View Poll Results: How Imminent is Civil War in America?

Voters
9. You may not vote on this poll
  • By the end of November 2016.

    0 0%
  • By January 01, 2017.

    1 11.11%
  • By June 30, 2017.

    1 11.11%
  • There will be no Civil War, just business as usual.

    7 77.78%
Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 278910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 161

Thread: How Imminent is Civil War in America?

  1. #111
    Senior Member
    Neophyte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    4 Weeks Ago @ 12:15 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Subrace
    Nordic + some Atlantid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    48
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Posts
    2,051
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    188
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    195
    Thanked in
    129 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Theunissen View Post
    This was about nukes landing in "wrong hands" and what responses to this could be. I btw. have no idea how many of those nukes would actually be operational by now. In my view there would be a decline in usability over time of nukes, since they contain radioactive materials. But the point is the fear factor of that type of weapons. And that will be abused. Probably by New-World-Order proponents.
    Most terrorist organizations have state sponsors, or are at least backed by wealthy interests. I can imagine that Saudi Arabia et al would be informed of their future destiny if Al Qaeda sets off any nukes.


    Regarding the rest. I am not so sure that BLM is a problem long term. Sure, in the here and now they are annoying. But by making everything about race they will force the White population to face that issue.

    So far, since the victory of the Civil Rights-movement in the 1960s, most White people have responded by assuming a color blind view of the world. Race was a difficult problem, fraught with problems leading to severe cognitive dissonance. So most people have chosen to ignore the race question, but that did not make it go away.

    The Negroes who marched with King undoubtedly believed in what he said. But now that they have tried equality for three generations or so, their great-grandchildren have found that equality did not bring the riches once expected. So now they want equity. Now they want justice, because accepting that they are inferior is simply impossible. And White people will again have to face the race question, and this time pretending otherwise will not solve it.

    So yes. Let's make racial identity and racial politics the number one issue in the nation and let's see how that works out the the Negroes.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Neophyte For This Useful Post:


  3. #112
    Senior Member
    Theunissen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    15 Hours Ago @ 04:08 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    North Western Europe
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    State
    Transvaal Transvaal
    Location
    South Africa
    Gender
    Posts
    1,017
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    392
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    650
    Thanked in
    400 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Neophyte View Post
    Most terrorist organizations have state sponsors, or are at least backed by wealthy interests. I can imagine that Saudi Arabia et al would be informed of their future destiny if Al Qaeda sets off any nukes.
    State sponsors and informants. That at least counts for all the bigger one. Terrorists are useful to the deep state, since they provide arguments for budget increases / against decrease in budget.
    Quote Originally Posted by Neophyte View Post
    Regarding the rest. I am not so sure that BLM is a problem long term. Sure, in the here and now they are annoying. But by making everything about race they will force the White population to face that issue.
    If it's not BLM, something else of that sort will appear. If not stopped with full force, the colleges will continue to punch out similar movements.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neophyte View Post
    So far, since the victory of the Civil Rights-movement in the 1960s, most White people have responded by assuming a color blind view of the world. Race was a difficult problem, fraught with problems leading to severe cognitive dissonance. So most people have chosen to ignore the race question, but that did not make it go away.
    At least they pretend to "not to see colour". Well that didn't age well. "Colour blindness" is now considered "microagressions":
    https://sph.umn.edu/site/docs/hewg/microaggressions.pdf
    Negroes don't buy that anyway, they themselves are racially aware and got sort of the same "prejudices", I wonder why.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neophyte View Post
    The Negroes who marched with King undoubtedly believed in what he said. But now that they have tried equality for three generations or so, their great-grandchildren have found that equality did not bring the riches once expected. So now they want equity. Now they want justice, because accepting that they are inferior is simply impossible. And White people will again have to face the race question, and this time pretending otherwise will not solve it.

    So yes. Let's make racial identity and racial politics the number one issue in the nation and let's see how that works out for the Negroes.
    The Marxist Lucifer King show was mostly theatre for White liberals. For the Blacks it was a way to win the moral high ground. I presume most Blacks still respected White people 60 years ago. The MLK story paved the way for forced integration meaning e.g. the gov. forcing schools to "integrate". Except for some flag-ship project that didn't work well. For the Blacks it was a way to get access to resources which was achieved through AA and other government programs essentially inflating the state further.

    The chickens will come home to roost once there are major economic hick-ups. Meaning, when the Dollar becomes obsolete as a world currency. That's why the US has to keep on dominating in the first place. Americans realise they aren't "that great" anymore. But their High Tech armed forces still can dominate all the shit-hole countries.

    At the end of the tunnel there is chaos and "civil war" may actually still be the milder option there. I foresee a total collapse. The question is only one. Another alternative is of course an NWO scenario with super-controlling countries like the US, EU and perhaps various others. Writings for this are already on the wall.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Theunissen For This Useful Post:


  5. #113
    Senior Member
    Winterland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Last Online
    Wednesday, August 4th, 2021 @ 04:57 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    German; Scot-Irish; Scandinavian
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Coastal region
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Free Lance
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    407
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    319
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    237
    Thanked in
    173 Posts
    We ignored race problems because many Whites fled to suburban areas in the US and kept on building separate communities. Demoncrats got mad that we still have freedom to make different choices than what they dreamed for the rest of the nation. To this day, you can buy into expensive and highly segregated communities without speaking any "racist" words as long as you can afford the housing costs and taxes for a certain European style "village." As a result, some Asians can now upscale beyond European descent Middle Class to escape any racial tension. Life is costly here and is not necessarily materialistic if you want safe neighborhoods for family.

    I think the US will fizzle out before we have a Civil War and will resemble Brazil or Central American countries with isolated "rich" communities. The Middle Class will be servants to a political cause and very few people compared to current times.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Winterland For This Useful Post:


  7. #114
    Active Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Rædwald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Online
    1 Week Ago @ 04:53 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Saxon
    Gender
    Age
    28
    Occupation
    Thrower of Rocks
    Politics
    Anti-Judaist
    Religion
    Crypto-Marcionite
    Posts
    869
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    183
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    362
    Thanked in
    202 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Winterland View Post
    I think the US will fizzle out before we have a Civil War and will resemble Brazil or Central American countries with isolated "rich" communities.
    I don’t know about this. Things have gone much further in America than in these countries. In Latin America you do not have:
    • Vitriolic hatred of White people constantly put forward in all mainstream media
    • Deracination of White people and their atomisation
    • Racial animosity on the level seen in the United States


    What you do have in Latin America:
    • A largely white or Castizo ruling class that is not apologetic for this fact
    • A strong sense of community that exists among this class - “us” and “them”
    • Glorification or Europeanness in almost all media. I have been to stores like Chedraui (Walmart equivalent) in the most undeveloped regions of Mexico and still seen all advertisements featuring people who look like they’re straight from Spain.


    With what is going on in America, it seems like something must come to a head because of the sheer velocity of the anti-White rhetoric and now physical violence that is tolerated. It will be unprecedented in history, how a global hegemon will handle this problem its elites manufactured.
    Last edited by Rædwald; Wednesday, September 16th, 2020 at 02:35 PM. Reason: Typo
    If only you knew how bad things really are

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Rædwald For This Useful Post:


  9. #115
    Senior Member
    Neophyte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    4 Weeks Ago @ 12:15 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Subrace
    Nordic + some Atlantid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    48
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Posts
    2,051
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    188
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    195
    Thanked in
    129 Posts
    The smart black people are beginning to see the writing on the wall:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F78vUR0m8k

    So yes, let's do make it all about race.

  10. #116
    Senior Member
    Winterland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Last Online
    Wednesday, August 4th, 2021 @ 04:57 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    German; Scot-Irish; Scandinavian
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Coastal region
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Free Lance
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    407
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    319
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    237
    Thanked in
    173 Posts
    The anti-white literary narrative among MSM is probably really class warfare against the American middle class since we have been used to buffer the elite from demanding nonwhites and poor-class who don't progress up the "class tier." Big Businesses try to force us to pay their benefits as corporations reduce livable wages for excessive profits. We have become modern-day escape-goats for failing programs and their liberalize policies. Many people in Central America and Mexico have less than a 3rd grade education so they lack the skills and means to rise up against their officials, along with serious raging drug wars. Somehow, the middle class has been targeted to reduce their power and financial status as they are harder to control and better educated than the newly arrived immigrants. Yes, the powers-to-be are transferring control and our wealth over to minority populations.

    I mentioned before about America "fizzling out" because of the higher miscegenation rates among the younger generations. If it continues to increase at this rate, average American people will recognize the racial and legal disadvantages of being "European descent" as the anti-white rhetoric continues. I think you'll start to see a rule of lighter skinned Blacks and Mexicans to quiet their interests, but the usual globalist powers will control the country. Some Whites will take a stand against globalism.

  11. #117
    Senior Member Verðandi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Wednesday, September 12th, 2018 @ 02:42 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Country
    Luxembourg Luxembourg
    Location
    Asgård
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Family
    Two sisters
    Occupation
    Wyrd-weaver
    Posts
    8,970
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    649
    Thanked in
    424 Posts

    Americans Increasingly Believe Violence Is Justified If the Other Side Wins

    Our research detected an uptick in recent months in the share of Americans willing to condone political unrest.



    At the presidential debate this week, the Republican candidate voiced his concern about political violence—left-wing political violence. And the Democratic candidate likewise voiced concern about political violence—right-wing political violence.

    They were both right.

    Like a growing number of prominent American leaders and scholars, we are increasingly anxious that this country is headed toward the worst post-election crisis in a century and a half. Our biggest concern is that a disputed presidential election—especially if there are close contests in a few swing states, or if one candidate denounces the legitimacy of the process—could generate violence and bloodshed.

    Unfortunately, we’re not being alarmist about the potential for violence; trends in public opinion that we’ve been tracking provide strong grounds for concern. Our research, which we’re reporting here for the first time, shows an upswing in the past few months in the number of Americans—both Democrats and Republicans—who said they think violence would be justified if their side loses the upcoming presidential election.

    This growing acceptance of the possibility of violence is a bipartisan movement. Our data shows that the willingness of Democrats and Republicans alike to justify violence as a way to achieve political goals has essentially been rising in lockstep.

    All of us have been involved, separately and eventually together, in surveying and researching Americans’ political attitudes and engagement. Late last year, we noticed an uptick in the number of respondents saying they would condone violence by their own political party, and we decided to combine our data sets to get as much information as possible on this worrisome trend. We were also monitoring another question: Would you condone violence if the other party’s candidate wins the presidential election?

    While the pool of respondents between our datasets is slightly different, our questions have had the same wording. Here’s what we’ve found:



    Among Americans who identify as Democrat or Republican, 1 in 3 now believe that violence could be justified to advance their parties’ political goals—a substantial increase over the last three years.

    In September, 44 percent of Republicans and 41 percent of Democrats said there would be at least “a little” justification for violence if the other party’s nominee wins the election. Those figures are both up from June, when 35 percent of Republicans and 37 percent of Democrats expressed the same sentiment.

    Similarly, 36 percent of Republicans and 33 percent of Democrats said it is at least “a little” justified for their side “to use violence in advancing political goals”—up from 30 percent of both Republicans and Democrats in June.

    There has been an even larger increase in the share of both Democrats and Republicans who believe there would be either “a lot” or “a great deal” of justification for violence if their party were to lose in November. The share of Republicans seeing substantial justification for violence if their side loses jumped from 15 percent in June to 20 percent in September, while the share of Democrats jumped from 16 percent to 19 percent.

    These numbers are even higher among the most ideological partisans. Of Democrats who identify as “very liberal,” 26 percent said there would be “a great deal” of justification for violence if their candidate loses the presidency compared to 7 percent of those identifying as simply “liberal.” Of Republicans who identify as “very conservative,” 16 percent said they believe there would be “a great deal” of justification for violence if the GOP candidate loses compared to 7 percent of those identifying as simply “conservative.” This means the ideological extremes of each party are two to four times more apt to see violence as justified than their party’s mainstream members.

    All together, about 1 in 5 Americans with a strong political affiliation says they are quite willing to endorse violence if the other party wins the presidency. (The surveys by YouGov and the Voter Study Group had margins of error ranging from 1.5 to 3 percentage points. The surveys by Nationscape had margins of error of 2 and 2.1 percentage points.)



    How seriously should we take these expressions of violence? Both history and social psychology warn us to take them very seriously. In Europe in the 1920s and 1930s, a rising tide of armed street mobilization and of violent clashes between rival partisans ravaged fragile democratic cultures, bullied and marginalized moderate forces, and gave rising autocrats an excuse to seize emergency powers. Some of us who’ve studied the rise of authoritarians see strong parallels between that period of European history and factors at work in America today.

    However, expressing approval of partisan violence does not mean someone is ready to pick up a gun. The steps from attitudes to actions are prohibitive for all but a tiny minority because of the legal, social, and physical risks of acting violently.

    But even a shift of 1 percent in these surveys would represent the views of over a million Americans. Furthermore, two of us have found in our research that violent events tend to increase public approval of political violence—potentially creating a vicious cycle even if violence is sparked in only a few spots.

    Viewed in this light, the events of this summer are especially worrying. Competing protesters from the right and left have clashed violently in Portland, Ore.; Kenosha, Wis.; and Louisville. Left-wing extremists have repeatedly laid siege to federal buildings in Portland, and on several occasions, armed right-wing protesters entered the State Capitol in Michigan.

    Democrats have interpreted Trump’s remarks and tweets as legitimizing or even encouraging violence by his supporters—fears only intensified by the president’s comments during this week’s debate urging the Proud Boys, a misogynistic white supremacist group that has been active in recent street protests, to “stand back and stand by.”

    Republicans, for their part, interpreted Joe Biden’s rhetorical question in a recent speech, “Does anyone believe there will be less violence in America if Donald Trump is reelected?” as a veiled threat of violence should Biden lose.

    Moreover, the notable increase in violent views in the past year continues a worrisome trend. Between 2017 and 2019, our YouGov survey data showed a marked 9-point increase in the percentage of partisans who believe it would be at least “a little bit” justified for their own party to use violence to advance their political goals today.

    What should leaders do? No lesson in the study of democratic breakdowns rings more clearly than that political leaders play the central role in fanning—or containing—political polarization and extremism. From Germany and Italy in interwar Europe to Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s, the rhetoric and tactics of leading politicians shaped the fate of democracies in crisis.



    Recent research on the United States reaffirms this timeless truth: Leaders play an essential role in fueling the fire or extinguishing the flames of violence among their followers. Preliminary studies show that messages from Biden or Trump denouncing all violence can reduce mass approval of violence.

    Everyone in a position of leadership in a democracy—whether in a neighborhood organization, a municipality, a political party, the Congress or the White House—has an obligation to renounce violence and explicitly dissuade their followers from turning to violent tactics or threats. Further, political leaders have a solemn responsibility to uphold and urge their followers to adhere to the essential norms of democracy, including the principles that the voters should freely decide who shall rule, and all valid votes should be counted toward that decision.

    However, we fear we are now headed into such a severe downward spiral of partisan polarization that we cannot rely on the candidates and campaigns to pull us out of it.

    In this context, any one of several possible scenarios risks triggering unprecedented post-election violence. Biden could surge from behind on Election Night to win on the strength of mail-in ballots that President Trump has already dismissed as fraud-ridden, prompting Trump’s supporters to feel the election was stolen from him. Should some Republican-controlled legislatures seek to throw out mail-in ballots wholesale and give their states’ Electoral College votes to Trump regardless of the final vote count, Democrats (and others) would be outraged. There could also be intense anger on the left if Trump wins reelection by once again losing the popular vote but winning by narrow margins in states that give him an Electoral College victory. Congress—itself so polarized—could be hard-pressed to ensure a widely legitimate outcome on its own.

    The best hope now to tamp down support for this potential political violence is to establish an independent, bipartisan third force—a broad commission of distinguished leaders and democratic elders of both parties and of civil society. Its mission would be to reaffirm and defend our democratic norms, especially the critical principles that every valid vote should be counted and that political violence is never justified in the United States. Congress should immediately appoint such a commission.

    We do not pull this alarm lightly. The decisions we make over the next few months are hugely consequential. If we fall into a cycle of violence, the consequences for America’s future as a democracy will be dire.


    Source: Politico.com

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Verðandi For This Useful Post:


  13. #118
    Anachronism
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Huginn ok Muninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    Germany, Norway, England
    Subrace
    Nordeby
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Texas Texas
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Leo
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Farther right than you.
    Posts
    3,195
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    878
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,040
    Thanked in
    534 Posts
    Politico is enemy territory, but Counter-Currents also did an article, partly in response to the one above:

    Print this post Yes, We are Headed for Violent Civil War


    Jef Costello
    Franciso Goya, The Disasters of War, Plate 39: Grande hazaña! Con muertos! (A heroic feat! With dead men!).

    3,057 words

    On October 1st, with little fanfare, Politico published an extraordinary opinion piece that may be the most important thing I’ve read all year. Titled “Americans Increasingly Believe Violence is Justified if the Other Side Wins,” the essay was penned by three “senior fellows” at the Hoover Institution, New America, and the Hudson Institute, as well as a professor of “political communication” at Louisiana State University and a professor of government at the University of Maryland (that’s five authors, in case you lost count).

    The major takeaway is presented in the graph that appears below:


    Way back in November of 2017 (my, how long ago that seems . . . ) a mere 8% of both Democrats and Republicans held that it is legitimate to use violence to advance their political goals. Actually, there’s nothing “mere” about it. It ought to surprise us that such a sizeable percentage of both parties could hold such a radical view. Also surprising is Republicans running neck and neck with Democrats. Contrary to how they are perceived by Leftists, conservatives are slow to embrace the idea of violence, or any sort of punitive measures against their opponents. Their Achilles heel, in fact, is commitment to “fair play.”

    We must remember that when these numbers were compiled it had been a year since the 2016 election. A year of unhinged rhetoric by the Left, and repeated calls for Trump to be assassinated. Madonna spoke about her fantasies of blowing up the White House, and “comedian” Kathy Griffin held up an effigy of Trump’s severed head. Of course, those were the unserious, tongue-in-cheek threats. Countless other people made similar threats, quite openly, and seemed to be pretty serious about it. To my knowledge, none of them was charged with a crime.
    As Trump Derangement Syndrome continued to spread, it was actually a healthy sign that more Republicans began to entertain the idea of using violence as a political tool. Leftists presented themselves as having no boundaries. There was no low to which they would not stoop, no trick too dirty. They were threatening to attack and kill not only the President, but his supporters, and, in fact, the entire white race. They made it quite clear that they could not be reasoned with. Faced with an enemy like this, violence was bound to become more attractive, or at least more justifiable, in the eyes of even the most mild-mannered Republican voter.
    Almost a year later, in October 2018, the percentage of Democrats condoning violence had jumped to 13. It had become obvious to them, at this point, that the results of the 2016 election were not going to be reversed, though many still held out the hope that Robert Mueller would uncover some dirt that would prove Trump’s undoing. True to form, conservatives lagged behind (see what nice people we are?), with a mere 11% condoning violence. Still, the number had risen. At least part of this has to be attributed to the Kavanaugh hearings (of September-October), which were a wakeup call for many Republicans, including Lindsay Graham, who seems to have sort of lost his innocence as a result. The hearings proved once and for all, if any more proof had been needed, that liberals have no principles whatever, and that attempts to play fair with them will only backfire. One can’t really blame Republicans for that 11%. Please pass the ammo.
    By December 2019, things had gotten genuinely scary. The trend had continued. And how. This was the month that the House approved articles of impeachment against Trump. Earlier in the year, in April, the Mueller report was made public, revealing that we had been subjected to two solid years of hysteria about “Russia collusion” for absolutely no reason whatever. The libs were frustrated, to put it mildly. 16% of them now condoned violence. Republicans were behind the curve again, but not by much, with 15% of them thinking the same way.
    But we hadn’t seen anything yet. That was before COVID and BLM. By June of the current year, these percentages had doubled, and Dems and Republicans were now equally in favor of breaking heads: 30% of both groups now condoned violence to advance political goals. Let us pause to consider this number once more: 30%. Let us also pause to consider that this poll was conducted at the beginning of June, when the George Floyd riots had just gotten going.
    By September 1st, the percentage of liberals condoning violence had risen by just three points. Still, at 33% this constitutes one third of all Dems. The more interesting result came from the Republicans, however. The percentage in question had risen to 36%, and for the first time, Republicans rated as more violence-approving than Dems. If you will read the fine print, you will find that the September poll’s margin of error is 2.0 percentage points. Thus, the three percentage points separating Republicans from Democrats are statistically significant; conservatives are now demonstrably more in favor of violence than liberals.
    Has the sleeping giant awakened?
    We were slow to consider violence an option. Unlike liberals, after all, we really do have principles, and we did not want to be like them. But they have pushed us to this point, and it’s difficult to see how there can be any debate about that. Months of watching our cities burn. Months of our history being torn down. Months of draconian lockdowns and arbitrary rules imposed by Democrat governors and mayors. Months of being told that we had to shelter in place, while BLM was given free rein to loot and burn. Months of being told we have no right to defend ourselves; that if you are white, you are automatically guilty. Countless lives and businesses destroyed. Given all of this, and more, it’s surprising that the number isn’t 56% — or 76% or 86%. But since many conservatives are probably afraid to say they might condone violence, I think we can round that 36% up a bit. Quite a bit.
    The other day I spoke with a friend who lives in New York. He told me that he recently drove to his local rifle range, which he has visited many times in the past. He had not been there for several months, however, and when he arrived he was shocked to find a line stretching out the door (made up entirely of white people) and what wound up being a 45-minute wait. When he finally got inside, he asked the proprietor about the large turnout and was told that it had been like this every weekend since the BLM riots began, and that the numbers were increasing. I hope all those folks brought their own ammo, because my friend also told me the store was completely sold out. And this was New York, not South Carolina.



    Two weeks prior to the Politico essay, The Hill published an opinion piece by a former federal prosecutor titled “Why Democrats Must Confront Extreme Left-wing Incitement to Violence.” It’s a weak and cowardly piece of writing but is nevertheless interesting on multiple levels. The author begins by asserting that Right-wing groups “by far pose the greatest threat of violence.” He bases this on a study by something called the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). This group looked at 900 cases of politically motivated plots or attacks since 1994, and concluded that Right-wing extremists had claimed the lives of 329 people, whereas “Antifa members haven’t killed any.”

    This is like somebody saying, in January of 2020, “Over the last 25 years, seasonal flu has claimed the lives of 890,000 Americans,[1] but COVID-19 hasn’t killed any Americans. Therefore, the flu is the real threat.” This would have been a ridiculous position, because COVID was something new and entirely unknown. We had no way of knowing, in January, how dangerous COVID was going to be. And, since then, it has, in fact, claimed far more American lives than the flu ever takes in a given year.

    Similarly, since May we have seen Left-wing violence the likes of which this country has not seen since the 1960s. And this phenomenon is fundamentally new because it has been condoned and encouraged by state and local officials, prominent Democrats in Congress, and establishment journalists and pundits. The authors of the CSIS study warn of the dangers posed by groups like the “boogaloos,” a group of “Right-wing, anti-government extremists” bent on “creating a civil war in the United States.” Oddly enough, I’d never heard of the boogaloos until reading this article, and I think I’m pretty “plugged in.”

    I know nothing about this group, but I do know one thing for certain: if the boogaloos, or any other “Right-wing extremists” took to the streets and behaved as BLM and Antifa have behaved — looting, burning, assaulting, threatening, or even just blocking traffic — they would have been crushed within twenty-four hours. All the might of state and local police forces and federal law enforcement would have been unleashed against them, and the cops would not have played nice. Many “Right-wingers” would have wound up dead or injured, and the survivors would have faced extensive criminal charges.

    This, gentle reader, is why “Right-wing violence” is not the greater threat. Left-wing violence is taking place with the approval and support, financial and otherwise, of the establishment. It is a threat to all ordinary Americans, especially white Americans. Right-wing violence only poses a threat (so far, a very mild one) to the establishment.

    The author of The Hill piece, while claiming that Right-wingers pose the greatest threat, wishes nonetheless to warn liberals that their own people are becoming far more violent and that they need to address this problem. This is after referring to the riots we’ve seen since May as “overwhelmingly peaceful social justice protests.” But he fears Democrats aren’t listening:
    Perhaps Democrats are afraid of leaving the impression of a false equivalency between extreme right- and left-wing violence. Perhaps they are fearful that acknowledging the threat posed by extreme left-wing incitement gives credibility to Trump’s false narrative that Democrat-run cities are burning because of left-wing violence (they are not burning) and his promotion of outlandish conspiracy theories, such as that people in “the dark shadows” allegedly control Joe Biden.
    In other words, the author, a Leftist in deep denial about the threat posed by the Left, wonders why the Left is in such deep denial about the threat posed by itself. You can’t make this stuff up.
    In August, Joe Biden asked “Does anyone believe there will be less violence in America if Donald Trump is reelected?” This was widely interpreted by conservatives as a threat. The truth is that the violence will continue regardless of who wins the election. Trump’s reelection will guarantee further violence by the Left. But since Democrats have encouraged the violence and done nothing to contain it, there is every reason to believe that it will continue if Biden wins. Indeed, the “hands off” attitude the establishment has taken to Left-wing violence makes it almost inevitable that the violence will escalate, meaning that it will become more deadly. The Far Left has been emboldened.

    If Biden does win, and if the Democrats manage to gain complete control of Congress, we can look forward to an assault on the first and second amendment rights of Americans, in the form of hate speech legislation and gun control. Further, Biden and Harris have signaled that they will pack the Supreme Court — simply by repeatedly refusing to answer the question of whether they will. Democrats are also likely to grant statehood to the District of Columbia (thus increasing their numbers in Congress), amnesty millions of illegals and put them on a fast track to citizenship, and abolish the Electoral College.

    This is, quite simply, a recipe for civil war — of some kind or other. It is certainly a recipe for the further fragmentation of the country. 62% of white men voted for Trump in 2016, and none of them wants what I have just indicated the Democrats have to offer. The elimination of the Electoral College, if it happens, could be the country’s tipping point toward dissolution. It would mean that millions of Americans in the heartland of the country (most of them white) would be politically disenfranchised. The situation in the US is already volatile; the disenfranchisement of large numbers of citizens would make it much worse. This is particularly true given that those citizens are the backbone of the country: their decency, hard work, and tax money keep it afloat. It is unlikely that those people would readily accept living at the mercy of a combination of urban elites and non-white freeloaders.

    Of course, the same situation would be created if demographic projections are borne out, and whites become a minority by 2044, regardless of what happens to the Electoral College. And the re-election of the hapless Trump would not even slow this process. Given demographics, our long-term prospect is a Democratic takeover. So that even if Democrats lose in 2020 — even if they lose big — everything I projected above about what the Democrats will do when they take power is still going to happen, it just may take a little longer.

    My own prediction for what will happen to the US is that it will eventually split up along racial and political lines. Already, there is hardly any “union” to assess the state of. Further, all signs now indicate that this is not going to be a peaceful process. The Left began the violence, and they have now succeeded in pushing a whopping 36% of conservatives to approve of answering violence with violence.

    Some of my readers will greet these claims with skepticism. Average Americans find it impossible to imagine their country disintegrating in violent conflict. This is the result of years of propaganda about the “stability” of our Republic, the “miracle” of our peaceful transfer of power every four years, yada yada. Average Americans are bizarrely oblivious to just how violent this country really is and always has been (something that has not escaped the notice of the rest of the world): sky-high rates of murder, rape, and assault; urban riots every few years; the assassination of political figures; regular “spree killings”; and a civil war that claimed the lives of around 700 thousand people. Average folks may not want to think about it, but a second civil war is quite plausible.

    My readers on the Right, who are far more discerning than average folks, may be skeptical for different reasons. According to some of them, the chances of violent civil war or revolution are zero, since the establishment has far greater firepower. As I said above, if the Right took to the streets like BLM, they would be mercilessly crushed. But suppose they did it again. And again. And suppose the anger that sent them out into the streets did not diminish, but increased. It is naïve to think that determined individuals, through persistent guerilla warfare and other forms of resistance, cannot destabilize a government — especially when the government is run by decadent, out-of-touch elites who inhabit an ideological and social bubble. It has happened before, and can happen again.

    Of course, the goal should not be “revolution.” There is no reason to want to “take over” the United States, because it is not desirable that the United States should continue to exist. We don’t want to live with these people anymore, even if we are the ones “in charge.” Instead, what we should aim for is independence — in other words, the partitioning of the country; carving our own country out of this country and saying goodbye to those other people. Folks, it’s either that or persuade the Europeans that we have the right of return. But that’s not going to happen.

    So here are my predictions for the near future:

    Left-wing violence will continue, indeed it will escalate. However, white conservatives will be increasingly willing to challenge Leftists in the streets. The Politico numbers persuasively suggest that this is likely, and we already see signs of it (notably, the Kyle Rittenhouse episode). A Trump loss will further radicalize many white conservatives. A Trump win will also radicalize white conservatives, because the response will be even more violence from Leftists. The continued anti-white rhetoric, which shows no signs of abating, will also do the work of radicalization. I predict that we will see more acts of domestic terrorism perpetrated by Right-wing groups, and that many new such groups will spring up in the next several years. These acts will be heavily condemned by all the usual suspects, but this will have little effect, since the double standard is now too obvious. Even Mom and Dad, drinking Snapple and watching Hannity, will now approve of Right-wing violence. Unlikely? Look at that chart above and think again. How likely is it that the trend has peaked at 36%?

    I also predict that we will see cases of mini-secessions, in which towns, cities, and counties that are largely white and Republican will begin resisting the power of state and federal governments (e.g., not enforcing certain laws). This will make parts of the country hard to govern. These areas will become a mecca for white conservatives. They will grow in population and geographic reach, as new arrivals take residence just over county or city lines. Tired of the dirty looks they get, many non-whites and liberals will go elsewhere. In short, there will be de facto secession before secession is ever made official.

    By the way, had I made prognostications about “civil war” as little as a year ago, I would have done so with the caveat “probably not in our lifetime.” Now I am definitely not so sure. It’s hard to believe, but the scenario envisioned by Chuck Palahniuk in Adjustment Day is becoming more plausible with each passing week.

    If you want to support Counter-Currents, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every weekend on DLive.

    Don’t forget to sign up for the twice-monthly email Counter-Currents Newsletter for exclusive content, offers, and news.
    Note
    [1] A guestimate: each year the flu claims the lives of between 30,000-50,000 Americans.


    Published: October 8, 2020 | This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged 2020 US Presidential Election, articles, Civil War, Jef Costello, originals, polarization, violence. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


    https://counter-currents.com/2020/10...ent-civil-war/
    [02-10, 17:07] Chlodovech: cats may have a reason for meowing too

    [02-10, 17:08] renownedwolf: same reason as the missus then.. give me stuff/affection..though she doesnt need me to let her out in the garden for a poo..

    [02-10, 17:09] Chlodovech: that's more than I can say of Thoreidar

  14. #119
    Senior Member Verðandi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Wednesday, September 12th, 2018 @ 02:42 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Country
    Luxembourg Luxembourg
    Location
    Asgård
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Family
    Two sisters
    Occupation
    Wyrd-weaver
    Posts
    8,970
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    649
    Thanked in
    424 Posts

    'The country’s lost its mind': Polls warning of civil war, violence shows deep partisan chasm over election

    WASHINGTON – Bill Fry, 61, is a supporter of President Donald Trump in rural Ohio who doesn't share much in common politically with Matt Edelman, 29, a Joe Biden backer in Brooklyn, New York.

    Except this: They both worry about the legitimacy of the upcoming presidential election and fear an outcome that appears tainted could heighten the nation's already frayed psyche and exacerbate violence in the streets.

    They're not alone. A new poll shows a large swath of Americans harbor deep reservations about the election results weeks before Election Day and are concerned about what actions people might resort to as a consequence.

    The YouGov poll of 1,999 registered voters found that nearly half – 47% – disagree with the idea that the election "is likely to be fair and honest." And that slightly more than half – 51% – won't "generally agree on who is the legitimately elected president of the United States." The online poll was conducted Oct.1-2 and has a margin of error of +/- 2.56 percentage points.

    In addition, a YouGov poll of 1,505 voters found that 56% said they expect to see "an increase in violence as a result of the election." That question had a margin of error of 4.2 percentage points.

    For Fry and many other Trump supporters, the concern over the election's legitimacy is tied to the largely unproven claims Trump has raised about potential fraud involving millions of mail-in ballots that already have begun to pour in to election office across the nation.

    "We would be foolish to not at least accept that it’s a real thing that happens sometimes, and I just worry that it’s going to happen in a greater numbers this year," said Fry, a Marine veteran who owns a dental management company in Blanchester, Ohio. "And a lot of my friends think the same things.”

    For Edelman and other Biden supporters, the worry is that Trump's unrelenting criticism of the mail-in ballots and his refusal to agree to a peaceful transition of power if he loses is proof that he'll stop at little to reverse what Edelman believes will be an electoral defeat given polls showing Biden with a significant lead nationally.

    “Trump is already casting doubt on the legitimacy of vote by mail which tells me that he may try to dispute the result legally or by decree or who knows by what means," said Edelman, an assistant to the learning specialist at a local school who backed Sen. Bernie Sanders in the primary. "He’s a liar. He will promote baseless conspiracy theories if he feel it will benefit him politically."

    Both Fry and Edelman are members of Braver Angels, an organization that promotes civility and healing between "reds and blues" and regularly holds workshops where participants can air opposing views. The group, formerly known as Better Angels, began in 2017 when half the country was having trouble getting over Trump's victory and the other half resented them for not being able to accept it gracefully.

    Braver Angels, which commissioned the YouGov poll, has issued a "Letter from America," a national campaign asking citizens, civic groups and religious organizations to pledge that they will disavow violence from either side and respect those who voted differently.

    "If in the near future we face a constitutional crisis in which our institutions cannot produce consensus on who is the legitimately elected president, we resolve to work together across this chasm for solutions grounded in the Constitution and guided by our democratic and non-violent traditions and our sense of shared destiny," the letter says.

    The election is less than a month away, and the country has been roiled for months over a series of crises exposing deep partisan rifts: a pandemic that has killed more than 210,000 Americans; an economy that has lost millions of jobs as a result; street protests over police brutality that have included instances of rioting; a contentious fight over a Supreme Court seat that could be asked to decide the election; and the COVID-19 diagnosis of the president, his top aides and some senators.
    'Dehumanizing' the other side

    Alex Theodoridis, an associate professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, has studied the country's growing partisan divide. The reasonable chance that the election comes down to a few states and that legal challenges could mean a protracted court battle would give voters on both sides more ammunition to doubt the integrity of the election and act out, he said.

    "A close, contested election in our hyper-polarized political climate could very well produce isolated incidents of partisan violence," he said. "My research, and work by others, shows that most partisans are willing to metaphorically dehumanize those from the other party and that this dehumanization predicts greater tolerance for partisan violence."

    And each side is apt to blame the other for inciting disorder.

    "If Trump wins, I fear chaotic, destructive hate will continue," said Chrissy Koach, 49, a Braver Angels member and Trump supporter from Arlington, Virginia, who works part time for a international development and relief nonprofit organization.

    "Trump Derangement Syndrome really exists and some people will not stop," she wrote in an email to USA TODAY. "But that shouldn’t frighten me into voting as they want me to vote. Even if President Trump wins by a landslide/legitimately, I believe irrational people will persist and continue to sow hate, fear, etc."

    Noor Ain, 23, an architecture student who emigrated from Pakistan as a child, is worried about what will happen in the aftermath of the election. A Biden supporter who initially backed Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren in the Democratic presidential primary, Ain said Trump's victory in 2016 "validated" hate in the U.S. and that his followers could act up even if he wins reelection.

    “The country’s already pretty divided, and it’s only become more and more divided in the past four years," she said. "Considering the state of things this year, there's a lot of different emotions and there are a lot of people who feel very strongly about different sides. Whatever the outcome is, I feel like there will be a rise in violence."

    'On the verge' of civil war

    Those sentiments might help explain the conclusion of a new survey that finds a majority of U.S. adults believe the country is "on the verge" of a second civil war. Of those, four of 10 said they "strongly agree" with that sentiment expressed most sharply by those identifying themselves as very conservative or very liberal.

    The online poll Sept. 23 has a margin of error of 4.42 percentage points in either direction.

    “This is the single most frightening poll result I’ve ever been associated with,” said Rich Thau, president of Engagious, one of the three firms, along with the Sports and Leisure Research Group and ROKK Solutions, that sponsored the survey.

    Thau said that the partisan tensions have been "bubbling below the surface or just above" for some time and that the divisions are being ruptured further by a pandemic over which both sides disagree on the severity and response and an election in which both sides view each other as hardened combatants.

    More: USAToday

  15. #120
    Active Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Æmeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Britain, Ulster, Germany, America
    Subrace
    Dalofaelid+Baltid/Borreby
    Y-DNA
    R-Z19
    mtDNA
    U5a2c
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Gender
    Age
    59
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Anti-Obama
    Religion
    Conservative Protestantism
    Posts
    6,350
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    643
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    885
    Thanked in
    475 Posts
    Trump supporters have stormed the Capitol Building in Washington. Lawmakers run for their lives! This might just be it.

    The Dems won both runoff elections in Georgia for control of the Senate. As usual the Republicans were ahead until the last 10% of votes were counted and the Dems pulled off a narrow victory as usual. Who is actually subverting Democracy in America?

  16. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Æmeric For This Useful Post:


Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 278910111213141516 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Is Another Revolutionary War Imminent?
    By Verðandi in forum The United States
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Saturday, January 9th, 2021, 01:31 PM
  2. Germans in the US Civil War
    By Primus in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Saturday, August 29th, 2020, 11:52 PM
  3. Civil War in Sweden
    By ProEuropa in forum Politics & Geopolitics
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: Tuesday, July 23rd, 2019, 10:48 PM
  4. 'Black Power Cartel' Says Black-White Race War Imminent
    By Nachtengel in forum The United States
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: Friday, July 30th, 2010, 07:37 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •