Domestic political violence (USA)

[davidbfpo]

This passage struck me as applying here, although the theme is not small war(s) in the USA:

First, the American mass media, and as a result, the American public, simply does not have the attention span to grant a fringe ideology the time it needs to have a significant, long-term effect on the national conversation after only a single event. This is not ideal for a lone-wolf shooter whose goal is to draw attention to his political or social cause. As solo-actors, they lack a support structure for follow on attacks or media releases, which are essential to a coherent political terrorism strategy.

Link:https://www.lawfareblog.com/routiniz...rorism-america

[davidbfpo]

After two surveys in 2010 the author writes today:

Although most people opposed violence, a significant minority (ranging from 5-14 percent) agreed with each violent option, and 10-18 percent expressed indifference about violence in politics. This implies that millions of ordinary Americans endorse the general idea of violence in politics.

(Later) Although politics will always be contentious, my research suggests that combative and even violent political rhetoric can make some Americans see violence as an appropriate means to an end.

Link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ent-heres-why/

[omarali50]

This is likely true of all societies (and the rates are likely higher in societies without a liberal democratic tradition, maybe a little lower in those with less of the American "cowboy" ethos, but certainly not zero).
The crucial point is this: all our noble lies notwithstanding, the maintenance of liberal democratic values is an elite conspiracy (and a good one). If the elite cannot police its members effectively (for example, if the elite is not very coherent/lacks asabiya, or loses coherence amidst the temptations of populism) then demagogues can mobilize a lot of violence even in previously healthy societies.
It may be that this elite coherence is falling apart in Western societies.Maybe?
Why? most likely due to deeper structural reasons (everything decays, eventually). Maybe partly because a significant section of the intellectual elite has lost faith in classical liberalism (and is unable to articulate a workable superior alternative); this would be the section of the intelligentsia that has fully absorbed postmodernism, postmarxism and other fashionable ideologies that reject classical liberalism as an imperialist plot or a farce, etc etc. Partly because the leading right-of-center party has meanwhile endorsed or encouraged a lot of populist nonsense and then lost control of the narrative (the current Republican party?). Who knows.
People with better academic grounding in these matters can surely come up with better theories and descriptions, but something dangerous may well be going on.
On the other hand, I may just be running around saying "the sky is falling" well before the blessed firmament actually begins to crack.
I don't really think it IS falling, yet. But I do have my doubts at times.
https://storify.com/omarali50/trump-...-window-part-2

[AmericanPride]

I'm currently reading Days of Rage, which is about the Weather Underground. Two points stick out to me:

1) First, the racial component. According to interviews of WU leaders, their main object was violent revolution against white supremacy. The author traces their ideological history through black militants, finally ending in an uneasy alliance with the Black Panthers. In looking back across American history, virtually all (excepting, probably, the anarchist wave of violence) militant organizations (right and left) had race at or very near the center of their program. The KKK was arguably the most successful, having wrested back political control in the South after a campaign of violence and terrorism.

2) The WU were amateurs who had an intellectual affinity for violence and terrorism, but had a bourgeois rejection against it in practice and were incredibly unsophisticated about their operations. It seemed almost as a privileged interest in terrorism rather than revolutionary commitment. In a society as large and materially wealthy as the U.S. it's probably difficult to make any serious pitches to commit oneself to revolutionary violence.

[slapout9]

I'm currently reading Days of Rage, which is about the Weather Underground. Two points stick out to me:

1) First, the racial component. According to interviews of WU leaders, their main object was violent revolution against white supremacy. The author traces their ideological history through black militants, finally ending in an uneasy alliance with the Black Panthers. In looking back across American history, virtually all (excepting, probably, the anarchist wave of violence) militant organizations (right and left) had race at or very near the center of their program. The KKK was arguably the most successful, having wrested back political control in the South after a campaign of violence and terrorism.

2) The WU were amateurs who had an intellectual affinity for violence and terrorism, but had a bourgeois rejection against it in practice and were incredibly unsophisticated about their operations. It seemed almost as a privileged interest in terrorism rather than revolutionary commitment. In a society as large and materially wealthy as the U.S. it's probably difficult to make any serious pitches to commit oneself to revolutionary violence.

Number 2 I agree with. Number 1 I am not so sure thats accuerate.

[AmericanPride]

Slap,

Which part about number one do you think is inaccurate?

[slapout9]

Slap,

Which part about number one do you think is inaccurate?

The part about white supremacy. The Panthers were actively recruiting and forming alliances with white people. Panther Bobby Lee in pafticular was having great success in thd Chicago area.

IMO the Weatherman were and still are closer to a Charles Manson style murder cult than a revolutionary movement, largely financed with rich kid's daddy's money!