Civil War 2.0: Is America on the Brink of Another Great Divide? By James Reed and Chris Knight (Florida)

The political landscape of the United States has become increasingly volatile, with many conservatives and pro-white advocates arguing that they are on the cusp of a second civil war. The Left's strategies and the escalating tensions suggest a deliberate effort to inflame divisions and destabilise the country. Let's look into the key factors contributing to this growing sentiment.

Democrats have a long history of inciting violence, from their role in starting the Civil War to more recent events like the Michael Brown and George Floyd riots. The current anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles are seen as a continuation of this trend, with protests quickly escalating into violence. The unrest in L.A. began when ICE arrested 40 individuals wanted on various charges, prompting protests that turned violent, including attacks on federal officers. This pattern of violence is not isolated but part of a broader strategy to challenge federal authority and incite further conflict.

There are allegations that the riots in L.A. might be government-funded, with ties to radical, Left-wing organizations and NGOs that receive taxpayer dollars. Nicole Shanahan, RFK Jr.'s vice-presidential pick, echoed this sentiment, alleging a "CIA/Deep State" involvement in using violent migrants to target federal law enforcement. This suggests a strategic investment in unrest to destabilise the Trump administration and rally support for progressive causes like open borders. If substantiated, these funding allegations point to a deliberate effort to leverage chaos for political gain.

Democratic leaders, including figures like Maxine Waters, have been involved in the unrest, attempting to intervene on behalf of rioters. Representative Nanette Barragan (D-CA) made an Orwellian claim on CNN that the riots were "peaceful protests" while showing footage of a burning car. This coordinated narrative aims to downplay the severity of the violence and shift blame, justifying further unrest. The involvement of such high-profile figures suggests that the Left is using these events to challenge federal authority and incite further conflict.

The Left's actions, such as planning nationwide protests and defiance events, are seen as efforts to create multiple "flashpoints" to blame on President Trump and the pro-freedom side. Glenn Beck detailed his theory on this, arguing that the LA riots are about provoking a civil war. The goal is to destabilise the country and shift blame for any resulting chaos onto the Right, thereby rallying support for progressive causes. This strategy is evident in the coordinated efforts to inflame tensions and create a narrative of resistance against federal authority.

The Left is accused of making strategic errors, such as the haemorrhaging of law enforcement in many cities, which could weaken their position in a potential conflict. Despite this, they continue to inflame tensions rather than reduce them. The actions of Left-leaning judges to place the interests of illegal aliens over those of American citizens further highlight this strategic misstep. By prioritising the rights of illegal immigrants, the Left is alienating a significant portion of the American population and fuelling resentment.

There is a growing sense among the public that the U.S. could descend into political violence. Many Americans are preparing for this possibility by joining survivalist communities, buying guns, and learning survival skills. An AP-NORC poll found that 83 percent of Americans support deporting illegal immigrants living in the U.S. illegally who have been convicted of a violent crime. This public sentiment reflects a deep-seated concern about the direction of the country and a willingness to take drastic measures to protect their interests.

The situation in the U.S. is compared to other countries experiencing civil unrest, such as Northern Ireland and Syria. The conditions that lead to civil war are predictable, and there are signs that these conditions are becoming more visible in the United States. The escalating tensions, political polarisation, and strategic efforts to inflame divisions all point to a potential for widespread conflict. By learning from these international examples, we can better understand the trajectory of our own political unrest.

The Left is accused of using the media to control the narrative, downplaying the severity of riots, and shifting blame. This is seen as a coordinated effort to justify further violence and maintain their political agenda. The media's role in shaping public perception is crucial, and the Left's dominance in this arena allows them to frame the unrest in a way that benefits their cause. By controlling the narrative, they can continue to incite tensions and justify their actions.

The growing call to end Third-World immigration and the sentiment that Civil War 2.0 is brewing are intertwined with broader political and social tensions. The Left's strategies, including government funding of protests and orchestrated unrest, suggest a deliberate effort to inflame divisions and destabilise the country. As these tensions continue to escalate, the potential for a more widespread conflict becomes increasingly likely.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/06/civil_war_2_0.html

Civil War 2.0?

By Kevin Finn

Democrats have a long history of inciting violence. Examples abound, from starting the Civil War, to forming the KKK, to violently resisting school integration, to the Michael Brown and George Floyd riots, to the current anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles. Democrat-run cities are typically the most dangerous, poorly run environs in the U.S., and when you push the oppressor/victim narrative across the media landscape, violence gets put on the menu.

Their rhetoric ramped up during Trump 45's administration when Democrat politicians and celebrities openly called for violence against President Trump and Republicans, even while accusing Republicans of being aggressors. And when their unhinged followers heed their suggestions, Democrats always claim to abhor violence. I heard it myself last night. I mentioned the protestors throwing bricks at federal officers, and a dinner companion said, "Well, you can only push people so far."

Perhaps we should ask the parents of Laken Riley, Kate Steinle, Rachel Morin, and Jocelyn Nungaray how far they've been pushed.

The unrest in L.A. began when ICE arrested 40 individuals who were wanted on various charges. This prompted protests that quickly escalated into violence, including attacks on federal officers. One report suggested that the riots might be government-funded, pointing to ties with radical, left-wing organizations and NGOs, some of which allegedly receive taxpayer dollars. This seems plausible, as the Democrat party leadership has a historical opposition to ICE and openly supports sanctuary city policies.

Nicole Shanahan, RFK Jr.'s vice-presidential pick, echoed this sentiment, alleging a "CIA/Deep State" involvement in using violent migrants to target federal law enforcement, a claim that aligns with narratives of orchestrated chaos.

LA mayor Karen Bass and California governor Gavin Newsom have been labeled as "incompetent" as they remained inactive while riots persisted. This possibly suggests a tacit endorsement of the protests, perhaps as a way to challenge federal authority under a Republican administration.

Representative Nanette Barragan (D-CA) made an Orwellian claim on CNN that the riots were "peaceful protests" while showing footage of a burning car. This strikes me as part of a coordinated narrative to downplay severity and shift blame, perhaps to justify further violence.

President Trump deployed the National Guard to LA on June 8, ordering federal agencies to "Take any action necessary" and to "Liberate Los Angeles". Governor Newsom responded by saying Trump's actions were "those of a dictator" and that Trump is "inciting and provoking violence."

If Democratic leaders are rallying their base to view the protests as a defense of democratic values, it may potentially escalate into more widespread conflicts similar to those that occurred in 2020. The involvement of figures like Maxine Waters, who attempted to intervene on behalf of rioters, further suggests a political stake in the unrest, though her rebuff by law enforcement highlights the limits of such influence.

The speculative possibility of a civil war hinges on intent. If the Democrat party is orchestrating or amplifying the riots, their aim may be to destabilize Trump's administration, leveraging the chaos to rally support for progressive causes like open borders. If the funding allegations are substantiated, they may point to a strategic investment in unrest, using groups like CHIRLA, which is linked to ActBlue, as proxies. However, this theory rests on ongoing investigations. While prominent leftists claim that the roots of the riots are organic, pre-printed signs and seemingly coordinated appearances of large numbers of protesters continue to raise suspicions. Another concerning aspect is the actions of left-leaning judges to place the interests of illegal aliens over those of American citizens.

Counterarguments exist. Taking the devil's advocate position for a moment, the violence may simply reflect community outrage, the flash mobs being coordinated through social media. It may be a response to perceived overly-aggressive immigration enforcement, not a calculated Democratic plot. Newsom and Bass's responses could be genuine attempts to de-escalate, not incite, while Barragán's comments might reflect political posturing rather than strategy. However, as evidence continues to mount of taxpayer money being used to fund these protests, those arguments become ever more unconvincing.

In conclusion, while the LA riots present a volatile situation, it is unlikely that the Democrat party is officially using them to ignite a civil war, even though the party is not taking any action to quell the unrest. The combination of alleged funding, leftist rhetoric that exacerbates the tensions, and federal pushback suggests a potential for escalation, but it lacks the hard proof needed to confirm the intent to formally extend the conflict beyond LA.

The current divide, however, risks spiraling further. The Trump administration is focused on protecting American lives and enforcing the law, while the Left is intent on protecting the illegal aliens. As both sides are entrenched, it is essential that we carefully scrutinize all the narratives as events unfold.

An AP-NORC poll found that 83 percent of Americans support deporting illegal immigrants living in the U.S. illegally who have been convicted of a violent crime.

President Trump campaigned on this.

Three times.

At some point, we must ask, isn't it time to give Americans what we want?

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/06/why_is_the_left_trying_to_inflame_a_civil_war.html

Why is the left trying to inflame a civil war?

By D. Parker

If you're reasonable and logical — a fair assumption for those of us on the pro-freedom, conservative side of the political spectrum — you will quickly have recognized that we are in a precarious position, with violent protests from the far left spreading like wildfire. Therefore, if you were in the midst of the month-long planning process of another "spontaneous" interminable protest — a "Nationwide Day of Defiance," set for this Saturday — you would likely scale it back, if not cancel it, given the incendiary nature of multiple sources of trouble throughout the country. Because it doesn't matter how many times the national socialist media parrots the "mostly peaceful protest" lies; all it takes are a few troublemakers in a sea of innocents to turn these events into chaos.

Part of the problem is that people planning these "spontaneous" events are likely not reasonable and logical, or they wouldn't be leftists. However, they are taking the exact opposite course of action. They are inflaming tensions instead of calming them. Sure, they pay lip service to "peaceful protests," but we've all seen what that entails.

Like an arsonist on a tear, they aren't satisfied with just one outbreak of trouble. They are taking extra steps to ensure that the conflict is spread to every corner of the country. Does that sound like responsible behavior to you?

Why are they doing this? Why are they rhetorically pouring gasoline on a smoldering brushfire and fanning the flames? No doubt helped with our tax dollars along the way?

The answer is disturbingly obvious. The whole point is to provide as many "flashpoints" as possible to blame the resulting conflagration on President Trump and the pro-freedom side of the political spectrum. Glenn Beck detailed his theory on this:

California Governor Gavin Newsom recently dared President Trump to arrest him for protecting illegal immigrants. But Glenn Beck points out the bigger news that Newsom accidentally dropped: when he claimed Trump "wants a civil war," he was self-diagnosing. That's what the LA riots are really about, Glenn argues.

The good news is that the commie left have to do their planning online and in the open, so we can keep an eye on them with VPNs, TOR, the Wayback Machine, and archive.today.

They're being ever so helpful in mapping out and documenting their little tantrum events around the country.

Naturally, we use these APPs for the same reason you don heavy rubber gloves when dealing with raw sewage. For starters, Axios has a nice interactive map of all the events, so you can at least get an idea of the relative level of crazy coming to a city near you. It also links to the original site for more information. The site "no kings" —they are really clever with their marketing nomenclature aren't they? — lists out the events, with links to detailed information such as their little events taking place on pedestrian overpasses. These all have locations and times to help you avoid them.

Were they rational, the left would be doing what they can to reduce tension. That is clearly not the case. Thus, we have to avoid the arsonists trying to provoke trouble in any way they can.