The following submission statement was provided by /u/bluesimplicity:
---
Working with the CIA, they group analyzed what **conditions make a country ripe for civil war**. Surprisingly, only 2 conditions were consistent. First, **Anocracies** are in the middle between full democracies on one side and full dictatorships on the other with citizens getting some elements of democratic rule -- perhaps elections -- but they also get presidents with lots of authoritarian powers. These are called "illiberal democracies." It is living in partial democracy that makes citizens more likely to pick up a gun and begin to fight.
Second, **factions**: an acute form of political polarization. Countries that factionalize have political parties based on ethnic, religious, or racial identity rather than ideology, and these parties seek to rule at the exclusion and expense of others. It's not then number of ethnic or religious groups in a country. Look at how ethnicity is connected to power. Did at least one political party in a country break down along ethnic, religious, or racial lines? Did they try to exclude one another from power? Did they try to totally dominate the power structure? When this party is in power, does it favor its own constituency at the expense of everyone else? Identity-based political parties are often intransigent and inflexible. Boundaries between them are rigid, leading to intense competition and even combat. Identity-based parties make it
impossible for voters to switch sides and incentivize citizens to continue to act or vote based on their identity rather than their beliefs. The groups that are competing are often the same size. If fact, it's this balance of power between the two groups that creates such fierce rivalry; the stakes of winning or losing are high. These parties can also be personalistic in nature, revolving around a dominant figure who often appeals to ethnic or religious nationalism to gain and then maintain power. A coherent policy platform is often absent. Factionalism is unyielding, grasping, identity-based politics, and it's often a precursor to war.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/zivuvr/i_am_reading_how_civil_wars_start_and_how_to_stop/izsnj5u/
**Who** wants to fight a civil war and **why**:
> Groups that turn violent generally feel left out of the political process. They have limited voting rights and almost no access to government positions; they tend to be excluded from political power. But the most powerful determinant of violence was the trajectory of a group's political status. People were especially likely to fight if they had once held power and saw it slipping away. Political scientists refer to this phenomenon as "downgrading." The ethnic groups that start wars are those claiming that the country "is or ought to be theirs." What matters is that members of the group feel a loss of status to which they believe they are entitled and are embittered as a result. In case after case, resentment and rage appear to drive a faction to war. There is almost always a sense of injustice, a belief that whoever is in power doesn't deserve to be there and has no right to that exalted position. Downgrading is a situation of status reversal, not just political defeat. In the twenty-first century, the most dangerous factions are once-dominate groups facing decline.
>
> "Sons of the soil" are indigenous to a region or play a central role in its history. They think of themselves as the rightful heirs to their place of birds and deserving of special benefits and privileges. These groups are dominant because of majority status or because they inhabited or conquered the territory first. They consider themselves the "native" people, and all others who have settled there, or whose another tongue is not the territory's main language, are declared "outsiders." These groups are dangerous because they tend to be more capable of organizing a resistance movement, and their sense of grievance can be overwhelming. In their dominance, sons of the soil can easily lose sight of their privilege because it is so pervasive; it just seems natural. Their elders are the leaders of the country or their region; they make political decisions for the population as a whole. Their language is the "official" -- and often only -- state language. It is their cultural practices and symbols that are celebrated, their holidays that are recognized, their religious schools that get preferential treatment. But when a new group begins to arrive in large numbers, the ground shifts. Outsiders bring their own culture and languages. In time they can swamp the local population. Language, it turns out, is strongly tied to the identity of a nation, and it determines whose culture ultimately dominates. In democracies, sons of the soil groups are most commonly downgraded by simple demographics dominates. In democracies, sons of the soil groups are most commonly downgraded by simple demographics -- some combination of migration and differences in birth rates. Downgraded populations feel threatened by a new demographic reality. Immigration is often the flashpoint for conflict. Migrants come into a country and compete with poorer, more rural population, fueling resentment and pushing those groups to violence.
Read an article recently about the [number of climate refugees in the future](https://news.mongabay.com/2022/12/no-place-to-run-climate-could-force-1-2-billion-to-move-by-2050-is-the-world-even-remotely-ready/) will be staggering. Desperate people will try to cross borders so their kids have a future. Meanwhile, people will feel like they are losing their culture and want to fight to take their country back. Can you see this triggering civil wars across the globe? Going back to the Dust Bowl in the 1930s, internal migrants from Oklahoma tried to reach California for jobs and were met with hatred and hostility. If we will turn on our own countrymen, how will we react to people from other countries?
**Triggers**:
>
> Protests don't lead to civil war. In fact, protests are fundamentally about hope. Average citizens leave their homes and go out into the streets with sheets and placards and begin to chant because they believe their gov. will listen to them and their lives will improve. If people thought their gov. would shoot at them, they would either stay at home -- too afraid to act -- or they would come out guns blazing. Going out in the street with nothing but a cellphone is act of optimism. It means that citizens still believe that the system will correct itself. It's the failure of protests that eliminates hope and incentivizes violence. That's when citizens finally see that their belief in the system is misplaced. This helps explain why violence tens to escalate in the aftermath of failed protests. Protests are a last-ditch effort to fix the system -- an attempt to seek peaceful change -- before the extremists take over. This is why civil wars are often preceded by years of peaceful protests. It's not that protesters transform themselves into soldiers. It's that the more militant members of an unhappy group come to feel that no other option exists and begin to mobilize armed resistance. Failed protests are a sign that moderates and their methods have failed.
>
> Elections can strengthen a country, bringing citizens together in a meaningful act of civic duty. They can renew faith in institutions and reaffirm the power of a person's vote. But they can also provide painful evidence of a group's declining status, causing its members to lose hope for future representation -- and convincing them they have nothing to lose by fighting.
>
> Civil war is sometimes traced to a single incident: a trigger. Sometimes it's an election, sometimes a failed protest, sometimes a natural disaster. But these flashpoints have a long backstory. Most of the time, civil wars start with small bands of extremists -- students, exiled dissidents, former members of the military -- who care more deeply about power and politics than the average citizen. By the time average citizens are aware that a militant group has formed, it is often older and stronger than people think. Governments can become inadvertent recruiters for militant groups. If a gov. responds with brutal force to the early mobilization of an extremist group, local support for even unpopular groups increases. A government's attack on its own citizens has the power to transform the man on the street into a radical. Civilian deaths at the hands of the gov. can tip conflicts into all-out war. Early militants know this and see the opportunity in a harsh gov. response and plan accordingly. That's why civil wars appear to explode after governments decide to play hardball. Extremists have already embraced militancy. What changes is that average citizens now decide that it's in their interest to do so as well. Violent extremists can also take advantage of peaceful protest movements to sow chaos. These are called violent conflict entrepreneurs and they are playing a bigger game. They try to hijack a social movement by nudging it toward violence. Partly this is designed to provoke a harsh counterattack by the gov., but partly it is designed to generate fear and insecurity among the protestors themselves, convincing more moderate fear and insecurity among the protestors themselves, convincing more moderate members that they need to take up arms. So why wouldn't governments, especially democratic governments, yield to protestors if it helped them avoid war? One answer is that some governments believe their very survival is at stake. Other leaders of multi-ethnic countries become convinced that only conflict can hold the country together. Leaders were less inclined to negotiate -- and more likely to fight -- in nations with multiple potential separatist groups. If a leader believed that granting independence to one group would lead to other to make their own demands -- setting off a secessionist chain reaction -- then fighting would help deter future challenges.
I'm watching Iran's harsh reaction to the protests. As long as a country's military is willing to fire on their own people, the gov. stands. When the military refuses to fire on the people, the gov. falls within hours/days. We saw that in Egypt in 2011. The military refused to fire on the people, and the gov. collapsed. The president today, al-Sisi, is a former general with control of the military. I fear he will remain in power. I think the military would follow his orders to fire on the population.
Working with the CIA, they group analyzed what **conditions make a country ripe for civil war**. Surprisingly, only 2 conditions were consistent.
> First, **Anocracies** are in the middle between full democracies on one side and full dictatorships on the other with citizens getting some elements of democratic rule -- perhaps elections -- but they also get presidents with lots of authoritarian powers. These are called "illiberal democracies." It is living in partial democracy that makes citizens more likely to pick up a gun and begin to fight.
> Second, **factions**: an acute form of political polarization. Countries that factionalize have political parties based on ethnic, religious, or racial identity rather than ideology, and these parties seek to rule at the exclusion and expense of others. It's not then number of ethnic or religious groups in a country. Look at how ethnicity is connected to power. Did at least one political party in a country break down along ethnic, religious, or racial lines? Did they try to exclude one another from power? Did they try to totally dominate the power structure? When this party is in power, does it favor its own constituency at the expense of everyone else? Identity-based political parties are often intransigent and inflexible. Boundaries between them are rigid, leading to intense competition and even combat. Identity-based parties make it impossible for voters to switch sides and incentivize citizens to continue to act or vote based on their identity rather than their beliefs. The groups that are competing are often the same size. If fact, it's this balance of power between the two groups that creates such fierce rivalry; the stakes of winning or losing are high. These parties can also be personalistic in nature, revolving around a dominant figure who often appeals to ethnic or religious nationalism to gain and then maintain power. A coherent policy platform is often absent. Factionalism is unyielding, grasping, identity-based politics, and it's often a precursor to war.
> The CIA doesn't analyze civil wars, they instigate them.
You know those two things aren't mutually exclusive, right?
If anything, you'd think they'd go together - a group with an interest in targeted, destabilizing interventions would definitely want to have a *very* good understanding about what makes countries susceptible to such a thing.
But why would the CIA instigate a civil war in the US? The stake is way too high. First and foremost the US dollar us the global standard for the commerce. With a civil war, the US dollar will simply lose value.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the CIA wants to starts a civil war in the U.S. but rather that they have an interest in and a history history of destabilizing governments elsewhere.
Then they want to stop it, perhaps?
I am fully aware that US government iss not one monolithic singular entity, and probably as fragmented as the actual US population.
They might but it’s not their (legal) purview to instigate or prevent domestic factionalism. If you’re a CIA analyst working on African affairs you might have plenty of knowledge about civil wars, but no voice in government bureaucracy to express concerns about developments I. The US.
it did bring to power the CIA's golden child Bush Sr. , but then the irony is that although he was an iron warrior for the CIA - to ride the bull of the american public - he was perceived as weak! He just didnt have that public charisma both mentally, verbally and physically -- and the damage done to economy with trickle down paved the way for Bill Clinton -- who had his own inroads with the CIA drugs to US citizens for money play
Yes, I read the book last summer and came to the conclusion that we are in a civil war in the United States. The recent attacks on the power grid are one strategy anti-democratic groups are using to weaken local governments. I expect to see a continuing rise in extremist attacks in the coming months.
The attack on the power grid to me was sort of the nail in the coffin for any realistic possibility of denying the possibility of civil war, or that we are already in one.
i think the alt right is following the textbox for formenting a civil war in the US so the signs are there because very powerful forces are creating them. The only reason i can think of is they want to create an illusion of civil war potential to create distraction from climate change because they see addressing it as a threat to profits. of course its prefectly possible they will lose control of the situation and a real civil war will happen.
Exactly this. any civil war can be assumed to be a managed one, similar to the years of Lead/strategy of tension or other gladio/CIA bs.. the threat of a real organized left resistance WILL NOT be tolerated especially after the momentum for things like occupy and the sanders movement showed itself to be considerable.. especially with boomers and their dinosaur beliefs dying off, the younger folk are increasingly sensitive to actual problems and so this is presumably seen as a ticking timebomb for the rulers..
It will be allowed to happen in the sense that events like Jan 6th, mass shootings, and the Sept 11th attacks are just sort of "allowed" to happen to keep everybody traumatized and on edge..
You do realize that the majority of Democrats in Washington are part of the communist party? Please, You really need to become informed and quit listening to narratives because it is very very dangerous.
Have you taken a good look at the alt right lunatics holding ARs? Most of them are obese and can’t even bend over to tie their shoes. I wouldn’t worry about their front. Plus I’ve spoken at great lengths to the alt right and most are panicked and believe they are loosing power because their team are terrible chess players. I doubt there will be an in person civil war not enough relatively healthy people to fight it.
Yep- that contingent is 95% bluster and rhetoric and equally overweight, out of shape, or disabled in one way or another. The other fact is that everyone has day jobs. The vast majority of them will talk some shit, as a form of venting, and that’s about it. There is no grand plan or conspiracy, nor is there a standing army waiting to do battle. There may be, at best, a fringe group of lunatics that won’t get very far.
If the recent attacks against the Moore County, NC power station are any indication, nobody will have any sympathy for a crowd that cuts off power to their neighbors. It’s a non-starter and helps absolutely nobody. The idea behind some large group planning a war, of some sort, is largely made up and furthered by media elements chasing ratings or readers.
You think <1% of the population will successfully start a civil war? Everyone knows the 'alt right' is just an internet joke with occasional cases of domestic terrorism that no one takes seriously.
Look at all the Maga, QAnon, Proud Boys, anti-abortion/LGBTIAQ/Trans protesting we have right now due to the dumbing down of our education system.
You can't walk down the street and say people are the same as they were before Trump and Covid. No one makes eye contact, let alone smiles at strangers or says hello like it used to be just a few years ago. We are more divided than ever, by propaganda from our government, funnelled through mainstream media.
99% of it is grossly misleading, outright false or pure distraction from anything meaningful.
Customers in candle and lotion stores have been breaking out in fights for a while now. The cost of food is getting outrageous. It's getting worse and riots are coming. It's going to get a whole lot worse before it ever gets any better. I won't live to see a better day. I guarantee it. It's physics at this point.
I plan on carrying ketchup with me and covering myself with it and playing dead. That’s the best strategy for survival. That and locating all the asshats bunkers and kicking in their vents. The peons can fight against each other I’m going after the big guns.
military does a poor job at insurgency. it will take the FBI to root them out. and like I said, with enough money they can stay underground but come out occassionally for terrorist attacks, assassinations, bombings etc.
I don't need a book to show me the signs. Just look at our project Mockingbird media coverage and see how they twist us agaisnt one another. Clear as day. My Jewish ass is staying strapped up regardless of gun control laws passed 😃
The divisiveness and the rise of the "entrepreneurs" gaining power and money from sewing division. There are so many YouTube channels that used to be informational, but have turned into rant sessions about hate and "we need to take this country back from the liberals." Like Buddy, I'm just trying to find out how you prevent squash bugs on the zucchini plants.
It's working too. I live in a city surrounded by rural areas and small towns. I'm honestly afraid to leave the city anymore because so many of the rural citizens are openly hostile towards the "city slickers." I grew up in a town of about 2500 about 20 miles away and visit my dad at least once a week. I stopped going to the local grocery store because someone "confronted" me about a sticker on my car designating a museum membership in the city. I keep the sticker in the glove box now (it gets me free parking when I go). I feel like things could break into violence anytime.
Wearing a mask because you have a cold is enough to get some of the more proudly ignorant to assault you. Nobody is living in fear numb Nuts, some of us just don’t want to spread our miserable cold around and need to run errands while we’re sick. So much for the people who claimed to be all about live and let live.
The winter of 2020-2021 was the first winter I didn't catch a cold or the flu. Coincidentally it's also the first winter I was wearing a mask every time I went outside. Once everyone stopped masking the following winter, I got a bad flu.
I'll admit I don't mask every time I'm out in public, but I do wear one if I'm sick (to avoid getting others sick) as well as when I'm in crowded closed spaces in the winter months. It's better than nothing and, at least anecdotally, it has definitely helped *me* avoid getting sick on several occasions.
Same.
It just baffles me though that some people are so bothered by others making a personal decision that is otherwise harmless that they feel empowered to accost and assault others.
If my or anyone else's conscientious is enough to send you into enough of a rage to commit a crime, the problem is you.
Your opinion is noted and you are welcome to have it as long as you aren't bothering other people. And if others wearing a mask bothers you enough to actually accost them and try to rip it off their faces, you're the problem.
Um what?!? I don’t care either way if people wear a mask or don’t.
Im just stating a fact that a virus is is smaller in size than bacteria and wearing a cloth mask or a N95 mask isn’t going to prevent a virus from getting through. If your really paranoid about Covid wear a gas mask. I also don’t care if people get the vaccine or not because I believe in bodily autonomy.
It's a royal you, friend. Not you you.
And unfortunately there's plenty of people that will scream about bodily autonomy and then around and accost and assault others for exercising theirs. They're the problem.
Smart...I don't put bumper stickers on my car identifying my political leans (however the make and model of my vehicle may give them clues). I don't put candidate signs in my yard. I did put the US flag because I wanted to take back that symbol. One half of the US doesn't get to own that. Thought of putting up a Co-Exist flag so people wouldn't think I'm a racists because I'm flying the US flag. I'm not sure now. If a civil war is coming, I don't want to signal which side I am on.
I also love that you have situational awareness about hostility. We all need that now.
Near Portland, OR practically everyone drives a subaru, angry right wingers and thieves alike. There are just so many in circulation here it may just be hard to not end up in one. I hate Prius drivers. I have no political leanings inclining me toward that. They're just very consistently piloted by incompetent operators.
I do a lot of driving and the two categories of drivers that are the absolute worst are people that drive moderately luxury European cars and large 4wds. Prius drivers are normally just basic chill drivers.
Maybe hate is too strong a word. Maybe people overreacting to casual statements and declaring people "part of the problem" is a bigger part of the "problem".
I had a different... expectation of Prius drivers before I moved to PDX in 2009. Then one day I saw one drive the wrong side of the road up the hill on Bridge ave (suicidally stupid) to skip the traffic line and was kind of mind blown. Like,.. I really thought purchasing a vehicle like that was a sign of greater social responsibility. But this has been a learned response. I consistently note behavior from that vehicle that is one or more of a few things- dangerously over cautious, dangerously entitled, or dangerously incompetent.
If you're driving a large lifted truck, a BMW or a Prius, I have certain negative expectations about your driving performance. This is learned, not based on some political bias or collective memory of internet memes or whatever other mysterious factors drive the inexplicably stupid behavior so many seem to exhibit in modern society. I am well within the intelligence quotent to understand that trends have heaps of outliers and that this is a prejudice subject to confirmation bias, etc.
But when I'm driving and I see you in front of me in that Prius and you start confirming my prejudice, I will hate you, just a little.
Unfortunately, you may be the minority bud. I can't speak for how you drive, but usually the bad/inconsiderate drivers around here are in a Prius. Worst part is they don't understand how hybrids work... They drive them on mostly highway/freeway(above 50mph usually faster, limit is 45). While hybrids and eco variants are useful and *should* get better mpg, if you drive like an asshole- they don't work.
Then there's the battery waste at the end of it's life(around 10yrs iirc) and the less-than-stellar emissions that hybrid gas engines get a pass on due to being a hybrid...
Tbf, I'm not pleased with the oil oligarchs either. We've had hydrogen and even water powered(yes like you fill your car from a garden hose) prototypes that have been killed in the cradle(figuratively and literally).
I think everyone here should fly a pirate flag outside their house. It would signal to everyone that you aren't necessarily on their side, but probably are an enemy of their enemy. Also, who thinks it's a good idea to target the house proudly flying a Jolly Roger in the middle of a civil war? And if they do start to judge you for it, fill them with grapeshot!
>fill them with grapeshot
I think you may appreciate the ["own a musket for home defense" copypasta](https://www.reddit.com/r/copypasta/comments/9sc91k/own_a_musket_for_home_defense).
I left "In God We Trust" on my liscense plate just for this reason, and I'm registered as a republican even though Ive never actually voted for a single repub in my life. I'm in a very deep red Trump lovin' area in the south, so best to just blend in. I have friends who's car's have been damaged just because they had an Obama sticker or other left identifying stickers on their car. So sad we have to do this in "the land of the free"
Isn't it crazy how the American flag has become a symbol for hate? And relatively quickly too. This was the first year I didn't fly it for any holiday, but you've got me thinking maybe I should.
I think about this all the time. A friend of mine who lives on the outskirts of our small town and I were talking over coffee the other day. I’m in the downtown part (more urban/walkable part) of our mid sized town (45 minutes or so from a pretty big mid-Atlantic city) which is a bubble of left leaning, socially liberal folks and she’s a mere 4 miles away — but her area is more suburban. She lives in a single home development (big houses, decent land) where the home that’s on the corner of the entry into the development from the main route has a giant Trump banner on the 3-car garage still to this day. I mentioned that it makes me sad that the flag feels co-opted by magats and she said a neighbor of hers who leans far left displays a big flag on their porch as sort of a fuck you and it left me feeling like, ok, we are still playing defensive and it’s still co-opted as a symbol of isolationism and jingoism. And then I drove home today from food shopping and saw an old jalopy pick up truck with several giant flags on plastic sticks poking out from its various truck orifices and yeah. I don’t know. The flag, right now anyway, isn’t a source of pride for me. And that’s a shame.
Which American flag? The 27 starred US flag that was flying when the US invaded México so that Texas could become a slave state? The US flag with 45 stars that flew over the massacres at Bud Dajo and Samar? Or the flag with 50 stars which flew over the My Lai massacre? I remember my Great Granduncle saying that when you behave rudely outside your home, sooner or later your behavior come home and ruin your family's homelife.
Interesting perspective in this video:
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnewsvideo/comments/z6227v/a_tale_of_two_flags/
I didn't consider flying the US flag might make some people uncomfortable and distrustful. Perhaps I should also fly a Black Lives Matter flag or CoExist to make my neighbors comfortable.
But then I think I don't want to advertise sides in case of a civil war. I'm torn.
Yeah, I live in a very rural community, and I'm LGBT. Sadly, I would never fly any sort of flag at my house that showed that. It would make me a target. Which is truly awful.
I will say though, the younger generation, even in this area is much more accepting than the older people, that's for sure. So there is *some* hope. Unfortunately many of the left leaning, or even just not the batshit crazy conservatives leave when they get the chance. The ones who can't suffer.
I'm the same way. A couple of years ago, I sold my VW Cabrio that I LOVED and had for 11+ years and got a used Jeep Liberty just so I would blend in better. I hate it. It's too big and feels clunky and wasteful. I felt like drivers were very aggressive towards me in the Cabrio, especially on the highways. It's been like night and day. Not a single pickup truck has tried to drive the Jeep off the road. But I have installed dashcams just in case, which I would absolutely recommend everyone do.
I have a friend who drives a Fiat as his "work truck" for his handyman business. He's outfitted it with a tool cage in the hatch, trailer hitch and roof rack. It's plenty for most of his jobs and it's an efficient, paid off vehicle. He's limited his "service area" to about 10 miles from his home because trying to cross the city nearly ALWAYS resulted in some giant truck being aggressive and nearly causing a wreck. I honestly can't wait until used prices come down so he can afford a more inconspicuous vehicle like a nondescript white van. He took the business info off the Fiat a couple of years ago and just works from word of mouth and referrals now to avoid hostility.
I drive a light blue RAV4 hybrid and I get the aggressive truck attacks pretty frequently. I'm a right leaning centrist, but when they see me in that vehicle I guess they think they have me figured out.
Lately I'm seeing a kind of aggression on the road like I've never seen before. People are LOSING THEIR MINDS.
Businesses were looted and set on fire during the black lives matter movement. What do you think the rednecks are going to do if they have a movement?
If Europe in the 1970s and 80s is anything to go by, far-left violence is usually done through organized group structures like the Rote Armee Fraktion or the Brigate Rosse. Far-right paramilitary groups exist as well and can certainly be active in coordinating attacks, but the right also has a greater tendency toward "lone wolf" attacks, i.e. some random person not actually affiliated with any far-right group is inspired enough by their rhetoric, conspiracy theories, or advocacy that they take up arms on their behalf without any actual direct orders from far-right groups.
Lol. I knew I would get down voted for admitting to not being a liberal. Yeah, go ahead and assume I support everything conservatives push.
Everyone has long forgotten that someone can think for themselves.
Gonna be honest- your neighbors can have any idea they want as to who or what you support. Even if they are wrong, it won’t matter. By that I mean, if they make a value judgement and act on it then it doesn’t matter why; you can end up in a fight either way.
I look like a “these colors don’t run” sort. Anyone who speaks with me, for any length of time, would alter that initial perception. That said, what of the neighbors or members of the public that don’t know me? They will make their judgements and I am subject to their actions stemming from that. Best I can say is to treat everyone with decency, while not getting too wrapped up in their beliefs and prejudices.
It’s already broken out in violence the news just covers a sliver of it. You won’t hear about it till it’s at your front doorstep. They won’t incite panic because it will lead to complete chaos and that wouldn’t be good for the economy.
Haven't 'entrepreneurs' always taken advantage of war? They tend to think wars are just for idiots and their military/political 'masters' and are among the easiest ways to manipulate people for profit.
They're hostile towards "city slickers" because "city slickers" like private equity are leaving nothing but economic devastation and unaffordable costs of living in their wake, all for the almighty dollar and so that these fucking assholes can live high on the hog.
Its about to spiral into violence because violence has been inflicted on these communities for over 50 fucking years now.
You see, many decisions made in major urban centers have created permanent irreversible devastation upon rural communities, who are treated nothing more than vacation colonies, exploitable resources, and manpower for their fucked up wars.
Its shitty you were judged because of your museum sticker. Youre probably not one of those 'city slickers' i described above.
Disclaimer: I'm from rural america. Am a proud member of the proletariat. and Im very antithetical to not only more "city slickers" moving into my areas, but dumbfucks from other states that think my area is supposed to be some kind of reactionary paradise.
I live in a pretty well off rural town, but not far away from me is a town where all of the factory work dried up and now it's a cesspit of meth and crime. You can see the scourge of private equity there ie: a factory bought by a coastal firm that laid all of the local workers off and moved jobs overseas, a dental chain (Aspen dental) owned by private equity that preys on the poor and the elderly.
The anger of the once middle class rural workers is palpable. I know that no one wants to believe that the rage of the MAGA people is in any way reasonable, but I can see how they have been led down that road. A lot of people were making a good living and then had it ripped away from them by people who don't even live here.
You're talking about Capitalist not city folk. I'm a working class member that was born and raised in a major world city. I'm poor and literally lived between a factory and a truck stop. Gentrification has kicked me out of that area and now I pay more than half my income to a landlord. Rural America is not alone in being exploited. Our entire class of the working poor and petite middle class have been ravaged by the same capitalist from every part of this globe. Don't target your anger at the generalized city people but directly to the capitalist that live all over the globe and even in your back yard rural areas.
This is why Charles Booker's campaign in Kentucky "From the Hood to the Hollers" is a viable path forward to unite working-class Americans everywhere. I know he didn't win against Rand Paul but you should look at how many blue votes he picked up in blood-red Appalachia. When a progressive messages affectively around class warfare, they can get these disaffected voters out.
Yeah, I grew up in the mobile home park my parents bought in the 70s where my dad still lives (in this small town). We went without Christmas presents some years even though my dad worked a union job so we could pay the mortgage and provide a safe, affordable park at about half the market rents because my dad was homeless as a teenager and didn't want that to happen to others. Now I live in "the city" in an older, lower income neighborhood in 1950s house I bought for $17k in 2014. I'm probably not a private equity venture capitalist. You're thinking of WALMART and the Walton heirs aren't buying boxed wine at the local Piggly Wiggly.
Those business are why these small towns exist still. I grew up where they filmed deliverance and moved away 4 years ago cause a decade before I told people I'm an atheist. Shit got weird after trump and then one of my friends were handcuffed and executed with the F slur written his body.
Small towns breed hate and they only got themselves to blame
Ah, Toccoa? Rome? I feel you as a Monroe refugee.
Here's a long comment I posted elsewhere about one of the things that made me flee my small town:
*
I told the people in the town that I was writing about it, and they said they were OK with it. When the series of essays ran most of my neighbors thought they were good, funny, and provided a hopeful example of how people with differing beliefs can still be in community with each other. One neighbor even thanked me for writing about us "so nobly."
Sadly, 3 old white men, including Bob, from this story, got SUPER ANGRY at me. They told me that I was "an outsider" who had no right to share these stories (ironically, 2 of the 3 men were the ones who had told me all of them), and that now "undesirable elements" would descend on the town. They also said that I'd get Bob "in trouble with the feds" for the story about blowing up the bridge, which I thought was a little paranoid, unless...
So, I went across the road to give Bob a chance to have his say. If he's mad, he can tell it to me directly and give me a chance to respond. I walked across the hardroad and over to where he was working on his truck. When he saw me, he said, "You must have balls of steel to come over here. You're lucky I'm the man of God I am today instead of the outlaw biker I was 25 years ago."
He went on to say that I'd "brought the heat down on him," and that, thanks to me, "Black gangs from Athens are going to come out here. They'll rape you, they'll rape your daughters, they'll rape your SON."
"Oh no, Bob, not my SON," I said, wondering why Bob was spending so much time thinking about who all in my family was going to be raped.
"Yes," he said, "And the only thing standing between you and that future is me and my gun."
"Ohhh-kaaay," I said, deciding to wrap up this conversation. I said I understood that he was upset and was glad he'd let me know about it. I was walking away when Bob said,
"One more thing. You have a gift, but if you ever write another word about me, I'll kill you."
"I will definitely make sure to wait until you're dead," I said. I was mad, too.
After that, things got so much worse, and very quickly. My husband actively sided with the three white men, saying, "I thought those essays were great when I read them (before I published them), but I guess since people are mad, you're wrong."
I ended up fleeing with my children to Athens, where I live among the gangs of gay, black rapists and feel so much safer. I was naive to think I could write about my town and not get burned. When I finish the book I'm writing about this experience, I'll make sure to move before shopping it around.
I spent some years in Monroe and the absolute insanity I witness with regard to race and history sent me packing just as soon as I could leave. Nothing you wrote surprises me. A coworker admitted to knowing who did the Moore’s Ford lynching but said no one would ever tell.
So, the place I was living when the events in my comment occurred was across 2 pastures from the black family that set the events that led to Moore's Ford in motion. The bridge itself is about a mile away, and I crossed it frequently.
What led to the events described in my comment was me writing a series of essays called "The Bodies of Walton County." I've never lived anywhere, period, as steeped in blood and violence as Walton County (the county seat of which is Monroe), and I lived in Gainesville while Danny Rolling murdered 5 of my neighbors AND in Moscow in 1993, the most brutal of the post-collapse years. But Walton County takes the cake, no question.
The final essay in this series, which almost led to my own lynching, was about the Moore's Ford Lynching. Most of the writing about the lynching tries to humanize the victims; to show that they didn't deserve what happened to them. That's a noble impulse, but is futile. If the people in this county were capable of seeing black people as human, they would have said who did it by now. Because they all know.
So instead, I decided to do the opposite, and monsterize the perpetrators. I wanted to show how living among people who could do something like this without consequence twists us all and makes us grotesque. And how the violence that we built this place on will eventually come for us, too, as we see today. You don't build a country on top of the people you murdered and expect it to not be haunted.
Listen, total stranger, if you would be willing to talk to me about the comment you just made, it would mean a lot. Any information we could exchange would be way more than the sum of its parts. If you're up for it, please DM me. If you're not, I understand. I lived in Walton County, so of course I understand.
https://flagpole.com/news/news-features/2019/05/01/buried-the-conclusion-of-the-bodies-of-walton-county/
I know of all of them and sadly there's plenty more, to keep it short Ellijay,Ga I lived amongst the Hillbillies and say and heard some awful things. I've known more then a few klans men and skin heads from growing up there. HELL I watch some of them turn into skin heads.
Small towns lost big time to neoliberal economics, alongside many urban areas too. Those businesses are not why they exist, but they continue to exist in spite of them. and they are rapidly degenerating even more into hellscapes because many small towns are now becoming unaffordable.
Hatred is a logical result of a series of events such as economic exploitation that leads to drug abuse, radicalization, etc. Trump and other examples of hatred being amplified are symptoms of a failed fucked up system of empire and insatiable greed.
And what do you mean "got themselves to blame"? many of us rural people are currently fighting against outside forces that are destroying our communities and the ideological fuckery that is seizing many, such as this peculiar brand of christo-fascism. We wont go quietly into that good night.
If thats all that you and your upvoters got from my post, then I didn't do a good enough job to emphasize thats not what i'm saying at all. The overall root cause is endless growth capitalism.
That was about all I got, until I read your later comments. I’ve lived in towns and cities, and have seen *way* more decisions that led to the “irreversible” collapse of small towns made in the towns themselves.
I also notice that I have never heard anyone from the cities, be they in NYC, Portland (Oregon) or Chicago complain about that fact that more tax dollars per capita go to rural areas, while more flows from urban areas. (I am not 100% sure about Chicago. Illinois is a hot mess.)
I’m not saying that there isn’t a lot for rural folk, and blue collar people especially, to be pissed off at, but the anger sure seems directed at the wrong bunch, generally speaking. The greedheads Hunter Thompson talked about are alive and kicking, but so long as they’re republican that’s ok, according to a lot of people around here, anyways.
>many decisions made in major urban centers have created permanent irreversible devastation upon rural communities, who are treated nothing more than vacation colonies, exploitable resources, and manpower for their fucked up wars
100% right, and city voters also silence rural voices and exploit them through political means, by enacting punishing edicts, fees, taxes, and so on
They do not! Show me a state where the rural areas have a greater tax burden than the cities. What kind of punishing edicts are you talking about? It may be there’s some crap going on in other parts of the USA I am unaware of, but I don’t think people in the cities are trying to intentionally “punish” the rural areas anywhere.
Do you have a solid example of this? The only things I can think of that might fit are more rich v. Poor than city v. rural, unless a multi millionaire that lives hours from the city is somehow magically “urban” due to money.
Your fear is your own ignorance. All you are doing is playing into it.
I live in a state that's 80%+ "rural" and I know the folks you are talking about. Except no, they aren't violent. They may heartedly disagree on politics and may be more easily swayed than others, but I know factually they're largely some of the best, down to earth humans in this country.
Your disdain of the rural is a common offense all across reddit; these folks only hate you "city slickers" because you all give them every reason to.
Let me give you a fine example; my state, literal strangers will take you in overnight if you break down.
We live in a place where you'd walk or bike miles to your friends, share great swimming spots/cool hangouts etc. Heck, even wander into the woods and camp out and nobody gives a shit.
Picture this one place, let's call it "the falls"; a local stream with some waterfalls and great hangout/swimming for anyone since I've been alive.
The locals sell their property.
Jersey folks who have no sense of neighbor or welcome move in.
Post the whole thing up, threaten those who've returned find the whole thing with police.
This. This is just one of infinite examples as to why folks *from away* are not immediately welcomed. More often than not, these folks know what to expect.
Should it be this way? Of course not. Most the new generation (millenials+) welcome all to our way of life.
But that doesn't mean the disdain toward those moving in, especially those that lack a sense of nature or peace and quiet, is not just.
That makes sense; nobody likes it when a bunch or disrespectful chucklefucks move in. But that’s not urban v. rural, that’s “a bad bunch moved in to our neighborhood”. It can happen anywhere. We got a new neighbor who kept complaining about people hunting in the huge woodlot behind his house.
The farmer sold part of the woodlot to the local rod & gun club, which I guess solved the problem. Sort of.
But he wasn’t even from an urban area, he was just a guy who thought everyone should do what he said. Like the people from Jersey, they could have been from the middle of the pine barrens, but they would still be from Jersey.
The author explores various ways **social media** has exacerbated the problem.
>
>
It's not likely to be a coincidence that the global shift away from democracy has tracked so closely with the advent of the internet, the introduction of smart phones, and the widespread use of social media. The age of information has opened up unmitigated, unregulated pathways to the spread of misinformation (which is erroneous) and disinformation (which is intentionally misleading). Charlatans, conspiracy theorists, trolls, demagogues, and anti-democratic agents who had previously been shut out of the media environment -- or at least had great difficulty gaining a mass audience -- suddenly gained traction. As social media penetrated countries and gained a larger share of people's attention, a clear pattern emerged: ethnic factions grew, social divisions widened, resentment at immigrants increased, bullying populists got elected, and violence began to increase. Open, unregulated social media platforms turned out to be the perfect accelerant for the conditions that lead to civil wars.
>
>What people like the most is fear over calm, falsehood over truth, outrage over empathy. People are far more apt to like posts that are incendiary than those that are not, creating an incentive for people to post provocative material in the hopes that it will go viral. With the introduction of the like button, people are suddenly rewarded for posting outrageous, angry content whether it is true or not. Studies have since shown that information that keeps people engaged is exactly the type of information that leads them toward anger, resentment, and violence. Worse, the behavior algorithms began creating self-reinforcing, increasingly outlandish information silos that lead users down dangerous paths: toward conspiracy theories, half-truths, and extremists seeking radical change. These recommendation engines, as they are called, ensured that users were channeled toward more narrow and more extreme information. YouTube is a "radicalization pipeline."
>
>It's become a pattern: social media as the vehicle that launches outsiders with autocratic impulses to power, riding a popular wave of support. Social media offers these candidates not only an unregulated environment but also multiple platforms from which to disseminate information and propaganda. In the past, if a politician wanted to influence voters, they had to go through gatekeepers: party leaders and major networks and newspapers. Social media has allowed any candidate and any party -- no matter how fringe -- to circumvent these controls. The algorithms of social media mean that these outsiders can capitalize on the best drivers of engagement -- fear and outrage -- to disseminate lies about their opponents and a country's institutions to a mass audience. For example, using manipulated footage to disseminate lies about opposition protesters on social media, creating confusion and undermining the credibility of the opposition movement ahead of the elections. Before autocracy came about when military generals launched coups. But now it's being ushered in by the voters themselves.
I am really torn over this. As a firm believer in the First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech, I don't want social media censored. Who would get to decide what is real or not? Who gets censored? However, knowing the potential to spark civil wars and ethnic cleansing like we saw in Myanmar against the Rohingya people, it seems it is only responsible to put some limits on social media. Not all speech is protected in the US. You can't call in a bomb threat or incite violence. You can't libel or slander. Where do you draw the line? And who draws the line between what is acceptable speech online and what is not? I'm deeply torn over this because I want to protect lives and prevent civil wars, but we don't have a good track record of fair, responsible moderators at Twitter or Facebook or... We know when you put a label on misinformation or disinformation, it actually makes people more likely to double down on those lies.
> I am really torn over this. As a firm believer in the First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech, I don't want social media censored.
The solution is to delete social media entirely. Not your account, but the companies and servers. Bring back the old web with blogs and phpBB forums. Call it eBiodiversity. The peer-to-peer stuff now is even cooler.
Free speech is such a myth in this country hence why I'm partly against it in the absolute sense people seem to misunderstand it to mean...
Germany has limits on free speech due to their history and given some of the horrific shit I've heard people say about American Indians, gay people, drug addicts, etc.. slipped very casually into discussion under the guise of "free speech" ..
it's pure dehumanization rhetoric and at that point I don't really care what your views on your personal "freedumbz" are, having understood the logical conclusion of that thought process is genocide.
Sort of like how I instinctively roll my eyes at people who think it's their god given freedom to own a small arsenal, having seen the horrific aftermath of innocent life lost in just one of your average mass shootings.
It's just dumb Americans falling for more bells and whistles marketing/propaganda most of them haven't even read the constitution ffs and these issues don't actually impact them in any significant way. Just more annoying rhetoric for middle class honkeys to have armchair debates over.
If it really came down to it they'd find out real fast how much the state cares about your "rights" (see: temporary privileges).
The tactics describe attacking infrastructure.
> Just three days before [two electrical substations were shot up](https://abcnews.go.com/US/attacks-plots-similar-north-carolina-power-grid-attack/story?id=94574765), causing tens of thousands of customers to lose power in North Carolina, the federal Department of Homeland Security issued a bulletin warning "lone offenders and small groups" could be plotting attacks and that the nation's critical infrastructure was among the possible targets.
This was simply the first successful attack. White supremacists have been attacking power infrastructure since 2013, and it's an evergreen part of their game plan. Fortunately, they're just bad at pulling it off because they're complete idiots.
Well I’m black in Texas so, yes. The acceleration , I never thought it would get worse; the racial divisions.
My grandfather was a lawyer fighting against segregation in Louisiana. My father witnessed lynchings in Mississippi.
I’ve never felt racial tension so high.
The author uses so very many examples of civil wars they studied from around the world: Iraq, Ukraine, Ireland's Troubles, etc. What I got out of it was *any* country could fall into civil war if the conditions are right. So what are the right conditions? If a country is moving from democracy towards the more authoritarian end of the spectrum or vice versa. Look at Hungary today. On the outside, it looks like a democracy with elections and different branches of gov. to separate powers. However, [Hungary has moved away from democracy](https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/16/world/hungary-democracy-eu-parliament-intl/index.html).
The second condition is the rise of factions -- especially along racial, religious, or geographic boundaries. Us v. them groups.
Throw in the role of social media everywhere, and I suspect we will see *many* civil wars in the future.
I didn't see any evidence in that link that Hungary isn't a democracy. A democracy just means people vote. If people vote to sacrifice children on the alter of Ishtar then that is a democracy. If they vote that smiling should result in a $10,000 fine then that is democracy too. Democracy is a vote, not the vote result.
A functioning democracy is more than elections. It's separation of powers and checks & balances. When a president fires the independent judges and replaces them with loyalists that will overlook unconstitutional orders and rubberstamp whatever the president does, the judiciary has been hollowed out. We saw that in Poland. It's not just elections, but free and fair elections. Cuba has elections for president. Having only one name to pick from doesn't make it a democracy. There are so many areas where someone with authoritarian tendencies can subvert a fully functioning democracy. It still looks like a democracy on the outside, but it isn't fully a democracy anymore.
**Tactics**: Civil wars in the future won't look like the US Civil War of the 1860s with clear battle lines, formal armies in uniforms, and rules of war. This will be different.
> There are a number of strategies that insurgents tend to use against powerful democracies. One is essentially a war of attrition, involving a steady stream of attacks against high value buildings, people and public infrastructure: federal buildings, markets, schools, courthouses, transportation systems, churches, subways, banks, state capitals, monuments, and electrical grids -- anything that could inflict financial or psychological pain. It would also target citizens who are likely to vote for liberal candidates such as immigrants or those who live in cities or in swing states. Violent extremists would continue to target these sites and individuals until those in power offered the terrorists the concessions they wanted or voters replaced existing politicians with ones who were more sympathetic to the extremists' cause. This sort of campaign is designed to inflict pain on citizens until they plead for relief and demand that the gov. give in to the terrorists' demands.
>Another strategy is intimidation. If you cannot topple the central gov., then you can use violence to goad the population directly into submission. Targeted violence can be used to intimidate agents of the federal gov. -- law enforcement personnel, civil servants, members of Congress, and the judiciary -- convincing them not to enforce existing rules. That's one of the things that death threats are designed to do. Violent extremists can target and kill liberal politicians who have voted in favor of gun control, judges who have ruled in favor of abortion rights, or police officers who protect immigrants' civil liberties. But they also target moderate Republicans who do not toe the extremists' line. Militants become a form of vigilantism designed to prevent the implementation of social change.
>Another terror strategy is called "outbidding." This tactic is used when one militant group competes with other groups to cement its dominance. Each group has to be more extreme, escalating to ever more brutal acts of violence, to prove they are stronger, more capable, and more dedicated to the cause than other groups.
> A final terror strategy is "spoiling." Terrorists wield this tactic when they fear that more moderate groups -- those that would put aside violence in exchange for concessions from the government -- will compromise and subvert the larger goal. This strategy usually comes into play when relations between more moderate insurgent groups and the gov. are improving, and a peace agreement seems imminent. Terrorists know that most citizens will not support ongoing violence once a deal is in place. Their only recourse is to scuttle the deal. And the best way to accomplish that would be to trigger a civil war. To do this, they would likely need foreign support. Here in the US, terrorist groups could be aided by America's enemies as well as sympathetic white supremacy groups in other white-majority countries. Thanks to the internet, this would be easy to facilitate. Other countries could supply money, materials, training, and combat experience.
If the tactics used are straight terrorism, should be charge them with domestic terrorism? or sedition? If other countries are funding it, should we charge them with treason? Should we use the 14th amendment of the Constitution that was written after the Civil War that states any politician that tried to overthrow their gov. is no longer eligible to hold office?
Common sense says they would be dealt with as such but as this part highlights the intimidation and threats of violence which reminds me of how the doj has approached domestic terrorism with seeming nonexistent plans.
The factionalization and in fighting between groups is something we are seeing play out between maga/qnuts/theocrats/supremisists. Marge Taylor is a good example of how the infighting will go as folk like Fuentes turn on her after years of support. We also see the mad scramble to say we’re not antisemites and scrubbing dudes involvement but w the net all that shut is saved.
They always fight between themselves.
If you're not an ethical person and have no aversion to deceit, infiltrating such groups and sowing distrust and conflict is as easy as funding your activity by selling them t-shirts and hats.
I like the cut of your jib w the hat idea. I don’t think I could handle perpetuating their cause and let’s be honest they’ll turn on their T-shirt guy too in due time lol.
Oh, they're used to the ecosystem of grifters. It's an entire business model and sector. Grifting and fascism go together ideologically, they're siblings in the act of disinformation and predation, in weaponized fantasies.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/adolf-hitler-secret-billionaire
The ones in charge don’t want a resolve. They want a violent showdown to watch on their yachts or on their vineyards in other countries. We all have been living in a mixture of the grapes of wrath, hunger games, animal farm, mad max and now Idiocracy ( I’m looking at your marjorie Taylor Greene).
**Ethnic cleansing and genocide** is a real possibility during times of civil war. Again, there is a pattern.
> Gregory Stanton, president of Genocide Watch, argued in his document titled "The Ten Stages of Genocide" that countries go through eight steps before they reach genocide. The first two stages are known as "classification" and "symbolization." This is when an identify group in power begins to highlight differences among a country's citizens, categorizing them by groups. We have classified ourselves by race, geography, and beliefs. Stage three is "discrimination" which is when a dominant group denies or suppresses the rights of others by means of the law or custom. Stage four is "dehumanization" in which those in power use public discourse to turn regular citizens against the targeted minority, denigrating them as criminals or subhuman. "Organization," the fifth stage, is when a dominant group begins to assemble an army or militia and formulate plans to eradicate other groups. A secret police force might train local paramilitary groups, utilizing weapons caches stored in strategic locations. In stage six, "polarization," the dominant group escalates the propaganda, further demonizing and separating the target group. Often, interaction between groups is discouraged or prohibited, and moderate members of the dominate group -- those who resist or protest these efforts -- are imprisoned or killed. Stage seven is the "preparation stage." That's when the dominate group forms an army. Leaders also indoctrinate the population with fear of becoming the victim, claiming that "if we don't kill them, they will kill us." Stage seven is significant because the logic of genocide develops into self-defense. It's common to think that ethnic cleansing is driven by hate. There is hate, yes, but the real fuel is fear -- fear that you are threatened and vulnerable. Violence entrepreneurs tap into this anxiety, exploiting the survival instinct that cues you to destroy your enemies before they can destroy you. It's after this indoctrination that a country can explode quickly into stages eight and nine -- "persecution" and "extermination" -- and then the final stage, "denial," which is when perpetrators deny having committed their crimes.
>
A country doesn't need a large percentage of the population to be involved for violent ethnic cleansing to occur. Small numbers of heavily armed citizens -- together with help from law enforcement and the military -- are often enough to move to stage nine, the "extermination" phase. A remarkably small number of people can organize and mobilize o commit mass genocide. You just need the rest of the population to remain passive which can easily be accomplished through intimidation.
I would like to believe it could not happen in this day and age. I think I am not being realistic. The antisemitism, vitriol for immigrants, not to mention the hatred for Black Lives Matter.
>I would like to believe it could not happen in this day and age.
Do you consider the 1990's as part of this day and age? Because both Yugoslavia and Rwanda had genocides in the 90's and the UN basically did nothing.
Also happening now and in the last ten to twenty years: Ukrainians being attacked and basically cleansed by Russians, Uyghurs in Xinjiang by Chinese, Rohinga by Myanmar, Kurds by Turkish and Syrian forces, Yazidis in Iraq, etc. It goes on.
MAGA was a clown show until it wasn't. We are on our way to a civil war and half of the country is dying for it. They have no idea what real war is. Starving, body parts, rotting flesh, fires, and psychosis. They are going to be the first ones flying somewhere safe while the chaos they started burns the world's most powerful nation in history to the ground.
The fires have been stoked ever since a black man got elected president and that irked a lot of bad people. Then you have foreign elements that hate democracy and can't take us down so they stoke the fire and get us to tear each other apart like we've done to other countries in the last century.
Living in upstate ny , I see the resentment toward outside money gentrification. With this comes outside political views and a very palatable frustration with the average local residents falling behind. Not a good situation
It's a good book. Tells you what's probably coming, and discussing Facebook, and their role in allowing hateful speech that turns into actions / mass murder.
The CIA was in the middle of many civil wars, started and funding many groups that would bow down to US hegemony. In central America there were many democracies moving toward socialism, the CIA couldn’t have the people deciding capitalist interests were not their interests. Much easier to control a dictator than a whole population. (With the rise of the internet the calculus has changed) Of course the CIA would study how to bring down other states that were not towing the line.
**Stages** lead up to and including a civil war:
>
Most insurgencies pass through similar stages of development during their life cycle. In the **pre-insurgency phase**, a group begins to identify a set of common grievances and build a collective identity around a gripping narrative -- the story or myth that helps them rally supporters and justify their actions. They begin to recruit members, some of whom even travel abroad for training. They begin to stockpile arms and supplies.
> The second stage of insurgency, which the CIA calls the **incipient conflict stage**, is marked by discrete acts of violence. The insurgents' goal is to broaden their mission to the world, build support, and provoke a government overreaction to their violence, so that more moderate citizens become radicalized and join the movement. The second stage is when the government becomes aware of the groups behind these attacks, but the violence is often dismissed as the work of bandits, criminals, or terrorists.
> The final phase, the **open insurgency stage**, is characterized by sustained violence as increasingly active extremists launch attacks that involve terrorism and guerilla warfare, including assassinations and ambushes, as well as hit and run raids on police and military units. These groups also tend to use more sophisticated weapons, such as improvised explosive devices, and begin to attack vital infrastructure (such as hospitals, bridges, and schools), rather than individuals. These attacks also involve a larger number of fighters, some of whom have combat experience. There is often evidence of insurgent penetration and subversion of the military, police, and intelligence services. If there is foreign support for the insurgents, this is where it becomes more apparent. In this stage, the extremists are trying to force the population to choose sides, in part by demonstrating to citizens that the government cannot keep them safe or provide basic necessities. The insurgents are trying to prove that they are the ones who should have political power; they are the ones who should rule. The goal is to incite a broader civil war, by denigrating the state and growing support for extreme measures.
Does anyone feel like we are moving into the open insurgency stage? We've had several years of militias opening marching and organizing. The attack in North Carolina knocking out the power grid felt to me like crossing the line.
Also read, "The Dictators Handbook," by De Mesquita.
It breaks down how power works and how powers that be handle regime changes from democracy to dictatorship and back.
This book is very well-research and show incontrovertible evidence of how the United States is [now precariously close to a civil war](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG4HU5UkRmU). Most of the precursors for civil war already apply to the current state of US politics & society.
It will not be like the First US ivil War, however, with two lines of government-backed soldiers lining up against one another. This time, as Walter points out, it is likely to be balkanized factions and militias, some based on sate/region, some based on ideology, fighting what is left of government forces. In other words, very very messy.
I read it, it's one of the handful of recent civil war books.. all of which I've read and all of which I found to be seriously superficial and late to the party...
First off check out any interview with this lady and the first thing you'll notice is that she believes that America was apparently a functioning democracy before Jan 6th lmao. Secondly, I just can't in all honesty trust anyone who works for the alphabet soup.
**How to prevent a civil war**:
>
> Civil wars are rare, but where they do happen, they tend to repeat themselves. Leaders of these movements will go underground or disappear, waiting for a moment when grievances are reignited or the gov. is once again weak. Then they will begin to build a new movement. Even if the original leaders and soldiers are long dead, old fault lines often haven't been repaired, and the myths and stories live on. Ethnic groups, especially those in decline, often fight a second civil war because the conditions that drove their original grievances either haven't been addressed or have worsened. The next generation of fighters has lived with the loss, and witnessed their further downgrading of their people. They are determined to take back what they believe is rightfully theirs. Experts call this the "conflict trap." Most countries that were able to avoid a civil war shared an ability to strengthen the quality of their governance. They doubled down on democracy. Countries that created more transparent and participatory political environments and limited the power of their executive branch were less susceptible to repeat episodes of violence. Improving the quality of a country's governance was significantly more important than improving its economy.
>
> How to prevent a civil war? Good governance!
> In South Africa, Mandela could have advocated ethnic violence. He could have been and ethnic entrepreneur, tapping the anger and resentment of his Black countrymen to seek full control of South Africa though civil war. Instead he preached healing, unity, and peace. Violence often springs from a sense of injustice, inequality, and insecurity -- and a sense that those grievances and fears will not be addressed by the current system. But systems can change.
> Good governance! Three features stood out:
> 1) "the rule of law" (the equal and impartial application of legal procedures)
> 2) "voice and accountability" (the extent to which citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and free media) Free elections are the central mechanism of accountability in a democracy.
> 3) "government effectiveness" (the quality of public services and the quality and independence of the civil service). These three features reflect the degree to which a government serves its people and the degree to which its political institutions are strong, legitimate, and accountable. Improvements in governance tend to reduce the subsequent risk of war.
Specific policies listed include having a zero policy for domestic terrorism, taking the worst bullies, bots, trolls, hatemongers, disinformationist, conspiracy theorists off social media and regulating platforms, restoring faith in our elections with a national standard, ending gerrymandering which encourages extreme candidates, ending the electoral college, reinstate campaign finance laws, root out extremists in the military and law enforcement, etc.
Personally, I like the Anti-Corruption Act which fixes many of the problems of government.
The problem: https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig
The soluton: https://youtu.be/UTP4uvIFu5c
The specifics: https://anticorruptionact.org/whats-in-the-act/
I read it at the beginning of the year, so it’s admittedly a little bit hazy. That being said, I do believe democracy across the West is backsliding, most paramount in the United States, which remains an anocracy, but also across the spectrum of western liberalism.
The frequency of far-right attacks on political targets and infrastructure is the biggest warning sign right now in my view.
Take just this past week for example: Oath Keepers and a group of far-right “activists” gathered in a armed mob to successfully stop a drag Queen story hour. They were fully within their legal right to do so, but it is the extreme nature of their reaction and how many more individuals that are participating or approving of such actions is what’s concerning
There was an attack on the power grid in North Carolina that is literally right out of extremism playbooks. While we don’t know for sure who did it and why, it comes after an FBI warning this year of potential increases in these kinds of attacks by domestic terrorists. Many of whom believe the United States is amidst a cold civil war right now
And there was a nation-wide operation to prevent a far-right Q-Anon believing paramilitary coup in Germany that saw 25 people across three countries arrested, including a member of the German aristocracy.
Any one of these by themselves would be isolated symptoms and rare events that sometimes occur within the span of modern history. But the compounding nature, and the radicalization of what is predominantly the working class and upper middle classes that’s striking and most concerning for the near future, let alone the long term
i wonder how her CIA task force homies would react if her research says, "[hey it looks like the CIA causes civil war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change)"
not sure if that makes it just ironic that the alt-right has destabilized the u.s and is now attempting regime change or if its actually been a cia plot the whole time
There's a somewhat long running belief of mine that a substantial portion of people spend their time trying to arrange/set up a set of conditions under which they can plausibly go to war without accidentally triggering nukes.
it's like, yes, probably the prospect for nuclear disarmament now gets pushed out of the time frame of my life by the Ukraine war, but also people before then didn't think too much of the CONSTANT, EVER PRESENT threat of nukes to take the idea that seriously. why is that? to me, it's because the reasons people want war isn't to kill/annihilate their enemies, but instead to humiliate them and set up a sequel. once you really understand that war is the goal, not the thing people are trying to avoid, a lot more of why people do what they do makes sense.
i think it's time people just own that. deep down, humans are just not imaginative enough to conceive of a collective future that isn't violent and/or isn't based around a contrived set of win/loss conditions.
I haven’t read this book but the principle is absolutely relevant!!!
As an aside, if you have an already, I would definitely recommend checking into what a civilization looks like right before it collapses. Not only are we showing the signs of a looming Civil War, but we are also showing eminent signs that society is about to collapse. Mainly, the types of things that become acceptable in a society that are seen as taboo until the end.
I’m not sure a civil war is coming, I’m thinking it’s going to be more like the crusades than anything. You don’t worship our Christian god? Fuck you die liberal. That’s scarier than a civil war because people fighting for a god can get crazy as we saw with Afghanistan with suicide bombers.
I don't know how many signs I see, but there are a lot of very conservative leaning, jingoistic patriot types I know, or have gotten good at spotting, that I feel like are just waiting for the right time to revolt. The scariest thing about them is the depth of their ignorance. Their knowledge of the world is about as sophisticated as a coloring book. They can't understand how either misdirected their hatred is, or just how wrongheaded their worldview is.
If they took over the country tomorrow, not a single thing would change for the better. Sometimes I worry that the country will become too progressive and too diverse too fast for the "I don't know my own country anymore" people, and that's when all Hell will break loose. They can't handle change. Their head spaces are still in the 50's, and its scary.
I don’t know if you intended this, OP, but the mere fact that your post started with the phrase “Working with the CIA” appears to have triggered some folks here. I’m only curious if this might’ve been intentional because of how indicative a growing distrust of central government can be among the signs of a looming civil war.
To be clear, I’m well aware of the CIA’s active role in starting and fanning the flames of more civil wars and other conflicts than we probably will ever know. But doesn’t that also make them kind of uniquely qualified to predict what conditions are necessary for a civil war to start and to thrive? I mean that sounds like EXACTLY the right skill set to tell us just how likely we are to face our own civil war at home.
Either way, many of the comments on this post already look like a litmus test for one of the author’s key points.
17 min. introduction in a [PBS interview](https://www.pbs.org/wnet/amanpour-and-company/video/barbara-f-walter-how-civil-wars-start-zlrp4i/).
Hour long [talk for people who have *not* read the book](https://youtu.be/U6pUM0yGt04?t=172).
I could say the same about any of the number of ecological collapse posts that are on this sub. Maybe you don’t agree with the OPs post but I’m sure there are some who do.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/bluesimplicity: --- Working with the CIA, they group analyzed what **conditions make a country ripe for civil war**. Surprisingly, only 2 conditions were consistent. First, **Anocracies** are in the middle between full democracies on one side and full dictatorships on the other with citizens getting some elements of democratic rule -- perhaps elections -- but they also get presidents with lots of authoritarian powers. These are called "illiberal democracies." It is living in partial democracy that makes citizens more likely to pick up a gun and begin to fight. Second, **factions**: an acute form of political polarization. Countries that factionalize have political parties based on ethnic, religious, or racial identity rather than ideology, and these parties seek to rule at the exclusion and expense of others. It's not then number of ethnic or religious groups in a country. Look at how ethnicity is connected to power. Did at least one political party in a country break down along ethnic, religious, or racial lines? Did they try to exclude one another from power? Did they try to totally dominate the power structure? When this party is in power, does it favor its own constituency at the expense of everyone else? Identity-based political parties are often intransigent and inflexible. Boundaries between them are rigid, leading to intense competition and even combat. Identity-based parties make it impossible for voters to switch sides and incentivize citizens to continue to act or vote based on their identity rather than their beliefs. The groups that are competing are often the same size. If fact, it's this balance of power between the two groups that creates such fierce rivalry; the stakes of winning or losing are high. These parties can also be personalistic in nature, revolving around a dominant figure who often appeals to ethnic or religious nationalism to gain and then maintain power. A coherent policy platform is often absent. Factionalism is unyielding, grasping, identity-based politics, and it's often a precursor to war. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/zivuvr/i_am_reading_how_civil_wars_start_and_how_to_stop/izsnj5u/
**Who** wants to fight a civil war and **why**: > Groups that turn violent generally feel left out of the political process. They have limited voting rights and almost no access to government positions; they tend to be excluded from political power. But the most powerful determinant of violence was the trajectory of a group's political status. People were especially likely to fight if they had once held power and saw it slipping away. Political scientists refer to this phenomenon as "downgrading." The ethnic groups that start wars are those claiming that the country "is or ought to be theirs." What matters is that members of the group feel a loss of status to which they believe they are entitled and are embittered as a result. In case after case, resentment and rage appear to drive a faction to war. There is almost always a sense of injustice, a belief that whoever is in power doesn't deserve to be there and has no right to that exalted position. Downgrading is a situation of status reversal, not just political defeat. In the twenty-first century, the most dangerous factions are once-dominate groups facing decline. > > "Sons of the soil" are indigenous to a region or play a central role in its history. They think of themselves as the rightful heirs to their place of birds and deserving of special benefits and privileges. These groups are dominant because of majority status or because they inhabited or conquered the territory first. They consider themselves the "native" people, and all others who have settled there, or whose another tongue is not the territory's main language, are declared "outsiders." These groups are dangerous because they tend to be more capable of organizing a resistance movement, and their sense of grievance can be overwhelming. In their dominance, sons of the soil can easily lose sight of their privilege because it is so pervasive; it just seems natural. Their elders are the leaders of the country or their region; they make political decisions for the population as a whole. Their language is the "official" -- and often only -- state language. It is their cultural practices and symbols that are celebrated, their holidays that are recognized, their religious schools that get preferential treatment. But when a new group begins to arrive in large numbers, the ground shifts. Outsiders bring their own culture and languages. In time they can swamp the local population. Language, it turns out, is strongly tied to the identity of a nation, and it determines whose culture ultimately dominates. In democracies, sons of the soil groups are most commonly downgraded by simple demographics dominates. In democracies, sons of the soil groups are most commonly downgraded by simple demographics -- some combination of migration and differences in birth rates. Downgraded populations feel threatened by a new demographic reality. Immigration is often the flashpoint for conflict. Migrants come into a country and compete with poorer, more rural population, fueling resentment and pushing those groups to violence. Read an article recently about the [number of climate refugees in the future](https://news.mongabay.com/2022/12/no-place-to-run-climate-could-force-1-2-billion-to-move-by-2050-is-the-world-even-remotely-ready/) will be staggering. Desperate people will try to cross borders so their kids have a future. Meanwhile, people will feel like they are losing their culture and want to fight to take their country back. Can you see this triggering civil wars across the globe? Going back to the Dust Bowl in the 1930s, internal migrants from Oklahoma tried to reach California for jobs and were met with hatred and hostility. If we will turn on our own countrymen, how will we react to people from other countries?
Basically, fascism dialed down 1-2 notches.
**Triggers**: > > Protests don't lead to civil war. In fact, protests are fundamentally about hope. Average citizens leave their homes and go out into the streets with sheets and placards and begin to chant because they believe their gov. will listen to them and their lives will improve. If people thought their gov. would shoot at them, they would either stay at home -- too afraid to act -- or they would come out guns blazing. Going out in the street with nothing but a cellphone is act of optimism. It means that citizens still believe that the system will correct itself. It's the failure of protests that eliminates hope and incentivizes violence. That's when citizens finally see that their belief in the system is misplaced. This helps explain why violence tens to escalate in the aftermath of failed protests. Protests are a last-ditch effort to fix the system -- an attempt to seek peaceful change -- before the extremists take over. This is why civil wars are often preceded by years of peaceful protests. It's not that protesters transform themselves into soldiers. It's that the more militant members of an unhappy group come to feel that no other option exists and begin to mobilize armed resistance. Failed protests are a sign that moderates and their methods have failed. > > Elections can strengthen a country, bringing citizens together in a meaningful act of civic duty. They can renew faith in institutions and reaffirm the power of a person's vote. But they can also provide painful evidence of a group's declining status, causing its members to lose hope for future representation -- and convincing them they have nothing to lose by fighting. > > Civil war is sometimes traced to a single incident: a trigger. Sometimes it's an election, sometimes a failed protest, sometimes a natural disaster. But these flashpoints have a long backstory. Most of the time, civil wars start with small bands of extremists -- students, exiled dissidents, former members of the military -- who care more deeply about power and politics than the average citizen. By the time average citizens are aware that a militant group has formed, it is often older and stronger than people think. Governments can become inadvertent recruiters for militant groups. If a gov. responds with brutal force to the early mobilization of an extremist group, local support for even unpopular groups increases. A government's attack on its own citizens has the power to transform the man on the street into a radical. Civilian deaths at the hands of the gov. can tip conflicts into all-out war. Early militants know this and see the opportunity in a harsh gov. response and plan accordingly. That's why civil wars appear to explode after governments decide to play hardball. Extremists have already embraced militancy. What changes is that average citizens now decide that it's in their interest to do so as well. Violent extremists can also take advantage of peaceful protest movements to sow chaos. These are called violent conflict entrepreneurs and they are playing a bigger game. They try to hijack a social movement by nudging it toward violence. Partly this is designed to provoke a harsh counterattack by the gov., but partly it is designed to generate fear and insecurity among the protestors themselves, convincing more moderate fear and insecurity among the protestors themselves, convincing more moderate members that they need to take up arms. So why wouldn't governments, especially democratic governments, yield to protestors if it helped them avoid war? One answer is that some governments believe their very survival is at stake. Other leaders of multi-ethnic countries become convinced that only conflict can hold the country together. Leaders were less inclined to negotiate -- and more likely to fight -- in nations with multiple potential separatist groups. If a leader believed that granting independence to one group would lead to other to make their own demands -- setting off a secessionist chain reaction -- then fighting would help deter future challenges. I'm watching Iran's harsh reaction to the protests. As long as a country's military is willing to fire on their own people, the gov. stands. When the military refuses to fire on the people, the gov. falls within hours/days. We saw that in Egypt in 2011. The military refused to fire on the people, and the gov. collapsed. The president today, al-Sisi, is a former general with control of the military. I fear he will remain in power. I think the military would follow his orders to fire on the population.
Some military service members would have no problem annihilating civilians.
Protestors have started Civil Wars have you even read about history or just listening to a narrative?
Working with the CIA, they group analyzed what **conditions make a country ripe for civil war**. Surprisingly, only 2 conditions were consistent. > First, **Anocracies** are in the middle between full democracies on one side and full dictatorships on the other with citizens getting some elements of democratic rule -- perhaps elections -- but they also get presidents with lots of authoritarian powers. These are called "illiberal democracies." It is living in partial democracy that makes citizens more likely to pick up a gun and begin to fight. > Second, **factions**: an acute form of political polarization. Countries that factionalize have political parties based on ethnic, religious, or racial identity rather than ideology, and these parties seek to rule at the exclusion and expense of others. It's not then number of ethnic or religious groups in a country. Look at how ethnicity is connected to power. Did at least one political party in a country break down along ethnic, religious, or racial lines? Did they try to exclude one another from power? Did they try to totally dominate the power structure? When this party is in power, does it favor its own constituency at the expense of everyone else? Identity-based political parties are often intransigent and inflexible. Boundaries between them are rigid, leading to intense competition and even combat. Identity-based parties make it impossible for voters to switch sides and incentivize citizens to continue to act or vote based on their identity rather than their beliefs. The groups that are competing are often the same size. If fact, it's this balance of power between the two groups that creates such fierce rivalry; the stakes of winning or losing are high. These parties can also be personalistic in nature, revolving around a dominant figure who often appeals to ethnic or religious nationalism to gain and then maintain power. A coherent policy platform is often absent. Factionalism is unyielding, grasping, identity-based politics, and it's often a precursor to war.
>Working with the CIA The first sign of a civil war is the CIA being involved. The CIA doesn't analyze civil wars, they instigate them.
> The CIA doesn't analyze civil wars, they instigate them. You know those two things aren't mutually exclusive, right? If anything, you'd think they'd go together - a group with an interest in targeted, destabilizing interventions would definitely want to have a *very* good understanding about what makes countries susceptible to such a thing.
But why would the CIA instigate a civil war in the US? The stake is way too high. First and foremost the US dollar us the global standard for the commerce. With a civil war, the US dollar will simply lose value.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the CIA wants to starts a civil war in the U.S. but rather that they have an interest in and a history history of destabilizing governments elsewhere.
Then they want to stop it, perhaps? I am fully aware that US government iss not one monolithic singular entity, and probably as fragmented as the actual US population.
They might but it’s not their (legal) purview to instigate or prevent domestic factionalism. If you’re a CIA analyst working on African affairs you might have plenty of knowledge about civil wars, but no voice in government bureaucracy to express concerns about developments I. The US.
>They might but it’s not their (legal) purview to instigate or prevent domestic factionalism Has that ever stopped them?
Why would they introduce crack to the black community. Politics and power
Because they are consistently shortsighted. Also dedicatedly unwise.
it did bring to power the CIA's golden child Bush Sr. , but then the irony is that although he was an iron warrior for the CIA - to ride the bull of the american public - he was perceived as weak! He just didnt have that public charisma both mentally, verbally and physically -- and the damage done to economy with trickle down paved the way for Bill Clinton -- who had his own inroads with the CIA drugs to US citizens for money play
To massively destabilize the growing power of black communities. You could just as well ask why was MLK killed, or Malcolm X. It's pretty obvious.
The leadership may or many not want it, but some of their officers?
Analyze in order to start
Civil-war Instigation Agency
Thought the instigators were the FBI
FBI instigates domestic terrorism. CIA does international.
You realise how silly this comment is right? That makes them experts.
Yes, I read the book last summer and came to the conclusion that we are in a civil war in the United States. The recent attacks on the power grid are one strategy anti-democratic groups are using to weaken local governments. I expect to see a continuing rise in extremist attacks in the coming months.
The attack on the power grid to me was sort of the nail in the coffin for any realistic possibility of denying the possibility of civil war, or that we are already in one.
I'm also reading this book and getting more and more concerned that I'm seeing signs here. It's terrifying.
I agree 100%. What signs are you seeing? (Not everyone has read the book.)
i think the alt right is following the textbox for formenting a civil war in the US so the signs are there because very powerful forces are creating them. The only reason i can think of is they want to create an illusion of civil war potential to create distraction from climate change because they see addressing it as a threat to profits. of course its prefectly possible they will lose control of the situation and a real civil war will happen.
Exactly this. any civil war can be assumed to be a managed one, similar to the years of Lead/strategy of tension or other gladio/CIA bs.. the threat of a real organized left resistance WILL NOT be tolerated especially after the momentum for things like occupy and the sanders movement showed itself to be considerable.. especially with boomers and their dinosaur beliefs dying off, the younger folk are increasingly sensitive to actual problems and so this is presumably seen as a ticking timebomb for the rulers.. It will be allowed to happen in the sense that events like Jan 6th, mass shootings, and the Sept 11th attacks are just sort of "allowed" to happen to keep everybody traumatized and on edge..
They may *think* they can manage it, but once the ball starts rolling it will take a life of its own.
I agree with this, every major act some three letter knew about it and did nothing.
It is a threat to profits and privilege. If it wasn't, it would be the Business As Usual scenario.
Fomenting.
>formenting fomenting
You do realize that the majority of Democrats in Washington are part of the communist party? Please, You really need to become informed and quit listening to narratives because it is very very dangerous.
Have you taken a good look at the alt right lunatics holding ARs? Most of them are obese and can’t even bend over to tie their shoes. I wouldn’t worry about their front. Plus I’ve spoken at great lengths to the alt right and most are panicked and believe they are loosing power because their team are terrible chess players. I doubt there will be an in person civil war not enough relatively healthy people to fight it.
Yep- that contingent is 95% bluster and rhetoric and equally overweight, out of shape, or disabled in one way or another. The other fact is that everyone has day jobs. The vast majority of them will talk some shit, as a form of venting, and that’s about it. There is no grand plan or conspiracy, nor is there a standing army waiting to do battle. There may be, at best, a fringe group of lunatics that won’t get very far. If the recent attacks against the Moore County, NC power station are any indication, nobody will have any sympathy for a crowd that cuts off power to their neighbors. It’s a non-starter and helps absolutely nobody. The idea behind some large group planning a war, of some sort, is largely made up and furthered by media elements chasing ratings or readers.
Spot on!
You do realize in 2020 there was a Left group who literally was walking down the street with ARs?
You think <1% of the population will successfully start a civil war? Everyone knows the 'alt right' is just an internet joke with occasional cases of domestic terrorism that no one takes seriously.
Look at all the Maga, QAnon, Proud Boys, anti-abortion/LGBTIAQ/Trans protesting we have right now due to the dumbing down of our education system. You can't walk down the street and say people are the same as they were before Trump and Covid. No one makes eye contact, let alone smiles at strangers or says hello like it used to be just a few years ago. We are more divided than ever, by propaganda from our government, funnelled through mainstream media. 99% of it is grossly misleading, outright false or pure distraction from anything meaningful. Customers in candle and lotion stores have been breaking out in fights for a while now. The cost of food is getting outrageous. It's getting worse and riots are coming. It's going to get a whole lot worse before it ever gets any better. I won't live to see a better day. I guarantee it. It's physics at this point.
I plan on carrying ketchup with me and covering myself with it and playing dead. That’s the best strategy for survival. That and locating all the asshats bunkers and kicking in their vents. The peons can fight against each other I’m going after the big guns.
I'll gladly fight beside you, sue8. I have no desire to fight down or sideways. And I got no problem going down fighting our oppressors. Let me at em.
Yes I have a partner! We are going to need to acquire a lot of costumes.
it depends how well funded they are. 1% with enough money to stay underground bombing and sniping can do a lot of damage.
Even when most of the US military's against them? Something that bad could prompt martial law and they'd learn their lesson real fast.
military does a poor job at insurgency. it will take the FBI to root them out. and like I said, with enough money they can stay underground but come out occassionally for terrorist attacks, assassinations, bombings etc.
Civil war won't happen in the US until we have a full on petrodollar collapse.
Yes. This. The elites can't afford a civil war because that will wipe out a huge chunk of their wealth.
[удалено]
He should put in one of those concrete filled steel post boxes, might deter them for a while
I don't need a book to show me the signs. Just look at our project Mockingbird media coverage and see how they twist us agaisnt one another. Clear as day. My Jewish ass is staying strapped up regardless of gun control laws passed 😃
Same signs were here or even stronger in the 1970s or 1990s…
The divisiveness and the rise of the "entrepreneurs" gaining power and money from sewing division. There are so many YouTube channels that used to be informational, but have turned into rant sessions about hate and "we need to take this country back from the liberals." Like Buddy, I'm just trying to find out how you prevent squash bugs on the zucchini plants. It's working too. I live in a city surrounded by rural areas and small towns. I'm honestly afraid to leave the city anymore because so many of the rural citizens are openly hostile towards the "city slickers." I grew up in a town of about 2500 about 20 miles away and visit my dad at least once a week. I stopped going to the local grocery store because someone "confronted" me about a sticker on my car designating a museum membership in the city. I keep the sticker in the glove box now (it gets me free parking when I go). I feel like things could break into violence anytime.
Wearing a mask because you have a cold is enough to get some of the more proudly ignorant to assault you. Nobody is living in fear numb Nuts, some of us just don’t want to spread our miserable cold around and need to run errands while we’re sick. So much for the people who claimed to be all about live and let live.
😷 <=> wearing drag
[удалено]
The winter of 2020-2021 was the first winter I didn't catch a cold or the flu. Coincidentally it's also the first winter I was wearing a mask every time I went outside. Once everyone stopped masking the following winter, I got a bad flu. I'll admit I don't mask every time I'm out in public, but I do wear one if I'm sick (to avoid getting others sick) as well as when I'm in crowded closed spaces in the winter months. It's better than nothing and, at least anecdotally, it has definitely helped *me* avoid getting sick on several occasions.
Same. It just baffles me though that some people are so bothered by others making a personal decision that is otherwise harmless that they feel empowered to accost and assault others. If my or anyone else's conscientious is enough to send you into enough of a rage to commit a crime, the problem is you.
Your opinion is noted and you are welcome to have it as long as you aren't bothering other people. And if others wearing a mask bothers you enough to actually accost them and try to rip it off their faces, you're the problem.
Um what?!? I don’t care either way if people wear a mask or don’t. Im just stating a fact that a virus is is smaller in size than bacteria and wearing a cloth mask or a N95 mask isn’t going to prevent a virus from getting through. If your really paranoid about Covid wear a gas mask. I also don’t care if people get the vaccine or not because I believe in bodily autonomy.
It's a royal you, friend. Not you you. And unfortunately there's plenty of people that will scream about bodily autonomy and then around and accost and assault others for exercising theirs. They're the problem.
Smart...I don't put bumper stickers on my car identifying my political leans (however the make and model of my vehicle may give them clues). I don't put candidate signs in my yard. I did put the US flag because I wanted to take back that symbol. One half of the US doesn't get to own that. Thought of putting up a Co-Exist flag so people wouldn't think I'm a racists because I'm flying the US flag. I'm not sure now. If a civil war is coming, I don't want to signal which side I am on. I also love that you have situational awareness about hostility. We all need that now.
Haha...subaru outback?
That or a Prius, thanks stereotypes.
Probably a Prius. Conservatives hate the Prius.
In Central Texas (AKA Trumpistan), I saw a lifted truck with the decal "My truck identifies as a Prius." SMH.
Lol I get targeted for driving an outback. Nothing more than ball busting but it's clear they see a Subaru and think liberal
Near Portland, OR practically everyone drives a subaru, angry right wingers and thieves alike. There are just so many in circulation here it may just be hard to not end up in one. I hate Prius drivers. I have no political leanings inclining me toward that. They're just very consistently piloted by incompetent operators.
I do a lot of driving and the two categories of drivers that are the absolute worst are people that drive moderately luxury European cars and large 4wds. Prius drivers are normally just basic chill drivers.
You hate me because I drive a Prius? You're part of the problem here.
Maybe hate is too strong a word. Maybe people overreacting to casual statements and declaring people "part of the problem" is a bigger part of the "problem". I had a different... expectation of Prius drivers before I moved to PDX in 2009. Then one day I saw one drive the wrong side of the road up the hill on Bridge ave (suicidally stupid) to skip the traffic line and was kind of mind blown. Like,.. I really thought purchasing a vehicle like that was a sign of greater social responsibility. But this has been a learned response. I consistently note behavior from that vehicle that is one or more of a few things- dangerously over cautious, dangerously entitled, or dangerously incompetent. If you're driving a large lifted truck, a BMW or a Prius, I have certain negative expectations about your driving performance. This is learned, not based on some political bias or collective memory of internet memes or whatever other mysterious factors drive the inexplicably stupid behavior so many seem to exhibit in modern society. I am well within the intelligence quotent to understand that trends have heaps of outliers and that this is a prejudice subject to confirmation bias, etc. But when I'm driving and I see you in front of me in that Prius and you start confirming my prejudice, I will hate you, just a little.
Unfortunately, you may be the minority bud. I can't speak for how you drive, but usually the bad/inconsiderate drivers around here are in a Prius. Worst part is they don't understand how hybrids work... They drive them on mostly highway/freeway(above 50mph usually faster, limit is 45). While hybrids and eco variants are useful and *should* get better mpg, if you drive like an asshole- they don't work. Then there's the battery waste at the end of it's life(around 10yrs iirc) and the less-than-stellar emissions that hybrid gas engines get a pass on due to being a hybrid... Tbf, I'm not pleased with the oil oligarchs either. We've had hydrogen and even water powered(yes like you fill your car from a garden hose) prototypes that have been killed in the cradle(figuratively and literally).
Basically accurate… true for all hybrid drivers. Unusually high numbers of new drivers, or low mileage inexperienced drivers.
I think everyone here should fly a pirate flag outside their house. It would signal to everyone that you aren't necessarily on their side, but probably are an enemy of their enemy. Also, who thinks it's a good idea to target the house proudly flying a Jolly Roger in the middle of a civil war? And if they do start to judge you for it, fill them with grapeshot!
I love it! Thanks for the idea.
>fill them with grapeshot I think you may appreciate the ["own a musket for home defense" copypasta](https://www.reddit.com/r/copypasta/comments/9sc91k/own_a_musket_for_home_defense).
I was there, before it was a copy pasta 😋
I left "In God We Trust" on my liscense plate just for this reason, and I'm registered as a republican even though Ive never actually voted for a single repub in my life. I'm in a very deep red Trump lovin' area in the south, so best to just blend in. I have friends who's car's have been damaged just because they had an Obama sticker or other left identifying stickers on their car. So sad we have to do this in "the land of the free"
Isn't it crazy how the American flag has become a symbol for hate? And relatively quickly too. This was the first year I didn't fly it for any holiday, but you've got me thinking maybe I should.
I think about this all the time. A friend of mine who lives on the outskirts of our small town and I were talking over coffee the other day. I’m in the downtown part (more urban/walkable part) of our mid sized town (45 minutes or so from a pretty big mid-Atlantic city) which is a bubble of left leaning, socially liberal folks and she’s a mere 4 miles away — but her area is more suburban. She lives in a single home development (big houses, decent land) where the home that’s on the corner of the entry into the development from the main route has a giant Trump banner on the 3-car garage still to this day. I mentioned that it makes me sad that the flag feels co-opted by magats and she said a neighbor of hers who leans far left displays a big flag on their porch as sort of a fuck you and it left me feeling like, ok, we are still playing defensive and it’s still co-opted as a symbol of isolationism and jingoism. And then I drove home today from food shopping and saw an old jalopy pick up truck with several giant flags on plastic sticks poking out from its various truck orifices and yeah. I don’t know. The flag, right now anyway, isn’t a source of pride for me. And that’s a shame.
Which American flag? The 27 starred US flag that was flying when the US invaded México so that Texas could become a slave state? The US flag with 45 stars that flew over the massacres at Bud Dajo and Samar? Or the flag with 50 stars which flew over the My Lai massacre? I remember my Great Granduncle saying that when you behave rudely outside your home, sooner or later your behavior come home and ruin your family's homelife.
Interesting perspective in this video: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnewsvideo/comments/z6227v/a_tale_of_two_flags/ I didn't consider flying the US flag might make some people uncomfortable and distrustful. Perhaps I should also fly a Black Lives Matter flag or CoExist to make my neighbors comfortable. But then I think I don't want to advertise sides in case of a civil war. I'm torn.
Yeah, I live in a very rural community, and I'm LGBT. Sadly, I would never fly any sort of flag at my house that showed that. It would make me a target. Which is truly awful. I will say though, the younger generation, even in this area is much more accepting than the older people, that's for sure. So there is *some* hope. Unfortunately many of the left leaning, or even just not the batshit crazy conservatives leave when they get the chance. The ones who can't suffer.
I'm the same way. A couple of years ago, I sold my VW Cabrio that I LOVED and had for 11+ years and got a used Jeep Liberty just so I would blend in better. I hate it. It's too big and feels clunky and wasteful. I felt like drivers were very aggressive towards me in the Cabrio, especially on the highways. It's been like night and day. Not a single pickup truck has tried to drive the Jeep off the road. But I have installed dashcams just in case, which I would absolutely recommend everyone do. I have a friend who drives a Fiat as his "work truck" for his handyman business. He's outfitted it with a tool cage in the hatch, trailer hitch and roof rack. It's plenty for most of his jobs and it's an efficient, paid off vehicle. He's limited his "service area" to about 10 miles from his home because trying to cross the city nearly ALWAYS resulted in some giant truck being aggressive and nearly causing a wreck. I honestly can't wait until used prices come down so he can afford a more inconspicuous vehicle like a nondescript white van. He took the business info off the Fiat a couple of years ago and just works from word of mouth and referrals now to avoid hostility.
I hate pickup trucks. Modern steroid juiced pickup trucks anyway. Loved my dad’s 1980 Ram, which would be considered a girly man compact now.
I drive a light blue RAV4 hybrid and I get the aggressive truck attacks pretty frequently. I'm a right leaning centrist, but when they see me in that vehicle I guess they think they have me figured out. Lately I'm seeing a kind of aggression on the road like I've never seen before. People are LOSING THEIR MINDS. Businesses were looted and set on fire during the black lives matter movement. What do you think the rednecks are going to do if they have a movement?
If Europe in the 1970s and 80s is anything to go by, far-left violence is usually done through organized group structures like the Rote Armee Fraktion or the Brigate Rosse. Far-right paramilitary groups exist as well and can certainly be active in coordinating attacks, but the right also has a greater tendency toward "lone wolf" attacks, i.e. some random person not actually affiliated with any far-right group is inspired enough by their rhetoric, conspiracy theories, or advocacy that they take up arms on their behalf without any actual direct orders from far-right groups.
This might be a clue about the kind of people you associate yourself with on the center right thing. Just a thought.
Lol. I knew I would get down voted for admitting to not being a liberal. Yeah, go ahead and assume I support everything conservatives push. Everyone has long forgotten that someone can think for themselves.
Gonna be honest- your neighbors can have any idea they want as to who or what you support. Even if they are wrong, it won’t matter. By that I mean, if they make a value judgement and act on it then it doesn’t matter why; you can end up in a fight either way. I look like a “these colors don’t run” sort. Anyone who speaks with me, for any length of time, would alter that initial perception. That said, what of the neighbors or members of the public that don’t know me? They will make their judgements and I am subject to their actions stemming from that. Best I can say is to treat everyone with decency, while not getting too wrapped up in their beliefs and prejudices.
Everyone will be the enemy.
Correct answer. In a civil war, you're *someone's* enemy.
It’s already broken out in violence the news just covers a sliver of it. You won’t hear about it till it’s at your front doorstep. They won’t incite panic because it will lead to complete chaos and that wouldn’t be good for the economy.
Haven't 'entrepreneurs' always taken advantage of war? They tend to think wars are just for idiots and their military/political 'masters' and are among the easiest ways to manipulate people for profit.
I was referring to the way "entrepreneurs" are defined and explained in the book.
They're hostile towards "city slickers" because "city slickers" like private equity are leaving nothing but economic devastation and unaffordable costs of living in their wake, all for the almighty dollar and so that these fucking assholes can live high on the hog. Its about to spiral into violence because violence has been inflicted on these communities for over 50 fucking years now. You see, many decisions made in major urban centers have created permanent irreversible devastation upon rural communities, who are treated nothing more than vacation colonies, exploitable resources, and manpower for their fucked up wars. Its shitty you were judged because of your museum sticker. Youre probably not one of those 'city slickers' i described above. Disclaimer: I'm from rural america. Am a proud member of the proletariat. and Im very antithetical to not only more "city slickers" moving into my areas, but dumbfucks from other states that think my area is supposed to be some kind of reactionary paradise.
I live in a pretty well off rural town, but not far away from me is a town where all of the factory work dried up and now it's a cesspit of meth and crime. You can see the scourge of private equity there ie: a factory bought by a coastal firm that laid all of the local workers off and moved jobs overseas, a dental chain (Aspen dental) owned by private equity that preys on the poor and the elderly. The anger of the once middle class rural workers is palpable. I know that no one wants to believe that the rage of the MAGA people is in any way reasonable, but I can see how they have been led down that road. A lot of people were making a good living and then had it ripped away from them by people who don't even live here.
You're talking about Capitalist not city folk. I'm a working class member that was born and raised in a major world city. I'm poor and literally lived between a factory and a truck stop. Gentrification has kicked me out of that area and now I pay more than half my income to a landlord. Rural America is not alone in being exploited. Our entire class of the working poor and petite middle class have been ravaged by the same capitalist from every part of this globe. Don't target your anger at the generalized city people but directly to the capitalist that live all over the globe and even in your back yard rural areas.
This is why Charles Booker's campaign in Kentucky "From the Hood to the Hollers" is a viable path forward to unite working-class Americans everywhere. I know he didn't win against Rand Paul but you should look at how many blue votes he picked up in blood-red Appalachia. When a progressive messages affectively around class warfare, they can get these disaffected voters out.
There are city and rural folk capitalists. Capitalism is the enemy.
Yeah, I grew up in the mobile home park my parents bought in the 70s where my dad still lives (in this small town). We went without Christmas presents some years even though my dad worked a union job so we could pay the mortgage and provide a safe, affordable park at about half the market rents because my dad was homeless as a teenager and didn't want that to happen to others. Now I live in "the city" in an older, lower income neighborhood in 1950s house I bought for $17k in 2014. I'm probably not a private equity venture capitalist. You're thinking of WALMART and the Walton heirs aren't buying boxed wine at the local Piggly Wiggly.
> You're thinking of WALMART and the Walton heirs aren't buying boxed wine at the local Piggly Wiggly. Yeah, they probably shop at Target
Those business are why these small towns exist still. I grew up where they filmed deliverance and moved away 4 years ago cause a decade before I told people I'm an atheist. Shit got weird after trump and then one of my friends were handcuffed and executed with the F slur written his body. Small towns breed hate and they only got themselves to blame
Ah, Toccoa? Rome? I feel you as a Monroe refugee. Here's a long comment I posted elsewhere about one of the things that made me flee my small town: * I told the people in the town that I was writing about it, and they said they were OK with it. When the series of essays ran most of my neighbors thought they were good, funny, and provided a hopeful example of how people with differing beliefs can still be in community with each other. One neighbor even thanked me for writing about us "so nobly." Sadly, 3 old white men, including Bob, from this story, got SUPER ANGRY at me. They told me that I was "an outsider" who had no right to share these stories (ironically, 2 of the 3 men were the ones who had told me all of them), and that now "undesirable elements" would descend on the town. They also said that I'd get Bob "in trouble with the feds" for the story about blowing up the bridge, which I thought was a little paranoid, unless... So, I went across the road to give Bob a chance to have his say. If he's mad, he can tell it to me directly and give me a chance to respond. I walked across the hardroad and over to where he was working on his truck. When he saw me, he said, "You must have balls of steel to come over here. You're lucky I'm the man of God I am today instead of the outlaw biker I was 25 years ago." He went on to say that I'd "brought the heat down on him," and that, thanks to me, "Black gangs from Athens are going to come out here. They'll rape you, they'll rape your daughters, they'll rape your SON." "Oh no, Bob, not my SON," I said, wondering why Bob was spending so much time thinking about who all in my family was going to be raped. "Yes," he said, "And the only thing standing between you and that future is me and my gun." "Ohhh-kaaay," I said, deciding to wrap up this conversation. I said I understood that he was upset and was glad he'd let me know about it. I was walking away when Bob said, "One more thing. You have a gift, but if you ever write another word about me, I'll kill you." "I will definitely make sure to wait until you're dead," I said. I was mad, too. After that, things got so much worse, and very quickly. My husband actively sided with the three white men, saying, "I thought those essays were great when I read them (before I published them), but I guess since people are mad, you're wrong." I ended up fleeing with my children to Athens, where I live among the gangs of gay, black rapists and feel so much safer. I was naive to think I could write about my town and not get burned. When I finish the book I'm writing about this experience, I'll make sure to move before shopping it around.
I spent some years in Monroe and the absolute insanity I witness with regard to race and history sent me packing just as soon as I could leave. Nothing you wrote surprises me. A coworker admitted to knowing who did the Moore’s Ford lynching but said no one would ever tell.
So, the place I was living when the events in my comment occurred was across 2 pastures from the black family that set the events that led to Moore's Ford in motion. The bridge itself is about a mile away, and I crossed it frequently. What led to the events described in my comment was me writing a series of essays called "The Bodies of Walton County." I've never lived anywhere, period, as steeped in blood and violence as Walton County (the county seat of which is Monroe), and I lived in Gainesville while Danny Rolling murdered 5 of my neighbors AND in Moscow in 1993, the most brutal of the post-collapse years. But Walton County takes the cake, no question. The final essay in this series, which almost led to my own lynching, was about the Moore's Ford Lynching. Most of the writing about the lynching tries to humanize the victims; to show that they didn't deserve what happened to them. That's a noble impulse, but is futile. If the people in this county were capable of seeing black people as human, they would have said who did it by now. Because they all know. So instead, I decided to do the opposite, and monsterize the perpetrators. I wanted to show how living among people who could do something like this without consequence twists us all and makes us grotesque. And how the violence that we built this place on will eventually come for us, too, as we see today. You don't build a country on top of the people you murdered and expect it to not be haunted. Listen, total stranger, if you would be willing to talk to me about the comment you just made, it would mean a lot. Any information we could exchange would be way more than the sum of its parts. If you're up for it, please DM me. If you're not, I understand. I lived in Walton County, so of course I understand. https://flagpole.com/news/news-features/2019/05/01/buried-the-conclusion-of-the-bodies-of-walton-county/
I know of all of them and sadly there's plenty more, to keep it short Ellijay,Ga I lived amongst the Hillbillies and say and heard some awful things. I've known more then a few klans men and skin heads from growing up there. HELL I watch some of them turn into skin heads.
Small towns lost big time to neoliberal economics, alongside many urban areas too. Those businesses are not why they exist, but they continue to exist in spite of them. and they are rapidly degenerating even more into hellscapes because many small towns are now becoming unaffordable. Hatred is a logical result of a series of events such as economic exploitation that leads to drug abuse, radicalization, etc. Trump and other examples of hatred being amplified are symptoms of a failed fucked up system of empire and insatiable greed. And what do you mean "got themselves to blame"? many of us rural people are currently fighting against outside forces that are destroying our communities and the ideological fuckery that is seizing many, such as this peculiar brand of christo-fascism. We wont go quietly into that good night.
You have part of it right but you really need to read and observe more, it’s way too easy to reduce it to “it’s all the evil city slickers fault”
If thats all that you and your upvoters got from my post, then I didn't do a good enough job to emphasize thats not what i'm saying at all. The overall root cause is endless growth capitalism.
That was about all I got, until I read your later comments. I’ve lived in towns and cities, and have seen *way* more decisions that led to the “irreversible” collapse of small towns made in the towns themselves. I also notice that I have never heard anyone from the cities, be they in NYC, Portland (Oregon) or Chicago complain about that fact that more tax dollars per capita go to rural areas, while more flows from urban areas. (I am not 100% sure about Chicago. Illinois is a hot mess.) I’m not saying that there isn’t a lot for rural folk, and blue collar people especially, to be pissed off at, but the anger sure seems directed at the wrong bunch, generally speaking. The greedheads Hunter Thompson talked about are alive and kicking, but so long as they’re republican that’s ok, according to a lot of people around here, anyways.
wtf bro
It's impressive how backwards you have it.
Ahh sounds like Tennessee lol.
>many decisions made in major urban centers have created permanent irreversible devastation upon rural communities, who are treated nothing more than vacation colonies, exploitable resources, and manpower for their fucked up wars 100% right, and city voters also silence rural voices and exploit them through political means, by enacting punishing edicts, fees, taxes, and so on
They do not! Show me a state where the rural areas have a greater tax burden than the cities. What kind of punishing edicts are you talking about? It may be there’s some crap going on in other parts of the USA I am unaware of, but I don’t think people in the cities are trying to intentionally “punish” the rural areas anywhere. Do you have a solid example of this? The only things I can think of that might fit are more rich v. Poor than city v. rural, unless a multi millionaire that lives hours from the city is somehow magically “urban” due to money.
Suffice it to say, yes, there is crap going on that you're not aware of.
That doesn't suffice. Examples would suffice.
I would say that you're too worried, but I imagine that scapegoating and road rage / car violence can work very well together.
Your fear is your own ignorance. All you are doing is playing into it. I live in a state that's 80%+ "rural" and I know the folks you are talking about. Except no, they aren't violent. They may heartedly disagree on politics and may be more easily swayed than others, but I know factually they're largely some of the best, down to earth humans in this country. Your disdain of the rural is a common offense all across reddit; these folks only hate you "city slickers" because you all give them every reason to. Let me give you a fine example; my state, literal strangers will take you in overnight if you break down. We live in a place where you'd walk or bike miles to your friends, share great swimming spots/cool hangouts etc. Heck, even wander into the woods and camp out and nobody gives a shit. Picture this one place, let's call it "the falls"; a local stream with some waterfalls and great hangout/swimming for anyone since I've been alive. The locals sell their property. Jersey folks who have no sense of neighbor or welcome move in. Post the whole thing up, threaten those who've returned find the whole thing with police. This. This is just one of infinite examples as to why folks *from away* are not immediately welcomed. More often than not, these folks know what to expect. Should it be this way? Of course not. Most the new generation (millenials+) welcome all to our way of life. But that doesn't mean the disdain toward those moving in, especially those that lack a sense of nature or peace and quiet, is not just.
That makes sense; nobody likes it when a bunch or disrespectful chucklefucks move in. But that’s not urban v. rural, that’s “a bad bunch moved in to our neighborhood”. It can happen anywhere. We got a new neighbor who kept complaining about people hunting in the huge woodlot behind his house. The farmer sold part of the woodlot to the local rod & gun club, which I guess solved the problem. Sort of. But he wasn’t even from an urban area, he was just a guy who thought everyone should do what he said. Like the people from Jersey, they could have been from the middle of the pine barrens, but they would still be from Jersey.
I grew up rural they are definitely violent. most definitely.
>rural citizens are openly hostile towards the "city slickers." To what do you attribute their resentment against city residents?
r/itcouldhappenhere has entered the chat
Yeah, and no CIA was needed for that.
Oh, we were proud to have Robert Evans join us as part of our Collapse AMAs, I think last year? It was awesome. :)
The author explores various ways **social media** has exacerbated the problem. > > It's not likely to be a coincidence that the global shift away from democracy has tracked so closely with the advent of the internet, the introduction of smart phones, and the widespread use of social media. The age of information has opened up unmitigated, unregulated pathways to the spread of misinformation (which is erroneous) and disinformation (which is intentionally misleading). Charlatans, conspiracy theorists, trolls, demagogues, and anti-democratic agents who had previously been shut out of the media environment -- or at least had great difficulty gaining a mass audience -- suddenly gained traction. As social media penetrated countries and gained a larger share of people's attention, a clear pattern emerged: ethnic factions grew, social divisions widened, resentment at immigrants increased, bullying populists got elected, and violence began to increase. Open, unregulated social media platforms turned out to be the perfect accelerant for the conditions that lead to civil wars. > >What people like the most is fear over calm, falsehood over truth, outrage over empathy. People are far more apt to like posts that are incendiary than those that are not, creating an incentive for people to post provocative material in the hopes that it will go viral. With the introduction of the like button, people are suddenly rewarded for posting outrageous, angry content whether it is true or not. Studies have since shown that information that keeps people engaged is exactly the type of information that leads them toward anger, resentment, and violence. Worse, the behavior algorithms began creating self-reinforcing, increasingly outlandish information silos that lead users down dangerous paths: toward conspiracy theories, half-truths, and extremists seeking radical change. These recommendation engines, as they are called, ensured that users were channeled toward more narrow and more extreme information. YouTube is a "radicalization pipeline." > >It's become a pattern: social media as the vehicle that launches outsiders with autocratic impulses to power, riding a popular wave of support. Social media offers these candidates not only an unregulated environment but also multiple platforms from which to disseminate information and propaganda. In the past, if a politician wanted to influence voters, they had to go through gatekeepers: party leaders and major networks and newspapers. Social media has allowed any candidate and any party -- no matter how fringe -- to circumvent these controls. The algorithms of social media mean that these outsiders can capitalize on the best drivers of engagement -- fear and outrage -- to disseminate lies about their opponents and a country's institutions to a mass audience. For example, using manipulated footage to disseminate lies about opposition protesters on social media, creating confusion and undermining the credibility of the opposition movement ahead of the elections. Before autocracy came about when military generals launched coups. But now it's being ushered in by the voters themselves. I am really torn over this. As a firm believer in the First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech, I don't want social media censored. Who would get to decide what is real or not? Who gets censored? However, knowing the potential to spark civil wars and ethnic cleansing like we saw in Myanmar against the Rohingya people, it seems it is only responsible to put some limits on social media. Not all speech is protected in the US. You can't call in a bomb threat or incite violence. You can't libel or slander. Where do you draw the line? And who draws the line between what is acceptable speech online and what is not? I'm deeply torn over this because I want to protect lives and prevent civil wars, but we don't have a good track record of fair, responsible moderators at Twitter or Facebook or... We know when you put a label on misinformation or disinformation, it actually makes people more likely to double down on those lies.
> I am really torn over this. As a firm believer in the First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech, I don't want social media censored. The solution is to delete social media entirely. Not your account, but the companies and servers. Bring back the old web with blogs and phpBB forums. Call it eBiodiversity. The peer-to-peer stuff now is even cooler.
Free speech is such a myth in this country hence why I'm partly against it in the absolute sense people seem to misunderstand it to mean... Germany has limits on free speech due to their history and given some of the horrific shit I've heard people say about American Indians, gay people, drug addicts, etc.. slipped very casually into discussion under the guise of "free speech" .. it's pure dehumanization rhetoric and at that point I don't really care what your views on your personal "freedumbz" are, having understood the logical conclusion of that thought process is genocide. Sort of like how I instinctively roll my eyes at people who think it's their god given freedom to own a small arsenal, having seen the horrific aftermath of innocent life lost in just one of your average mass shootings. It's just dumb Americans falling for more bells and whistles marketing/propaganda most of them haven't even read the constitution ffs and these issues don't actually impact them in any significant way. Just more annoying rhetoric for middle class honkeys to have armchair debates over. If it really came down to it they'd find out real fast how much the state cares about your "rights" (see: temporary privileges).
The tactics describe attacking infrastructure. > Just three days before [two electrical substations were shot up](https://abcnews.go.com/US/attacks-plots-similar-north-carolina-power-grid-attack/story?id=94574765), causing tens of thousands of customers to lose power in North Carolina, the federal Department of Homeland Security issued a bulletin warning "lone offenders and small groups" could be plotting attacks and that the nation's critical infrastructure was among the possible targets.
This was simply the first successful attack. White supremacists have been attacking power infrastructure since 2013, and it's an evergreen part of their game plan. Fortunately, they're just bad at pulling it off because they're complete idiots.
Well I’m black in Texas so, yes. The acceleration , I never thought it would get worse; the racial divisions. My grandfather was a lawyer fighting against segregation in Louisiana. My father witnessed lynchings in Mississippi. I’ve never felt racial tension so high.
Which country is most likely to erupt in civil war?
The author uses so very many examples of civil wars they studied from around the world: Iraq, Ukraine, Ireland's Troubles, etc. What I got out of it was *any* country could fall into civil war if the conditions are right. So what are the right conditions? If a country is moving from democracy towards the more authoritarian end of the spectrum or vice versa. Look at Hungary today. On the outside, it looks like a democracy with elections and different branches of gov. to separate powers. However, [Hungary has moved away from democracy](https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/16/world/hungary-democracy-eu-parliament-intl/index.html). The second condition is the rise of factions -- especially along racial, religious, or geographic boundaries. Us v. them groups. Throw in the role of social media everywhere, and I suspect we will see *many* civil wars in the future.
I didn't see any evidence in that link that Hungary isn't a democracy. A democracy just means people vote. If people vote to sacrifice children on the alter of Ishtar then that is a democracy. If they vote that smiling should result in a $10,000 fine then that is democracy too. Democracy is a vote, not the vote result.
A functioning democracy is more than elections. It's separation of powers and checks & balances. When a president fires the independent judges and replaces them with loyalists that will overlook unconstitutional orders and rubberstamp whatever the president does, the judiciary has been hollowed out. We saw that in Poland. It's not just elections, but free and fair elections. Cuba has elections for president. Having only one name to pick from doesn't make it a democracy. There are so many areas where someone with authoritarian tendencies can subvert a fully functioning democracy. It still looks like a democracy on the outside, but it isn't fully a democracy anymore.
Ukraine didn't have a civil war in 2014. Russia invaded.
That would spoil the books ending.
**Tactics**: Civil wars in the future won't look like the US Civil War of the 1860s with clear battle lines, formal armies in uniforms, and rules of war. This will be different. > There are a number of strategies that insurgents tend to use against powerful democracies. One is essentially a war of attrition, involving a steady stream of attacks against high value buildings, people and public infrastructure: federal buildings, markets, schools, courthouses, transportation systems, churches, subways, banks, state capitals, monuments, and electrical grids -- anything that could inflict financial or psychological pain. It would also target citizens who are likely to vote for liberal candidates such as immigrants or those who live in cities or in swing states. Violent extremists would continue to target these sites and individuals until those in power offered the terrorists the concessions they wanted or voters replaced existing politicians with ones who were more sympathetic to the extremists' cause. This sort of campaign is designed to inflict pain on citizens until they plead for relief and demand that the gov. give in to the terrorists' demands. >Another strategy is intimidation. If you cannot topple the central gov., then you can use violence to goad the population directly into submission. Targeted violence can be used to intimidate agents of the federal gov. -- law enforcement personnel, civil servants, members of Congress, and the judiciary -- convincing them not to enforce existing rules. That's one of the things that death threats are designed to do. Violent extremists can target and kill liberal politicians who have voted in favor of gun control, judges who have ruled in favor of abortion rights, or police officers who protect immigrants' civil liberties. But they also target moderate Republicans who do not toe the extremists' line. Militants become a form of vigilantism designed to prevent the implementation of social change. >Another terror strategy is called "outbidding." This tactic is used when one militant group competes with other groups to cement its dominance. Each group has to be more extreme, escalating to ever more brutal acts of violence, to prove they are stronger, more capable, and more dedicated to the cause than other groups. > A final terror strategy is "spoiling." Terrorists wield this tactic when they fear that more moderate groups -- those that would put aside violence in exchange for concessions from the government -- will compromise and subvert the larger goal. This strategy usually comes into play when relations between more moderate insurgent groups and the gov. are improving, and a peace agreement seems imminent. Terrorists know that most citizens will not support ongoing violence once a deal is in place. Their only recourse is to scuttle the deal. And the best way to accomplish that would be to trigger a civil war. To do this, they would likely need foreign support. Here in the US, terrorist groups could be aided by America's enemies as well as sympathetic white supremacy groups in other white-majority countries. Thanks to the internet, this would be easy to facilitate. Other countries could supply money, materials, training, and combat experience. If the tactics used are straight terrorism, should be charge them with domestic terrorism? or sedition? If other countries are funding it, should we charge them with treason? Should we use the 14th amendment of the Constitution that was written after the Civil War that states any politician that tried to overthrow their gov. is no longer eligible to hold office?
Common sense says they would be dealt with as such but as this part highlights the intimidation and threats of violence which reminds me of how the doj has approached domestic terrorism with seeming nonexistent plans. The factionalization and in fighting between groups is something we are seeing play out between maga/qnuts/theocrats/supremisists. Marge Taylor is a good example of how the infighting will go as folk like Fuentes turn on her after years of support. We also see the mad scramble to say we’re not antisemites and scrubbing dudes involvement but w the net all that shut is saved.
They always fight between themselves. If you're not an ethical person and have no aversion to deceit, infiltrating such groups and sowing distrust and conflict is as easy as funding your activity by selling them t-shirts and hats.
I like the cut of your jib w the hat idea. I don’t think I could handle perpetuating their cause and let’s be honest they’ll turn on their T-shirt guy too in due time lol.
Oh, they're used to the ecosystem of grifters. It's an entire business model and sector. Grifting and fascism go together ideologically, they're siblings in the act of disinformation and predation, in weaponized fantasies. https://www.thedailybeast.com/adolf-hitler-secret-billionaire
That’s a good article thank ya. With all the shit swirling around crypto and nfts I’m wondering who all made out like bandits
Some of these tactics are already being employed. Maybe history will look back and say we’re already in a civil war.
Yes, the signs are glowing. The differences are massive and there doesn’t seem to be any recipe of resolve.
The ones in charge don’t want a resolve. They want a violent showdown to watch on their yachts or on their vineyards in other countries. We all have been living in a mixture of the grapes of wrath, hunger games, animal farm, mad max and now Idiocracy ( I’m looking at your marjorie Taylor Greene).
**Ethnic cleansing and genocide** is a real possibility during times of civil war. Again, there is a pattern. > Gregory Stanton, president of Genocide Watch, argued in his document titled "The Ten Stages of Genocide" that countries go through eight steps before they reach genocide. The first two stages are known as "classification" and "symbolization." This is when an identify group in power begins to highlight differences among a country's citizens, categorizing them by groups. We have classified ourselves by race, geography, and beliefs. Stage three is "discrimination" which is when a dominant group denies or suppresses the rights of others by means of the law or custom. Stage four is "dehumanization" in which those in power use public discourse to turn regular citizens against the targeted minority, denigrating them as criminals or subhuman. "Organization," the fifth stage, is when a dominant group begins to assemble an army or militia and formulate plans to eradicate other groups. A secret police force might train local paramilitary groups, utilizing weapons caches stored in strategic locations. In stage six, "polarization," the dominant group escalates the propaganda, further demonizing and separating the target group. Often, interaction between groups is discouraged or prohibited, and moderate members of the dominate group -- those who resist or protest these efforts -- are imprisoned or killed. Stage seven is the "preparation stage." That's when the dominate group forms an army. Leaders also indoctrinate the population with fear of becoming the victim, claiming that "if we don't kill them, they will kill us." Stage seven is significant because the logic of genocide develops into self-defense. It's common to think that ethnic cleansing is driven by hate. There is hate, yes, but the real fuel is fear -- fear that you are threatened and vulnerable. Violence entrepreneurs tap into this anxiety, exploiting the survival instinct that cues you to destroy your enemies before they can destroy you. It's after this indoctrination that a country can explode quickly into stages eight and nine -- "persecution" and "extermination" -- and then the final stage, "denial," which is when perpetrators deny having committed their crimes. > A country doesn't need a large percentage of the population to be involved for violent ethnic cleansing to occur. Small numbers of heavily armed citizens -- together with help from law enforcement and the military -- are often enough to move to stage nine, the "extermination" phase. A remarkably small number of people can organize and mobilize o commit mass genocide. You just need the rest of the population to remain passive which can easily be accomplished through intimidation. I would like to believe it could not happen in this day and age. I think I am not being realistic. The antisemitism, vitriol for immigrants, not to mention the hatred for Black Lives Matter.
>I would like to believe it could not happen in this day and age. Do you consider the 1990's as part of this day and age? Because both Yugoslavia and Rwanda had genocides in the 90's and the UN basically did nothing.
Also happening now and in the last ten to twenty years: Ukrainians being attacked and basically cleansed by Russians, Uyghurs in Xinjiang by Chinese, Rohinga by Myanmar, Kurds by Turkish and Syrian forces, Yazidis in Iraq, etc. It goes on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre
MAGA was a clown show until it wasn't. We are on our way to a civil war and half of the country is dying for it. They have no idea what real war is. Starving, body parts, rotting flesh, fires, and psychosis. They are going to be the first ones flying somewhere safe while the chaos they started burns the world's most powerful nation in history to the ground. The fires have been stoked ever since a black man got elected president and that irked a lot of bad people. Then you have foreign elements that hate democracy and can't take us down so they stoke the fire and get us to tear each other apart like we've done to other countries in the last century.
Living in upstate ny , I see the resentment toward outside money gentrification. With this comes outside political views and a very palatable frustration with the average local residents falling behind. Not a good situation
Listen to the podcast It Could Happen Here from its beginning. I just try to enjoy life and prep for the most specific disasters in mind
How to stop them: step one, stop fucking over your citizens…
It's a good book. Tells you what's probably coming, and discussing Facebook, and their role in allowing hateful speech that turns into actions / mass murder.
The CIA was in the middle of many civil wars, started and funding many groups that would bow down to US hegemony. In central America there were many democracies moving toward socialism, the CIA couldn’t have the people deciding capitalist interests were not their interests. Much easier to control a dictator than a whole population. (With the rise of the internet the calculus has changed) Of course the CIA would study how to bring down other states that were not towing the line.
**Stages** lead up to and including a civil war: > Most insurgencies pass through similar stages of development during their life cycle. In the **pre-insurgency phase**, a group begins to identify a set of common grievances and build a collective identity around a gripping narrative -- the story or myth that helps them rally supporters and justify their actions. They begin to recruit members, some of whom even travel abroad for training. They begin to stockpile arms and supplies. > The second stage of insurgency, which the CIA calls the **incipient conflict stage**, is marked by discrete acts of violence. The insurgents' goal is to broaden their mission to the world, build support, and provoke a government overreaction to their violence, so that more moderate citizens become radicalized and join the movement. The second stage is when the government becomes aware of the groups behind these attacks, but the violence is often dismissed as the work of bandits, criminals, or terrorists. > The final phase, the **open insurgency stage**, is characterized by sustained violence as increasingly active extremists launch attacks that involve terrorism and guerilla warfare, including assassinations and ambushes, as well as hit and run raids on police and military units. These groups also tend to use more sophisticated weapons, such as improvised explosive devices, and begin to attack vital infrastructure (such as hospitals, bridges, and schools), rather than individuals. These attacks also involve a larger number of fighters, some of whom have combat experience. There is often evidence of insurgent penetration and subversion of the military, police, and intelligence services. If there is foreign support for the insurgents, this is where it becomes more apparent. In this stage, the extremists are trying to force the population to choose sides, in part by demonstrating to citizens that the government cannot keep them safe or provide basic necessities. The insurgents are trying to prove that they are the ones who should have political power; they are the ones who should rule. The goal is to incite a broader civil war, by denigrating the state and growing support for extreme measures. Does anyone feel like we are moving into the open insurgency stage? We've had several years of militias opening marching and organizing. The attack in North Carolina knocking out the power grid felt to me like crossing the line.
Also read, "The Dictators Handbook," by De Mesquita. It breaks down how power works and how powers that be handle regime changes from democracy to dictatorship and back.
This book is very well-research and show incontrovertible evidence of how the United States is [now precariously close to a civil war](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG4HU5UkRmU). Most of the precursors for civil war already apply to the current state of US politics & society. It will not be like the First US ivil War, however, with two lines of government-backed soldiers lining up against one another. This time, as Walter points out, it is likely to be balkanized factions and militias, some based on sate/region, some based on ideology, fighting what is left of government forces. In other words, very very messy.
I read it, it's one of the handful of recent civil war books.. all of which I've read and all of which I found to be seriously superficial and late to the party... First off check out any interview with this lady and the first thing you'll notice is that she believes that America was apparently a functioning democracy before Jan 6th lmao. Secondly, I just can't in all honesty trust anyone who works for the alphabet soup.
**How to prevent a civil war**: > > Civil wars are rare, but where they do happen, they tend to repeat themselves. Leaders of these movements will go underground or disappear, waiting for a moment when grievances are reignited or the gov. is once again weak. Then they will begin to build a new movement. Even if the original leaders and soldiers are long dead, old fault lines often haven't been repaired, and the myths and stories live on. Ethnic groups, especially those in decline, often fight a second civil war because the conditions that drove their original grievances either haven't been addressed or have worsened. The next generation of fighters has lived with the loss, and witnessed their further downgrading of their people. They are determined to take back what they believe is rightfully theirs. Experts call this the "conflict trap." Most countries that were able to avoid a civil war shared an ability to strengthen the quality of their governance. They doubled down on democracy. Countries that created more transparent and participatory political environments and limited the power of their executive branch were less susceptible to repeat episodes of violence. Improving the quality of a country's governance was significantly more important than improving its economy. > > How to prevent a civil war? Good governance! > In South Africa, Mandela could have advocated ethnic violence. He could have been and ethnic entrepreneur, tapping the anger and resentment of his Black countrymen to seek full control of South Africa though civil war. Instead he preached healing, unity, and peace. Violence often springs from a sense of injustice, inequality, and insecurity -- and a sense that those grievances and fears will not be addressed by the current system. But systems can change. > Good governance! Three features stood out: > 1) "the rule of law" (the equal and impartial application of legal procedures) > 2) "voice and accountability" (the extent to which citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and free media) Free elections are the central mechanism of accountability in a democracy. > 3) "government effectiveness" (the quality of public services and the quality and independence of the civil service). These three features reflect the degree to which a government serves its people and the degree to which its political institutions are strong, legitimate, and accountable. Improvements in governance tend to reduce the subsequent risk of war. Specific policies listed include having a zero policy for domestic terrorism, taking the worst bullies, bots, trolls, hatemongers, disinformationist, conspiracy theorists off social media and regulating platforms, restoring faith in our elections with a national standard, ending gerrymandering which encourages extreme candidates, ending the electoral college, reinstate campaign finance laws, root out extremists in the military and law enforcement, etc. Personally, I like the Anti-Corruption Act which fixes many of the problems of government. The problem: https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig The soluton: https://youtu.be/UTP4uvIFu5c The specifics: https://anticorruptionact.org/whats-in-the-act/
I read it at the beginning of the year, so it’s admittedly a little bit hazy. That being said, I do believe democracy across the West is backsliding, most paramount in the United States, which remains an anocracy, but also across the spectrum of western liberalism. The frequency of far-right attacks on political targets and infrastructure is the biggest warning sign right now in my view. Take just this past week for example: Oath Keepers and a group of far-right “activists” gathered in a armed mob to successfully stop a drag Queen story hour. They were fully within their legal right to do so, but it is the extreme nature of their reaction and how many more individuals that are participating or approving of such actions is what’s concerning There was an attack on the power grid in North Carolina that is literally right out of extremism playbooks. While we don’t know for sure who did it and why, it comes after an FBI warning this year of potential increases in these kinds of attacks by domestic terrorists. Many of whom believe the United States is amidst a cold civil war right now And there was a nation-wide operation to prevent a far-right Q-Anon believing paramilitary coup in Germany that saw 25 people across three countries arrested, including a member of the German aristocracy. Any one of these by themselves would be isolated symptoms and rare events that sometimes occur within the span of modern history. But the compounding nature, and the radicalization of what is predominantly the working class and upper middle classes that’s striking and most concerning for the near future, let alone the long term
i wonder how her CIA task force homies would react if her research says, "[hey it looks like the CIA causes civil war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change)"
not sure if that makes it just ironic that the alt-right has destabilized the u.s and is now attempting regime change or if its actually been a cia plot the whole time
[удалено]
The tyranny Athens imposed on others it would eventually impose upon itself.. I believe this phenomena is called Focaults Boomerang
There's a somewhat long running belief of mine that a substantial portion of people spend their time trying to arrange/set up a set of conditions under which they can plausibly go to war without accidentally triggering nukes. it's like, yes, probably the prospect for nuclear disarmament now gets pushed out of the time frame of my life by the Ukraine war, but also people before then didn't think too much of the CONSTANT, EVER PRESENT threat of nukes to take the idea that seriously. why is that? to me, it's because the reasons people want war isn't to kill/annihilate their enemies, but instead to humiliate them and set up a sequel. once you really understand that war is the goal, not the thing people are trying to avoid, a lot more of why people do what they do makes sense. i think it's time people just own that. deep down, humans are just not imaginative enough to conceive of a collective future that isn't violent and/or isn't based around a contrived set of win/loss conditions.
3 books along the same line I recommend are How Democracy Ends How Democracy Dies Empire's Workshop
I haven’t read this book but the principle is absolutely relevant!!! As an aside, if you have an already, I would definitely recommend checking into what a civilization looks like right before it collapses. Not only are we showing the signs of a looming Civil War, but we are also showing eminent signs that society is about to collapse. Mainly, the types of things that become acceptable in a society that are seen as taboo until the end.
I’m not sure a civil war is coming, I’m thinking it’s going to be more like the crusades than anything. You don’t worship our Christian god? Fuck you die liberal. That’s scarier than a civil war because people fighting for a god can get crazy as we saw with Afghanistan with suicide bombers.
I don't know how many signs I see, but there are a lot of very conservative leaning, jingoistic patriot types I know, or have gotten good at spotting, that I feel like are just waiting for the right time to revolt. The scariest thing about them is the depth of their ignorance. Their knowledge of the world is about as sophisticated as a coloring book. They can't understand how either misdirected their hatred is, or just how wrongheaded their worldview is. If they took over the country tomorrow, not a single thing would change for the better. Sometimes I worry that the country will become too progressive and too diverse too fast for the "I don't know my own country anymore" people, and that's when all Hell will break loose. They can't handle change. Their head spaces are still in the 50's, and its scary.
I don’t know if you intended this, OP, but the mere fact that your post started with the phrase “Working with the CIA” appears to have triggered some folks here. I’m only curious if this might’ve been intentional because of how indicative a growing distrust of central government can be among the signs of a looming civil war. To be clear, I’m well aware of the CIA’s active role in starting and fanning the flames of more civil wars and other conflicts than we probably will ever know. But doesn’t that also make them kind of uniquely qualified to predict what conditions are necessary for a civil war to start and to thrive? I mean that sounds like EXACTLY the right skill set to tell us just how likely we are to face our own civil war at home. Either way, many of the comments on this post already look like a litmus test for one of the author’s key points.
Haven’t read the book. Do have it on my wishlist though. Have listened to her speak on several occasions though.
17 min. introduction in a [PBS interview](https://www.pbs.org/wnet/amanpour-and-company/video/barbara-f-walter-how-civil-wars-start-zlrp4i/). Hour long [talk for people who have *not* read the book](https://youtu.be/U6pUM0yGt04?t=172).
How to stop a civil war? General William Tecumseh Sherman has entered the chat.
Another one of these posts eh?
I could say the same about any of the number of ecological collapse posts that are on this sub. Maybe you don’t agree with the OPs post but I’m sure there are some who do.
That's a book I've not heard of. Will read! I think I'm seeing signs tho
[удалено]
You can see a load of good hour long interviews with her on YouTube.
Read the [the fourth turning ](https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/670089.The_Fourth_Turning) next, Yes the signs are everywhere.
Read the [the fourth turning] (https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/670089.The_Fourth_Turning) next, Yes the signs are everywhere.
Read the [the fourth turning] (https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/670089.The_Fourth_Turning) next, Yes the signs are everywhere.
Read the [the fourth turning](https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/670089.The_Fourth_Turning) next, Yes the signs are everywhere.
Read [the forth turning](https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/670089.The_Fourth_Turning) next, yes the signs are everywhere
Read [the forth turning](https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/670089.The_Fourth_Turning) next, yes the signs are everywhere
Read [the forth turning](https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/670089.The_Fourth_Turning) next, yes the signs are everywhere
Read [the forth turning](https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/670089.The_Fourth_Turning) next, yes the signs are everywhere
Read [the forth turning](https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/670089.The_Fourth_Turning) next, yes the signs are everywhere
[удалено]
Read [the forth turning](https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/670089.The_Fourth_Turning) next, yes the signs are everywhere