slug.com slug.com
18 7

Can we stop the "civil war" in Western countries from escalating? While it's debatable if the present circumstances constitute a type of civil war (see

), we seem to be heading in a dangerous direction. If all war is politics and politics has become personal (i.e., feel life is threatened by the "opposition", see "Prius or Pickup?" [amazon.com] ), is worsening inevitable?
Admin 8 July 1
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value evidence and civil discourse - the social network for the fans of the IDW.

Create your free account

18 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Why should we want to stop the civil war? The current system is unsustainable, unfixable, and undesirable. Burn the whole thing down so that a phoenix can arise from the ashes.

0

Everyone has enemies. You, in fact, are somebody's enemy. For any action taken, there will be opposition. Caution to those who would raise their sword, as others may, as rightly as you, raise their sword to you.

1

Interesting

2

I've seen bits and pieces of this tumult before. I started high school in 1968. The first wave of the drug culture was washing through our little town. National news was about antiwar protests (and some riots). Walking down the hill I'd pass by the first house; where the owner painted, "Reagan: The fascist gun in the west!" in foot high letters for our elucidation.

San Francisco was 250 miles away. But echoes of its revolutionary fervor bounced around in our school. A couple of students had federal warrants out for their arrest. People I knew. Just my street level view of a world in revolutionary uproar.

In a larger context, 1968 started with the demoralizing images of the Tet offensive. In April of 1968 Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. This was followed by enormous riots in a dozen major cities. In May of 1968 the people of France rose in riotous near-revolution. Curiously enough, they weren't wearing Yellow Vests. People weren't sure whether the 5th Republic would survive. In June of 1968 Robert Kennedy was assassinated just as he won the California primary. Radical leftists incited the Chicago police to attack demonstrators outside the Democratic Party Convention. And it was broadcast on live television.

And that was just 1968.

So I would submit to you all that times like these are not unique in our history.

Good perspective.

I joined law enforcement in 1970, trust me, I had a first hand view of the anti-war riots.

Yes and behind it all, in 1968, were the radical groups, the SDS, students for a democratic society, and the Black Panthers, and others, not much different from now. AOC s group, the DSA, say they want to pattern themselves around the SDS. Well the SDS took over many of the top colleges, occupied buildings, and even burned some down. Factions of the SDS were pure terrorist groups, like the Weather Underground.

The 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago was where violence erupted, as Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and 5000 Hippies camped out in front of the Hilton a week before the convention. Hoffman told his little army to poop and urinate into gallon baggies and save them to sling at the National Guard troops outside the Hilton. The National Guard troops showed great restraint in not shooting. But then the Chicago cops were sent in to beat up the hippies with billy clubs. Richard Daley was going to make them pay for all the bad worldwide publicity he was getting. After this, the National Guard shot and killed 4 students at Kent State.

Students were cornered against a wall, because there was the draft, and they might have to go to Vietnam to fight a war for countries they didn t care about. Well now, the young people are taught to feel cornered against a wall, which is global warming. There are many similarities to today s situation in the colleges, only today there are many more radicals in the colleges.

3

I think you are asking the wrong question. I will think about your question, but really "when and why will the US become Socialist, and then Communist? You have to face your enemy directly, as he is, before you can begin to expose weaknesses. The enemy isn t just here, in NYC with the 20,000 Marxists who elected AOC, Salazar, and ran a Marxist mayoral candidate, it s in Europe, where the European countries collectively have given their future to unelected bureaucrats, the Brussels Eurocrats. It s also in Bejing, where a Marxist front is on the march.

To focus on the US isn t going to solve the problem, but the US is a formidable-enough problem on it s own. You say the poll below which says only about 6 percent of those polled take extreme left views may be true, but also true is that most of those Democrats polled know they have been lied to hundreds of times a day by their party, and they still will vote democrat regardless of whats in the democrat buffet they are eating. The democrat voter has become submissive to lies, and after that a person can be made submissive to other things, or anything.

But more important, what about the millions of AOC-like students being indoctrinated and coming out of the colleges? In looking at AOC and her NYC comrades, I ve seen pictures of 100 or more and all are under 30. They say they want to pattern themselves like the SDS in the 60's, the Students for a Democratic Society. There will be new waves of Marxists coming out of the colleges, so the Green New Deal isn t going away, pushing it s agenda will only get stronger.

In the past 3 weeks their magazine, The Jacobin(online), has had articles titled "We Really Have to Eat the One-percenters." and in articles are calls for all billionaires to be outlawed. They call the one-percenters soylents, and like Trumps "Build the Wall," or "Lock Her Up," the Green party should be called the "Soylent Green" party, because the name will stick, and the Marxists will begin to be marginalized. But the one-percenters can t begin to pay for all the food on their buffet table, and not even the 10 percenters can pay the bill.

There s a whole other level of fighting in the universities, in marginalizing postmodernism, because according to the AOC crowd in NYC, their Marxism isn t like the Marxism of The Nation Mag. or Sanders, they aren t worried about class struggles. They think they can succeed solely on identity politics. They think indoctrination about class struggles is too hard.

There may be fighting, and in fact one could expect the anarchist element in their ranks, or groups like ANTIFA, to push the fight, and violence, because this is what happened with the SDS in the 60 s. But there may be fighting against China as well. It s not constructive to go that route within the US, unless the US electorate just loses all control and there is no 2 party system anymore, which is what they will be pushing for and it may happen.

It s a political world war for sure, but it doesn t have to turn violent.

The enemy isn t just here, in NYC with the 20,000 Marxists who elected AOC, Salazar, and ran a Marxist mayoral candidate, it s in Europe, where the European countries collectively have given their future to unelected bureaucrats, the Brussels Eurocrats. It s also in Bejing, where a Marxist front is on the march.

I had to stop right there. You're conflating several radically different forms of politics:

AOC, Salazar (and you mention De Blasio, but I'm not sure if he fits the bill): Politically they fall somewhere in the political spectrum between democratic socialists and social democrats.

EU: Neoliberals (i.e., undemocratic, institutional capitalism)

Beijing: The "Marxist front" you speak of is certainly weaker than you suggest, and probably closer to the type of democracy movement that was crushed in Tiananmen Square, i.e. something closer to AOC, et al. The status quo in Beijing is probably closest to a more authoritarian form of the EU.

according to the AOC crowd in NYC, their Marxism isn t like the Marxism of The Nation Mag. or Sanders, they aren t worried about class struggles. They think they can succeed solely on identity politics.

You have it backwards.

@WilyRickWiles Just talk to a guy today, who just returned from diplomatic duty in Brussels. He said we (US citizens) have no idea how bad things are in Europe both east and west, Great Britain is no better. The threat is from the Marxist, Eurocrates, and muslims. He brought his family back to the Middle West. That says alot to me!!!

3

No. Because those who have decided on “fundamental change” are unwilling to relinquish power now that we see what that entails and have rebuked it via our vote.

This is true. Trump was supposed to LOSE. The takeover of America was going to be complete with Hillary in the WH. The plan, which involved illegal wiretapping, and I'm sure blackmail and murder, was foolproof. I'm not going to say DJT is God's candidate, but I believe only Divine intervention could have prevented the inevitable. The disbelief on the left was so complete that the false scenario they created became real to them and the many that were successfully brainwashed. The urban warfare now erupting, the constant feed of propaganda, the "crisis at the border" are all distractions, 'shiny objects'. NOBODY except the majority of the American people (including WH staff) wants this President to succeed ( because they are ALL either involved in widespread corruption, or victims, forced to comply under threat of exposure. Yes, war is here, and will spread. We must vote Trump back in, and continue the tedious job of cleaning out our government or the last "free"country in the world will cease to exist.

1

Maybe in certain groups but by and large most Americans are peaceful and just want to be left alone. We hear about these conflicts occurring in the news but I have a hard time thinking of any person who I know that is violent or wants a civil war. Only one person can I even think of being in that group. Until we each know off or are associates with someone who we feel wants war then we’re probably fine.

Jcapson Level 3 July 1, 2019
4

I truly believe we are, and have been, in it. It just looks so much different than anything we expected or can conceive of in our mind. Sparing you a laundry list, let me pose one question. Is there any aspect, institution, expression, event, or segment of our existence that we universally and unanimously enjoy and find no division within? I don't see any. Here's why. Deconstructionists are single-minded in their agenda to create chaos and anarchy. Honest debate is extinct. The deconstructionist radical leftists in no way believe their proposals are our society's true path to a thriving future. They are sadists wanting to destroy and are curious to see what's next.

Those of us wanting preservation will have it only at a cost. And that cost will be steep as we have no last safe harbor of justice. Even our courts have become as corrupt and certainly more draconian than any other institution we have previously consented to.

But go ahead and think of something...anything that we all unite around and defend as precious and uniquely ours. I'll bet you can't.

Have a happy war!

That’s a tough question. Maybe this?

I'm still hanging up on 'deconstructionist'. I've been thinking about it since I first saw you use it. I'm not disagreeing with you on some of it. I see how you're using it. I guess my struggle with it is I have been a deconstructionist, yet I think our opinions on things would align more than diverge. In my late teens/early adulthood, I deconstructed everything. I didn't do it to destroy all structure. My questions were, 'are our structures useful to us? Are they useful to everyone in them? What's arbitrary and contextual and assigned in centuries past that may no longer be beneficial? What is progress? Who decides this stuff? Are the things we think now what we should be thinking? What purpose is served in this structure or that structure?'

Where I differ from the deconstructionists you're describing is their goal is to shred it all and replace it with nothing or worse structures. They hated the church, so they shredded western values that were embedded in Christianity. Well, the really stupid part was they didn't think it through. They didn't have replacement values in mind because their illusion (ideals) never have that much detail. So, society was dropped suddenly into chaos. If we're not patriotic, what are we? If we don't value America, what do we value? What do we do with all of these people around us we used to feel connected to at some level? If we dump the institution of the family, how do we organize ourselves (they chose individualism which has been an epic failure)?

Just some examples, but if we never deconstruct our social structures, how do we evaluate where we are and where we should be--or where we can reasonably go? Deconstruction is okay in an organized, measured, forward-thinking way. It's even valuable. But, half-assed, ill-considered deconstruction (better label 'destruction'?) is deeply flawed and leaves to chance the new world you've set in motion without an ounce of thought. I don't think we want to leave it all to chance. I think this whole thing we're doing--guys like Jordan Peterson--this is all about RECONSTRUCTING order from the chaos left by the radical academics deconstructing it all because life's not fair. The IDW is trying to build something from all of the debris strewn around from the wreckage of rich white elitist academics being extraordinarily arrogant and careless.

3

I find it hard to estimate how far gone society currently is. I have no idea if I am biassed or live in an echo chamber. I can't stand watching these communist, socialist posts or comments of people who parrot opinions that are not their own, let alone subjected them to any research of their own. When I see these people having their temper tantrums, I want to call their mommies and tell her what I saw. But then again...,their mommies probably enabled them to become like this. Im just sooooo grateful I'm not 24/7 angry like them. Im so grateful that my life and my job are private for most of the day. I don't want things to escalate into civil war. Whenever I read about war I feel so sorry for all the peoples years or lives that were wasted by decisions made from above.

In the end, we all want the same. Just a safe place to call home with friends and family and food on the table. Salvaging society is always a better Idea than starting from scratch.

I agree that it's really hard to know how common our views are or the views of others. I'm encouraged by surveys that suggest far-Left views are only about 8% (with "far Right" being 6%). [fortune.com] ... notice keywords for each "Tribe".

@Admin The thing that worries me about the "only 8%" is that those people feel entitled to insult, trespass, confiscate and sometimes physically attack law abiding people who were just minding their own business (that the 8% apparently don't agree with) oblivious of this form activism they deemed unreal.
And how unprepared these people but also the police is at these incidents. No protocols in place, these trends escalate faster than standard operating procedures can catch up with.

The wise people stay out of their way. And thats why extremists seem so overwhelmingly dominant. Cause when the integrity of one individual is reduced to a disgusting deplorable, stuff gets scary fast. Its like suicide bombers or sharp shooters.... you only need one mother f@cker to scare an entire sector into hiding. And everybody will instinctively aim to blend in and conform.
Sad but true. Creativity is punishable by death or out of business or getting raided With so called "peaceful protests"

NOT GOOD

@Admin

I agree that it's really hard to know how common our views are or the views of others. I'm encouraged by surveys that suggest far-Left views are only about 8% (with "far Right" being 6%). [fortune.com] ... notice keywords for each "Tribe".

I don't agree with their bins or labels at all based on my own experiences. Their labeling seems to be left-leaning and muddled. That could be a conservative author overreaching to be balanced. I didn't dig into it. It just looks somewhat generous in tone to the left overall and in particulars.

The moderate left consists of like 4 guys and a gal in a small conservative rural town in Texas. I haven't met any on the left in the real world around me that would consider touching 'compromise', and they lean dramatically more in the direction of emotional than rational. And, I'm not sure what 'cautious' means. They're not cautious about insulting conservatives or assassinating the character of Trump voters. Pretentious comes to mind.

The whole thing's been sanitized, and I think in that process they've lost the reality. Don't make something that is naturally ugly pretty for some agenda--even if that agenda is to build bridges. It's dismissive and ultimately it will be dismissed for what it is. Just give it like it is, so people can have all of the information to draw conclusions from.

5

In the USA, I think any form of civil war will come in the form similar to the first one, state government v. federal government. I'm not saying it's likely (although it may be), but rather it's the most likely scenario.

The outline is fairly simple. First, you get a state law passed that is directly contrary to federal law. This in itself isn't a big deal so long as the feds choose to not enforce the law in the state. Precedent has already been set with marijuana laws. Second, the feds decide to enforce the law in said state. This won't necessarily lead to any civil war because, again, precedent has already been set, first with California's first attempt at legal marijuana and with Kansas' suppressor law. In both cases the feds came in and cracked down hard. The states did nothing to stop the feds. This leads to the third and final phase. Third, the state and local authorities decide to defend the rights of it's citizens through one form or another.

There are currently two major issues that I can see that may lead to stage three. The first and most likely is gun control. A close second would be immigration.

Missouri Bill SB367 proposes to make ALL current federal firearms laws null and void in the state of MO up to and including full auto rifles, silencers, and SBRs (short barreled rifles and shotguns). It also includes provisions to prosecute any state or local law enforcement personal for attempting to enforce federal laws or even assisting federal law enforcement in enforcing said laws. If this law passes it could be the spark that ignites a new civil war.

Now let's assume for a moment that it does pass, many expect it will, it seems to have the support. In fact, one very similar did pass back '14, but was vetoed by the governor. The new Republican governor promises to sign it. So, at first not much will happen, but after some time there will be people making and converting full auto guns and some will probably be quite blatant about it. The feds will have to make a decision, go in and start confiscating and prosecuting, which will be made difficult without local law enforcement's help, or leave it alone, like they have been doing with the marijuana laws in other states. If they do decide to go in, then what? Will it go the way of Kansas' suppressor law? Still on the books but fairly useless because the state and local authorities did absolutely nothing to stop the feds. Or does it escalate? A local sheriff's department decides to defend locals from feds or something. I don't know, I can think of a lot of escalating scenarios. I can tell you this, once shots are fired, all hell will break out.

To avoid this scenario, the federal government may decide to take a different approach. Something like defunding the state or even going so far as to sanction it until it reverses. I don't think this will help, in fact it could make things worse when people from other states or other states themselves decide to get involved. Again in this scenario things could get very ugly very quickly.

This is just one man's thoughts and observations. I don't know how likely any of this is, just that it is possible IMHO.

Judah80 Level 7 July 1, 2019
4

It certainly does seem like a measure of civil war will occur somewhere in the western nations, not necessarily in the US.

Normally there is a break put on all out fighting in the streets, and one example that would normally act as a break was the incident in Charlottesville in 2017, however, simply because of the way it was misrepresented, it did not have the effect it might normally have had. When Trump tried to tell the truth of an action with two sides at fault, it was shut down immediately, and so it did not make the impact it should have had.

Due to this, whatever the defining action will be is going to have to be quite horrendous and bloody. From a UK perspective, it will be the enactment of the 'rivers of blood' speech from Enoch Powell in 1968.

We could even be taken aback and see the action come from a country like Sweden, that is looking more like a war zone than anywhere else.

The key problem is that it is not a matter of entrenchment anymore, as things have developed into fanaticism, where the problem there is the fanatics do not understand who it is they are actually supporting (they are far left, thinking they have a socialist and moral aim, without knowing those pulling their strings are anything but socialists).

I also don't think it will be the far right that will enter the 'battlefield' against the far left, it will be quite unexpected (not unlike the yellow vests in France when that first started).

Basically it will be a big physical impact event that shakes everyone out of their staunch positions, and not an economic impact (even though this is due to happen, because of the debt bubble bursting). The debt bubble burst could instigate the physical event, because the funding will dry up for many of the nonsensical Utopian technologies being promulgated, but it won't be the defining factor.

The event itself will likely see sense prevail as to economic competence (which will end the Utopian vision), a greater sense of law (whether related to immigration, and stopping the turning of blind eyes to many of the lunatic agendas), and a rejection of the ideologies driving these agendas. The reason why is that the voice of reason will make itself known and heard.

It's not going to be pleasant, but its going to be better than any all out civil 'war'.

Either that or there will be a natural event, such as geomagnetic reversal that brings most of the BS to a sudden halt.

The key problem is that it is not a matter of entrenchment anymore, as things have developed into fanaticism, where the problem there is the fanatics do not understand who it is they are actually supporting (they are far left, thinking they have a socialist and moral aim, without knowing those pulling their strings are anything but socialists). And there is the truth of it.

4

I don't think it can be stopped. Western Society seems hell bent on sacrificing itself upon the altar of phony virtue and guilt

iThink Level 8 July 1, 2019

There are signs that Generation Z is more centrist/conservative than previous generations.

@Admin
I don't see that happening.

@FaithJones Gen Z in the US at least seems more conservative.

@uiqhsd
a reasonable thought - no hyperbole about how Z will be the salvation of American Culture - just a simple plausible observation

@iThink A few sources:
[forbes.com]
[cmr.berkeley.edu]
[pewsocialtrends.org]

It's kind of mixed but seems to lean conservative, at least in the US.

@uiqhsd
My worry is that the rate at which our culture is spiraling down the proverbial drain Z will never get an opportunity to shift the culture back to a conservative / centrist paradigm.

1

well covered... very insightful.

Wolak Level 4 July 1, 2019
3

Looking at the democratic debate I was shocked to see how far left the party has gone. It was like a contest to see who could shit on the constitution the most. I don’t see any coming together. These people are fundamentally opposed to my existence as a free individual. All we are is an affront to them and physical force is all that remains to stop their fanaticism.

Hard to pick the more scary quotes:

De Blasio: 'There's Plenty of Money in This Country, It's Just in the Wrong Hands'
Bennet: "When I see these kids at the border, I see my mom, because I know she sees herself because she was separated from her parents for years during the Holocaust in Poland.”
Host: "raise your hand if you think it should be a civil offense rather than a crime to cross the border without documentation?"
Host: RaiseRaise your hand if–if your government plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants

@Admin
Thats creepy, how shamelesly they state these things. This is exactly why we need to fight for freedom of speech. So these freaks can be seen for what they really are. Wolves in sheep clothing.

2

This is excellent. It seems that we have heard ad nauseum that an all out civil war is coming. The scenario outlined in the video seems far more likely.

ronhark Level 6 July 1, 2019

Yes, the video is very informative and gave me a better understanding of trends. The phrase "political street gangs" came to mind.

Exactly. The information seemed particularly insightful given Antifa's antics over the weekend.

2

[humanprogress.com]

"In short, people are living longer, healthier, more fulfilling lives." The current power system is trying to hold on by spreading lies that serve to destabilize anyone that will listen (was that taxcut really a taxcut? - said the serpent). In order for serious people to move in to a war footing, there will need to be massive economic failures. For the US, if we do choose leadership that has no consideration for economic ramifications on policies (free candy for all!) then perhaps a quick failure of our freedom structure will follow. More likely, people will not vote to "feed the whales," and will continue on a course of eliminating the current embedded power system.
I'd love to see a time where lying is rewarded appropriately.

While the average quality of life is indeed far better than ever, classical and social media success is in its ability foster jealousy, resentment and fear.

"massive economic failures" => bubbles do pop and pop harder when have massive widespread asset price inflation (e.g., stock and bond markets) and debt tied to those assets. With central bank rates low, the next downturn will be especially brutal. Example charts: [realinvestmentadvice.com]

@FaithJones @Admin Look at Venezuela. Those people are close to a civil war. They are starving, their economy is garbage and their leadership is unaccountable. The UK, as an example, is well fed, most people have jobs and Tommy Robinson was allowed to run for office and lost because people prefer comfort over freedom. Here in the States the only difference is that we still have guns and freedom of speech.

@FaithJones We are winning. That's my point. Take a step back and look. That insufferable rock of corruption will continue to be worn away with persistent dedication to truth.

A common tactic being employed to move people to change is to exaggerate the failures that currently exist. The other way to look at the failure of the UK to cut ties with the EU is that every time the current power structure fails to deliver what the people want, the closer Nigel Farage gets to the seat of power.

1

Given that politicians are liars. The promises for a socialist free for all....medical, educational, on and on is unlikely and doomed to failure. The Democrats are currently involved in low intensity warfare and their frustrated sheep will be more and more frustrated. Let us encourage the states to fill to their brims with illegals and social giveaways but only at the state level not federal mandates.

As for stopping the conflict that is impossible. Let the leftists states go bankrupt with their idiocy and stock up for your future which may require defending yourself, community, state.

I'm thinking about a topic around why people are afraid to ask "Are you confident that migrant immigrants will pay for your social security when you get older?"

@Admin that would be a loaded question if the respondent is at least half lucid. Ask if they would be willing to assume the healthcare and other social programs inside your home state with no federal support since these are those that will take your economy to the next level and cover your future social security? If not...WHY?

@Admin They already do pay payroll taxes even though they can't get any benefits from it.

2

A decent first step would be for the two major political parties to get past their differences and work together for the good of the people and the country as a whole. I suspect that would be asking for too much though...

How?

@chuckpo The real question isn't how, but why? As in, why haven't the Democrats and Republicans done more to actually improve our country? They already know how (learn to admit they both make mistakes and at times come up with some bad ideas, so the key there is to work together to solve problems like their parties used to once upon a time), they mostly have chosen not to act on that though.

@SpikeTalon so who makes that first step. Which party's going to say, 'well, we were wrong about THIS?' I'm trying to remember back through history to a similar admission. For God's sake, Bill Clinton couldn't even admit what was already painfully obvious to everyone and didn't make any difference to governance.

I think wishing our ruling class is going to suddenly become full of good people with high integrity--well, I just don't know where that's going to come from. Sticking with the Clinton example, he couldn't even admit to inhaling his weed. And, that one's on the puritanical naivete of the American people. We can't admit to ourselves that people smoke pot, they park illegally and brake test other drivers, they seek sex outside of their marriages, even have sham marriages, they hide that they're gay, they lie and sometimes lie often, they profit dramatically from selling favors in their public service positions. I've seen no convention in the public sphere to suggest integrity will ever be part of the political or bureaucratic class. All I've seen is further decline--the decline of our institutions.

I'm asserting if the people don't force this thing, it AIN'T EVER happening.

This may have been our shot, where half the country voted to take back control of our government, and half the country moved to block it. I'll admit I didn't think Trump could happen. I've never seen a President make a difference in my adult lifetime. But, the Democrat propaganda machines have been so successful fooling their own voters, the voters still can't see the possibility in what we're watching. They'd ALL vote for Hillary if we reran the election tomorrow. You have to do more than convince the ruling class to do something it may not have ever done. You have to convince half of the country that it's better for all of us. How's that been working for ya?

@chuckpo Exactly, and as I said in my original comment above I suspect asking for each side to realize their own faults would be asking for too much, not going to happen anytime soon. Perhaps another civil war could indeed change that, only time will tell for sure on that much.

All in all when you take into consideration the amount of negativity he has faced so far, I think Trump has been doing a fine job and certainly by far the best President I've ever witnessed.

@SpikeTalon, you know something we haven't talked about is some type of event happening that finally did what we thought might happen with Trump--unite us all. If something happened that united both sides of voters against the ruling class/bureaucracy. I thought Bernie represented the discontentment on the left with the establishment. Then I thought since Hillary clearly cheated to beat Bernie, even her supporters might abandon the whole system and join the anti-establishment movement--certainly Bernie's supporters. But, the Democrat machine had too good a grip on their sheep, and that whole two-party-rivalry charade was embedded too deeply. They went the other way, voted FOR the establishment, and doubled down on their hatred for the non-left--even upping the weaponization of pc/identity politics/intersectionality worldview. I don't think very many realize how close we were to something really good happening. Instead...

@chuckpo Indeed. There's still time yet though...

@chuckpo If you're looking for anti-establishment solidarity, the conservative culture war isn't going to cut it.

In the absence of multicultural working class solidarity, the left will always choose the lesser evil of the Democratic establishment's professional class politics over the reactionary politics of the oligarchs.

@WilyRickWiles, you chose not only the establishment, but the establishment of the establishment. You may as well have voted for GW Bush. In fact, you did if you voted for Hillary.

We don't need the solidarity of a multicultural working class. We already have it. AND, if anything has looked more like an oligarchy than the Democrat party (ask Bernie) in the last number of years, I'm not sure what it is.

@chuckpo "I'm not sure what it is."

It's the GOP and conservative movement.

@WilyRickWiles, we already have a multicultural working class. That's not debatable. In fact, a wildly successful one under Trump--less so under Obama, admittedly. As in everything, we'll always work to push for more equal opportunity where it's missing--even if that means white people getting bumped for some kind of affirmative action quota system.

I stand outside the GOP. I'm not GOP. What I am is strongly anti-left. But, that's the culture war. Policy--well, we rarely talk about policy because we can't get past the culture war.

Trump's the wildcard. I know you'll want to brand him because of his money, but I'd argue he's more outside the system than anyone we've had in a long-ass time. In fact, I'm always making the argument to Republicans to stop judging Trump a bad Republican. He's not a Republican. GW's a Republican, Ben Shapiro is an establishment Republican analyst. Most of the Republicans are establishment Republicans. That's NOT what I'm supporting at all.

then we would effectively have a monolithic government - one basic "party" running everything with little or meaningful opposition. believe me - we don't want that.

@chuckpo We may have a multicultural working class, but we don't have solidarity across the multicultural working class. That was the distinction I was making. To reiterate, in the absence of an electoral option that seeks such solidarity, the left will go with the lesser evil of the Dem establishment. The culture war only divides the working class.

And Trump is giving the Republicans everything they've ever dreamed of: tax cuts for the wealthy, dismantling regulations, taking the ACA to court, conservative judges, huge increases in defense spending, a blank check for Israel, Saudi Arabia, and UAE, reinvigorating the culture war, pulling out of the Paris agreement, and severe immigration enforcement.

Establishment Republicans probably don't like his tariffs, but those are more show than substance. Likewise his NATO bashing. And they only care about deficits when the Democrats are in power. Aside from that, there's not much for Republicans to dislike other than his bad manners. The only real difference between an establishment Republican and Trump is that the culture war is mostly pandering when the establishment does it and policy when Trump does it.

@chuckpo Rule of thumb: the party in the pocket of the energy industry is the party of the oligarchs.

In order to find common ground you need to have something in common: e.g. social libertarianism, social conservatism, economic populism, economic liberalism, or institutional reform (assuming you can agree on the reforms). The problem is you can usually only choose one and it may upset real entrenched political interests.

The fact that people were upset with the neoliberal consensus (the establishment @chuckpo speaks of) between the center left and center right in the US and the social democrats and center right in Europe is why our politics have radicalized (billionaire electioneering aside). That radicalization can take the form of nativism, socialism, green politics, or centrist parties like the UK's Liberal Democrats and that of France's Macron who seem to embody compromise.

At the end of the day, many of us disagree on "the good of the country." That's politics.

@FaithJones Are you referring to their stance on the status quo of the EU? Sorry, I'm a little unfamiliar about the Lib Dems.

@FaithJones Got it. As an outsider, Varoufakis's campaign seemed to be the best way forward for Europe, but it seems to be a pipe dream at the moment.

@FaithJones I don't quite understand why so many people voted for radically centrist parties in the EU parliamentary elections if they were sick of consensus politics but I guess it's complicated by the leave/remain politics in the UK and other regional dynamics elsewhere.

@WilyRickWiles

We may have a multicultural working class, but we don't have solidarity across the multicultural working class. That was the distinction I was making. To reiterate, in the absence of an electoral option that seeks such solidarity, the left will go with the lesser evil of the Dem establishment. The culture war only divides the working class.

I just don't understand why you can't break out of your class perspective long enough to see things from different angles.

And Trump is giving the Republicans everything they've ever dreamed of: tax cuts for the wealthy, dismantling regulations, taking the ACA to court, conservative judges, huge increases in defense spending, a blank check for Israel, Saudi Arabia, and UAE, reinvigorating the culture war, pulling out of the Paris agreement, and severe immigration enforcement.

Trump's been a pleasant surprise to the Republicans, but continues to confound them because they don't like the packaging anymore than the Dems do. He's not a fake, and none of the establishment (and half the country) knows what to do with that. The masses are so used to the theater, they only see the theater. Trump is literally a reflection of the left. As heinous as they think Trump is, Trump is their reflection in the mirror. They've just gotten away with it because they didn't have anyone to call them out before. Well, Trump calls it all out--in fact, he reflects back, and that HATE it!

Establishment Republicans probably don't like his tariffs, but those are more show than substance. Likewise his NATO bashing. And they only care about deficits when the Democrats are in power. Aside from that, there's not much for Republicans to dislike other than his bad manners. The only real difference between an establishment Republican and Trump is that the culture war is mostly pandering when the establishment does it and policy when Trump does it.

If you think anything Trump does is JUST show, you don't understand. I don't know what you know of psychology, but try to view it all through a psychological lens, if you actually want to understand what's going on. You guys just don't get it. You can't see through the rage. What Trump's done with NK is historic. And for all of the left's blustering, they HATE Trump's diplomacy. If you're not going to start war and kill people until the other side sees it your way, then you TALK to them. What does isolating them do? The only reason the left is up in arms over it is because they can't stand Trump's success. Well, look deeper. Trump's success is OUR success--the world's success. You're so busy discounting EVERYTHING he does because your guy was an ineffective idiot--the outrage that this white guy actually is a better President than that black guy is so appalling, you have to disparage everything Trump does. Well, that's your pathology--literally personal issues. The world didn't go the way your wishes for the world set up, and you hate it that it's better. I know it sounds cliche, but the emotions currently on the left won't allow the left to see what's in front of them.

@chuckpo Rule of thumb: the party in the pocket of the energy industry is the party of the oligarchs.

A bumper sticker. Just way too simple to even really warrant response. I guess it's what you want to define it as, and if not the energy sector, it'd be something else you can plug in that makes no real sense, but gets you out of an uncomfortable situation. Heck, you could say the same about the media complex. Words don't belong to poly sci textbooks.

In order to find common ground you need to have something in common: e.g. social libertarianism, social conservatism, economic populism, economic liberalism, or institutional reform (assuming you can agree on the reforms). The problem is you can usually only choose one and it may upset real entrenched political interests.

ONLY looking through a political prism. But, it's not true. There is plenty out there to have in common. We used to have shared community values, and that was the glue that bound us to each other through political difference. The world isn't bound or reduced to politics. Damn dude, go out and smell a flower, tough a tree, meet someone new. You're really stuck in this political-economic lens. It occurs to me I've never seen you step outside of it. It's just ONE lens. It's is not what being human is.

The fact that people were upset with the neoliberal consensus (the establishment @chuckpo speaks of) between the center left and center right in the US and the social democrats and center right in Europe is why our politics have radicalized (billionaire electioneering aside). That radicalization can take the form of nativism, socialism, green politics, or centrist parties like the UK's Liberal Democrats and that of France's Macron who seem to embody compromise.

Politics (policy) is not why this culture war exists. The culture war goes WAY beyond politics. It's not just economics either. You embracing emotionalism underlies your opinions on politics and economics. The assault on the church, the abandonment of our values, the bigotry, and your blindness to it--those things are underneath politics and economy. Those things are relational.

At the end of the day, many of us disagree on "the good of the country." That's politics.

There's something I can agree with. But, that's politics--not the culture war. In some psychological theory, content isn't how you repair relationships. It's not about solving disagreements about how each partner spends money or raises children. It's the cycle of behavior, the assigning of meaning, moving from secondary emotion to underlying primary emotions, understanding, accepting, respecting, caring, being intentional about the relationship, and maybe even some gratitude. All of the noise in the public space has zero chance of reconnecting us--unless we blow up into civil unrest, and through that or after the consequences we start connecting relationally again and settle some stuff.

@chuckpo Your focus on cultural issues rather than political issues strikes me as similar to my liberal friend who insists that the cultural impact of a gay person or a person of color being President would do more good than someone like Bernie who would put economic freedom on the agenda. He clings to this despite acknowledging that it didn't work out under Obama (except probably in the workplace).

@chuckpo It's odd that you're accusing me of being emotional when I'm focusing on politics and you're focusing on relationships.

@WilyRickWiles, you didn't understand a single thing I wrote. And, when I speak of culture, I'm talking about psychology of the individual as demonstrated through culture. I'm talking about human nature--the organic human condition.

Personally, I couldn't care any less than I do what color the President's skin is or who he has sex with. That's your thing. I care about a system where those sorts of things aren't relevant. And, we're moving toward that more and more all the time. We just had a black president of the United States for 8 years--AND he was horrid in everything he ever touched, and he still finished his term--just like most of the terrible white Presidents and the few good white Presidents. Nobody tried to kill him, and nobody was harder on him than people have been on GW (in fact Obama was gross himself to GW), and Obama was treated like a princess compared to Trump. You guys pound a drum like birtherism just to keep the racial flame lit to justify your bigotry, but Trump has faced FAR worse from Democrats than Obama faced from Republicans--despite Trump being an infinitely better president than Obama. No racism. Gay people aren't being held out of jobs either, though I loathe that people stand on such a thing as a platform. You don't deserve ANYTHING for your sexual preference. You're not fucking enlightened. You just fuck men. Go to town. Have a party. Get you some of that. Who freaking cares anymore? Goes for the rest of lbtq too. Even the Christians aren't advocating blocking gays from office. The only thing holding up this whole cancer is rich white elite leftist bigots who become irrelevant the second they let go of their false narrative, and you guys would rather be choads than be irrelevant.

Nothing seems to get the idea across and therefore it becomes futile. You're far too invested in your defiance to let it go--even for peace or Utopia. You all are driving this shitstorm. You're blocking progress and even trying to dial back the clock to regain some grievance from the past just so you have enough to distract you from the possibility your fight's over. because who the fuck are you then? THIS is why I'm anti-left now instead of comfortably seated between the two parties.

@WilyRickWiles

It's odd that you're accusing me of being emotional when I'm focusing on politics and you're focusing on relationships.

You don't get any of it, do you? I'm not condemning emotion. But, I do discourage unchecked emotion. Emotion is the driving force behind humanity, but what made it powerful was learning to test our emotions with reason. You can be emotional having a conversation about anything. You can 'intellectualize' any conversation. The topic has no bearing. The key is emotion + some evaluation of the emotion. A command of both is next level. If you're stuck in either, you're not next level.

@chuckpo Good lord. I brought up an identity issue to make a contrast with my own position (and reveal something about yours) and it really set you off. Do you remember how recent gay civil rights gains were made? Less than a decade ago gays often couldn't visit their partners in the hospital.

What the hell does that have to do with anything if they're not being blocked from anything now? We can't fix their experience. We can fix the system, though, that led to some of those behaviors. We've done that. Things are a lot better for gays. We should continue to make sure people have equal opportunity, but let's face it. We're in mop up. The hard work's already been done. Stop fucking with it. Let us heal. I think you can't let any of it heal. Healing isn't in your worldview. Given that, what is your goal?

@chuckpo Have you looked into Marianne Williamson? Seems like your kind of candidate.

@WilyRickWiles, the idiot? I can see why you'd think that. I guess you're a good establishment bloke and Hillary's your dream candidate.

Oh wait, did this have a purpose? Not really, huh?

@chuckpo Just seems like a candidate with a message about healing would be up your alley, unless that's just a creative smokescreen for your culture war.

@chuckpo What would your kind of "healing" candidate look like (please don't say Trump)?

@WilyRickWiles, we need Trump to be Trump right now. You don't hire doctors to wage war. I support Trump without question. He's the right person for THIS job. He's not a rainbows and lollipops guy you'd ever be comfortable with. I'd like to think that there would be a post-culture war, but I'm not sure there will. Idiots will vote in some idiot globalist to undo everything good and make it shit again. And, then you can most likely have the breakdown of society you want and fail bigly at remaking the world. It's going to be epic--most likely really, really bad. It's based on a lot of really bad ideas that simply aren't grounded in who people are in this time. That's the pragmatic view--not what I hope for. But, it's hard to see an alternative path.

Per the other stuff, Obama could have done something to heal, but he isn't smart enough--too arrogant, thought he was going to usher in your fantastical ideals, and we were stuck with god-awful results domestically, economically, foreign policy. He just wasn't smart enough for the job. Obama should love Trump, because Trump's made almost all of the modern presidents look ineffective. Obama should just be hiding behind that. But, again--not smart. He has to open his mouth because he's never considered the alternative. He's got to double down, defend what's indefensible, and look the bigger fool. Ironic.

I wouldn't look for 'healing' in a president. He or she doesn't have the power. We're going to have to put our big kid pants on and grapple with that one ourselves without a nanny. Will we even survive 'enlightenment'? Haha, yeesh.

Write Comment