Jump to content

An American Civil War part 2


Odine
 Share

Recommended Posts

For example, off the top of my head, I can think of somebody who calls herself a "fiscal conservative" who would be perfectly fine with single-payer healthcare if Ted Cruz announced tomorrow morning that he'd had an epiphany and decided single-payer is greeeeeaaat... so long as it is controlled by Republicans. I don't even want to think of the rationalization and mental gymnastics she'd go through for this, but I guarantee she would, and I know there are others out there like her. This is purely a cultural contest -- Obama does it, it's bad, because he represents the "other" (I don't mean "other" in a racial sense so much as cultural, though obviously race plays into it for some people), Cruz does it, it's good, because he's "one of us."

I see this sort of thing all the time. It is yet another Orwellian feature of the whole thing (hint: 1984 is less about rule through totalitarian force than it is about rule through manipulation of perception and framing of reality). The partisans I know, ALL of whom are leftist, are terrible for it. One guy I know rants and raves against racism, but then peppers his comments with such vulgar racial epithets that would make a klansman blush when denouncing a black religious leader who's attacked gays. The most crass misogyny and lurid depictions of violent sexual assault wished upon women I've ever been exposed to have NOT been on MRA sites nor in the most macho locker rooms of my younger days in school, but in liberal and proudly feminist sites attacking conservative women: Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman, etc. It's all empty bluster of course, but it's also very revealing. I highly doubt conservatives are innocent of their own variations on the same themes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Accordingly, extremists may become emotionally bound to their opponents, who are often competing extremists themselves. Because they tend to view their enemies as evil and powerful, they tend, perhaps subconsciously, to emulate them, adopting the same tactics to a certain degree. For example, anti-Communist and anti-Nazi groups often behave surprisingly like their opponents. Anti-Klan rallies often take on much of the character of the stereotype of Klan rallies themselves, including the orgy of emotion, bullying, screaming epithets, and even acts of violence. To behave the opposite of someone is to actually surrender your will to them, and "opposites" are often more like mirror images that, although they have "left" and "right" reversed, look and behave amazingly alike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

All empires fall. The US is not an exception. At some point, the US will no longer be the world's leading power. Whether it happens in 20, 50, 100, 200 years (or longer), I don't know. But it will almost certainly happen at some point. That being said, I think the US will still always be a world power (at least for the next few centuries to come), if nothing else because of a large population, abundant natural resources and geographical isolation (thus protecting the country from military attack). But it will, at some point, no longer be the world's #1 power.

 

 

 

Depends on what your measuring stick is, no? By some standards, China has already surpassed the US, economically.

 

But I agree the US will still be a world power, even if it is no longer number 1. Even after the collapse of the USSR, Russia has remained a world power. The only thing I disagree with there is geographic isolation: 9/11 proved that we are vulnerable to that, and if you are going to look at 50+ years into the future, who knows what technology or space travel will come along to make hemispheres irrelevant.

 

 

I don't think it will be because of a civil war, however. Rather, the more likely outcome is a gradual decline, such as the British Empire.

Agreed, and the decline of the US will likely be a gradual one. Or at least I hope so, while I'm alive. But countries can fall literally over night, too. While still a military world power, the USSR collapse was a pretty quick one. Once the US dollar is no longer the reserve currency, and if the national debt gets to the point where it crushes the economy of the US, I think an economic collapse could cause a quick decline of the US, like the USSR. But I doubt civil war, in the classical sense (IE region VS region, states VS states) would happen.

 

And while I agree the ethnic divide in the US isn't as pronounced as other parts of the world, largely because there is a homogenized culture, and English is the language that is spoken by far across the country, I take two minor issues with you.

 

First, the urban VS rural divide should not be underestimated. There are some parts of the country where there is real and mutual disdain for one another. I'd go as far as to say out and out enmity. Is it enough to spark a civil war? No. But it is wide enough to cause perpetual voting blocks who will always oppose each other politically, which is causing much of the gridlock you see, as well as the executive branch attempting power grabs (both Bush and Obama) as a result.

 

Second, there is such a thing as a socioeconomic and a cultural civil war. These take the forms of not just social class, but also ethnic and racial lines. With a shrinking middle class and growing racial tensions, we may see more riots in the not so far off future, especially if the US economy goes through another recession. How many recessions can the US take, before its economy will be permanently damaged? I mean since 2009, people have talked about the "new normal," as if this is as much of a bounce back as we are going to get. There seems to be a shrinking middle class, growing poor class, and yet money is still being generated. Things like this cause people to protest and riot. Another thing is when demographics change, and a majority population becomes a minority and no longer has majority rule, this can cause political, and even armed riots, too. I think that with social media, it is far easier to organize protests. In fact in the last 10 years, there really has been nonstop protests and even riots: against the wars, against wall street, the tea party, recent protests against police. I think the Tea Party is an early reaction of white rural America fearing they are losing their political power. The protests in Ferguson and Baltimore, among others, are minority frustrations feeling they are treated as an occupied zone, which then draws a criminal element out for looting, and is also an early sign of things that could come. While I don't think such a "civil war" will literally break the US apart as a nation (federal government is too strong for that), if the economy takes another hit, I can see the US going through a series of riots due to frustration people have with their economic or social status (or loss of status).

 

Take, for example, Rome- which is popularly described as having "fallen" in 476, although a more careful reading of history reveals that the process actually gradually developed over 100 years, and even then- only describes the West. The Eastern Empire largely continued the cultural heritage of Rome and existed for another 1000 years as the Byzantine Empire- as early as the 500s, Constantinople had already eclipsed Rome as the most important and wealthiest city in the world.

I'm going off topic here, but good point. People often forget that the Byzantine Empire really was the Eastern half of the Roman Empire. Historians just have traditionally made the distinction that Byzantine Empire and Eastern Roman Empire because it was ethnically Greek rather than Latin after the Western half fell, which is misleading because the majority of Romans weren't Latin by 476, anyway. Plus, it can be argued the Western Empire's "fall" was more of an administrative one, and Christendom was what replaced the Roman government in the West. Even then, from the ashes of the former Western Roman Empire, rose some of the most powerful Empires to ever be: British, French, Austria-Hungarian, and Spanish Empires, all who can legitimately claim to be successors of the Roman Empire, as they're populations were descended from "Romans," Italian or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most crass misogyny and lurid depictions of violent sexual assault wished upon women I've ever been exposed to have NOT been on MRA sites nor in the most macho locker rooms of my younger days in school, but in liberal and proudly feminist sites attacking conservative women

Oh man, your timing could not have been better. The first thread I read on FB today consisted of a couple of progressives calling Sara Palin a "****" and speculating about all the blowjobs she gives to her higher ups. Can you imagine the outrage they'd be expressing if the same kind of talk were applied to pwecious Sheriff Warren?

 

:eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh man, your timing could not have been better. The first thread I read on FB today consisted of a couple of progressives calling Sara Palin a "****" and speculating about all the blowjobs she gives to her higher ups. Can you imagine the outrage they'd be expressing if the same kind of talk were applied to pwecious Sheriff Warren?

Yup. Don't surprise me at all.

 

In my experience, progressives are worse misogynists than most conservatives I've known. This is due largely to their philosophy not allowing them to feel or express hate or sexual desire, so it comes out either in subconscious ways or is permitted against a narrow category of acceptable targets. "Sluts", as it were, quite ironically. Their very same criticisms of Christianity for being this way (not that the bible thumpers are not guilty of it, mind you) are typical projection. Not that conservatives are model citizens, mind you. Their relationships are riddled with rigid, stereotypical thinking and role playing, but there's at least SOME human warmth and love there. Some of the time. And a few liberal sorts do seem to get this. But ...

 

Of the ten or so die-hard progressives I know and hear from constantly about the evils of misogyny, NONE of them, NOT ONE is actually in a half way successful relationship. My brother is the only one I know who's married, and his wife will complain to anyone who will listen about the relationship, or rather lack thereof, between them. Another one (the same guy who tosses the n-word about at politically incorrect blacks) spams his feed with soft core porn. The rest are your typical "white knight" sorts - praying at the altar of some kind of idealized femininity, which they now project into public life instead of confining to the private sphere, as previous versions of this mentality have done. They are extremely paternalistic, strident in their efforts to protect their fair maidens, who they now idealize as your Elizabeth Warren and Sandra Fluke sorts, from dirty words and pictures, offensive speech, feelings of inadequacy, degrading bodily functions and above all, the bestial male. And woe betide any woman who does not fulfill these ideals.

 

Where have we seen all this before?

 

Yeah. Feminist criticisms of Christianity, of chivalry, of Victorian morality. Out with the virgin/whore complex, in with the Warren/Palin complex, I guess.

 

Meet the new boss ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.