Possibility for Second American Civil War

[Liriena]

Well, except for us commies. But, the right does seem to follow the leader more. They'd be deadlier in a civil war.

Generally speaking, following a strong, intelligent leader yields better results than a mob.

The problem is that, when you build your entire political structure around a singular person, you're pretty much setting yourself up for collapse when, for one reason or other, their reign nears its end. And most "strong, intelligent leaders" seem to have suffered the curse of the mediocre designated successor.

That was one of my main complaints about Kirchnerism in Argentina: they basically structured their entire political proyect around the presidential couple and, without them, they have nothing.

[Thermodolia]

That's the problem with the left. We make each other and the left look bad. The right will defend any of the right that does anything. We don't, and we're disunited.

Look let’s be honest here, when it comes to guns and firepower they’re going to come up short real real short...after all most of them are against gun ownership.

Also right wingers have militias.

Hahhahaha. Actual leftists aren’t against gun control. The most famous leftists aka Marx and Lenin where both in favor of guns and arming the workers.

You’re thinking of liberals

[Thermodolia]

Leftists: No guns, have bats and sticks, untrained and scared of anyone trying to fight them, fragile.
Libertarians: Lots of guns, trained with them, actually know the law
Anarchists: "lol we're gonna rob your stores while you kill each other"
The US Government: Has nuclear devices, has millions of lethal weaponry.
Terrorists: Will take out the leftists and the libertarians in weeks
Political music (mostly punk bands): WE'RE GOING TO HELL, TONIGHT!

Outcome: The US Government & The Libertarians win in 5 business days against the leftists.

You really haven’t met a leftist have you? I bet you have only met liberals and Champagne socialists. No, actual leftists wouldn’t be scared to pick up a gun, or anything and fight to the death. Molotov cocktails and other IEDs will abound.

[Olerand]

Well I said approaching because I am clearly alien to this biosphere, as evidenced by the fact I didn't know what compelled speech was nor what a soyboy is.

Anyway, the radicalization is evident, and I can see the toxic effects that are being produced, in terms of confirmation bias and such, but I mean... I really don't know what one can say. The situation seems to have reached a critical level, and either something's going to pop the bubble, or it's gonna keep getting pumped.

Without engaging in any false equivalency, whatsoever, I have noticed a disturbing trend of a generalized dumbing down being exhibited on the American center-left (as in to the left of the Democrats) in the calls to "abolish ICE" (the center-left's version of a repeal Obamacare perhaps). Clearly, the swamp fumes are getting to a lot of people now.

To think that I was only introduced to this parallel Earth last year when a bunch of Marine frog accounts started posting everywhere in Francophone media in support of her candidacy. Thankfully their French was shit, so it was at least funny.

Eh, "abolish ICE" is pretty a previously far left position that's now becoming mainstream... and I happen to agree with it. ICE is shit. They have a terrible human rights record and they aren't really indispensable.

The optimistic person on me feels that this radicalizaiton is just... kinda going to deflate at some point. And I think we're already seeing that to some extent. The "skeptic" grifters are staring to get a bit stale. They're running out of new stuf and they've started to cannibalize their own past content. And their opponents have been getting better at exposing their lies and manipulations in such a way that said grifters' own followers are taking notice.

Becoming mainstream? Well, that's concerning. Is ICE not America's immigration and customs police? How exactly is their job dispensable?

I'm not sure who we're referring to, but I'm not particularly optimistic about the "followers" seeing the light. Unless if the political environment abruptly and radically shifts.

Who are as relevant, and thus as representative, of the far-right in America as the Communist party is of the far-left.

This is like saying the identitaires (the original alt-right, the serious ones, not the joke) aren't the far-right in France because monarchists exist.

I wouldn’t consider monarchists to be far right, close to it but I’d say the identitaires and Nazis are the far right

Wanting to reimpose an aristocracy, and the system of society that existed prior to not only May 1968, but February 1848 is far-right.

Which isn't to say that Nazism isn't far-right. It is. As is monarchism. As is the identitaires movement and its handicapped Anglo-Saxon cousin. As is the American Republican Party.

All to the right of the radical right, such as the RN (previously FN), FPO, etc.

[Thermodolia]

Generally speaking, following a strong, intelligent leader yields better results than a mob.

The problem is that, when you build your entire political structure around a singular person, you're pretty much setting yourself up for collapse when, for one reason or other, their reign nears its end. And most "strong, intelligent leaders" seem to have suffered the curse of the mediocre designated successor.

That was one of my main complaints about Kirchnerism in Argentina: they basically structured their entire political proyect around the presidential couple and, without them, they have nothing.

A strongman is great in a war, however after that it’s all down hill as they tend to micromanage the fuck out of everything or they gain more power and wealth for themselves

[Chernoslavia]

Leftists: No guns, have bats and sticks, untrained and scared of anyone trying to fight them, fragile.
Libertarians: Lots of guns, trained with them, actually know the law
Anarchists: "lol we're gonna rob your stores while you kill each other"
The US Government: Has nuclear devices, has millions of lethal weaponry.
Terrorists: Will take out the leftists and the libertarians in weeks
Political music (mostly punk bands): WE'RE GOING TO HELL, TONIGHT!

Outcome: The US Government & The Libertarians win in 5 business days against the leftists.

You really haven’t met a leftist have you? I bet you have only met liberals and Champagne socialists. No, actual leftists wouldn’t be scared to pick up a gun, or anything and fight to the death. Molotov cocktails and other IEDs will abound.

Okay, who are you and what have you done with the real Thermodolia?

[Illegal Planets]

Generally speaking, following a strong, intelligent leader yields better results than a mob.

The problem is that, when you build your entire political structure around a singular person, you're pretty much setting yourself up for collapse when, for one reason or other, their reign nears its end. And most "strong, intelligent leaders" seem to have suffered the curse of the mediocre designated successor.

That was one of my main complaints about Kirchnerism in Argentina: they basically structured their entire political proyect around the presidential couple and, without them, they have nothing.

Yeah, of course. I'm not speaking in terms of a singular national leader, elected or otherwise, and really I mispoke. What I meant was it is better for protests and militias to organize around leaders whose authority is derived from competence, and strength of character.

[The South Falls]

That's the problem with the left. We make each other and the left look bad. The right will defend any of the right that does anything. We don't, and we're disunited.

Look let’s be honest here, when it comes to guns and firepower they’re going to come up short real real short...after all most of them are against gun ownership.

Also right wingers have militias.

Those are backwoods neo Nazis. There are backwoods leftists with guns. Come down to Texas. We exist.

[Internationalist Bastard]

The problem is that, when you build your entire political structure around a singular person, you're pretty much setting yourself up for collapse when, for one reason or other, their reign nears its end. And most "strong, intelligent leaders" seem to have suffered the curse of the mediocre designated successor.

That was one of my main complaints about Kirchnerism in Argentina: they basically structured their entire political proyect around the presidential couple and, without them, they have nothing.

A strongman is great in a war, however after that it’s all down hill as they tend to micromanage the fuck out of everything or they gain more power and wealth for themselves

Eh the strongman only works if he’s competent
Otherwise you got Hitlers busting around

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

That's the problem with the left. We make each other and the left look bad. The right will defend any of the right that does anything. We don't, and we're disunited.

Look let’s be honest here, when it comes to guns and firepower they’re going to come up short real real short...after all most of them are against gun ownership.

Also right wingers have militias.

It doesn't matter. No matter who wins, they will rule over ashes. The population sees the "victorious" party as monsters and will resist.
There will be atrocities committed by all sides. There new rule will be rejected by the world. They will oversee a destroyed and divided nation.

War isn't a sport where we can say "Your team is going down, our team rules!". It takes life. Playgrounds where kids played with water guns will be unmarked graves for thousands who died by real gun fire.

[Chernoslavia]

Look let’s be honest here, when it comes to guns and firepower they’re going to come up short real real short...after all most of them are against gun ownership.

Also right wingers have militias.

Those are backwoods neo Nazis. There are backwoods leftists with guns. Come down to Texas. We exist.

Yeah backwoods neo Nazis with black, asian, and even Jewish members. Also I would love to visit Texas but I’ve set plans to move to Tennessee.

[Internationalist Bastard]

The problem is that, when you build your entire political structure around a singular person, you're pretty much setting yourself up for collapse when, for one reason or other, their reign nears its end. And most "strong, intelligent leaders" seem to have suffered the curse of the mediocre designated successor.

That was one of my main complaints about Kirchnerism in Argentina: they basically structured their entire political proyect around the presidential couple and, without them, they have nothing.

Yeah, of course. I'm not speaking in terms of a singular national leader, elected or otherwise, and really I mispoke. What I meant was it is better for protests and militias to organize around leaders whose authority is derived from competence, and strength of character.

This is true
I highly doubt the stories that the democratically run armies in Spain actually worked well

[The South Falls]

Look let’s be honest here, when it comes to guns and firepower they’re going to come up short real real short...after all most of them are against gun ownership.

Also right wingers have militias.

It doesn't matter. No matter who wins, they will rule over ashes. The population sees the "victorious" party as monsters and will resist.
There will be atrocities committed by all sides. There new rule will be rejected by the world. They will oversee a destroyed and divided nation.

War isn't a sport where we can say "Your team is going down, our team rules!". It takes life. Playgrounds where kids played with water guns will be unmarked graves for thousands who died by real gun fire.

That's true. And then, the war will start itself over again . History repeats itself like a ripple.

[Chernoslavia]

Look let’s be honest here, when it comes to guns and firepower they’re going to come up short real real short...after all most of them are against gun ownership.

Also right wingers have militias.

It doesn't matter. No matter who wins, they will rule over ashes. The population sees the "victorious" party as monsters and will resist.
There will be atrocities committed by all sides. There new rule will be rejected by the world. They will oversee a destroyed and divided nation.

War isn't a sport where we can say "Your team is going down, our team rules!". It takes life. Playgrounds where kids played with water guns will be unmarked graves for thousands who died by real gun fire.

Right, war ain’t sunshine and roses but as some guy has said here, war brings the best out of people.

[Thermodolia]

Eh, "abolish ICE" is pretty a previously far left position that's now becoming mainstream... and I happen to agree with it. ICE is shit. They have a terrible human rights record and they aren't really indispensable.

The optimistic person on me feels that this radicalizaiton is just... kinda going to deflate at some point. And I think we're already seeing that to some extent. The "skeptic" grifters are staring to get a bit stale. They're running out of new stuf and they've started to cannibalize their own past content. And their opponents have been getting better at exposing their lies and manipulations in such a way that said grifters' own followers are taking notice.

Becoming mainstream? Well, that's concerning. Is ICE not America's immigration and customs police? How exactly is their job indispensable?

I'm not sure who we're referring to, but I'm not particularly optimistic about the "followers" seeing the light. Unless if the political environment abruptly and radically shifts.

I wouldn’t consider monarchists to be far right, close to it but I’d say the identitaires and Nazis are the far right

Wanting to reimpose an aristocracy, and the system of society that existed prior to not only May 1968, but February 1848 is far-right.

Which isn't to say that Nazism isn't far-right. It is. As is monarchism. As is the identitaires movement and its handicapped Anglo-Saxon cousin. As is the American Republican Party.

All to the right of the radical right, such as the RN (previously FN), FPO, etc.

Wait FN changed their name?

I’m thinking more along the lines of Constitutional monarchists which are the ones we have over here which are more right than far. I’ll give you that absolutists are definitely far right.

The Republican Party is only within the last 40 years become pretty right wing, still don’t consider them far right but economically they are to the right of FN as they are still pretty big tent, back in the 1950s the republicans where more like REM than FN.

[Internationalist Bastard]

It doesn't matter. No matter who wins, they will rule over ashes. The population sees the "victorious" party as monsters and will resist.
There will be atrocities committed by all sides. There new rule will be rejected by the world. They will oversee a destroyed and divided nation.

War isn't a sport where we can say "Your team is going down, our team rules!". It takes life. Playgrounds where kids played with water guns will be unmarked graves for thousands who died by real gun fire.

Right, war ain’t sunshine and roses but as some guy has said here, war brings the best out of people.

War brings out the best in people as it drags the worst out of everyone

[Thermodolia]

A strongman is great in a war, however after that it’s all down hill as they tend to micromanage the fuck out of everything or they gain more power and wealth for themselves

Eh the strongman only works if he’s competent
Otherwise you got Hitlers busting around

Or Romanov’s

[Illegal Planets]

It doesn't matter. No matter who wins, they will rule over ashes. The population sees the "victorious" party as monsters and will resist.
There will be atrocities committed by all sides. There new rule will be rejected by the world. They will oversee a destroyed and divided nation.

War isn't a sport where we can say "Your team is going down, our team rules!". It takes life. Playgrounds where kids played with water guns will be unmarked graves for thousands who died by real gun fire.

Right, war ain’t sunshine and roses but as some guy has said here, war brings the best out of people.

One of my grandfathers fought in Korea, and one fought in Vietnam. I think they would disagree with the latter part of that statement.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Eh the strongman only works if he’s competent
Otherwise you got Hitlers busting around

Or Romanov’s

Yeah
Point is you need a strongman who actually can win a war

[Thermodolia]

You really haven’t met a leftist have you? I bet you have only met liberals and Champagne socialists. No, actual leftists wouldn’t be scared to pick up a gun, or anything and fight to the death. Molotov cocktails and other IEDs will abound.

Okay, who are you and what have you done with the real Thermodolia?

Have you not been on in a few months? I’ve admitted to being a syndicalist which is a leftist. I’ve also advocated for the arming of the workers.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

It doesn't matter. No matter who wins, they will rule over ashes. The population sees the "victorious" party as monsters and will resist.
There will be atrocities committed by all sides. There new rule will be rejected by the world. They will oversee a destroyed and divided nation.

War isn't a sport where we can say "Your team is going down, our team rules!". It takes life. Playgrounds where kids played with water guns will be unmarked graves for thousands who died by real gun fire.

Right, war ain’t sunshine and roses but as some guy has said here, war brings the best out of people.

And the worst.

[Olycadon]

Well then 30% of America are uneducated on what exactly is going on. There won't be another American civil war, not for the next 25 years at least.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Well then 30% of America are uneducated on what exactly is going on. There won't be another American civil war, not for the next 25 years at least.

What’s happening in 25 years?

[Thermodolia]

Well then 30% of America are uneducated on what exactly is going on. There won't be another American civil war, not for the next 25 years at least.

What’s happening in 25 years?

The workers revolution.

[Olerand]

Becoming mainstream? Well, that's concerning. Is ICE not America's immigration and customs police? How exactly is their job indispensable?

I'm not sure who we're referring to, but I'm not particularly optimistic about the "followers" seeing the light. Unless if the political environment abruptly and radically shifts.


Wanting to reimpose an aristocracy, and the system of society that existed prior to not only May 1968, but February 1848 is far-right.

Which isn't to say that Nazism isn't far-right. It is. As is monarchism. As is the identitaires movement and its handicapped Anglo-Saxon cousin. As is the American Republican Party.

All to the right of the radical right, such as the RN (previously FN), FPO, etc.

Wait FN changed their name?

I’m thinking more along the lines of Constitutional monarchists which are the ones we have over here which are more right than far. I’ll give you that absolutists are definitely far right.

The Republican Party is only within the last 40 years become pretty right wing, still don’t consider them far right but economically they are to the right of FN as they are still pretty big tent, back in the 1950s the republicans where more like REM than FN.

The FN did indeed. They are now the Rassemblement national. New name, same old family. An attempt at a re-branding if you will. Jean-Marie Le Pen was recently admitted to the hospital too. If he had, uhm, passed while there, that would have been a divine sign that the party's reinvention is on the right track.
He made it out though.

Even a constitutional monarchy, in a Republic such as France today, is far-right. Particularly considering that even those who support the "constitutional monarchy" variety, the Orléaniste, have yet to digest everything that has happened in France since they were kicked out. Perhaps it is a side-effect of too much inbreeding.

In the 1940s to 1980s era, the Republican Party was slightly to the right of the mainstream right in Europe. If our right had something of the center, the Republican Party was more solidly on the right. But still mainstream.

With the rise of Reagan and voodoo economics, the Republican Party lurched right, and it has no equivalent in the modern world.

I have already addressed how far-right the Republican Party's economic platform is. I will repost the contributions:

Minimum wage, trade controls, SSI, negative tax rates, and food stamps all say you're full of it.

Literally all of those things are the absolute basics everywhere else. Please look into the platforms of right-wing parties in the rest of the developed world, and compare and contrast for yourself.

That the party of trickle down would assert that they are as mainstream right as the other right-wing parties who all support universal healthcare, and at the absolute least, in Anglo-Saxon countries, a liberal welfare State, when it isn't corporatist like in France or Germany, or social democratic like in Scandinavia is...

A sign of how provincial American politics and those who engage in them are.

We're the only ones who have moved left? And the Canadians, Australians and Kiwis have politics, and right-wing parties, akin to the American right? Have the Conservatives in Canada dismantled the Death Panels yet?

Poor choice of wording, mea culpa.

"Rest of the Western world" probably would be more accurate.

Also, what are Death Panels? I looked it up and all I found were Sarah Palin conspiracy theories.

And this is from a Canadian.