Civil War in the USA?

[PaulS1950]

The next time that the USA goes to war to help Israel head for your bomb shelters - that is when it will be the end of the starting phase and the beginning of the end game.

 

[Flopper]

If asked who do you pledge your alliance, the United States of America or your state, I suspect that about 99% of the people would say the USA.

 

[Vandalshandle]

As stated before on this thread, the internet allows people with no real lives to rant and be heard in a fashion that would never happen in the real world. There is a whole slice of population who live in mom's basement, or who have drab, everyday lives, who dream of becoming Superman all of a sudden and righting the world's wrongs. They are mostly harmless, and if actually faced with adversity in real life, would cower in the corner, hoping tht nobody would see them. There is another segment who have gotten so in to their fantasy world, that they honestly believe that when the government comes to take away their guns, they will fight to the death in their bunker, but, again, when faced with reality, would melt away. Then there is the 1% who get so wrapped up in their video game internet nonreality, that they actually end up gunning down people like Gabby Gifford.

None of this stuff is real, and none of the threats are real. It is just an imaginary world where misfits want to be Batman, and roll play their way through their own little private World of Warcraft.

 

[Toro]

The only people who think there will be a civil war are crazy loser fringe nutters.

99.9% of the rest of Americans are busy with their lives.

 

[Circe]

A lot of dissafected Americans believe that a civil war or secession of one or more states is coming the USA.

Is this just the normal level of political malcontention, or is something new and significant taking place?

Should we really fear a large group of extremist Americans, say 10,000 or so, taking up arms against the govt?

Can you imagine all this being said as of September 10, 2001??? The discontent and talk of revolution and Civil War and secession is new since .....well, since the last time, 1855, and the time before that, around 1772.

So sure, I think this is significant!! Used to be people were very patriotic, to the despair of Europeans on our political forums. No more.

Big changes are usually talked up for years before the change actually happens. That's Wisdom of the Crowd, I think. Also self-fulfilling prophecies. That's why totalitarian governments try to squelch this sort of talk. Because it does feed on itself and grow.


As for your 10,000 rebels, I don't think it happens quite like that. Revolutions always start small and build like a snowball rolling downhill. Margaret Mead said, "Don't think that a small group of committed individuals can't change the world ---- in fact, that's the only way it ever has been changed." I think that's correct, from my reading of history.

 

[Circe]

It would take a large tipping point for the US to go to a full scale Civil War. The war will not be so much states fighting each other, it will be based on religion and/or race.

Now if Zimmy is acquitted, there will only be limited rioting by the usual suspects. But that's not a real war. Only after something like a total collapse of the dollar/economy would a war break out. The first areas to riot will always be the areas with the highest crime. Always inner cities with welfare dependency. The chaos will spread from there.

Thinking that 10,000 paranoid militia types are going to be starting the trouble is a liberal fantasy.

Nice post, Survivalist.

My brother-in-law agrees with you, that a civil war would be race/religion/values-based, and therefore would drastically divide every city and town. So it would be impossible, as far as I can see: how can everyone fight everyone everywhere?

I think it has to be land-based, because people have to have a base to organize on. And we have so much land in this country, that it would be a land-based revolution. The country would split within half a week (that's the usual timeframe in such revolutions: The sudden collapse of the Soviet Union and our Southern secession -- it either happens FAST or it doesn't happen at all. You can't have a slow earthquake.) into maybe four or more parts. East Coast, Left Coast, Northwest, and the South and maybe the Southwest.

I agree that it is likely to start with inner-city riots. That's why I thought Occupy Wall Street was so dangerous: that's what they intended, of course. But they were too early. But I think it would have to spread to white areas or interfere with what business still goes on in the major cities --- no one cares if the blacks burn down where they live; that already happened in the '60s and '70s, I remember it well. If there is a law and order problem and whites have to arm to protect their property and families, watch out. There IS a reason white men are buying out all the guns and ammo everywhere, after all, and the fear of this sort of uprising is that reason.

Total economic collapse also really works as a pre-trigger. That is, the famine and complete government bankruptcy of France in 1789 didn't cause the French Revolution, but there had been a lot of rioting, rioting, protests, carrying on --- then suddenly, Kaboom! Same with the Russian Revolution: starvation, millions of Russian men in the field losing and being killed and few had any guns, they had to pick up guns from other dead Russians, losing, losing, everyone hated the Czar's family and Rasputin, like there is always a hate on of current politicians in these times, the French all hated Marie Antoinette. So Lenin and his small band showed up and Kaboom!!

And actually, the government almost lost this country in the 1930s, with the Hoovervilles, the Veterans March on Washington, the radio programs preaching revolution constantly. So I agree, if there is a big economic collapse on top of the extreme discontent going on now, I see trouble coming.


Normal political practice is to start a war against an outside power, and hope to unite the people against an external enemy. That's what Bush did, but it backfired. I'm expecting that soon. Iran, probably.

 

[National Socialist]

If asked who do you pledge your alliance, the United States of America or your state, I suspect that about 99% of the people would say the USA.

I doubt it will come down the the US vs the State. Its going to come down to the government as a whole vs the people.

 

[Trakar]

About the only people that would like to see a civil war in the US are terrorists and political extremists. Both want to see the nation destroyed but for different reasons.

Not so sure the reasons are that different.

They both feel oppressed by a power that does not respect, yet alone kowtow to their political perspective and they feel that they would be empowered by the downfall of such a powerful adversary to their beliefs.

 

[Flopper]

If asked who do you pledge your alliance, the United States of America or your state, I suspect that about 99% of the people would say the USA.

I doubt it will come down the the US vs the State. Its going to come down to the government as a whole vs the people.

Then what you're taking about is not really a civil war but rather a revolt, or coup to overthrow the government.

 

[Flopper]

About the only people that would like to see a civil war in the US are terrorists and political extremists. Both want to see the nation destroyed but for different reasons.

Not so sure the reasons are that different.

They both feel oppressed by a power that does not respect, yet alone kowtow to their political perspective and they feel that they would be empowered by the downfall of such a powerful adversary to their beliefs.

Terrorist simply want to destroy America. Political extremist see the destruction of the American government as a necessary step to rebuild the nation in accord with their political ideology. In America, political extremist don't hate America, they just the hate the path it has taken.

 

[whitehall]

I don't think there is any evidence of "a lot of dissafected Americans" believing any such thing.

 

[Trakar]

About the only people that would like to see a civil war in the US are terrorists and political extremists. Both want to see the nation destroyed but for different reasons.

Not so sure the reasons are that different.

They both feel oppressed by a power that does not respect, yet alone kowtow to their political perspective and they feel that they would be empowered by the downfall of such a powerful adversary to their beliefs.

Terrorist simply want to destroy America. Political extremist see the destruction of the American government as a necessary step to rebuild the nation in accord with their political ideology. In America, political extremist don't hate America, they just the hate the path it has taken.

If America happened to promote the terrorists' particular form of government/religion/extremism, they would probably be strong supporters of America. I still don't see any tremendous distinction.

 

[whitehall]

The closest America got to revolution in modern times was the turbulent 60's. Domestic terrorists are still revered by the left. The invasion of Waco with poison gas and tanks showed Americans that it's useless to resist.

 

[Trakar]

The closest America got to revolution in modern times was the turbulent 60's. Domestic terrorists are still revered by the left. The invasion of Waco with poison gas and tanks showed Americans that it's useless to resist.

Actually, as the far right militia groups and their fervent glorification of religious cults (such as is evidenced in the Waco incident), culminating in the Oklahoma City federal building bombing is probably much closer to anything actually resembling domestic armed insurgency and rebellion than anything that happened in the '60s.

 

[Circe]

The closest America got to revolution in modern times was the turbulent 60's. Domestic terrorists are still revered by the left.

Yes. I didn't recognize it at the time as "Peace Now!" was echoing back and forth off tall buildings in Chicago, but now I realize they nearly lost the country then. And knew it: that's why they appeased the mostly college-student demonstrators by stopping the draft. And then it all went away..... That was a revolution based on an adventure-war going badly. The Russian Revolution started that way.

Before that was the Depression uprisings, and that near-miss was based on disastrous economic collapse. The French Revolution started that way.

 

[Circe]

Actually, as the far right militia groups and their fervent glorification of religious cults (such as is evidenced in the Waco incident), culminating in the Oklahoma City federal building bombing is probably much closer to anything actually resembling domestic armed insurgency and rebellion than anything that happened in the '60s.

No, IMO. Way too small an insurgent group. You have to have more people involved than that, and less ......obviously radical and violent.

The '60s near-miss was almost all college students, a very mainstream population (which is why the openly communist leaders got nowhere with their doctrines: we just wanted to stop the war).

And the French Revolution was wholly initiated by intellectuals, doctors, lawyers, clergy, and other well-educated ....idiots.

It got out of hand, and the mob ruled and the crazies and power-hungry who grabbed power. Hundreds of thousands died by guillotine, drowning, and civil war.

Such a problem in revolutions..... Stalin. It will happen here, too.

 

[Trakar]

Actually, as the far right militia groups and their fervent glorification of religious cults (such as is evidenced in the Waco incident), culminating in the Oklahoma City federal building bombing is probably much closer to anything actually resembling domestic armed insurgency and rebellion than anything that happened in the '60s.

No, IMO. Way too small an insurgent group. You have to have more people involved than that, and less ......obviously radical and violent.

The '60s near-miss was almost all college students, a very mainstream population (which is why the openly communist leaders got nowhere with their doctrines: we just wanted to stop the war).

And the French Revolution was wholly initiated by intellectuals, doctors, lawyers, clergy, and other well-educated ....idiots.

It got out of hand, and the mob ruled and the crazies and power-hungry who grabbed power. Hundreds of thousands died by guillotine, drowning, and civil war.

Such a problem in revolutions..... Stalin. It will happen here, too.

I think you underestimate the underground swelling and support that the "race war" militias had (and have) among the far right, which actually has several political infrastructure "friendlies" and alliances (Tea party, fundamental Christian zealots, and every other fringe right radical group - KKK, NeoNazis, etc.,) as well as a substantial business community/economic influence and support. Of course, revolutions rarely go as those who aspire to them have designed and planned,...luckily.

 

[tap4154]

Not sure about a civil war, but we DO need a new Declaration of Independence from the new "King George III"; Barack Hussein Obama II.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

More likely the gov will wage a war against the american people. If it comes, it comes.

And why would "the govt." do such a thing?

what makes you think govt. employees and soldiers of the USA would wage war against their own people without good reason?

They wouldn’t.

It’s paranoid partisan idiocy.

There’ll be no ‘civil war,’ no ‘secession,’ as correctly noted it’s mere perception based on the internet and other media.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If asked who do you pledge your alliance, the United States of America or your state, I suspect that about 99% of the people would say the USA.

I doubt it will come down the the US vs the State. Its going to come down to the government as a whole vs the people.

"The government" is just a bunch of "the people".