Democracy is a kind of civil war. Every two to four, or even six to eight years, different factions within a nation grapple for control of its mechanisms of power. Instead of bombs and bullets, the vector for this change in leadership comes from people’s hearts and minds. Depending on whether one has positive or negative view of democracy, that particular system either results in a peaceful leadership change without causalities, or one might say that it is a negative aspect of democracy that we’re forced to engage in such conflict at all.
For a time, this civil war has only consisted of votes and slogans, but now that tensions are growing in the West, we are beginning to see the first causalities: five police officers died in Dallas two weeks ago, while three more have been killed in Baton Rouge. The violence carried out mirrors the same inciting incidents of many revolutionaries and civil wars. It only takes a few fighters and a few casualties to spark the conflict itself.
We have felt the rumblings for a while now, but it is now widely felt that we are coming to a head in this particularly polarized election season. So what will happen in the coming weeks and months? And what will happen on the 9th of November?
We might just be passing the apex and quickly reaching terminal velocity. While it might have been unheard of years ago to suggest that open conflict will once again rage in the United States, the idea is now becoming more believable.
But this potential open conflict will be nothing like the American Civil War. Most civil wars, rebellions, and wars of independence have, at least for us in the West, consisted of second generation warfare. We really have not seen such a war without muskets, cannons, and cavalry. We have not seen an internal struggle with unmanned drones and Abrams tanks, and certainly not with social media coordinating operatives.
In the past, separation through conflict was primarily about territory. The thinking went: because we cannot rule our own lives under your regime, we wish to separate, have our own land, and establish our own regime that better reflects our values. This works when drawing lines on a map. It doesn’t work if there are no lines. The different factions in America today have no set territory to call their own, retreat to, or even fight over.
There was once a division between North and South before and during the Civil War, and even at the time perceptions in the North and South were not homogeneous. You had southern abolitionists and northern separatists. However, by and large, there was Northern sentiment and Southern sentiment, thus allowing for a clear territorial line between the two opposing peoples, cultures, lands and laws. It was because of that boundary that people could congregate together in their own distinctive space.
Today, we have no such clear divisions. Texas may be a conservative state, but Austin has the reputation of a liberal city. In Virginia, the Appalachians are voting for Trump, while DC commuters are voting for Hillary. California is a Democrat stronghold, except for the Republican northern neck. The Midwest is generally conservative, but Minnesota is decidedly socialist. The west consisting of Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico is strongly anti-establishment irrespective of liberal or conservative sway, but the Mormons of Utah buck that trend by being more pro-establishment than any other western state. Where could you draw the line between one ideological nation and another when, throughout every region, there is a patchwork of conservative and liberal enclaves? The answer is, you can’t.
The Civil War had the Mason Dixon Line, driving a hard wedge between North and South. Even with this separation, the war was the bloodiest conflict in American history. During the battle of Fredericksburg, Virginia, the southerners in New Orleans didn’t have to worry that General Burnside would place their city under siege, as he was hundreds of miles away. During the battle of Shiloh, Atlanta didn’t have to worry about Grant’s impending army, as he, too, was months away.
With traditional armies, moving across hundreds of miles, conflicts took time to establish, and they were usually fought by official combatants. You might not see conflict at all in your small southern town, and you didn’t necessarily have to worry about the Union forces in Kentucky when you’re living in South Carolina and vice versa. Eventually, every area had its own particular conflict, but it never occurred all at once.
The same cannot be said if a similar conflict were to take place today. If tensions finally boil over, every state, and even every city, could see a hotbed of violence simultaneously.
Imagine ground zero being somewhere like Orlando, caused by racial violence, or ideological violence, or whatever fault line is dominant at the time. Sympathizers in Los Angeles could see the event on mass media television and realize now is the time to strike. Their reprisal would then spark further violence in Chicago, which might galvanize Detroit, which might mobilize D.C., and then Baltimore. The herd mentality takes over and every city becomes a battle ground, a battle ground not fought over by standing armies, but by insurgents against their targets – civilian, military, or otherwise.
There are no rebel fighters, no loyalist armies, no Union generals. There are no rules to this unchecked warfare, which means no official treaty or surrender when one side is battered enough. With conflict happening everywhere all at once, there is no defense force to hide behind and no way for them to organize a frontline. “They,” whoever they are, don’t need to hold strategic points of interest or plant their flag on a hill. They can instead organize quickly through social media, then melt back into the populace, waiting to strike again. The battle could be suddenly right outside your door, no matter where you live.
One might not even call this conflict “war” in the traditional sense, because war, at least as it is conceptualized, has some order and organization to it. There are rules to war, mechanics of war, an ebb and flow as battlegrounds cross the land. But this war, whatever it is, has no rules.
This is, of course, the worst case scenario, though the idea might not be the most realistic, admittedly.
However, no can know for sure, as the nature of war itself has changed. Standing armies are a thing of the past in the age of 4th generation warfare, where guerrilla tactics, subversion, and spec ops are the rule, rather than the exception. It is unknown how exactly an open conflict in the United States will take place in this new paradigm, but I would prefer not to find out firsthand.
I don’t know exactly what it would look like, but I do know that the government would not be on my side.
I think the tactics of a white nationalist insurgency in the US would most resemble those of the IRA in the twentieth century.
There would be no front and no set piece battles. But leading figures in the Cathedral would be prime targets. The violence would likely sharpen the racial characteristics of neighborhoods and cities even if not entire states.
Insurgents would intend to force rich supporters of the Cathedral to go over to their side for the sake of physical safety or pay extraordinary protection payments to chiefs of the underclass.
I think it’s more likely the Cathedral will nuke and firebomb any place rumored to be a WN/rebel stronghold, therefore maintaining its grip on power.
Concur, the IRA had the Left in England essentially in its corner. As much as its been brought up before, Waco proved that as long as the victims are the “right” victims no one cares. The government basically massacred a bunch of people and no one could care less. BLM affiliates massacre cops twice and the President says cops should watch how they behave.
The IRA was essentially what the Klan has been in the US for the past 30 years, a fake subversive organization whose entire leadership is made up of informants. If the Left in England sympathized with the IRA, its because the MI5, etc. wanted it that way.
Ha! Good point. I seem to recall a news story about a group of Feds pretending to be Nazis arresting a group of staties pretending to be Nazis.
Really? The IRA just like the Klan in the US? The IRA killed thousands of people and maimed (often deliberately via “kneecapping”) tens of thousands more. The dead included Members of Parliament, corporate CEOs, and a staggering number of soldiers and policeman. Please tell me what comparable things the KKK has done since, say, 1969.
And where did the IRA go with that? Nowhere. The IRA is a petty crime gang who couldn’t hack it even if they had tons of small arms and explosives supported by the irish-american mafia and ghaddafi. Where will american WNs get that support from? There are no expatriat communities elsewhere who can provide safe space retreat and support areas, cause america is the only retreat area left for white nationalists in the world(and don’t tell me some bullshit about russia as if they were an allie).
Do you suppose Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness would now be Members of Parliament and have had tea with the Queen were it not for the IRA? In the early 1970s, Gerry Adams was an apprentice bartender.
Mind you, I don’t dispute the your comparison of the IRA with organized crime in the least. It’s just that the IRA leadership seems to have gone a lot farther than, say, the members of the Gambino family.
And the IRA did not need a hell of a lot of “safe space.” They definitely spent a lot more time in Ulster than in the Republic. And the whole island isn’t Australia. It’s smaller than the state of Maine.
There are a lot of places to hide in the US. And there are already something like 300 million firearms in working condition.
OT: Any relation to Pik?
Pik? Perhaps, you are thinking of PK, the Rhodesian minister. This is just an online name but honors the father of PK. The late PV was a South African parliamentarian, cabinet member, large landowner and Cantabridgian.
True. Once there was no independent Republic of Ireland.
Now there is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland
At the time, do you think that the Brits would have let Ireland go if they weren’t certain that Ireland would be drawn into the EU? What was the point of Ireland gaining its “independence,” only to be drawn into an even worse arrangement with a Marxist overlord? “A province once again, a province once again…”
You need to stop playing video games, go back into the cities, and learn how to cope with various groups. Like Trump. When it comes down to it, there’s virtually no difference between whites in cities and suburbs. Just remember to mouth the party line that race and sex are social constructs and then behave in exactly the same way you do now. No one will know the difference unless you have a swastika tattooed on your forehead. As you navigate surreptitiously you will find converts like this Obama-voting feminist:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/neighborhood-activist-sues-justice-department-over-obtaining-conviction-rates/2016/05/18/035d01cc-1c14-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html?wpisrc=nl_dc&wpmm=1
It would help if you can learn to mimic hipsters, but not really necessary when subverting the very fragile coalition of the unnatural.
I think we could actually see some racial re-segregation. I live in a major metropolis with a relatively small black but a substantial mestizo population. You know what sounds nice to me in case 4G war breaks out? Iowa. Nebraska.
Your skin is your uniform. Know that going in, and you are already a step ahead.
“Your skin is your uniform. Know that going in, and you are already a step ahead.”
What a nonsense slogan. At least its still good for crafting wallets and ammo pouches.
Take a look at Beirut. Or Serejevo. Now extend that to every city in the USA. Imagine neighbourhoods controlled by ethnic militias and criminal syndicates. The penalty for setting foot inthe wrong neighbourhood is death. Imagine a back and forth of snipings, bombs, spree shootings punctuated by short but intense bursts of fighting and ethnic cleansing.
That is what civil war int he USA will look like.
Yes, you might have added Belfast to the list of cities.
In other words, a “civil war” in the US will look like a massive guerrilla war.
Here’s how the “open conflict” or demonic war of mendacity is being fought right now: Blacks, using racial nepotism, took control of DC’s metro system and destroyed it. This was a bridge too far for the [white] big boys who have real power and they brought in a general manager to clean house. He fired 20 top managers (identities withheld but 100% are going to be black) and made sure to have the backing of Good-White Virginia and Maryland power. DC black mayor strangely silent.
‘Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.), a longtime supporter of Metro, yet one of its toughest critics on Capitol Hill, has been among those calling for heads to roll at the transit agency. He applauded Wiedefeld’s decision Friday.
‘Another frequent Metro critic, Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), echoed Connolly.
‘Citing the transit agency’s “years of neglectful decisions and a failure to confront problems,” Cardin said Wiedefeld “is taking decisive action that demonstrates a strong commitment to safety and the important tasks ahead of him.’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/metro-fires-20-managers-many-from-subway-operations/2016/05/20/3309ffda-1edd-11e6-9c81-4be1c14fb8c8_story.html
Even the Washington Post came out with luke warm praise.
The MO is to position yourself as a Good-White by playing cat-and-mouse games involving Bad-Whites. Usually, through verbal posturing but also using people more messed up than blacks as shock troops (gays, tranies, lesbians, feminists, etc). However, when things become unbearable, lower the hammer and blacks have no where else to go, other than rioting. Well, Obama has declared war on police through disparate impact arrests so violent crime has gone up. But, there’s a lot of push-back (see my previous comment link) and will [still majority white] Americans ever elect another black president? Or even Hillary?
An interesting update on DC follies. And I also suspect that many whites have been cured of their “white guilt” emotional disease and will not vote for another unqualified black such as Obama.
Whatever your stance on Iraq and Afghanistan or even Vietnam, it a fact indisputable that the USM war machine has learned some important lessons against insurgents. Smaller unit sizes, rapid response armored vehicles, drone warfare, integrated indirect fire support, MRAP modifications, etc. The only reason the USM hasn’t obliterated Middle Eastern opposition is because their enemies have a lot of discrete if not open support within USG. The deciding factor in an American Civil War would be the loyalty of the existing standing army. As was noted by Ryan Landry, the majority of the military is de facto Red Empire loyal. Could there actually be civil war for a time longer than it takes for USM’s overseas to return to the home front? The majority of American men aren’t in any kind of fighting shape anyway. It seems, at least to me, the problems are street gangs and BLM supporters, none of which could stand up to unrestrained militarized police. Riot? Send in mounted police with cavalry sabres under orders to restore the peace.
“The deciding factor in an American Civil War would be the loyalty of the existing standing army.”
I don’t think that the “loyalty” of the standing army to the empire will be that big of a deal. Surely, there are many “Uncle Sam” types who would gladly shoot their neighbors if they were ordered to do so. But, even without that, the government employs so many contractor/mercenaries that would do any job for the right amount of money. During the WBTS, the North couldn’t gin up enough support for their invasion, so they just brought in a bunch of starving Irish cannon fodder.
Imposing martial law on America might prove impractical, however. With the disparate locations across the county where outbreak would occur, how is the military even going to “service” such areas with it’s dwindling numbers. Further, recruitment would then be seriously hampered because of the friction within families about joining the military just to end up shooting at a family member.
Within the Union (northern) Army in the American Civil War, the casualty rate was very high and the risks of punishment for desertion were very low, so the only powerful force inhibiting the rational response of desertion was loyalty to one’s fellow soldiers, virtually all of whom were other white males. Across companies in the Union Army, the greater the internal heterogeneity (in terms of age, hometown, occupation, etc.), the higher the desertion rate (Costa & Kahn 2003).
I am amused at how this article is written in the hypothetical, and the future hypothetical at that. We are living in a distributed civil war coordinated by social media right now.
Sure, no city in the USA looks like Sarajevo, Mogadishu, or Aleppo. But they all started out ‘normal’, albeit with racial and economic tensions, then steadily deteriorated from there. That happens in war; attrition makes life difficult whether it’s a conventional conflict or not. Detroit is just behind the curve, but it’s the same curve, and it’s still war.
If you don’t believe me, take a stroll down Lexington Avenue in Baltimore.
To their credit, American Blacks realized this before we did. Sure, they’re mostly wrong about the specifics – charity hospitals don’t actually snatch people off the streets in Louisiana – but they’re right to see ‘us vs. them’, and they got there way before we did. Probably because they were intentionally and actively weaponized by our foes. (http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.ch/2007/09/method-and-apparatus-for-safe-and.html)
There never will be a declaration of war, for the simple fact (noted in the article) that there won’t be any national body to make the declaration. Instead, we’ll just see the steady increase in ‘violent crime’ and ‘racially motivated crime’ that we’ve been experiencing almost monotonically for the past forty years.
We are already at war. It will only get worse. The only reason you don’t think we’re at war now is that you’ve been accultured to a constant low-grade warfare.
I very much enjoyed this article and appreciate the excellent comments. Will definitely share this. Thanks to all.
The conflicts over the next 50+ years across the western world will be low-intensity conflicts fought with assassinations and death squads. There is no need an no use for open fronts and no side will pressure enough so that the other side is forced to form a front. The West just doesn’t has the demographics anymore to support open conflicts with fronts and tank battles and all that. Even if it would be an open conflict, you don’t have the numbers to support it for more then maybee a year.
Look at the ukraine. Russia had to pump reserves into that conflicts from everywhere across their giant empire as far back as mongolian areas while the ukrainians emptiet out their prison population. In the western world, there isn’t even enough pressing poverty left that could make the short army life attractive compared to welfare checks and free internet based entertainment.
Forgett that race war bullshit. Form communities like the barbarians did within the remains of the roman empire and actualy build something for yourself first.
“The conflicts over the next 50+ years across the western world will be low-intensity conflicts fought with assassinations and death squads.”
Yes. And helicopter rides.
Food for thought:
Matthew Brackens old Civil War 2 cube
https://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/bracken-the-cw2-cube-mapping-the-meta-terrain-of-civil-war-two/
Interesting article about the same subject.
Matthew Bracken and Thomas Chittum are two of the older identitarians to figure out what a second American civil war MIGHT look like. Given that Chittum fought in the Yugoslavian civil war his insights may have significant value.
He makes the same tribal mistakes over and over again assuming it will be well-to-do white against poor black. You know what i would do if i would form a pro-capitalist mainly white combat group? I will first take on the weaker right wing groups, absorbing or annihilate them. This way i can fuel my organization with usefull human ressources other then grinding my forces in battles where there is not much to win besides access points and materials. Its even more important to clean house first. If i find a milita group who likes Russia Today on their facebook page, they are up for the pick. Leaders get killed and camp followers get a new job. Worked fine for ISIS.
If that Kind of a war does break out, there will be no social media. Social media might be there at the start to spark of the hostilities. After that, nope!
I disagree — just look at Syria. Social media runs and fuels the war!
For Governments its way easier to let the social media plattforms exist and survailence them or produce own propaganda content on them. Government Agencies used to torture people to get infos about people that they now just post on their Facebook page. The crackdown rather will come on ham radio and that, but not social media.
A minor squabble, but New Orleans had already been captured by the Union at the time of the battle of Fredericksburg.
Is it not clear that the “problem” for the USA is that the current value, moral and political differences are permanently “intractable” in the population and not available to solution in the usual way of compromise? All the arguments have been made in the past months with millions of words, many of them volatile and heated words, exchanged between the people mired down in this deeply divided nation. All that needs to be said, has been said and by now, everybody has had a chance to speak their mind. It should be clear to all by now that political compromise has been, and will continue to be, impossible in the US.
At bottom line, nobody is going to “unify” our country. The basic moral and value differences in the current divided US population are simply too great. Regardless of who wins in November, the winner will face a crisis of legitimacy, as the losers will regard the government not just as opponents, but as enemies and occupiers. The fear Mr. Trump creates in journalists and left-wing politicians is justified. But they should realize that Mr. Trump is only the beginning. What should really frighten them is what happens next.
What we really require is someone or some system that will allow the US to “Balkanize” in an effective and organized manner and try to avoid a second US Civil War.