ADVERTISEMENT

Is the United States headed for civil war?

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,113
58,286
113
Perspective by Marc Fisher
Marc Fisher, a senior editor, writes about most anything. He has been The Washington Post’s enterprise editor, local columnist and Berlin bureau chief, and he has covered politics, education, pop culture and much else in three decades on the Metro, Style, National and Foreign desks.


It’s easy and logical to conclude that the United States today stands as close to the edge of civil war as it has since 1861. A broad variety of voices — including Republican and Democratic politicians, academics who study civil strife, and extremists on both ends of the spectrum — now accept the idea that civil war is either imminent or necessary. They point to evidence that can seem persuasive: a blizzard of threats against FBI agents, judges, elected officials, school board members and elections supervisors; training camps where heavily armed radicals practice to confront their own government; and polls showing that many Americans expect violent conflict.
But it’s also easy and logical to conclude that the florid rhetoric from right-wing extremists, the worried warnings in mainstream media, and the hail of threats and individual attacks after this month’s surprise FBI search of Donald Trump’s South Florida mansion add up to something well short of the frightening prospect of civil war.
People who track such threats say this summer’s violent outbursts against federal officials and government institutions amount to one more concerning surge of rage in a pattern that has persisted throughout the pandemic, spiking after the murder of George Floyd two summers ago. But the Anti-Defamation League and other watchdog groups are not seeing the kind of specific planning by private militias and online assemblages of radicals that was evident before last year’s Jan. 6 insurrection and the white-supremacist march in Charlottesville in 2017.
“We are living in a country where disinformation, conspiracy thinking and lies have resulted in deadly attacks,” said Oren Segal, vice president of the ADL’s Center on Extremism. “It’s not exactly kumbaya in this society. But we have been going through this for a long time now, and I don’t see people coming together in the more coherent organizing we saw prior to Jan. 6.”
Contrast that perspective with that of Stephen Marche, author of “The Next Civil War: Dispatches From the American Future,” who posits that as extremists’ threats have become more lurid and specific, their rhetoric has leached into the mainstream — leading, for example, the Texas state government to spell out instances in which it would defy federal authority and the Texas Republican Party to declare President Biden the “acting president” and seek a voter referendum on seceding from the United States.
Lawmakers hold a candlelight vigil at the Capitol on the anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack, when many rioters called for civil war. (Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post)
When he sees small groups of armed men training for combat against government agents, Marche, a Canadian novelist, wants to ring warning bells. “The alarm is getting much more serious, and it’s accelerating very quickly,” he said. “The kind of chaos I’m describing is like internet rage: You could take it as playacting or it could be deadly serious. It could be weekend fun or actual military preparation.” He, along with some other analysts on the left, right and in between, thinks the current noise is a strong indicator that a hot civil war — one likely to feature bombings, assassinations and other assaults on federal institutions and officials — may be imminent.
This split over how seriously to take the threat of civil war is not just another example of America’s deep divisions: It has the great benefit of existing on a foundation of shared facts. Both sets of analysts — those who say we’re heading toward civil strife and those who say the threat matrix is largely limited to lone rangers and small, disorganized groups whose dangerous but scattered acts don’t constitute a civil war — agree there is little chance of an organized, violent attack on the government, or of local or state authorities taking up arms against their federal counterparts. But there remains a sharp divide over whether a mounting series of individual and small-group attacks could add up to a warlike conflict that destabilizes the country.
What both sides in the civil war debate do agree on is that a more disturbing trend — at this point more dangerous than the sporadic bursts of violence in recent years — is the pervasive loss of trust, hope and sense of belonging in a severely damaged society.
And both sides agree we have been here before.
A quarter-century ago, after the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, I interviewed William Pierce, the physics professor turned neo-Nazi organizer whose novel “The Turner Diaries” had been taken by the bomber, Timothy McVeigh, as a planning document for launching civil war. In the book, white supremacists conspire to bomb FBI headquarters and spark a wider war against the government. McVeigh had excerpts from the book in his getaway car when he killed 168 people and injured hundreds more.
Pierce, a provocateur who took great pride in his book’s popularity among white supremacists and other extremists, told me that his aim — and that of those he hoped would read his book — was to overthrow the government and rid the country of Jews and Blacks.
“People don’t use the book as a blueprint, but as inspiration,” Pierce told me. “I don’t have the time to write just for entertainment. It’s to explain things to people. I’d like to see North America become a white continent.” He wrote that “if we don’t destroy the System before it destroys us — if we don’t cut this cancer out of our living flesh — our whole race will die.”
Pierce, who died in 2002, told me he expected individual violent acts inspired by his book to become more frequent. “Terrorism only makes sense if it can be sustained,” he said. “One day, there will be real, organized terrorism done according to plan, aimed at bringing down the government.”
For several decades, “The Turner Diaries” has remained a go-to text for violent extremists, showing up frequently in online chatter by participants in and supporters of the Jan. 6 attack. In the meantime, the internet has blossomed into a far more insidiously efficient tool for those who seek to foment discord and terrorism. Yet although Pierce’s work still inspires single actors and small groups, his wider war has never come close to fruition.
Jan. 6 wasn’t an insurrection. It was vigilantism. And more is coming.
***
Much more at



 
  • Haha
Reactions: Bro D
I think there is very little chance of a civil war happening. I do think there are some nutso's out there that would like to start one, but they wouldn't be successful if they tried. At the end of the day, we still have a great country overall and most Americans get along despite our differences.
 
Americans are way too comfortable for this nonsense.

The closest we've come is the summer of rage in 2020. After unprecedented violence and destruction the leftwing terrorists were subdued.
Wow. Pretty unbelievable how stupid you are. Like I’m hoping you’re not allowed to drive, that’s how stupid you’ve shown yourself to be.
 
Uh oh. They have been training!


This was the only thing missing from that

3f8bb8e0e9c8eb4bd40235587345a5c2.jpg
 
The fighting will start after Nebraska travels out to ultra liberal UCLA and Frosty makes a few dumb calls and they blow a 21 point lead in the fourth quarter. The big red fan base begins to riot in Westwood, it becomes uncontrollable and soon they are in south central facing off against gang bangers and the homeless. Things spiral out of control from there into full blown civil war.
 
The hype and hysteria about a 21st century civil war
in our nation is nonsense. There is a certain common
sense among the majority of our citizens. In a democracy
the majority rules at the ballot box elections.

Bottom Line: We need younger candidates for the office
of the U.S. President. In 2016, and 2020 we had Hillary
Clinton, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden. None of them
could provide the dynamic leadership we need. Hopefully
we get some young blood in 2024 who can help us.
 
If it happens, it won't last long and it won't be R's vs D's.

It'll be the 80% of reasonably sane Americans who can have a conversation about issues they don't necessarily agree with... vs the 20% nut jobs on both sides who wait for their talking points/marching orders from CNN or Fox News.

This board would be in trouble.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkland14
Yeah, man. And when your special needs son gets insulted and humiliated in public, we’ll be there to welcome you back.
WTF is that supposed to mean? So if I choose to live in a Red state they will just go around insulting and humiliating people with Down Syndrome on a regular basis. What a strange take.
 
WTF is that supposed to mean? So if I choose to live in a Red state they will just go around insulting and humiliating people with Down Syndrome on a regular basis. What a strange take.
Yeah man, it's definitely the conservatives fighting for equal treatment and opportunities for people with disabilities.
ETA: Definitely the liberals and the left who use the r-slur freely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ree4
Most of it would be the type that charges a federal building by themselves with an AR-15. Or the lady who tried to breach a barricade at the Capitol. The look on her face. I've made a terrible mistake.
 
Americans are way too comfortable for this nonsense.

The closest we've come is the summer of rage in 2020. After unprecedented violence and destruction the leftwing terrorists were subdued.
The riots in the 60's were far worse and lasted longer. U could argue the LA riots of the 90's were just as bad.
 
I missed the part in the training video where these guys are defending against tanks of drone attacks because that is what they could be facing if they go full-traitor and decide they're going to march on something.
 
Yeah man, it's definitely the conservatives fighting for equal treatment and opportunities for people with disabilities.
ETA: Definitely the liberals and the left who use the r-slur freely.
Fighting for equal rights is a tad different than what you posted.

Dems fight for my child‘s rights more than Republicans. I’m not ignorant to that fact. However, something that HROT has taught me the years, is that ignorance and civility are lacking on both sides. You’d think, based on the overall liberal philosophy, Democrats would be a little more tolerant and kind. I’ve lost faith in that.

I live (IA), work (NE) and vacation (MO) in very Republican areas. In person, everyone is genuinely, very kind to my son. I have never witnessed someone openly insulting him or humiliating him in public. I think I’ll be fine living among Republicans…or Democrats for that matter.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT