The Line In The Sand

With respect to assessing the risk of civil war, it’s not the worst thing in the world to have most people remain disengaged.

I came across an outstanding piece published on the Substack of Iraqveteran8888, who spends most of his time talking about guns and survivalism. He wrote a very good piece about the risk of another civil war in the United States and I wish I could distill my points as well as he did here. I suppose this is why writers should read twice as much as they write - the takes of others are sometimes better than one’s own.

I won’t share the whole thing - I recommend you read the whole thing - but I did want to highlight some of the more important points he made. The survivalism community has, rightfully in my opinion, a reputation of being hyperbolic, but there’s no hyperbole in this piece. It’s a very reasonable take rooted in reality, as all takes must ultimately be.

First, he explains just how complicated the next civil war would be [all bold mine]:

It is way too simple to make generalizations about “left vs right” or “Republican vs Democrat” because those aren’t factors that ultimately define and shape the behavior of society in a truly impactful way. It’s more like a dog whistle scenario that people allow themselves to get triggered by rather than approaching every scenario with nuance and logic. It’s easy to raise a banner and claim that you are on the “right” side of a conflict. In the end, the majority of people care about their families, day-to-day survival, and the security of their immediate future. While it’s unhealthy to cling to irrelevant political dogmas or to worship the political class, many people do, so I’ll lay out my thoughts on those classes here so we can get a better idea of what we are dealing with.

I’ve said elsewhere: everyone has strong opinions, but not everyone’s an ideological partisan. Many of our fellow Americans genuinely believe they’re not on one side or the other and while that perception may not be reality, it means not everyone’s revved up for a fight. Most Americans would rather have little to nothing to do with politics. There are problems with that, certainly, but the point here is that most people are preoccupied by something other than. With respect to assessing the risk of civil war, it’s not the worst thing in the world to have most people remain disengaged.

At the same time, people do generally see a need for government and expect the government to do certain things for them (patronage being a loosely related concept). What those things are differs on a person-to-person basis, but even certain libertarians (of which there are many, as you’ll see) draw the line on social matters, while expecting the government to intervene on economic matters, for example. Not all of it makes sense, but to an extent, most people are quite independent and “moderate” when it comes to politics.

An easy way of thinking about it is this: a far-left radical might agree with the statement, “We need a revolution in this country.” However, when you ask them, “Even if it’s violent?” their response is usually, “Why does it need to be violent?”

He describes the Left, the side currently in control of our culture and major institutions (what I refer to as “the Regime”):

Most people with a leftist ideology mean well and have generally good intentions, but usually fall short in the application of their political ideals. Most are extremely well-educated and come from very wealthy families. Most that parrot the hardcore leftist narrative view themselves as the ruling class that will take the reigns of society when their political party achieves their leftist utopia. Of course, they don’t plan on toiling away in a coal mine or doing any actual work. They view themselves as an anointed class of people who are here to dictate to the masses what is best for them.

It’s a generalization on his part, but I think Iraqveteran8888 is correct: not every leftist is an elite, but leftism, as it exists in the U.S., is an elite ideology. Leftism is the ideology of the professional, cosmopolitan class who have benefited most from the country’s existence yet, due to a combination of education (indoctrination) and media conditioning, have convinced themselves the country is actually a very bad place full of bad people in need of deliverance. Not by any higher power, but by them, the diverse, educated, most loving and kind souls who profess no boundaries for themselves or anyone else and possess morals superior to that of anyone else or before them.

That hubris results in:

The modern left is unabashedly and militantly authoritarian contrary to anything they say. You can’t believe most of the things a leftist politician says. They are professional liars and the ends always justify the means. This however is their greatest strength. They weaponize the Government when they have control of the reigns with oppressive and tyrannical fervor. They are good at getting their base fired up and giving them full latitude to do any and everything possible to achieve their goals regardless of legality. Unfortunately, most of the administrative State seems to be on the side of the leftists.

No mindset breeds totalitarianism better than thinking you know what’s best for everyone. This is the essence of leftism and explains their enthusiasm for using government power to solve all social problems, even though they also don’t believe anyone, government or otherwise, imposing limits on their lives, as we’ll see.

Most leftist DAs let violent criminals go with a slap on the wrist, and a big part of their platform relies on chaos, fear, and utter pandemonium, particularly in large cities. People on the bottom end of leftist ideologies are found to be in a compromising situation where they need the help of the state to survive and are completely willing to compromise on every aspect of their freedom to achieve it. I believe this is a major factor in why big Government loves leftist goals. Because far-left ideas at the end of the day equate to complete Government control over everything and lean far less on individual freedom and choice. In a leftist world, your decisions are made for you. In all honesty, there are a group of people in this Country that welcome the concept with open arms.

Though we can never rule it out, I think left-wing totalitarianism, akin to what we saw in Communist China and Soviet Union is, at best, unlikely, and, at worst, a good ways off. Worrying about the far-off future is silly, since there’s so much history to cover between now and then. The thing to worry about now is that our near-term future, that’s to say, the next 20 years, will see more of the chaos, fear, and utter pandemonium mentioned above. Badly as I speak of the Regime, I don’t think they genuinely desire such a state of existence, as it risks undermining their legitimacy. At the same time, short of going full-blown totalitarian, there aren’t many other ways to control and cow the public into compliance. What Iraqveteran8888 describes is anarcho-tyranny and there’s probably no better way to oppress a populace that values its freedom and liberty the way Americans do. The truth is that the government asks little of us (which is a good thing), but it instead imposes costs on us for being free, since they’re ultimately in charge and would prefer to keep it that way.

The Right doesn’t get a clean pass, either:

This is where it gets tricky. The issue we have in this Country is that the media and leftist pundits have done a very effective job of making Conservatives look uneducated, extreme, and militant. In a lot of ways, it is true, just not in the ways the Left claims. The Right has a real problem reading the room and that’s why they continue to lose in a lot of elections particularly in swing states with more centralist or progressive voters. Again, most people on the Right mean well and have good intentions with their goals. I’ll venture to say that the good intentions are genuine and likely for a much more attractive outcome for the personal liberties of the populace at large. At the end of the day though, the Right is just as authoritarian as the Left is. Just in different ways, and in some cases, much worse ways.

I haven’t gone too deep into my personal politics here, but you can probably tell which way I lean. This isn’t a political blog in the sense that I argue for or against policies, but I’ll say Iraqveteran8888 is correct: the Right takes Americans for granted and doesn’t understand the extent to which the public writ-large has diverged from them. When they do come to the realization, there’s no introspection or self-reflection, but lots of vindictiveness. There’s a belief that if they double-down, it’ll increase support, but that hasn’t proven to be the case. He points to abortion as an issue that the Right chooses to steadfastly tow the hard line, resulting in diminishing popularity and losses at the ballot box, as we saw in last year’s mid-terms.

About the Right being just as authoritarian as the Left: I happen to agree and, whether you like or not, it’s past time to accept it as an inevitability, if you’re on the Right. One thing I’m coming to understand as I grow older is that when someone’s always going to be in charge, the system will always trend towards authoritarianism, not libertarianism. Certainly, I’d love to live in a world where we have more personal liberty than less. But the Left’s own shift to authoritarianism, which is now turning into a shift towards totalitarianism, means that making the same old “liberty vs. tyranny” argument may not be viable. You cannot secure your freedom without being willing to impose some authority of your own.

More about the Right:

A person on the Conservative side is likely to judge you for using a substance like marijuana, but will quickly have a bender every weekend and not see an issue with it. Make no mistake there are people on the right that are completely belligerent and ignorant. They relish in it too. The Right leans heavily on religion in politics, and to be fair, most of them are good people that want to do the right thing. Strategically, they lean heavily on limiting abortion as a huge part of their platform.

and:

The militant stance on abortion is likely to lose a huge subset of centralist female voters, though. Overall, the right is stuck in the past a bit and their platform is dated by a considerable margin which continues to get them left behind by younger voters. They fail to read the room, and consequently, fail to meet the needs of their constituents.

One could write an entire book about why the American Right has been so unpopular for so long now. You’d think if the Left is as bad as people like me describe it, the Right would do much better than they’ve been, but they’re not. A lot of this has to do with the fact the country’s politics have shifted dramatically leftward in the last decade alone, but it also has a lot to do with the fact the Right doesn’t offer much other than a combination of saying the state will do nothing for you - the “get government out of your lives” line - while also talking endlessly about banning abortions, gay marriage, etc.

It doesn’t matter what your personal views of these issues are; talking about banning things, especially in America, seldom goes over well (just look at guns), particularly when you don’t even offer anything in return. That mix of economic and political libertarianism plus social conservatism might’ve been a winning equation once upon a time, but today, it’s become a major liability for the Right. I’m not sure it’s even a serious “right-wing” platform.

About libertarianism:

The reality of modern Conservatism is that a lot of people in both the Conservative and Progressive movements are closer to Libertarians in their ideologies than they think. The people are ingrained in a fight for daily survival while the political classes are ingrained in a fight for who can abuse their power for personal gain the most. All while engaging in a mostly lame-duck political theater that accomplishes very little while offering only the occasional meaningless platitudes and empty promises. In a potential conflict, the right would likely rally around “abortion is murder” and protecting gun rights that would no doubt be under more scrutiny in a War.

I believe this to be true. As I stated at the outset, everyone has an opinion, but most people would rather live and let live. Much of politics is kayfabe and wishful thinking; when you get right down to it, nobody’s willing to be inconvenienced to see truly radical change. Even the Woke Left is more libertarian than they let on, especially concerning social issues. They see government intervention as justifiable on nearly every issue except when it comes to how they live their lives. It might be hypocritical and inconsistent, but that’s how they feel. I’m not sure whether libertarianism is a force for good, but it’s also reassuring that most people would rather be left alone and leave others alone in return.

Here’s what it all comes down to, according to Iraqveteran8888:

The reality is that a conflict we would call a “Civil War” wouldn’t be “right vs left” but more of a boiling point related to a whole score of underlying societal issues that came to an irreparable impasse. I believe those issues for the right would be abortion, gun rights, the devaluation of the dollar, and a Government issued digital currency. Immigration also has the potential to drive people to conflict. Also, I think if far-left groups continue to engage in looting, rioting, and other chaos the people are going to get fed up and start taking matters into their own hands.

I’m not sure how much I agree with the notion that there wouldn’t be two sides in a civil war and how the two sides wouldn’t break down between Left and Right. The divide between Democrats and Republicans is about the starkest, most well-defined there is between the masses. Whether people want to admit it or not, if a civil war were to break out, we’re going to fracture into two sides.

However, I definitely agree with him that no one issue is going to define the next civil war, nor the low-intensity conflict I already view as here and taking place as we speak. Personally, I think crime has the greatest potential to spark the next major American internal conflict, since a country that falls into chaos and disorder inevitably devolves into armed conflict. But that conflict will simply become the new arena in which all these other issues - abortion, gun rights, race, transgenderism - are fought over. People have simply moved onto using violence in hopes of getting their way and establishing their desired social order.

Iraqveteran8888’s biggest contribution to the discourse, however, I think is his assessment of the federal government:

They have a lot to lose and are likely a lot more worried than they will ever let anyone know openly. You’ve got an entire microcosm of society that relies on the Federal Government to remain operational because their job depends on it. In a lot of ways, they are their own unique political party unto themselves and likely only view the right vs left paradigm in a way that allows them to most effectively preserve and solidify their power, and ultimately, their livelihoods.

That’s an interesting way of putting it: they are their own unique political party unto themselves. I also like what he said about the federal government having a lot to lose, because that’s the way it ought to be. If our lives as Americans isn’t a free ride, why should it be for those in charge? There’s also a sense among the more “doomerish” of those who engage in this discourse who think the federal government holds all the cards in the power dynamic between them and the citizenry. They certainly have many tools at their disposal with which to hurt us, but there’s always such a thing as stepping too far over the line. Piss enough people off, and you’ve got a revolt on your hands. It’s easy to say the federal government will just break out the military and crack down and while that might indeed happen, it’s also a situation they’re trying to avoid in the first place, because things just won’t be the same afterwards.

More:

The interconnected society we have is a huge liability to the Federal Government which for decades has relied on cooperation from the media to parrot any narrative exactly as they dictate. They rely on a show of power to instill fear in anyone that would oppose them. They enforce their laws with armed men who will come kill you on command. That’s the reality of their power system, like it or not. Without it, they are just a small group of people with largely unpopular opinions that happen to carry the weight of law and ultimately, the potential consequence of death or imprisonment. In this scenario, the Federal Government has the most to lose and is scared to death of the idea of a Civil War. However, if something did kick-off, they would move swiftly and violently to see it end ASAP. War isn’t profitable if you’re all killing each other. Remember these people are all about the bottom dollar.

I think we both agree the federal government harbors a bias towards the Left. However, this is in large part due to the fact the Left has control of all the institutions in the first place and because of the Left’s own bias towards expanding and reinforcing state power. If things did completely unravel to the point we were shooting at each other, the federal government’s bias towards the Left would largely be something we see manifest during the early days.

But eventually, as events spin completely out of control, they would lose the luxury of picking sides because now their grip on power would be in jeopardy. The authorities can get away with a lot of things, but one thing they can never get away with is allowing a Without Rule of Law, or WROL, situation to develop, because then their own authority would lose legitimacy. I’ve never forgotten what far-left then-Mayor of Los Angeles Eric Garcetti said during the 2020 George Floyd rebellion and I paraphrase: “If nobody obeyed the law, we wouldn’t be able to enforce the law.” Even Woke Leftists don’t like it when their own neighborhoods devolve into total anarchy. At least, I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on that.

In a heartfelt passage, Iraqveteran8888 explains why there’s no need to lose hope - yet:

We are already in a delicate situation on the global stage, but the reality is America is in a very good place not only geographically, but for the long-term survival of the people on this continent. We have excellent forestry management programs, plenty of fertile lands to grow food, and enough oil we can drill to last for a very long time. We have excellent roads and infrastructure, great ports, and terrain that is easy to defend. We also have the most heavily armed citizenry on the planet with more firearms in private hands than all of the militaries of the world combined. When we put our collective efforts to good use, Americans are the best fighters on the planet. We are intelligent, capable, and brave. We are diverse in skill, logical acumen, and strength. When the going gets tough, Americans have the grit and tenacity to pull themselves out of the darkest holes. Our greatest resource is our people. We are charitable, loving, and giving in every way. The majority of people that inhabit this continent want the best for every person here and care about unfiltered and unadulterated freedom.

And:

In this regard, while I am often critical of the actions of our Government, the fact is we live in one of the safest times in human history and that’s no small feat.

I’m still working out my thoughts, but I intend to write something touching upon why I believe the 21st century will turn out to be an overall good time for the country and how our best days may, in fact, be ahead of us. I know that seems impossible to believe, given everything I talk about on this blog. However, it’s titled, “We’re Not At The End, But You Can See It From Here” for a reason - because we’re not at the end! And even if it ends, it’s going to lead to the start of something new, maybe better. If you regard yourself as a patriotic American, the last thing you ought to ever do is lose hope in your country. Our problems don’t define us. The people destroying this country and denying its heritage aren’t Americans. Civilizations can be unraveled by a minority, but they can also be delivered by a minority.

So, does he think another civil war is coming?

I think the reality is people haven’t gotten uncomfortable enough yet physically. Grocery stores still have food, gas stations still have fuel, and Amazon still delivers your packages overnight. A conflict would be likely if there were a complete breakdown of civilized society as we know it.

It really bothers some people to say, but America isn’t on the verge of a civilizational breakdown. Certainly, this country would become a very dark, ugly place if it did, but societies and states are resilient things. I don’t buy the notion that people become murderous savages overnight, even as I agree that people will do things in desperate times that they wouldn’t do in better times. The people who do become murderous savages overnight had problems before the stuff hit the fan. Are you one of those people? If you are, don’t pat yourself on the back.

More:

I think we have way worse problems to worry about like rampant inflation, the devaluation of the dollar, as well as international confidence waning in our currency. Yes, we have internal issues that we need to solve and some of these problems are going to take some serious solutions. The Feds are between a rock and a hard place I believe because accountability is coming whether they like it or not.

A point I’ve made in the past is that to get to a place where civil war is a likely scenario, a lot of other things need to happen first. Far too many who speak on the matter make it sound like the U.S. has already collapsed. Yes, the system is fragile. Yes, things have unraveled. But again, states are resilient institutions. Just as humans have a built-in survival instinct, so do states. They’ll keep fighting and fighting until they can’t. A lot of bad things have happened to this country in just this year alone, yet the machine just keeps chugging along. I’m not saying things are better than they are, but bad things happening is never enough on its own to trigger a total breakdown. It’s when the state fails to act or can no longer act no matter how hard they try that the nightmare scenarios become more likely.

I guess what I’m saying is, we’ve got a long ways to go because worrying about civil war becomes worth any sleepless nights. Let’s see how inflation and currency devaluation play out first. These are going to become bigger issues going forward.

The verdict:

Will there be a conflict? Likely so. Will it be all-encompassing and absolute in its resolve and resolution? That depends on how uncomfortable people get.

The conflict is already here in its low-intensity form. Time will tell whether it escalates to higher levels of intensity, including civil war. I think it’s pretty much a foregone conclusion that this low-intensity conflict will come to dominate much of the remainder of our lives, but there’s nothing that says it ever has to lead to a full-scale blow-out akin to 1861 - ‘65 or the Spanish Civil War. Again, there’s a lot of history to cover, but at least in the next five years, I regard the risk of civil war as next to zero, even as I regard the risk of a low-intensity conflict as over 100% at this point.

I hope you’ll take the time to read Iraqveteran8888’s entire essay, because he feeds readers lots of food for thought. Whether you did or didn’t, what are your thoughts? I’m not sure I ever asked my own readers directly what their prognosis of the future is. Do you think either myself or Iraqveteran8888 have a good read on the situation? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.

If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!