2nd american civil war

[frmthegrav]

The Simple Reason Why A Second American Civil War May Be Inevitable

Authored by Daniel Lang via SHTFplan.com,

America has always had its divisions, and Americans have never really been a monolith. We’ve always been a nation of many nations. The culture of New England is different from the culture of the Deep South, which is different from the cultures in the West Coast or the Midwest. People living in the cities have different beliefs than people who live in the countryside. Within those areas, there are ethnic, linguistic, and religious enclaves. It’s always kind of been like that (probably to a lesser degree in the past), and somehow we’ve been able to find enough common ground to keep this country together for more than a century.

However, something has changed. You can feel it in the air. Our nation has clearly never been this divided since the Civil War. A lot of people noticed it after the last election, but the truth is that these divisions have been deepening for decades, and they’re just now reaching a very noticeable breaking point. That’s obvious enough when you look at how the left and the right have been going at each other. It used to be a war of words, but it’s turning into something very dark.

Consider what happened last week in Berkeley after Trump supporters and counter protesters clashed for the third time. 21 people were arrested and 11 were injured (that we know of), six of who had to be taken to the hospital. At least one person was stabbed. The police confiscated confiscated knives, stun guns, and poles. One Trump supporter admitted to being surrounded, pepper sprayed, and beaten with sticks by a mob of “protesters.”

But wait, that’s not the dark part. After these groups clashed, the leftist protesters took to Reddit and admitted that they lost this particular battle (I can’t believe I’m using the word “battle” to describe it), and that it was time for them to attain more combat training and better weapons, including firearms.

Do you see what’s going on here? Conservative demonstrations, which used to be placid affairs (remember the Tea Party protests?) are now turning violent as conservatives grow tired of restraining themselves, and are no longer afraid to hit back. Liberal demonstrators are responding by ratcheting up the level of force that they’re going to bring to the next street battle. It’s a tit for tat that keeps escalating, and I shudder to think of where it’s going to end up.

Honestly, I think we’re in the early stages of a second civil war. I can’t say what it’ll look like precisely, but I can tell you that our nation is on this path, and it’s not clear how we can get off of it. In fact, I fear that it may be inevitable, and there’s a very simple reason why.

It’s because Americans have been self-sorting themselves along geographic and political lines for a long time. A book titled “The Big Sort” made light of this trend back in 2008.

Basically what’s going on, is that Americans are moving to communities that align more with their politics. Liberals are moving to liberal areas, and conservatives are moving to conservative communities. It’s been going on for decades. When Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976, 26.8% of Americans lived in landslide counties; that is counties where the president won or lost by 20% of the vote.

By 2004, 48.3% of the population lived in these counties. This trend continues to worsen. As Americans move to their preferred geographic bubbles, they face less exposure to opposing viewpoints, and their own opinions become more extreme. This trend is at the heart of why politics have become so polarizing in America.

We’re also seeing the same trend emerge online with social media. Despite the fact that the internet allows us to be exposed to more opinions that ever before, people choose to follow online voices that they already agree with. They’re slipping into digital bubbles that are comparable to their geographic bubbles.

This trend is irreversible as far as I can tell. That’s because it’s tied to innovation. As our country became more interconnected with roads and Americans gained more mobility, we chose to move to like-minded places. We’re given the internet, the greatest source of information in human history, and we use it to seek out only the information that reinforces our current beliefs.

We’re self-sorting at every level. Because of this, Americans are only going to grow more extreme in their beliefs, and see people on the other side of the political spectrum as more alien.

You can see how this is creating the perfect breeding ground for a real, physical war. The polarization makes it easier to dehumanize the other side. The self-sorting creates definable geographic boundaries that are necessary for a war. It spawns two sides with beliefs that are so divergent, that they cannot coexist.

We’re becoming two distinct nations with two competing visions for what the country should be. Two visions that are diametrically opposed. We used to be a nation of many nations that was held together, because there was still some common ground on what it means to be an American above all else. Now we can’t even agree on that.

Once the last shreds of common ground and understanding dissipate, a moment that is rapidly approaching, another civil war will be impossible to avoid. I wish I knew what the solution is, but I don’t. All I can say is, unless Americans go out of their way to listen to people on other side, whatever that side may be, there’s going to be a lot of blood in the streets.

[frmthegrav]

ive been thinking about this article and i think it has a lot of weight. i think protests between groups are escalating in intensity and people are becoming far more polarized than ive ever seen.

*          *

     on the woo-woo side of this, i heard a podcast awhile back, detailing a guy who claimed to be time traveler. i thought it was ridiculous, but i listened anyway. this person said he was traveling back in time from 2025 or 2030 while visiting the year 2000, i believe. people asked him several questions but he would only answer ones that wouldnt have an impact on the future (another thing i thought was ridiculous, as any answer would have an impact).

     anyway, he said that in 2008 (or so), there would be a movement against the government due to our losses of civil liberties and that there would be a revolution in the US. seeing the revolution, russia fired missiles-- tactical nukes-- at US military installations to assist in the revolution as the military would have easily stamped out any revolt.
     the traveler said that in the year which he left, things were much better and although there were some places in the states where the radiation forbade people from entering, the radiation was being cleaned up. people were growing most of their own food, and the government was far more localized. someone asked him about entertainment, and he said that people dont watch tv much anymore-- they make their own shows and have their own entertainment for everyone to share (sounds like how i would describe youtube to someone who doesnt know about it).
      although i wasnt convinced, it certainly was a possible timeline that made sense.

[Deleted]

We've had a lot of "culture wars" in our nation's history.

Our society was polarized over the Vietnam War in the Nixon era.

I don't see "liberals" engaging in civil war any time soon, but the fighting at Berkeley was troubling.

Where's MLK's non-violent approach to civil disobedience when we really need it?

During the Ferguson riots, I heard an elderly black minister from the Civil Rights era on NPR.  He was lamenting the fact that young protesters in Ferguson were not schooled in MLK's methodology.

[frmthegrav]

the most troubling thing about berkeley was howard deans response, saying that hate speech is not covered by the first amendment.

i see where this is heading: pound that line 1000 times on television and in print, and people will start believing it.

[Deleted]

Apr 23, 2017 10:48:41 GMT -5 frmthegrav said:

the most troubling thing about berkeley was howard deans response, saying that hate speech is not covered by the first amendment.

i see where this is heading: pound that line 1000 times on television and in print, and people will start believing it.

It's a fine line.  For example, would government intervention against "hate speech" and violence in Germany have prevented the rise of the Nazi Party in the early 1930s?

Fascists, historically, acquire political power by attacking the free press, and scapegoating minority groups.

How are democracies supposed to protect themselves from fascism?

[oujour76]

Apr 23, 2017 11:40:03 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Apr 23, 2017 10:48:41 GMT -5 frmthegrav said:

the most troubling thing about berkeley was howard deans response, saying that hate speech is not covered by the first amendment.

i see where this is heading: pound that line 1000 times on television and in print, and people will start believing it.

It's a fine line.  For example, would government intervention against "hate speech" and violence in Germany have prevented the rise of the Nazi Party in the early 1930s?

Fascists, historically, acquire political power by attacking the free press, and scapegoating minority groups.

How are democracies supposed to protect themselves from fascism?

Rioting in the streets over speakers on a college campus? Maybe that will do the trick?

[frmthegrav]

Apr 23, 2017 11:40:03 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Apr 23, 2017 10:48:41 GMT -5 frmthegrav said:

the most troubling thing about berkeley was howard deans response, saying that hate speech is not covered by the first amendment.

i see where this is heading: pound that line 1000 times on television and in print, and people will start believing it.

It's a fine line.  For example, would government intervention against "hate speech" and violence in Germany have prevented the rise of the Nazi Party in the early 1930s?

Fascists, historically, acquire political power by attacking the free press, and scapegoating minority groups.

How are democracies supposed to protect themselves from fascism?

      there is absolutely no fine line.    like ive stated, truth always rises.  lies simply cannot stand up forever.  this is why "conspiracy theories" wont die-- theyre true and that flame of truth cannot be extinguished.  hate speech is a way to keep that flame dim. 

      hate speech in germany had nothing to do with their rise to power.   violence is a separate matter unrelated to this topic.

     if you say fascists acquire power by attacking the free press, then you should be willing to acknowledge that the far left is fascist in that they are trying to stifle and snuff out the free press/speech of alternative media and alt news on the internet. 

     by the way, we dont have a fascist problem. weve got a corporatist problem.

[Deleted]

Apr 23, 2017 11:57:25 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Apr 23, 2017 11:40:03 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

It's a fine line.  For example, would government intervention against "hate speech" and violence in Germany have prevented the rise of the Nazi Party in the early 1930s?

Fascists, historically, acquire political power by attacking the free press, and scapegoating minority groups.

How are democracies supposed to protect themselves from fascism?

Rioting in the streets over speakers on a college campus? Maybe that will do the trick?

Well, I'm open to suggestions.

I'd rather see free people protest in the streets than see fascists seize control of the police, army, and the press.

We all know what happens from there.

[Deleted]

Apr 23, 2017 11:59:42 GMT -5 frmthegrav said:

Apr 23, 2017 11:40:03 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

It's a fine line.  For example, would government intervention against "hate speech" and violence in Germany have prevented the rise of the Nazi Party in the early 1930s?

Fascists, historically, acquire political power by attacking the free press, and scapegoating minority groups.

How are democracies supposed to protect themselves from fascism?

      there is absolutely no fine line.    like ive stated, truth always rises.  lies simply cannot stand up forever.  this is why "conspiracy theories" wont die-- theyre true and that flame of truth cannot be extinguished.  hate speech is a way to keep that flame dim. 

      hate speech in germany had nothing to do with their rise to power.   violence is a separate matter unrelated to this topic.

     if you say fascists acquire power by attacking the free press, then you should be willing to acknowledge that the far left is fascist in that they are trying to stifle and snuff out the free press/speech of alternative media and alt news on the internet. 

     by the way, we dont have a fascist problem. weve got a corporatist problem.

Corporate and fascist are not mutually exclusive, by any means.

IG Farben and western financiers (including Prescott Bush's Union Bank) were happy to support Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich-- as a bulwark against Bolshevism in Europe.

If you study Hitler's rise to power after 1932, you will see that the first thing he did was to gain control of the German police and army.  Then, he shut down the free press.

Then, he banned all opposition parties.

Within one year, Hitler and his fascists had transformed Germany's democracy into a totalitarian police state.

The Nazis started incarcerating political opponents (socialists, communists, and various "liberals") at Dachau in the summer of 1933.

Erdogan is following the Nazi playbook in Turkey right now.

[oujour76]

Apr 22, 2017 18:19:21 GMT -5 frmthegrav said:

The Simple Reason Why A Second American Civil War May Be Inevitable

Authored by Daniel Lang via SHTFplan.com,

America has always had its divisions, and Americans have never really been a monolith. We’ve always been a nation of many nations. The culture of New England is different from the culture of the Deep South, which is different from the cultures in the West Coast or the Midwest. People living in the cities have different beliefs than people who live in the countryside. Within those areas, there are ethnic, linguistic, and religious enclaves. It’s always kind of been like that (probably to a lesser degree in the past), and somehow we’ve been able to find enough common ground to keep this country together for more than a century.

However, something has changed. You can feel it in the air. Our nation has clearly never been this divided since the Civil War. A lot of people noticed it after the last election, but the truth is that these divisions have been deepening for decades, and they’re just now reaching a very noticeable breaking point. That’s obvious enough when you look at how the left and the right have been going at each other. It used to be a war of words, but it’s turning into something very dark.

Consider what happened last week in Berkeley after Trump supporters and counter protesters clashed for the third time. 21 people were arrested and 11 were injured (that we know of), six of who had to be taken to the hospital. At least one person was stabbed. The police confiscated confiscated knives, stun guns, and poles. One Trump supporter admitted to being surrounded, pepper sprayed, and beaten with sticks by a mob of “protesters.”

But wait, that’s not the dark part. After these groups clashed, the leftist protesters took to Reddit and admitted that they lost this particular battle (I can’t believe I’m using the word “battle” to describe it), and that it was time for them to attain more combat training and better weapons, including firearms.

Do you see what’s going on here? Conservative demonstrations, which used to be placid affairs (remember the Tea Party protests?) are now turning violent as conservatives grow tired of restraining themselves, and are no longer afraid to hit back. Liberal demonstrators are responding by ratcheting up the level of force that they’re going to bring to the next street battle. It’s a tit for tat that keeps escalating, and I shudder to think of where it’s going to end up.

Honestly, I think we’re in the early stages of a second civil war. I can’t say what it’ll look like precisely, but I can tell you that our nation is on this path, and it’s not clear how we can get off of it. In fact, I fear that it may be inevitable, and there’s a very simple reason why.

It’s because Americans have been self-sorting themselves along geographic and political lines for a long time. A book titled “The Big Sort” made light of this trend back in 2008.

Basically what’s going on, is that Americans are moving to communities that align more with their politics. Liberals are moving to liberal areas, and conservatives are moving to conservative communities. It’s been going on for decades. When Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976, 26.8% of Americans lived in landslide counties; that is counties where the president won or lost by 20% of the vote.

By 2004, 48.3% of the population lived in these counties. This trend continues to worsen. As Americans move to their preferred geographic bubbles, they face less exposure to opposing viewpoints, and their own opinions become more extreme. This trend is at the heart of why politics have become so polarizing in America.

We’re also seeing the same trend emerge online with social media. Despite the fact that the internet allows us to be exposed to more opinions that ever before, people choose to follow online voices that they already agree with. They’re slipping into digital bubbles that are comparable to their geographic bubbles.

This trend is irreversible as far as I can tell. That’s because it’s tied to innovation. As our country became more interconnected with roads and Americans gained more mobility, we chose to move to like-minded places. We’re given the internet, the greatest source of information in human history, and we use it to seek out only the information that reinforces our current beliefs.

We’re self-sorting at every level. Because of this, Americans are only going to grow more extreme in their beliefs, and see people on the other side of the political spectrum as more alien.

You can see how this is creating the perfect breeding ground for a real, physical war. The polarization makes it easier to dehumanize the other side. The self-sorting creates definable geographic boundaries that are necessary for a war. It spawns two sides with beliefs that are so divergent, that they cannot coexist.

We’re becoming two distinct nations with two competing visions for what the country should be. Two visions that are diametrically opposed. We used to be a nation of many nations that was held together, because there was still some common ground on what it means to be an American above all else. Now we can’t even agree on that.

Once the last shreds of common ground and understanding dissipate, a moment that is rapidly approaching, another civil war will be impossible to avoid. I wish I knew what the solution is, but I don’t. All I can say is, unless Americans go out of their way to listen to people on other side, whatever that side may be, there’s going to be a lot of blood in the streets.

Spot on imo. Geographic bubbles, political bubbles, internet bubbles and echo chambers. With the internet, people have access to more information than ever, but at the same we are dreadfully uninformed.

[oujour76]

Apr 23, 2017 11:59:42 GMT -5 frmthegrav said:

Apr 23, 2017 11:40:03 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

It's a fine line.  For example, would government intervention against "hate speech" and violence in Germany have prevented the rise of the Nazi Party in the early 1930s?

Fascists, historically, acquire political power by attacking the free press, and scapegoating minority groups.

How are democracies supposed to protect themselves from fascism?

      there is absolutely no fine line.    like ive stated, truth always rises.  lies simply cannot stand up forever.  this is why "conspiracy theories" wont die-- theyre true and that flame of truth cannot be extinguished.  hate speech is a way to keep that flame dim. 

      hate speech in germany had nothing to do with their rise to power.   violence is a separate matter unrelated to this topic.

     if you say fascists acquire power by attacking the free press, then you should be willing to acknowledge that the far left is fascist in that they are trying to stifle and snuff out the free press/speech of alternative media and alt news on the internet. 

     by the way, we dont have a fascist problem. weve got a corporatist problem.

All in all, I agree. FWIW.

[Buckeye Dale]

Apr 23, 2017 11:57:25 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Apr 23, 2017 11:40:03 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

It's a fine line.  For example, would government intervention against "hate speech" and violence in Germany have prevented the rise of the Nazi Party in the early 1930s?

Fascists, historically, acquire political power by attacking the free press, and scapegoating minority groups.

How are democracies supposed to protect themselves from fascism?

Rioting in the streets over speakers on a college campus? Maybe that will do the trick?

No no...if you want riots in the street, you'd have to put in on a YouTube video...

[oujour76]

Apr 23, 2017 14:12:37 GMT -5 Buckeye Dale said:

Apr 23, 2017 11:57:25 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Rioting in the streets over speakers on a college campus? Maybe that will do the trick?

No no...if you want riots in the street, you'd have to put in on a YouTube video...

Oops...my bad.

[Deleted]

Apr 23, 2017 14:08:01 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Apr 23, 2017 11:59:42 GMT -5 frmthegrav said:

      there is absolutely no fine line.    like ive stated, truth always rises.  lies simply cannot stand up forever.  this is why "conspiracy theories" wont die-- theyre true and that flame of truth cannot be extinguished.  hate speech is a way to keep that flame dim. 

      hate speech in germany had nothing to do with their rise to power.   violence is a separate matter unrelated to this topic.

     if you say fascists acquire power by attacking the free press, then you should be willing to acknowledge that the far left is fascist in that they are trying to stifle and snuff out the free press/speech of alternative media and alt news on the internet. 

     by the way, we dont have a fascist problem. weve got a corporatist problem.

All in all, I agree. FWIW.

Well, I'm referring to historical facts about fascism-- not opinions, Harry.

Corporate and fascist are not mutually exclusive, by any means.

IG Farben and western financiers (including Prescott Bush's Union Bank) were happy to support Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich-- as a bulwark against Bolshevism in Europe.

If you study Hitler's rise to power after 1932, you will see that the first thing he did was to gain control of the German police and army. Then, he shut down the free press.

Then, he banned all opposition parties.

Within one year, Hitler and his fascists had transformed Germany's democracy into a totalitarian police state.

The Nazis started incarcerating political opponents (socialists, communists, and various "liberals") at Dachau in the summer of 1933.

Erdogan is following the Nazi playbook in Turkey right now.

[oujour76]

Apr 23, 2017 14:48:04 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Apr 23, 2017 14:08:01 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

All in all, I agree. FWIW.

Well, I'm referring to historical facts about fascism-- not opinions, Harry.

Historically speaking, what "fine line" were you referencing with the hate speech comment? And aren't the terms "fine line" and "hate speech" matters of opinion?