Is America Headed for a New Kind of Civil War?

Had we not gone in to Iraq, and I was against it, Iraq would have never survived the Arab spring. Dictatorships fall, it's only a matter of time.

 

Maybe not "circus side shows", but the description of a political party as "a tent" has been used, particularly of the Democrats, as in "that they have a big tent" one that covers a very diverse bunch of "interest groups".

The Democrats opted for a "policy of inclusion" calling on feminists, minorities, homosexuals, immigrants, environmentalists, pacifists and others, to join in the effort against "the establishment". Each of these groups identifies a different enemy; bankers, oil companies, agribusiness, whites, chauvinists, Christians...

The trend has resulted in the continuous fragmentation of various groups clamoring for recognition of their distinct victimhood, so where we once found grouped together the "alternatively life-styled", now we find separate lesbians, transgenders, gay "tops" and "bottoms", transvestites, bisexuals and others. In the same way Mexican-Americans may be lawful immigrants or not, and are differentiated from other Latin Americans, from immigrants of different nationalities, ages and sexual orientations. Just the same we find environmentalists more concerned with preservation, pollution, fossil fuel use, global warming or population growth. Each subgroup claiming a particularized victimology with specifically distinct enemines that excludes anyone who can't empathise and adopt their own special interests.

Two interesting developments result from this trend under the Democrats' "big tent"; no unity and a magnified outrage.

 

Fearmongering is part of this I believe. It is true that America is divided, but the parties involved with its division will gain no support going forward if violence is pushed. We may see more street battles like at Berkeley, but I don't believe it will escalate to all out war. For the vast majority of these groups their bark is louder then their bite. Now that I have that out of the way, I do find the idea of a war between a Gun owning right and the passive left to be very stupid.

 

Out gunned, out numbered and not able to fight the new bugs and diseases that the settlers brought with them.
Apparently, its now estimated that there were over 50,million native Americans before westerners rocked up and spoilt it.

Cowboys and Indians, i loved playing it as a kid, i was the Indian and my mate tended to be the cowboy.
We were too young back then to understand the context behind the game. Unsurprisingly, kids don't really play cowboys and Indians anymore.

 

No, they leave that to their big brothers who go on internet forums.

 

No, this is just the beginning. The "progressives" have had power, they crave power, and they will not give it up voluntarily. They can't even take losing one election without resorting to open violence. All totalitarians - "progressives", communists, socialists, fascists, warlords, dictator - will always resort to violence when they are facing resistance.

And it won't be "a war between a Gun owning right and the passive left". That's very wrong. The hard core Left is not passive, they are violent and hateful. Unless Trump pulls off a miracle, it will be a war between the people and the "progressive" controlled government, it will be the state security forces versus people. Think Gestapo, East German Stasi, Soviet NKVD. It will be people getting snatched and never seen again, like the Desaparecidos of Argentina during the 1970's & 1980's. But the actors will be Homeland Security, NSA, FBI, and local law enforcement.

 

Why do you suppose this is?

 

Kids don't play "Cowboys and Indians" anymore because they can't watch "The Lone Ranger" on TV and there are no similar shows. If they did play such games they would be scolded and their parents warned, if their parents didn't keep their kids from playing such games social services would put their kids in foster care and Google would brand their parents racist nazis.

 

"Negative partisanship":

They discuss how US voters increasingly just vote the "party ticket", how merely identifying the proponent's party earns the opprobrium of supporters of the other party without consideration of the merits of anything proposed, everything is absolute and this is a generational trend. I wonder what will follow Trump, expect that when a Democrat gets elected there will a right wing resistance too.

 

:0) Why make mass human suffering into a kids game?

I never played prisoners and aboriginals when i was a kid and i never played Nazi's and Jews either but, for some reason, cowboys and Indians was OK.

History does tend to be written by the winners and cowboys & Indians is just one example.

 

A well argued contention, but incorrect. The "gentlemanly" way of war went out with the American Revolution, when the rebellious colonists refused to stand in a line face to face with the British so the latter could fire upon them. As for Sherman, he wasn't the only one who practiced The Art of War by Lao Tzu; it was a popular handbook for both sides in the war. It was Lao Tzu who introduced (re-introduced?) the idea of destroying the enemies' supplies, or your own if you had to leave them behind, as a way of demoralizing and defeating the enemy.

They wouldn't (and didn't) engage in violent demonstrations, throw rocks, bottles, and M80s at their opponents, or shut down speakers on college campuses with whom they disagreed.

I can no longer consider Democrats or the Democratic party "American" or "patriotic", considering their avowed goal of destroying everything America and Western Civilization have stood for for the last 200 years. Democrats have shown themselves to be enemies of the Constitution, enemies of free speech, enemies of civil discourse, enemies of law and order, enemies of common sense and rationality (a dude in a dress is a dude in a dress, not a woman), enemies of middle-class values, enemies of Christianity, enemies of freedom of religion, enemies of capitalism, enemies of the police, enemies of the military, enemies of men, and enemies of Caucasians. For all these reasons, I declare Democrats and the Democratic party enemies of the state.

Any group that supports violence as a political tool is a terrorist group. This includes BLM and Antifa. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/2/tim-constantine-black-lives-matter-terrorist-group/

He does contribute millions of dollars to left-wing groups who spend a lot of time protesting. Here's a story about one such paid activist: http://www.cracked.com/personal-exp...-protesters-are-real-because-im-one-them.html

The Democrats of today are just as racist as ever, they just express it in different terms. White liberal elitists think blacks and Hispanics can't make it in American society without welfare, quotas, set-asides, special programs like Head Start, etc. That's racist. Asians do just fine in our "racist" society, better than whites do, in fact. So the problem isn't society, the problem is black and Hispanic people. Black and Hispanic activists are openly racist towards white people and aren't even called on it by their white liberal associates. Black activists openly claim that blacks are uniquely oppressed by "white culture" (they aren't), that whites owe them something for slavery (they don't), that whites "stole" something from black people (they didn't), and that statues of Civil War generals oppress them (they don't). Hispanic activists openly claim that enforcing the laws of the land against illegal aliens is racist (it isn't), that white people "need" Hispanics to pick their food, mow their lawns, and watch their kids (we don't), that asking people to speak English is racist (it isn't), and that the southwestern United States is a mythical Aztlan that once belonged to Mexicans and will soon be restored to its rightful owners (it isn't). These are all Democrats and these are all racist opinions.

That's more than enough.

Funny that you compare Limbaugh and Breitbart to used car salesmen when it's the left that continues to push the tired, stale, completely discredited ideas of communism, socialism, and government-oriented solutions to every problem under the sun. If there's one thing that the 20th century made clear, it's that government is the enemy.

 

The States do have boundaries,
keeping their own and the Founding Fathers did made the right decisions before.

 

At least in the middle east. You have your choice in the ME of secular dictatorships, religious dictatorships, or religious democracy. Only when a secular dictator takes over a middle eastern country do you get anything like liberty, women's rights, or an open society. Ataturk in Turkey, Nasser in Egypt, Shah Pahlavi‎ in Iran, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Hafez al-Assad in Syria repressed the Islamic fundamentalism in favor of a more secular state. When they died or were ousted, the Islamic fundamentalism reasserted itself. Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates remain secular dictatorships. Saudi Arabia is a religious dictatorship. Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, and now Turkey moved or are moving further and further away from secular society towards more and more repressive fundamentalism by public demand. It is astounding and incomprehensible to me as a Westerner why middle easterners would vote for their own slavery and repression, but they do.

 

Then they should not have started the War of Southern Aggression.

Lincoln would have allowed the South to keep is slaves inside the Old South although not in the territories of the 'free states' except where it was already permitted. The South would have had to give back federal property.

Not hard.

 

That is an inaccurate alternate explanation.

 

Identity politics....
which interestingly chimes with the opening post...

 

Great summary of the current situation.

 

Prove it.

 

If you do, it'll be "the war on............", any ideas?

How about the war on aliens?
The war on Illegals?
The war on fake americans?
Maybe just "the war"?

These white supremacists make me laugh - They are immigrants moaning about immigration, the only difference is the timescale.[/QUOTE]

oh yes it did but they majority up till now white christ stains , suppressing minority wishes, now fast forward white christ stains are the minority , things will be changing

heh heh

 

It is absolutely false to claim the Republican party is racist, neither is the Democrat party. Racism is an attitude some Republicans and Democrats have, but they don't lead or inspire either party. Racism is an attitude that gradually has fallen in disfavor and nowadays there are very few people who will publicly express such an view.

The issue is for the discerning to distinguish the tonalities.

Republicans are conservatives, conservatives are traditionalists, traditionalists are patriotic, patriots are nationalists and nationalists favor "their people" (those from their nation). If you can discern this line of concatenated notions all the way from conservativism, through traditionalism, patriotism and nationalism, then you can see how sensitive issues like free trade, secure borders, immigration, refugees, Confederate monuments, discrimination, feminism, alternative lifestyles, Affirmative Action and racism affect individuals in either party.

Given the basic outlines of policies promoted by either party, racism resonates stronger among conservative, traditionalist, patriotic, nationalists, than it would among liberals who prefer a more inclusive, integrationist perspective that embraces plainly foreign notions which emerge from the needs of other societies.

 

You make a good point here.

 

When you offer facts not opinions, sure.

 

Not always, consider Assad.

 

Yeah, he's doing well.