Necessitating Violence

[Quokkastan]

Last time we had a civil war in the US, the left won.

I'd hardly call Lincoln left leaning. That was a different kind of dispute in an age before. If you'll remember old U.S. Grant had no problem sending in the army or NG to crush protesting workers.

Well Grant was not Lincoln, so I'm not sure if that's relevant.

You're right that they wouldn't fall neatly into modern categorization, but keeping in mind that the left-right dichotomy changes over time then Lincoln would almost certainly be considered left-wing.

Broadly speaking, the left seeks to reform the culture, and the right seeks to preserve the culture (or return culture to a previous status quo.) Lincoln was definitely a "reform the culture" sort of guy.

[The East Marches]

Let's be blunt here; you're projecting things that you have no ability to, and you're dead wrong.
The right has an incentive to fight. I know I myself would consider starting something violent with the left right now to be immoral, but once you start bombing our churches(which you will, on account of some of the sermons if nothing else, if you decide to go that route) you've declared a holy war, and rightists do this thing where they fight alongside their archenemies because another enemy is threatening them right now and they need to work together to survive. We're pragmatic that way, and it means someone like me and someone like this traditionalism fellow you're projecting at would set aside our differences and work together to destroy you. That's very bad news for you, because it means some of the most heavily armed people on the planet are gunning for you, and working together on it.
And don't think for a second we wouldn't be motivated because we're not leftists. My faction will fight to the death, if need be, knowing that if they die, they die as martyrs. I can't speak for Traditionalism's, but I would guess that threats of violence against not just them but their women and children will make them stand and fight.
So don't start a civil war with the right. You will lose. And civil wars bring out the radical in everyone, so it'll end with a white terror.

hitting up churches hasn't been a left wing thing since before the first world war, the only guys hitting up churches these days are varg vikernes.

Well, in fairness to Euronymous, he was left leaning too and joined Varg for some church burning.

Pic related

[Kubra]

hitting up churches hasn't been a left wing thing since before the first world war, the only guys hitting up churches these days are varg vikernes.

Well, in fairness to Euronymous, he was left leaning too and joined Varg for some church burning.

Pic related

idk man i know some hippie folks that end up doing neopaganism but those guys talk about oneness and weed and shit, folks like varg would totally be down with a return to blood sacrifice and ice giants a shit.
I mean, that's call and all, that's hella cool, but even so i don't wanna get stabbed by varg.

[The East Marches]

I'd hardly call Lincoln left leaning. That was a different kind of dispute in an age before. If you'll remember old U.S. Grant had no problem sending in the army or NG to crush protesting workers.

Well Grant was not Lincoln, so I'm not sure if that's relevant.

You're right that they wouldn't fall neatly into modern categorization, but keeping in mind that the left-right dichotomy changes over time then Lincoln would almost certainly be considered left-wing.

Broadly speaking, the left seeks to reform the culture, and the right seeks to preserve the culture (or return culture to a previous status quo.) Lincoln was definitely a "reform the culture" sort of guy.

I wouldn't call Lincoln a reformer in that mold. He sought to keep the Union together. Remember that his emancipation proclamation didn't affect the states fighting for the North that held slaves or some parts of the South under occupation. It was a move towards trying to break the Southern economy and appeasing England more than anything.

Edit: It would be a mistake to attempt to portray him solely as a reformer. While he did support some black rights, he did hold the current attitudes of the time towards them.

[The East Marches]

Well, in fairness to Euronymous, he was left leaning too and joined Varg for some church burning.

Pic related

idk man i know some hippie folks that end up doing neopaganism but those guys talk about oneness and weed and shit, folks like varg would totally be down with a return to blood sacrifice and ice giants a shit.
I mean, that's call and all, that's hella cool, but even so i don't wanna get stabbed by varg.

Oh come on. Varg has gone totally soft. He couldn't stab anybody now. Burzum is basically dead, I don't know if you heard the new album but its basically the hippy dippy shit. Some of the stuff he has been writing lately goes along the whole "oneness" with nature thing. Pls liek if u cri evrytiem.

[Quokkastan]

Well Grant was not Lincoln, so I'm not sure if that's relevant.

You're right that they wouldn't fall neatly into modern categorization, but keeping in mind that the left-right dichotomy changes over time then Lincoln would almost certainly be considered left-wing.

Broadly speaking, the left seeks to reform the culture, and the right seeks to preserve the culture (or return culture to a previous status quo.) Lincoln was definitely a "reform the culture" sort of guy.

I wouldn't call Lincoln a reformer in that mold. He sought to keep the Union together. Remember that his emancipation proclamation didn't affect the states fighting for the North that held slaves or some parts of the South under occupation. It was a move towards trying to break the Southern economy and appeasing England more than anything.

We know what Lincoln wanted to do from everything he said before he was president, and we know what he eventually did.

That he was forced to compromise several times doesn't really matter. It just shows that he was pragmatic enough to not alienate his allies.

[The East Marches]

Last time we had a civil war in the US, the left won.

That wasn't a left-right issue as we understand it today and I highly doubt any real conservative would agree with slavery.

Plus the north had better industry/economy that is why they won.

Hell, I chalk that up to letting in the Irish and Germans. The Union was bleeding itself white of manpower. Industry plays a role but you gotta have warm bodies for the front too. I don't know whats worse punishment, losing the war or having to let the Irish into your cities. I for one dislike the plastic paddy menace that lurks in our Northern cities.

[Kubra]

idk man i know some hippie folks that end up doing neopaganism but those guys talk about oneness and weed and shit, folks like varg would totally be down with a return to blood sacrifice and ice giants a shit.
I mean, that's call and all, that's hella cool, but even so i don't wanna get stabbed by varg.

Oh come on. Varg has gone totally soft. He couldn't stab anybody now. Burzum is basically dead, I don't know if you heard the new album but its basically the hippy dippy shit. Some of the stuff he has been writing lately goes along the whole "oneness" with nature thing. Pls liek if u cri evrytiem.

I'm not sure if I should be relieved or depressed at that news
I mean, getting stabbed by Varg would suck, but a world where I cannot be stabbed by him may be worse. Why be a heathen if you ain't gonna be cool?
Paganism, not even once

[The East Marches]

Oh come on. Varg has gone totally soft. He couldn't stab anybody now. Burzum is basically dead, I don't know if you heard the new album but its basically the hippy dippy shit. Some of the stuff he has been writing lately goes along the whole "oneness" with nature thing. Pls liek if u cri evrytiem.

I'm not sure if I should be relieved or depressed at that news
I mean, getting stabbed by Varg would suck, but a world where I cannot be stabbed by him may be worse. Why be a heathen if you ain't gonna be cool?
Paganism, not even once

True story bro, true story

One last Varg related meme for old time's sake. I'll remember him how he was, not what he has become. That is what old Varg would have wanted.

[USS Monitor]

Last time we had a civil war in the US, the left won.

That wasn't a left-right issue as we understand it today and I highly doubt any real conservative would agree with slavery.

Plus the north had better industry/economy that is why they won.

It was a left-right issue in the sense that is relevant to this thread. The OP is talking about minorities and their allies taking on bigots.

[Wallenburg]

"Violence is never the answer!"

Well, at least it isn't for the issues you are talking about. Violence to suppress bigotry only creates further oppression.

[The Grey Wolf]

Being LGBT and/or colored sucks in modern society, and there is no denying there's a long way ahead before full acceptance, but I'm pretty sure we're not being "slaughtered in the streets." and also, to include white, cisgender women in the category is laughable. Unless you can provide a source, I also doubt that a large amount of people are defending rape and murder.

[Sinophia]

Endorsing Vigilantism and Anarchy are never appropriate responses to an 'oppression' that is in any case slowly disappearing. Come to your senses, cease this lunacy; those deluded enough to endorse such a position ought be ashamed of themselves.

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

Being LGBT and/or colored sucks in modern society, and there is no denying there's a long way ahead before full acceptance, but I'm pretty sure we're not being "slaughtered in the streets." and also, to include white, cisgender women in the category is laughable. Unless you can provide a source, I also doubt that a large amount of people are defending rape and murder.

You're right, women, people of color, and LGBT people are never subjects of hate crimes.

[Ardavia]

Being LGBT and/or colored sucks in modern society, and there is no denying there's a long way ahead before full acceptance, but I'm pretty sure we're not being "slaughtered in the streets." and also, to include white, cisgender women in the category is laughable. Unless you can provide a source, I also doubt that a large amount of people are defending rape and murder.

You're right, women, people of color, and LGBT people are never subjects of hate crimes.

There's a bit of a disconnect between "discrimination happens" and "Women/PoC/LGBT people are literally being slaughtered in the streets".

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

You're right, women, people of color, and LGBT people are never subjects of hate crimes.

There's a bit of a disconnect between "discrimination happens" and "Women/PoC/LGBT people are literally being slaughtered in the streets".

Tell you the truth and I ain't speaking for all the trans people but my biggest concern in the Bible Belt is not what restaurant I can eat at. HROs don't do much for me when I'm being assaulted.

[Galloism]

There's a bit of a disconnect between "discrimination happens" and "Women/PoC/LGBT people are literally being slaughtered in the streets".

Tell you the truth and I ain't speaking for all the trans people but my biggest concern in the Bible Belt is not what restaurant I can eat at. HROs don't do much for me when I'm being assaulted.

South East Europe? Is that you? Have you come back to us?

[The Emerald Legion]

I'd hardly call Lincoln left leaning. That was a different kind of dispute in an age before. If you'll remember old U.S. Grant had no problem sending in the army or NG to crush protesting workers.

Well Grant was not Lincoln, so I'm not sure if that's relevant.

You're right that they wouldn't fall neatly into modern categorization, but keeping in mind that the left-right dichotomy changes over time then Lincoln would almost certainly be considered left-wing.

Broadly speaking, the left seeks to reform the culture, and the right seeks to preserve the culture (or return culture to a previous status quo.) Lincoln was definitely a "reform the culture" sort of guy.

Not really.

Left seeks to remove or reduce the effects of societal hierarchies, while the right seeks to fortify and exacerbate them.

Neither alone is useful.

[Jolet]

Let's be blunt here; you're projecting things that you have no ability to, and you're dead wrong.
The right has an incentive to fight. I know I myself would consider starting something violent with the left right now to be immoral, but once you start bombing our churches(which you will, on account of some of the sermons if nothing else, if you decide to go that route) you've declared a holy war, and rightists do this thing where they fight alongside their archenemies because another enemy is threatening them right now and they need to work together to survive. We're pragmatic that way, and it means someone like me and someone like this traditionalism fellow you're projecting at would set aside our differences and work together to destroy you. That's very bad news for you, because it means some of the most heavily armed people on the planet are gunning for you, and working together on it.
And don't think for a second we wouldn't be motivated because we're not leftists. My faction will fight to the death, if need be, knowing that if they die, they die as martyrs. I can't speak for Traditionalism's, but I would guess that threats of violence against not just them but their women and children will make them stand and fight.
So don't start a civil war with the right. You will lose. And civil wars bring out the radical in everyone, so it'll end with a white terror.

Last time we had a civil war in the US, the left won.

Uh.

I'm not certain you're correct. Unless you're redefining left and right seperately from party groups, which is my immediate connotation when I see "left" and "right". As I recall the Democrats were actually the party of slavery- after all, Lincoln was a Republican, IIRC. The demographical shift only really occured in the 1930s with the usurpation of the Democrat party by the New Left. But that's digressional.

I think OP would get along pretty well with Timothy McVeigh, as I pointed out earlier in the thread. They share a similar mindset, it seems.

However, I stand by my original opinion: violence does not work as an effective tool to communicate one's ideology. Really, that's what the Nazis did- look how well that worked for them. They were pretty much obliterated as an organized political system. That's sort of what lies in wait for those who attempt to follow in their footsteps.

[Senkaku]

Last time we had a civil war in the US, the left won.

Uh.

I'm not certain you're correct. Unless you're redefining left and right seperately from party groups, which is my immediate connotation when I see "left" and "right". As I recall the Democrats were actually the party of slavery- after all, Lincoln was a Republican, IIRC. The demographical shift only really occured in the 1930s with the usurpation of the Democrat party by the New Left. But that's digressional.

I think OP would get along pretty well with Timothy McVeigh, as I pointed out earlier in the thread. They share a similar mindset, it seems.

However, I stand by my original opinion: violence does not work as an effective tool to communicate one's ideology. Really, that's what the Nazis did- look how well that worked for them. They were pretty much obliterated as an organized political system. That's sort of what lies in wait for those who attempt to follow in their footsteps.

On the other hand, look at the CPSU and the CCP. The CPSU eventually took itself down, but the CCP is still in power. Using violence doesn't necessarily mean your political system or philosophy will be destroyed. It's just not a suitable strategy for the United States at the moment to try and bring about change, because it wouldn't bring change. It'd just bring devastation, damage, and a lot of reactionaries against whichever end of the political spectrum tried to perpetrate it.

Uh.

I'm not certain you're correct. Unless you're redefining left and right seperately from party groups, which is my immediate connotation when I see "left" and "right".

I believe that's the point. Democrats have not always been left-wing and Republicans have not always been right-wing.

[USS Monitor]

Last time we had a civil war in the US, the left won.

Uh.

I'm not certain you're correct. Unless you're redefining left and right seperately from party groups, which is my immediate connotation when I see "left" and "right". As I recall the Democrats were actually the party of slavery- after all, Lincoln was a Republican, IIRC. The demographical shift only really occured in the 1930s with the usurpation of the Democrat party by the New Left. But that's digressional.

I said the left, not Democrats.

[Veceria]

Yes yes, go on, I'll watch the mayhem from here. Don't forget the "morituri te salutant" and such.

[The East Marches]

I wouldn't call Lincoln a reformer in that mold. He sought to keep the Union together. Remember that his emancipation proclamation didn't affect the states fighting for the North that held slaves or some parts of the South under occupation. It was a move towards trying to break the Southern economy and appeasing England more than anything.

We know what Lincoln wanted to do from everything he said before he was president, and we know what he eventually did.

That he was forced to compromise several times doesn't really matter. It just shows that he was pragmatic enough to not alienate his allies.

Perhaps you can correct me if I am wrong but this article is a good summation about what I found of Lincoln's pre-war and post-war views. My civil war political history is lacking, I'm not as well read on the subject as I ought to be. My knowledge base is derived from AP U.S. history and a few courses I took in university for fun. If there are sources you could direct me to that could adress Lincoln's views/goal pre-war and post-war, I'd appreciate it. Below the good summary article I found during my research last night.

http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation

[The Grey Wolf]

Being LGBT and/or colored sucks in modern society, and there is no denying there's a long way ahead before full acceptance, but I'm pretty sure we're not being "slaughtered in the streets." and also, to include white, cisgender women in the category is laughable. Unless you can provide a source, I also doubt that a large amount of people are defending rape and murder.

You're right, women, people of color, and LGBT people are never subjects of hate crimes.

Bold the fucking part where I stated that, I'll sit here and wait while you do.

[Republic of the Cristo]

Now although overall the CSA was quite conservative, in some respects it was also quite liberal. The idea of a confederacy was a relatively new concept of governance, and was staunchly opposed by many more conservative Unitarians.

But as I understand, we are on the topic of a modern American Civil war?