October Update on the Second American Civil War

ADMIN NOTE: This is the second post in a series of my thoughts on how the “Second American Civil War” is progressing. You can read August’s dispatch here.

 

Q: Is there a developing relationship between the Democratic Party and militant left wing groups?

One of the central themes in contemporary insurgent movements is the relationship between armed combatant groups and their ostensibly peaceful political party cohorts.

The Irish Republican Army and Sinn Fein in Ireland. Hezbollah, the Shi’ite militant group, and Hezbollah, the Shi’ite political party, in Lebanon. The YPG militant group and the Democratic Union Party in Kurdistan/Syria. Jaysh al-Mahdi and the Sadrist Party in Iraq. The Badr Brigade and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.

There are numerous other examples of political parties having militant wings, in addition to examples of militant organizations establishing themselves as political parties during a conflict.

Historically, insurgent campaigns are more likely to lead to political resolutions than martial victories, so militant organizations must have political representation. On the other hand, violence carried out by a militant wing provides leverage for the political party and an incentive for governments to solve political issues peacefully.

Neither side necessarily has direct influence or control over the other, but they often act to accomplish mutually beneficial goals. A militant wing can offer muscle to a political party, and the political party can provide judicial protections to the militant wing.

So what I want to draw some attention to today is the association of Leftist militant organizations and various factions of the Democratic Party, as one potential way forward in the current domestic conflict. Specifically, I want to point out that while these militant groups don’t necessarily seek or depend on permission to commit violence, some Democratic Party voices offer that permission none the less. And the relationship between Leftist militant groups and the Democratic Party is often tenuous. While many (maybe most) militant Leftists have a disdain for the Democratic Party for not being radical enough, that doesn’t prevent actions that could be mutually beneficial for both sides.

Whether we’re talking about 1970s radical and former attorney general Eric Holder (“Michelle [Obama] says, ‘When they go low, we go high.’ [Applause.] No. No. When they go low, we kick ’em.”), Hillary Clinton saying that maintaining civility with Republicans is futile, California Democrat Maxine Waters encouraging her constituents to harass Republicans and Trump cabinet members, a campaign staffer for a Democratic politician saying that President Trump should be executed (an action for which he later denied his support), or other examples of green lighting incivility in the political and culture war, there’s ample evidence that major voices of the Democratic Party are dog whistling that violence is permissible, while officially denying support for political violence against opponents. There are many, many other examples beyond Holder, Clinton, and Waters. (See my last post for additional information.)

Beyond mainstream Democrats, there’s the growing “Democratic Socialist” faction whose ideologies are steeped in the revolutionary histories of Marxist and Leninist movements. Considering that many Leftist militant groups are supportive of “Democratic socialism”, a political movement that gains mainstream legitimacy — what we’re starting to see now — should be alarming. And then there’s also a growing communist movement in the United States, as revolutionary vanguard communist groups form across the country. There’s a very overt effort to label mainstream conservative voices as “fascist” and “Nazi”, in a successful effort to rationalize violence.

Revolutionary and insurgent sentiment on the Left is growing, and we’re seeing it via sporadic political violence as major Democratic voices can be perceived to give a wink and a nod. In many of today’s insurgent movements, politicians are able to officially reject political violence while maintaining its benefits, carried out by the militant wing.

What we’re seeing today with regard to the Democratic Party and Leftist militant organizations at times reminds me of the relationships often found during insurgencies. These are preliminary thoughts, and it’s an issue I’m watching closely. I’ll be providing all the data points in future reporting.

Always Out Front,

Samuel Culper

 

PS. If you want to follow along as we connect the dots of our domestic conflict and reduce uncertainty about the future, I invite you to sign up for our intelligence reports. Signing up is quick and easy, and you can read our latest reporting immediately.

Or if you’re just interested in receiving my latest thoughts via blog posts, you can sign up to my email list below. No spam. No fluff. Just intelligence, security, and defense for an uncertain future.




 

 

3 Comments

  1. Honestly, I think that if people are not coming to this site to read your commentaries then there is something fundamentally wrong with them on the cellular level. We are already seeing what happens when roughly 50% of the population believes it OK to pursue and torment Republicans and Conservatives wherever they may be found, that violence against them is acceptable, that city police departments will have ‘stand down’ orders from the mayors so violence can proceed unchecked. I read Hillary’s comments in ‘2019 is Shaping Up…’ and though to myself ‘What in the hell is she talking about’? Her entire game plan, and that of the Democrats proper by extension, is all there. We’re witnessing a complete moral, social, and political inversion. Again, your commentaries and articles here provide the reader with an up-to-the-minute domestic intelligence analysis that, if taken seriously, could make a real difference, as in ‘forewarned is forearmed.’ Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *