistics. This is basically a repost of a thread conversation I was having, so take it with a grain of salt, but heres the numbers from what I can see: If people *knew* they had a real chance at winning, or a stalemate that lead to concessions, I think the public attitude on the right would change pretty fast. Basically, from what I've seen on the net, the universal sentiment among those who appear pro-conflict is that its not a viable fight. Its not a conflict our side could win given the lack of the ability to shape public perception about the fight. For the record, I think the current "willing participant" rate for any sort of civil conflict is, in at least red counties, somewhere between 1.6% and 3.3%, thats just from things I've heard in the grocery line and other places. Additionally, if the population is 327,000,000 in the u.s. and 40 million (lets say thats an underestimate, and go with 60 million) are immigrants, related *to* immigrants, or foreign born. and discounting 13% of the population (blacks), with only 10% being conservative, that leaves 228,741,000 people, or 114,370,500 conservatives. 57,185,250 or about that many potential combatants (conservative and male). And then, lets look at the reasonable percentage of men who *could* and *would* fight in bulk: 18-20: 3.7% or 5.931 million 21-44: 31.9% 51.658 million Or about 57.589 million males total. Or 28.7945 million males total that *might* be righwing, assuming the political spectrum is uniform across age groups (its not). If the radicalization rate is, on average 2.45%, thats 705,465.25 fighting age rightwing males, willing, if approached with a legitimate well-equipped and well-funded movement, to join as warm bodies. Right below the threshold of political relevancy. I guess thats why the regime is scared. Of those, maybe 10% can be expected to be of any actual use or participation, so about 70,545. And maybe 3500-7000 that might be actual fighters. Thats still a lot of damage, and would be catastrophic for the regime, but it'd never be allowed to get off the ground. And its likely why DC spends so much money and time on contractors (spies, informants, and infiltration operations). Theres something like 60,000 unaccountable federal contractors who job solely consists of doing things like creating fake identities for federal officials an agents, registering houses, cars, weapons, phones, boats, and any other equipment or purchases in their names, to conceal federal operations. This also doesn't account for the effect of "both sides" joining a civil conflict. For example, how many people saw the Waukesha attack, or the riots in 2020, and decided if there was a civil war they'd join? How many people on the left saw J6 (as distorted and misrepresented as that event was) and decided if the right decides to show up for a fight so would they? What percentage of the right is basically of the sentiment that if the left continues on the way it is, it'll come down to either starting or joining a conflict? We don't have those numbers, but when you do calculations and analyses, you can't just say "what percentage of our side is willing?" You also have to assess the sentiments of the *otherside*, because what *they* do **impacts** the percentages on our side. As it stands, I see now what the DoD was claiming a decade ago, a fights brewing. But unlike their panic now, I don't see it happening for maybe another 1-3 years, 2-5 at the latest. Right now the willing-participation rate seems to be right below the ignition threshold, so its something to keep watching.