ADVERTISEMENT

A more reasonable take on the whole "Civil War II" discussion...

torbee

HB King
Gold Member
Pretty thoughtful and well-researched article in the New Yorker on the subject -- ironically extensively quoting the very same expert yesterday's more strident article also did -- but this one much more realistic and even-keeled, IMO.

These two excerpts are how I expect things to evolve:

Walter made it clear that she wanted to avoid “an exercise in fear-mongering”; she is wary of coming off as sensationalist. In fact, she takes pains to avoid overheated speculation and relays her warning about the potential for civil war in clinical terms. Yet, like those who spoke up clearly about the dangers of global warming decades ago, Walter delivers a grave message that we ignore at our peril. So much remains in flux. She is careful to say that a twenty-first-century American civil war would bear no resemblance to the consuming and symmetrical conflict that was played out on the battlefields of the eighteen-sixties. Instead she foresees, if the worst comes about, an era of scattered yet persistent acts of violence: bombings, political assassinations, destabilizing acts of asymmetric warfare carried out by extremist groups that have coalesced via social media.

And

“We’re not headed to fascism or Putinism,” Levitsky told me, “but I do think we could be headed to recurring constitutional crises, periods of competitive authoritarian and minority rule, and episodes of pretty significant violence that could include bombings, assassinations, and rallies where people are killed. In 2020, we saw people being killed on the streets for political reasons. This isn’t apocalypse, but it is a horrendous place to be.”

 
  • Like
Reactions: nu2u and z_ape
WTF is wrong with these people? The vast majority of Americans are just going about their daily lives, not incensed about anything.

And if there WAS some sort of Civil War, what are we fighting over? Simple political power? Nothing noble like ending slavery or overthrowing an oppressive government that won't give us elected representation?
 
WTF is wrong with these people? The vast majority of Americans are just going about their daily lives, not incensed about anything.

And if there WAS some sort of Civil War, what are we fighting over? Simple political power? Nothing noble like ending slavery or overthrowing an oppressive government that won't give us elected representation?
Of course political power. Isn't that how quite a few wars started in the past. I am not saying it will happen.
 
WTF is wrong with these people? The vast majority of Americans are just going about their daily lives, not incensed about anything.
Yep... and exactly that same thing was happening on January 6th... Only a few thousand took it upon themselves to hold a violent riot and a subset of those to break into and wreak havoc in the home of our government...
 
WTF is wrong with these people? The vast majority of Americans are just going about their daily lives, not incensed about anything.

And if there WAS some sort of Civil War, what are we fighting over? Simple political power? Nothing noble like ending slavery or overthrowing an oppressive government that won't give us elected representation?
You have to think about it from a historian's perspective, Trad. In most wars -- hell, even WWII for millions -- the vast, vast majority of people are still able to mostly go on with their day-to-day lives.

As pointed out in the article, no one is saying there will be battle lines between D.C. and Richmond like there were in the 1860s -- but political violence, assassinations, large scale public disturbances, etc. -- are all warfare.

Indeed, all politics is made possible through the implied use of force by agents of violence (military, police, intelligence agencies). It is only by shared agreement in a democracy that switching leadership and handing over the reins of power is accomplished peacefully and/or voluntarily. And currently we have one of our two major political parties headed up by politicians who are challenging that voluntary acquiescence of power. It doesn't take a big leap of logic to see how that can result in the type of "warfare" noted in the quotes above.
 
Last edited:
Think Northern Ireland... the IRA... except more death and destruction.
Not a chance in hell….




mil.jpg
 
I find it odd that the people who think a violent outbreak of civil war is going to happen in our streets, also get mad about and want to reduce the amount of riot gear the police wear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThisHawks4u
WTF is wrong with these people? The vast majority of Americans are just going about their daily lives, not incensed about anything.

And if there WAS some sort of Civil War, what are we fighting over? Simple political power? Nothing noble like ending slavery or overthrowing an oppressive government that won't give us elected representation?
The North was willing to fight for ‘simple political power’ the first time.
You won’t cite a call to end slavery in Northern enlistment efforts in 1861.
It was for them about preserving the existing political structure.
There was fear secession could continue, and then result in multiple warring states on this continent, as in Europe.

The UK has been through multiple peaceful secessions since our war of independence with them.

If people didn’t insist on being able to enforce political power on people distant from them, there’s hope our union could dismember on amicable terms along more amicable lines.

I’m afraid the heightening polarization is the consequence of steady consolidation. I hope to see the pendulum swing back the other way a bit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: torbee
I’m afraid the heightening polarization is the consequence of steady consolidation. I hope to see the pendulum swing back the other way a bit.

I've wondered about that... if more political control at state and local levels might be a bit of an antidote.
 
Pretty thoughtful and well-researched article in the New Yorker on the subject -- ironically extensively quoting the very same expert yesterday's more strident article also did -- but this one much more realistic and even-keeled, IMO.

These two excerpts are how I expect things to evolve:

Walter made it clear that she wanted to avoid “an exercise in fear-mongering”; she is wary of coming off as sensationalist. In fact, she takes pains to avoid overheated speculation and relays her warning about the potential for civil war in clinical terms. Yet, like those who spoke up clearly about the dangers of global warming decades ago, Walter delivers a grave message that we ignore at our peril. So much remains in flux. She is careful to say that a twenty-first-century American civil war would bear no resemblance to the consuming and symmetrical conflict that was played out on the battlefields of the eighteen-sixties. Instead she foresees, if the worst comes about, an era of scattered yet persistent acts of violence: bombings, political assassinations, destabilizing acts of asymmetric warfare carried out by extremist groups that have coalesced via social media.

And

“We’re not headed to fascism or Putinism,” Levitsky told me, “but I do think we could be headed to recurring constitutional crises, periods of competitive authoritarian and minority rule, and episodes of pretty significant violence that could include bombings, assassinations, and rallies where people are killed. In 2020, we saw people being killed on the streets for political reasons. This isn’t apocalypse, but it is a horrendous place to be.”

That is not a civil war. Those are acts of terrorism. Half the country wouldn't be backing groups that assassinated political figures or bombed places.

It would be a niche group of right wing militia types. No different than what we have always had akin to Oklahoma City bombing.
 
That is not a civil war. Those are acts of terrorism. Half the country wouldn't be backing groups that assassinated political figures or bombed places.

It would be a niche group of right wing militia types. No different than what we have always had akin to Oklahoma City bombing.
Why does it always have to be "right wing"? I know, Jan 6th, yea, there was a political group from the left the occupied a ****ing downtown for months. That always us vs them shit is what makes the shit your talking about real. I think everyone can agree they are extremist..
 
Pretty thoughtful and well-researched article in the New Yorker on the subject -- ironically extensively quoting the very same expert yesterday's more strident article also did -- but this one much more realistic and even-keeled, IMO.

These two excerpts are how I expect things to evolve:

Walter made it clear that she wanted to avoid “an exercise in fear-mongering”; she is wary of coming off as sensationalist. In fact, she takes pains to avoid overheated speculation and relays her warning about the potential for civil war in clinical terms. Yet, like those who spoke up clearly about the dangers of global warming decades ago, Walter delivers a grave message that we ignore at our peril. So much remains in flux. She is careful to say that a twenty-first-century American civil war would bear no resemblance to the consuming and symmetrical conflict that was played out on the battlefields of the eighteen-sixties. Instead she foresees, if the worst comes about, an era of scattered yet persistent acts of violence: bombings, political assassinations, destabilizing acts of asymmetric warfare carried out by extremist groups that have coalesced via social media.

And

“We’re not headed to fascism or Putinism,” Levitsky told me, “but I do think we could be headed to recurring constitutional crises, periods of competitive authoritarian and minority rule, and episodes of pretty significant violence that could include bombings, assassinations, and rallies where people are killed. In 2020, we saw people being killed on the streets for political reasons. This isn’t apocalypse, but it is a horrendous place to be.”

Think about how fortunate we have truly been, in terms of political unrest, compared to many other so-called Western Civilizations (Spain, Germany, France, many South American countries). I have always hoped that it has been due to the wisdom of our forefathers in constructing our system of government as they did. I sadly no longer think we are immune to it. Yes, I know we had our Civil War, but that has kind of been unavoidable in the history of nations. I have always thought we could avoid the the kind of lower level skirmishes that plagued these other countries. I no longer think that is the case. I suspect the author is correct in that we are likely in for a long period of unrest. I can only hope for the best for my children.
 
  • Like
Reactions: torbee
Why does it always have to be "right wing"? I know, Jan 6th, yea, there was a political group from the left the occupied a ****ing downtown for months. That always us vs them shit is what makes the shit your talking about real. I think everyone can agree they are extremist..
It absolutely isn’t. A look around the globe and through history makes that abundantly clear. Right now, in 2022 America, however it is a loud and large minority contingent of the right wing base that is agitating most intensely.
 
It absolutely isn’t. A look around the globe and through history makes that abundantly clear. Right now, in 2022 America, however it is a loud and large minority contingent of the right wing base that is agitating most intensely.

Oh, yeah... and left isn't agitating at all! Amirite????
 
  • Like
Reactions: doughuddl2
It's going to be more lone wolf or small uncoordinated group attacks. Think Timothy McVeigh, Congressional Softball Shooter, Replacement Theory shooter, etc.

More harassment of low level bureaucrats or straight out murder of them. People being ginned up by social influencers and other extremist groups online.
 
It's going to be more lone wolf or small uncoordinated group attacks. Think Timothy McVeigh, Congressional Softball Shooter, Replacement Theory shooter, etc.

More harassment of low level bureaucrats or straight out murder of them. People being ginned up by social influencers and other extremist groups online.

~yawn~

No.
 
You have to think about it from a historian's perspective, Trad. In most wars -- hell, even WWII for millions -- the vast, vast majority of people are still able to mostly go on with their day-to-day lives.

As pointed out in the article, no one is saying there will be battle lines between D.C. and Richmond like there were in the 1860s -- but political violence, assassinations, large scale public disturbances, etc. -- are all warfare.

Indeed, all politics is made possible through the implied use of force by agents of violence (military, police, intelligence agencies). It is only by shared agreement in a democracy that switching leadership and handing over the reins of power is accomplished peacefully and/or voluntarily. And currently we have one of our two major political parties headed up by politicians who are challenging that voluntary acquiescence of power. It doesn't take a big leap of logic to see how that can result in the type of "warfare" noted in the quotes above.
By that standard, antifa, blm, and the jan 6ers have already begun the war.
 
Last edited:
What's happening?

I haven't seen any attacks (unless you count the "flash looting" that I'm sure a bunch of republicans are involved in).
Death threats on public servants has increased sharply. It was the same stuff that happened with Operation Rescue before escalation.
The crap online left or right ratchets nutjobs to lash out.
 
What's happening?

I haven't seen any attacks (unless you count the "flash looting" that I'm sure a bunch of republicans are involved in).
Read the article bro. They cite multiple incidents — off the top of my head are the plot to kidnap the Michigan governor, Charlottesville right wing public agitation and violence and the January 6 insurrection. One could argue the George Floyd protesting violence and the Kyle Rittenhouse shooting are part of what we’re talking about. They are definitely proxy.
 
Read the article bro. They cite multiple incidents — off the top of my head are the plot to kidnap the Michigan governor, Charlottesville right wing public agitation and violence and the January 6 insurrection. One could argue the George Floyd protesting violence and the Kyle Rittenhouse shooting are part of what we’re talking about. They are definitely proxy.

The BLM "Summer of Violence" is totally downplayed. Glad you at least acknowledged it.
 
Read the article bro. They cite multiple incidents — off the top of my head are the plot to kidnap the Michigan governor, Charlottesville right wing public agitation and violence and the January 6 insurrection. One could argue the George Floyd protesting violence and the Kyle Rittenhouse shooting are part of what we’re talking about. They are definitely proxy.
El Paso Shooter. Pizza gate attempted liberation, There was some Jewish refugee charity group incident. That had ties to Replacement Theory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: torbee
I like it that these right wing fanatics think that they would have a chance against the US military. We would take them out in a heartbeat.
 
I find it odd that the people who think a violent outbreak of civil war is going to happen in our streets, also get mad about and want to reduce the amount of riot gear the police wear.
Why do you believe the police will be on your side in a civil war?
 
Why do you believe the police will be on your side in a civil war?
Not sure how you came to that idea.
In 2020 one of the left’s major talking points during the riots was that cops shouldn’t be militarized and have all of that riot gear on because it’s “inciting violence”. They prefer them not wearing helmets while getting hit by their rocks, apparently. It was part of the “defund” schtick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jamesvanderwulf
I know for a fact, that the military is outing these guys. It is a slow process, but security clearances will be getting revoked, and thus dismissal.

jimmy McGill, fake lawyer on HROT knows this for a fact.

See my previous post. This is why Twitter and HROT are in no way representative of America.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT