Civil War redux?

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
Post Reply

Civil War redux?

Yes
2
40%
No
2
40%
Maybe
1
20%
 
Total votes: 5

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18297
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Civil War redux?

Post by BoSoxGal »

Are we descending into another civil war? Perhaps one by ongoing terrorism rather than two countries on the battlefield?

I’m convinced having spent a lot of time these last few years lurking at USMessageBoard and Parler and other right wing dominated public forums that there is a LOT of crazy out there, much of it armed and firmly convinced that Democrats rape then eat babies - or they’re traitorous commie China lovers or whatever other dehumanizing label. A lot of talk out there about wanting to kill.

I think the 2020s are going to be brutal in America. I desperately hope I’m wrong.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Civil War redux?

Post by Scooter »

The civil war already started. How else would you describe last week, an armed attempt to overthrow the result of an election.

And yes, it will only get worse.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8989
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: Civil War redux?

Post by Guinevere »

I hope it gets put down, before it goes any further. I know my clients are on alert, as is every municipal and state police force, guard, and more, for this weekend and next week.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9014
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County

Re: Civil War redux?

Post by Bicycle Bill »

Scooter wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 10:37 pm
The civil war already started. How else would you describe last week, an armed attempt to overthrow the result of an election.

And yes, it will only get worse.
Agreeing with you, Scooter. The War Between The States / War of the Rebellion / War of Northern Aggression / whatever you want to call it didn't start with battles like Antietam, The Wilderness, Gettysburg, Bull Run/Manassas, or even the barrage on Fort Sumter.  It all began when a crazy madman started running wild and stirring up hate in Kansas, then came east to storm an armory at Harper's Ferry.
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18297
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Civil War redux?

Post by BoSoxGal »

Some people think it started with the Brooks-Sumner affair on the floor of the old Senate chamber in 1856.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: Civil War redux?

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

More like Civil War continued, because for some it never ended. Of course the 20th century rejustification said it was nothing to do with slavery but all about states' rights. I'm sure that's what those idiots carrying Confederate flags would tell you.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20702
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Civil War redux?

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Wars only "start" with violent conflict if war is defined solely as violent conflict. In practice, wars start long before that point is reached. Violence is the ultimate realization of conflict that has grown too powerful to contain, usually political/social grievance. In that sense, the War of the Rebellion started neither with gunfire at Fort Sumter, nor Brown's attempted insurrection at Harper's Ferry nor upon the floor of Congress when Brooks assaulted Sumner. It became an irrepressible conflict when one section of the country perceived itself as being unfairly treated socially, economically and politically by another section. Perhaps more, it perceived a future repression based upon an inevitable loss of power.

Those conditions pertain today, more than at any period since the mid-1800s. The difference, as stated already below/above, is that the geographic lines are blurred. Trump's millions are scattered all across the USA in a general pattern of urban vs. rural. However, this reflects 1860 in at least one way: there is a population that fears its way of life is now being and will be further suppressed, ridiculed, and eventually obliterated by a tidal wave of inevitable social change. As with the South back then, the modern "rebels" believe such changes are only inevitable if the political system/trend is allowed to continue. Hence, armed intervention is perceived as both viable and, possibly, decisive.

Given the distribution of the discontented, this cannot express itself in the same way as the conflict of 1860-65. It will instead be an unending series of guerilla/urban tactical assaults against authority. It will have more in common, ironically, with Maoist inspired revolutionary thought and Uncle Ho than fascist events in Germany and Italy. Although clothed in patriotic rags, it will instead be intensely nationalistic, although inevitably fissiparous, consisting of right-wing christians, fascistic militias, racists, anti-liberal MORs, and other splinter groups with varying agendas. Its success or failure may well pivot upon the support, overt or tacit, given to it by security/police services.

Will it happen? Perhaps to some extent. I may be over-optimistic in believing that America has seen the abyss uncovered by Trump and will respond not in violence but in repugnance. There will be, as there have always been, incidents - it is not the right alone that lights fires, sets off bombs and rises up in spot-discontent. But not a Civil War - or at least, not one conducted on battlefields but very much in the ballot box.

And of course, IMO

PS "liberal" is not a catch-all a la village idiot. I mean the perception of liberalization in society and morality as being detrimental to good order - the loosening and indeed losing of standards of decency between humans. It is not mean to describe liberal as a political movement though there are overlaps there.
Last edited by MajGenl.Meade on Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33642
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Civil War redux?

Post by Gob »

When Johnny comes marchin' home again, hurrah, tala
He's comin' by bus or underground, hurrah, tala
A woman's eye will shed a tear
To see his face so beaten in fear
And it was just around the corner in the US Civil War

It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala
When that well known face got beaten to bits, hurrah, tala
Your face was blue in the light of the screen
As watched the speech of an animal scream
New Party army was marchin' right over our heads

Ha, ha, I told you so, hurrah, tala
Says everybody that we know, hurrah, tala
But who hid a radio under the stairs?
Who got caught out unawares?
New Party army came marchin' right up the stairs

When Johnny comes marchin' home again, hurrah, tala
Nobody understands it can happen again, hurrah, tala
The sun is shinin' and the kids are shoutin' loud
Ya' got to know it's shinin' through a crack in the cloud
And the shadows keep on fallin', when Johnny comes marchin' home


Hurrah, Johnny
Oh yeah, Johnny

All the girls go oh
Get his coffin ready
Cause Johnny is comin' home
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

Big RR
Posts: 14048
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Civil War redux?

Post by Big RR »

So far as I can see, there are three likely outcomes: the various sides can embrace their differences and work out a way to coexist, the country can be fractured and people can congregate to the area they see as embracing their ideas, or we can remain divided and continue to have a divided government and series of violent attacks. As Lincoln recognized (at least after his reelection), if we are to remain united, we need the first alternative to prevail, although given human nature it seems unlikely, much as it did not prevail in 1865 on either side (or thereafter); I'd like to be optimistic and say we learned better, but I cannot. Given Meade's observations, dividing the nation in two (or more) pieces (which may have worked as an alternative tot he civil war) cannot work due to how widespread the differences are geographically. Sadly, I think we are stuck with the third alternative, at east until we learn how to work together (of course, one side can impose its will on the other, but that is only temporary until the other side rebels more violently). When people do not want to get along, I am not optimistic that they will.

Darren
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 12:57 am

Forget civil war. That's not the imminent danger.

Post by Darren »

I started a thread on a similar topic. There will be no civil war. That's not how the country will come apart. Will it come apart? I'm not sure.

Can actions occur which would cause suffering and death. Yes.

Can you prepare? Maybe. Is buying a gun advisable? Not unless you're in a city where the crime has skyrocketed.

The insurrection, if it happens, won't involve armed confrontations.
Thank you RBG wherever you are!

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8542
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Civil War redux?

Post by Sue U »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Fri Jan 15, 2021 7:10 am
there is a population that fears its way of life is now being and will be further suppressed, ridiculed, and eventually obliterated by a tidal wave of inevitable social change. As with the South back then, the modern "rebels" believe such changes are only inevitable if the political system/trend is allowed to continue. Hence, armed intervention is perceived as both viable and, possibly, decisive.
And the root of this fear is a complete lie: white conservative victimhood and manufactured grievance, stoked and amplified by right-wing media and their slavering political creations bringing idiocy to government.

Every "way of life" has been "obliterated by a tidal wave of inevitable social change" since hominids first appeared on this planet. Belief that change can or should be stopped is a foolish fantasy promoted in every age by the ruling class who want stasis so as to retain or increase their power. And as long as they can convince some portion of the underclass that the other guy is trying to steal their biscuit, they can use that division (the more spectacular the better) to continue their own looting of the world uninterrupted.

Image
GAH!

Big RR
Posts: 14048
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Civil War redux?

Post by Big RR »

I agree Sue, but in politics the perception matters far more than the reality. Face it, many, if not most revolutions, were occasioned by perceptions than by the reality of the situation, but the perception stokes the fears, and actions, of those affected (or who think they are affected).

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: Civil War redux?

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

That's too much of a generalization RR. The February Revolution (1917 Russia); Castro's dismantling of the Batista regime; and even Gadaffi's ousting of the unspeakable Idris, are all examples of revolutions based on reality. 1776 springs to mind as well.

Along the way with all of these I am sure that there was use of perception to augment that reality. Prompting the ruling power into some sort of atrocity against the populace is usually guerilla warfare 101.

Darren
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 12:57 am

Re: Civil War redux?

Post by Darren »

ex-khobar Andy wrote:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:30 am
That's too much of a generalization RR. The February Revolution (1917 Russia); Castro's dismantling of the Batista regime; and even Gadaffi's ousting of the unspeakable Idris, are all examples of revolutions based on reality. 1776 springs to mind as well.

Along the way with all of these I am sure that there was use of perception to augment that reality. Prompting the ruling power into some sort of atrocity against the populace is usually guerilla warfare 101.
Would you call lone wolf actions like the one in Nashville guerilla warfare 101?
Thank you RBG wherever you are!

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20702
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Civil War redux?

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Sue U wrote:
Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:10 pm
And the root of this fear is a complete lie: white conservative victimhood and manufactured grievance, stoked and amplified by right-wing media and their slavering political creations bringing idiocy to government.

Every "way of life" has been "obliterated by a tidal wave of inevitable social change" since hominids first appeared on this planet. Belief that change can or should be stopped is a foolish fantasy promoted in every age by the ruling class who want stasis so as to retain or increase their power. And as long as they can convince some portion of the underclass that the other guy is trying to steal their biscuit, they can use that division (the more spectacular the better) to continue their own looting of the world uninterrupted.

Image
Love the image! I agree with what you write. However, the fact is and remains that such a population does exist. What is difficult to deal with is that they don't agree with you (or me for that matter) on many issues you take for granted are "correct". The contradiction that "they" don't ever seem aware of is that their key motif of rugged individualism conflicts with their absolute belief in social conformity. But I'm sure they'd argue that there is a conformity which is the best one, within which individual freedom flourishes. Not sure??? In a way, you too believe there is a proper social construct which all should accept and in which individual freedom expresses itself best.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: Civil War redux?

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

Darren wrote:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 12:38 pm

Would you call lone wolf actions like the one in Nashville guerrilla warfare 101?
No. I think the Nashville bomber was mentally ill. I haven't seen any clear evidence of a political motive (or indeed any other sort of motive).

How quickly we forget. Or, more accurately, how quickly I forget. It took me probably half a minute to understand Darren's post - what Nashville lone wolf action? It was only three weeks ago but seems like years.

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18297
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Civil War redux?

Post by BoSoxGal »

The Nashville bomber was a cult member of a cult millions of Americans follow - Q - and other spin-offs. He believed in the same things that are mainstream to these cults. Lizard people and 5G population control are among them. The target of the bomb was 5G via the AT&T network hub he parked his bomb beside.

I give the guy credit for programming a broadcast warning that undoubtedly saved lives. He might’ve been brainwashed but he lacked the violent heart exhibited by so many at the Capitol last week.

Incidentally in educating myself about these cult beliefs, I learned that cell phone towers have been burned in Europe by these cult followers so it’s an international mass hysteria. I wonder how many cell towers have been vandalized in the US and it’s just not making national news? Apparently 5G will give us all windmill cancer and coronavirus and mind control. Serious stuff.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

Big RR
Posts: 14048
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Civil War redux?

Post by Big RR »

ex-khobar Andy wrote:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:30 am
That's too much of a generalization RR. The February Revolution (1917 Russia); Castro's dismantling of the Batista regime; and even Gadaffi's ousting of the unspeakable Idris, are all examples of revolutions based on reality. 1776 springs to mind as well.

Along the way with all of these I am sure that there was use of perception to augment that reality. Prompting the ruling power into some sort of atrocity against the populace is usually guerilla warfare 101.
Interesting Andy; using the American Revolution, exactly what were most people protesting. Taxation? It was fairly minimal for the average persons more a problem for the wealthy who stoked the masses. Similar for the shutting of Boston Harbor after the tea party, it affected the wealth far more than the average person who raised most of their food and made a lot of what they used; but the wealth stoked them. sure, some revolutions are based on severe oppressive actions, but was the result preferable to what existed before, or did other oppressors replace the current ones.

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33642
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Civil War redux?

Post by Gob »

A majority of Europeans believe America’s political system is broken, that China will be the world’s leading power within a decade, and that Joe Biden will be unable to halt his country’s decline on the world stage, according to a report.

While many welcomed Biden’s victory in November’s US election, more Europeans than not feel that after four years of Donald Trump the US cannot be trusted, according to the study by the European Council on Foreign Relations.

“Europeans like Biden, but they don’t think America will come back as a global leader,” said the thinktank’s director, Mark Leonard. “When George W Bush was president, they were divided about how America should use its power. With Biden entering the White House, they are divided about whether America has power at all.”

The survey of 15,000 people in 11 European countries, conducted at the end of last year, found that the shift in European sentiment towards the US in the wake of the Trump presidency had led to a corresponding unwillingness to support Washington in potential international disputes.

At least half of respondents in all 11 countries surveyed felt, for example, that their government should remain neutral in any conflict between the US and China, while no more than 40% in any country said they would back Washington against Russia.

“It’s clear that the tumultuous Trump presidency has left an indelible imprint on Europe’s attitude towards the US,” said Ivan Krastev, chair of the Centre for Liberal Strategies, an NGO in Sofia, and an ECFR board member. “The majority of Europeans are now sceptical about the capacity of the US to shape the world. It makes many, rightly or wrongly, want to opt for a more independent role for the EU in the world.”

In their report, Leonard and Krastev note that while more than 60% of those polled believed the US was “broken”, most evaluated the EU and their own countries’ systems much more positively – an opportunity, they argue, to harness the collective power of the bloc for the benefit and protection of its citizens.

The survey found that 51% of those polled did not agree with the statement that under Biden the US was likely to resolve its internal divisions and seek to address international issues such as climate change, peace in the Middle East, relations with China or European security.

Amid a widespread sense of growing Chinese superiority, 79% of those polled in Spain, 72% in Portugal, 72% in Italy and 63% in France said they thought China would overtake the US as the world’s leading superpower within the next decade.

Just over 32% of all respondents – and a startling 53% of respondents in Germany – felt that after voting for Trump, Americans could not be trusted. Only in Hungary and Poland did significantly more people disagree with that view than agree.

Just 10% of those polled saw the US as a “reliable” security partner that would always protect Europe, while at least 60% in every country polled said they doubted their country could depend on US support in the event of a crisis.

The authors say the geopolitical consequences of this shift are significant: two-thirds of those surveyed said it was now important that Europe look after its own defence, including 72% in Portugal, 71% in Sweden, 70% in France and 69% in Poland.

At least half of respondents in every country surveyed said they would prefer their government to be neutral in a conflict between the US and China. Across the 11 states surveyed, only 23% of respondents thought their country should take Washington’s side against Russia, with 59% preferring to remain neutral.

Between 38% and 48% of respondents in seven countries thought the EU should adopt a tougher international stance on issues such as trade, taxation and regulation, while most countries considered Germany was now a more important country to “have a good relationship” with than the US.

The poll also revealed that in nine of the 11 countries – Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Sweden – where the same question was asked in previous years, the average share of people saying the EU’s political system worked very or fairly well had risen from 46% to 48%.

It found that people who believed their own national political system was working, which was more often the case in northern than in southern Europe, were more likely to say the EU was a success.

The report identified four “tribes” that went a long way to grouping respondents’ positions, depending on whether they felt the EU, US or China were rising or declining. The biggest tribe, “In Europe we trust”, comprised 35% of respondents, while only 9% belonged to “In America we trust”.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... hin-decade
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

Post Reply