James Woods warns: ‘Sadly,’ civil war coming

For at least the second time this month, actor James Woods warned of a second civil war, citing the level of political discourse and decrying the inability of many Americans to listen to each other.

“We simply can’t hear each other anymore,” he said. “There is no compromise. We might as well just wait for civil war, because sadly it’s coming.”

As we reported earlier this month, Woods issued a similar warning if Democrats succeed in removing Donald Trump from the White House.

“If the manage to reverse this election with their usual dirty tricks, there will be ,” he warned.  “This is not going to end well.”

Since that initial tweet, racial violence broke out in Charlottesville, Virginia, when a group of white nationalists and their allies clashed with far-left protesters allied with Antifa and BLM.

One woman was killed in the melee when a person apparently aligned with the alt-right drove his car into a group of left-wing counter-protesters.

President Trump has soundly condemned the racism and violence from all sides repeatedly, but the Borg-like collective known as the modern American left, led by apparently ignorant liberal media propagandists, continue to falsely claim the president has not condemned the violence.

The president castigated the media on Twitter for their false claims:


How likely is a second civil war in America?  An article published at the New Yorker on Monday said:

America’s stability is increasingly an undercurrent in political discourse. Earlier this year, I began a conversation with Keith Mines about America’s turmoil. Mines has spent his career—in the U.S. Army Special Forces, the United Nations, and now the State Department—navigating civil wars in other countries, including Afghanistan, Colombia, El Salvador, Iraq, Somalia, and Sudan. He returned to Washington after sixteen years to find conditions that he had seen nurture conflict abroad now visible at home. It haunts him. In March, Mines was one of several national-security experts whom Foreign Policy asked to evaluate the risks of a second civil war—with percentages. Mines concluded that the United States faces a sixty-per-cent chance of civil war over the next ten to fifteen years. Other experts’ predictions ranged from five per cent to ninety-five per cent. The sobering consensus was thirty-five per cent. And that was five months before Charlottesville.

Let that sink in for a moment.

An article at the Business Insider called the article “irresponsible, arguing:

This claim is scary — and based on Salon’s experience, it’s the sort of inflammatory claim that’s likely to do very well on Facebook. But it’s nonsense.

Wright’s article is based in large part on a short blog post for Foreign Policy from March, in which Thomas Ricks mused on the risk of “another civil war breaking out in this country over the next 10 to 15 years.” But Ricks defines “civil war” very strangely:

“By ‘civil war,’ I don’t necessarily mean set-piece battles and Pickett’s Charge. I do mean widespread political violence with parallel (though not necessarily connected) efforts to reject current political authority in certain legal domains or physical spaces.”

By this definition, America experienced a civil war from the late 1950s to the early 1970s, when race riots engulfed major American cities, four major political figures were assassinated, and the federal government had to send national guard troops into Southern states to enforce integration over the objections of both local officials and violent white mobs.

“I agree there is a real risk that the United States will return to 1950s-1970s levels of political violence and social upheaval. I’m worried about this. But calling such a situation a “civil war” just makes everybody dumber,” Josh Barro wrote.

“A future conflict could resemble events of the 1960s, and that would be bad. But it wouldn’t be a civil war,” Barro added.

As a child of the 60s, I recall many of those events, but I certainly don’t recall seeing the level of hatred that we’re seeing now.

Consider for a moment, statements by leftists like Markos Moulitsas, who falsely claimed that all conservatives and NRA members are Nazis.  Add to that a statement by Daily Beast writer Rick Wilson, who said that “fascists” need to die.  Ne never specified who, exactly, the “fascists” are, but liberals have made it clear that anyone with whom they disagree is either a “fascist” or a “Nazi.”

This is the kind of rhetoric we’ve heard non-stop since November’s election.  It’s clear there are some who want nothing less than violence and bloodshed.

Woods is spot-on with his assessment of the current situation.  If Americans don’t stop for a second and listen to one another, we might as well pack it in and wait for the inevitable conflict.


If you haven’t checked out and liked our Facebook page, please go here and do so.

And if you’re as concerned about online censorship as we are, go here and order this book:

Banned: How Facebook enables militant Islamic jihad
Banned: How Facebook enables militant Islamic jihad – Source: Author (used with permission)

Joe Newby

A 10-year veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, Joe ran for a city council position in Riverside, Calif., in 1991 and managed successful campaigns for the Idaho state legislature. Co-author of "Banned: How Facebook enables militant Islamic jihad," Joe wrote for Examiner.com from 2010 until it closed in 2016 and his work has been published at Newsbusters, Spokane Faith and Values and other sites. He now runs the Conservative Firing Line.

Related Articles

Our Privacy Policy has been updated to support the latest regulations.Click to learn more.×