Another possible reason that the traffic has dropped is that anyone who posts lies and bullshit (other than in a non-serious, humorous way) gets the dog crap pounded out of them and they run off with their tail between their legs. Yet it seems to me that these days every single major media source has polarized and now simply spouts their party line, whatever it may be, regardless of whether it is true or not. Lately the rock throwers and vandals seem to be advocating more for violence and less for peaceable solutions. It seems the problems of the day are too much to compromise on or find middle ground or simply look for and accept the truth. It seems the loudest voices have hit a wall with Godwin's Law and are trying to break new ground.
I'd like to think that the organizations that are responsible for enforcing the laws in the US are apolitical and such an event would prove near impossible due to the blindness of Lady Justice but that may be a pipe dream. A failure of law enforcement to enforce the law properly could be catastrophic and allow political organizations to run a muck unchecked with the backing of polarized politicians and media organizations. Once something like that gets started it is really, really hard to stop it. This is something that has been occurring to me lately based upon current events.
I still don't want to discuss politics. I assume anyone who goes political here is weak, cowardly, small minded and has nothing to contribute of note to the actual topic under discussion and instead simply wants to work on their echo chamber skills. As self-pleasuring as that may be this is a grown up discussion so do that elsewhere if you please, like the bathroom, just clean up after.
What I'd like to look at is a model for "how to" a low grade civil war in the US would most likely play out. There seems to be some consensus that it would be an Iraq/ Syria type model with many different factions. I can tell you that both those countries broke right across religious lines which makes a lot of sense since religion plays a huge role in every part of life in that part of the world. We don't have much religious infighting in the US so this is not a great model. I'd like to look at how people would react to such a conflict as proposed here:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/10/wha ... look-like/
When they say "look like" what they mean is that they are. The US is not quite very tribal or overly religious. There are some breaks along racial and ethnic lines. This is important as in a risky venture like a civil war people are going to want to fight with people they trust implicitly with a common bond, unless they are a moron.much of the last century was about deconstructing the habits of large-scale, state-driven conventional warfare. As networks distribute power to the edges, warfighting shifts further away from a handful of monolithic forces and towards a diverse web of small actors. Warfare now often proceeds from ideologically and economically marginalized communities whose suffering and fear is wielded by cunning global actors. They become guerrillas, rebel factions, proxies, and insurgencies. Sometimes they look more like tribal conflicts composed along racial, religious, familial or economic lines, often on top of resource crises that push violence to become a necessary solution. But they are rarely simple two-sided conflicts.
The US also has no current true resource crisis. An actual resource crisis puts lives at risk. There is a lot of discussion about distribution of wealth but this is hardly new. We are not a nation of "Have and Have-nots", we are more nation of "Have and Have Lot More". If the lower resource rich group were sudden suffer reversals that could contribute.
This nearly defines how gang society in the US currently functions. We have had a low grade civil war in many parts of the country for decades with gangs competing for resources, territory and power. Thousands die every year in these conflicts and tens of thousands are wounded. This is a resource fight. Most gangs break across racial and ethnic lines. They have certainly gone digital in the last decade. Most gang members grow up in violent communities where it is a part of daily life. Most Americans only see it if they get victimized or get caught in a cross fire. I am not saying that street gangs will lead a charge in a general revolt, just that their model is one that may be emulated intentionally or not.For the United States, the shape of future homeland conflicts will be asymmetrical, distributed, and heterogeneous. A contemporary homeland conflict would likely self-compose with numerous dynamic factions organized by digital tools around ideological and affinity networks. It would likely be a patchwork of affiliated insurgency groups and their counterparts engaging in light skirmishes along the overlapping edges of their networks, mixed with occasional high-value terror attacks against soft and hard targets. Such groups are much smaller than conventional militaries and where they lack in firepower, they wield transgression.
Truth. We have been seeing this for years. I think this is increasing.digital networks erode the boundaries of the state. Like the Islamic State and al Qaeda, any cell can browse the literature, claim allegiance in some far-flung burb, and start whipping up violence against their targets.
So thoughts on:
- Is it likely the US could become balkanized enough to begin a cycle of heavy violence that is politically based?
- If such a cycle were to begin what measures would you take to protect yourself and family beyond whatever measures you currently take to protect yourself against general crime?
- Does the model of small, disparate, extremist groups seem logical or is there another model that seems more logical?
Title edited by NT2C