First of all, I really don't think there will be a civil war. So you really don't have to read the rest of this post. The US seems like it's in trouble, but it's really not. It's uncomfortable, but it's not leading to a civil war, even if the wrong person is elected.
I think that for the most part, Black Lives Matter is more about virtue signaling. I agree that it looks like more than virtue signaling, at the moment, but I think this whole situation has more to do with the election cycle than anything else.
If we were watching out for a civil war, do not look to the US Civil War as any kind of roadmap for what's happening right now. I also don't think the proto-marxism/marxism roadmap is as relevant as people think right now either. Instead, we should look to more modern examples of civil war, like Bosnia.
Here's an interview by Dave Ridley, where he interviews some people in New Hampshire prior to their Black Lives Matter demonstrations. He mentions his resistance to ask pointed questions, citing his experience reporting in Bosnia, where they associated political movements coupled closely with ethnic groups:
One thing to notice about the interview, they make a point that, at the time, there's no "POCs" (people of color, the new PC term for "non-white") and as result, they felt the need to call for "POC" participation. The person being interviewed is also very well steeped in "intersectionality".
This notion that coupling political movements with ethnic groups might sound like what we're currently facing in the US. But we're not. In my opinion, there's only a thin connection between the two.
Yes, there are parties that want to be closely associated with ethnic groups in the US. But there's also a lot of permeability, which I think defuses that contribution to civil war.
I'm not saying the US is naturally resistant to any civil war. I'm saying that the component related to political movements coupled with ethnic groups is not something that will contribute to it.
I believe, in order for a US civil war to occur, there would first need to be balkanization.
Balkanization is a pejorative geopolitical term for the process of fragmentation or division of a larger region or state into smaller regions or states, which may be hostile or uncooperative with one another.
For US balkanization to occur, there would need to be leaders making compelling arguments. Without internal cultural and ethnic bifurcation, I just don't see that happening. The US is just too united (Americans just have too much in common), even in the middle of this current situation.
Basically, what I'm saying is, the US is not racist enough to have a civil war. Neither side has what it takes to be that racist. And I'm not even talking about the fake racism that the far-left is currently trying to sell. I'm talking about the actual racism that we see in history and in certain parts of the world right now. We just don't have that on the level that it takes to truly balkanize in the US.
What about the TAZ/CHAZ/CHOP situations? I believe they could become a beachhead if allowed to cultivate. But so far, they're just extended raves, at most. That beachhead would have to displace at least as many people as it attracted before it could grow, geographically.
If an autonomous zone ever gets a charismatic leader, and if that leader manages to get an influx of people and resources, that's when balkanization could begin. And once balkanization begins, it'd have to also happen more than once. Then a traditional civil war would be possible.
Unlikely.
