“‘Boogaloo’ Is The New Far-Right Slang For Civil War”

I just became aware of this today. I looked it up after having seen it used without any clarification in several internet articles. The fact that it is used without explanation seems to indicate that I missed the memo.

“In dozens of YouTube videos, they promise armed rebellion if the government tries to take their guns – a civil war, or Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo.” The name is spun off a Golan/Globus movie from about 35 years ago, Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo. That I remember. It’s basically a multi-cultural “slobs vs snobs” movie about street dancing. The plot is the usual cliche: girl’s dad wants her to study dance in Paris, but she opts instead to help some street dancers save a community center from an evil developer.

12 thoughts on ““‘Boogaloo’ Is The New Far-Right Slang For Civil War”

  1. BTW, for quite a while after “Breaking 2: Electric Booglaloo” was released, it was kind of a running joke (it would have been a meme if the term meme had been invented yet) that the sequel to ANYTHING was “something something 2: Electric Boogaloo”. You know, “Hamlet 2: Electric Booglaloo”, “Citizen Kane 2: Electric Booglaloo”, etc. It faded somewhat as time went on, but never entirely went away.

  2. Damn few people actually want to ban gun all ownership. It’s the military grade hardware they’re after, as they should be. Not that terribly long ago that stuff was illegal. if you’d asked anybody if it should be legal, the answer would have been along the lines of “Are you crazy’?” Btw, even St. Scalia acknowledged that the government does have the right to put limitations on specific types of weaponry. The “Second Amendment Rights” chanters tend to gloss that part over.
    The AR-15 type stuff actually is not that great for personal protection (lots of unwanted collateral damage possibilities) and useless for hunting unless one is a total sicko. Great stuff though if you have vivid fantasies about liberating the country from George Soros or just like to show them off.
    Can you back that last statement with something not coming from Corsi-Jones-Hannity World?

  3. You’d think after 8 years of Obama, they’d realize no one is coming for their guns. Worse, apparently Hawaiian shirts are the down-low signifier for these Boogers. Is there anything they can’t fuck up?

    1. They’ve been whining about people coming for their guns for 40+ years, ever since a guy named Harlon Carter staged a kind of coup at the NRA. The NRA does not learn because they do not want to – they want to keep whipping up the membership into a frenzy of anger and donations (to the NRA).

      Believing what you want to believe instead of facts eventually makes it hard to do anything right. See Hitler for proof.

      1. They aren’t coming for your guns, unless you live in California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, or Deerfield, IL.

        My friend had to sue the village of Deerfield in order to keep from having to store his guns off his property. This is after he moved from Highland Park IL when they banned “assault weapons.”

        it is very telling that the same people that believe people shouldn’t be allowed to own guns are also trying to defund police departments.

        1. They are coming for your guns in New Jersey and California? Or are the kind of guns you can own just somewhat restricted there?

          You know what you can do if you don’t like the city ordinances in Deerfield, IL? You can NOT live in Deerfield, IL. Over 300 million people do it!

          There is no major politician or party advocating the confiscation of all guns. That is a straw man, a lie, and a scare tactic. It says a lot about both you and the NRA that you say it.

          Way back in 1934, laws were passed restricting the kind of weapons US citizens could own, like full-power machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. That was 86 years ago. Has the sky fallen? Are your liberties gone? Or can you own rifles more effective in the anti-personnel role than anything on earth in 1934?

          Like I said, people like you are whiners, and you never stop whining. You have had everything your own way since 1968, and you still can’t stop whining.

          You are perfectly happy to have people DIE for your “right” to own the semi-auto version of assault rifles. You don’t even want bump stocks done away with. You are either a loon or a shill or a Russian troll. I don’t care which, you can go to hell.

          1. You know what you can do if you don’t like the federal laws in the USA? You can NOT live in the USA. Over 7 billion people do it!

            I’m sure that argument is different from yours, Roger, but I’m not seeing it at the moment. Arguments like this also assume that housing and moving expenses are trivial.

            I live where I live because I can’t afford to live anywhere else, and I find “you can always move” arguments a bit insulting.

            (For the record, I don’t have much disagreement with the rest of your post.)

        2. not an NRA fanboi,
          Thanks for the civility of your reply. I suppose my comment about Deerfield was a poor one. 40 years of Republican economic and tax policies have left the average American less mobile, in terms of where they live, than when I was young.

          I should have taken more note of your username, and complimented you on not being an NRA fanboi. I am not an enemy of gun ownership, I just don’t think the general public needs military grade firepower, an idea that dates back to 1934.

          1. Shouldn’t the right to bear arms be limited to muskets etc that were the state of the art when the Constitution was written…after all…that’s in keeping with originalists.

          2. I don’t know about that, but I know how to shut up people who claim the second amendment has no limits, “So, you support the right of all Moslem Americans to own shoulder-mounted surface-to-air missiles?”

            This begins the discussion on the right track – that some weapons need to be banned, and the debate then gets to center on “which ones?”

          3. Ah yes, the Republican economic and tax policies of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. From what I can tell, screwing up the economy seems to be a bipartisan effort. After all, I live in California, a state with one of the highest costs of living and one of the highest poverty rates, and we’re not exactly a Republican stronghold. But that’s okay, Roger, if you wish to generalize, I don’t mind.

          4. No one, Bill Clinton gave the Republicans EVERYTHING they wanted. They paid paid him back with virulent, irrational, undying hatred. And if you think Barack Obama got to set any tax policy the Republicans did not like, you are delusional. Tax policy since Ronald Reagan has been the domain of the Republican Party.

            The President that you SHOULD have mentioned was George Bush the Elder, the last Republican President to actually care about the deficit. He agreed to some tax increases. His reward was to come as close as possible to being drummed out of the party as a President can be, and losing to Clinton in 1992.

            PS – I got “not an NRA fanboi” and “no one” mixed up a couple of posts up. That’s a sign I should sign off for now.

Comments are closed.