American Politics XI: No Moe Roe(Likely, Anyway)

[Sordhau]

Me too. And also a timeline where America is truly the City on a Shining Hill.

Frankly, I don't think racialism will ever be extirpated from the American people.

And reconstruction only worked so long as the South was under military occupation, as soon as that ended the White South took away basically everything from the African Americans.

The very cultural identity of the United States is intertwined with racism, imperialism, and genocide. The only way to drive these horrors back into the darkness is by dissolving the USA entirely and building better, purer nations from it's ashes.

Maybe a people's republic or two where the workers own the means of production?

[Salus Maior]

Frankly, I don't think racialism will ever be extirpated from the American people.

And reconstruction only worked so long as the South was under military occupation, as soon as that ended the White South took away basically everything from the African Americans.

The very cultural identity of the United States is intertwined with racism, imperialism, and genocide. The only way to drive these horrors back into the darkness is by dissolving the USA entirely and building better, purer nations from it's ashes.

Maybe a people's republic or two where the workers own the means of production?

History is always going to be bloody. Your attempt of making a "purer" nation won't be any different from when the Bolsheviks and all those other revolutionaries tried the same thing, it always ended on a pile of innocent corpses.

[Kowani]

Oh. I didn’t know that. God this timeline is so cursed.

Is there one where Reconstruction actually worked? Cuz if so, I want in.

Blackpill on reconstruction is that it was doomed from the start because the radical republicans didn’t know how to do economics at all (their policies were bad and their ideology of free labour was insufficient) and because it was far out of step with the Republican mainstream

The best possible outcome involves Hannibal Hamlin staying on as VP so Johnson can’t strangle land redistribution, no crop failure immediately after the war, basically the entire postwar Supreme Court getting impeached and replaced, Hayes winning by a larger margin, grant not picking the most comically corrupt administration possible and Garfield has to survive

[Sordhau]

The very cultural identity of the United States is intertwined with racism, imperialism, and genocide. The only way to drive these horrors back into the darkness is by dissolving the USA entirely and building better, purer nations from it's ashes.

Maybe a people's republic or two where the workers own the means of production?

History is always going to be bloody. Your attempt of making a "purer" nation won't be any different from when the Bolsheviks and all those other revolutionaries tried the same thing, it always ended on a pile of innocent corpses.

The status quo is built on a pile of innocent corpses, Salus.

[Salus Maior]

The status quo is built on a pile of innocent corpses, Salus.

So what's a pile more at your own hands, I take it?

[Sordhau]

The status quo is built on a pile of innocent corpses, Salus.

So what's a pile more at your own hands, I take it?

The corpses are going to pile regardless. At least by removing the status quo we have a chance to stop it altogether. I think that's worth the risk.

Besides, we won't be the ones to fire the first shots. If there is to be violence it won't be the revolutionaries who start the killing.

[Salus Maior]

So what's a pile more at your own hands, I take it?

The corpses are going to pile regardless. At least by removing the status quo we have a chance to stop it altogether. I think that's worth the risk.

Besides, we won't be the ones to fire the first shots. If there is to be violence it won't be the revolutionaries who start the killing.

That didn't work for the Jacobins or Bolsheviks, who had the same line of thought as you in that sentiment, and it's not going to work for you either.

And that just sounds like you're depending on someone else to start the revolution and you just take over? Lol, that's an awful plan to achieve anything.

[Sordhau]

The corpses are going to pile regardless. At least by removing the status quo we have a chance to stop it altogether. I think that's worth the risk.

Besides, we won't be the ones to fire the first shots. If there is to be violence it won't be the revolutionaries who start the killing.

That didn't work for the Jacobins or Bolsheviks, who had the same line of thought as you in that sentiment, and it's not going to work for you either.

I'd say it worked rather well for both groups tbh. The bloodshed in the initial aftermath was horrendous, of course, but the systems they built were vast improvements of what came before.

You also seem to have forgotten how the revolution in your own country was... noticeably absent of wholesale slaughter.

And that just sounds like you're depending on someone else to start the revolution and you just take over? Lol, that's an awful plan to achieve anything.

I think you misunderstood as to what I was inferring. In Russia the workers didn't just grab guns and start laying siege to government buildings, and that's not how it will happen here either. When the revolution comes it will be the reactionary government--not the revolutionaries--who draw first blood. The revolutionaries will then retaliate out of self-defense.

[Duvniask]

The status quo is built on a pile of innocent corpses, Salus.

So what's a pile more at your own hands, I take it?

What's the point of saying history is inevitably bloody and then, it seems, moralizing about it like this?

If the wheel of history turns by blood and tears, might as well try and steer the cart to a better place.

[Salus Maior]

I'd say it worked rather well for both groups tbh. The bloodshed in the initial aftermath was horrendous, of course, but the systems they built were vast improvements of what came before.

You also seem to have forgotten how the revolution in your own country was... noticeably absent of wholesale slaughter.

And that just sounds like you're depending on someone else to start the revolution and you just take over? Lol, that's an awful plan to achieve anything.

I think you misunderstood as to what I was inferring. In Russia the workers didn't just grab guns and start laying siege to government buildings, and that's not how it will happen here either. When the revolution comes it will be the reactionary government--not the revolutionaries--who draw first blood. The revolutionaries will then retaliate out of self-defense.

Russia is better off from what it used to be? Further, revolution (and the slaughters that occurred in it) isn't the only means of achieving meaningful and positive change.

1. It's debatable whether the American revolution was truly a revolution. 2. The American revolution didn't restructure society from the ground up as the French and Russian revolutions attempted to. 3. I have reservations about the American revolution, anyhow.

What happened in the Russian Revolution was actually that enough of the military and military leadership ended up on the Bolsheviks' side. That's how they won the civil war. How's your movement's relationship to the military?

[Sordhau]

Tell you what Salus, you have acknowledged that the current state of things--the status quo--is evil, built upon evil, and motivated by evil. It creates and begets evil, it survives on evil. This is a no-brainer.

At the same time, you acknowledge that the creation of a better world requires evil itself. It takes evil to destroy evil.

So here's my question for you: what's your solution? If the status quo isn't the answer, and revolution isn't the answer, then what other alternative is there?

[The Jamesian Republic]

Me too. And also a timeline where America is truly the City on a Shining Hill.

Frankly, I don't think racialism will ever be extirpated from the American people.

And reconstruction only worked so long as the South was under military occupation, as soon as that ended the White South took away basically everything from the African Americans.

Unfortunately.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Russia is better off from what it used to be?

I mean, yeah? Not many people would seriously make the argument that the USSR was worse than the Russian Empire. Modern Russia is probably worse than both in a number of ways but that's because everything after the USSR dissolved went about the worst way possible for them.

[Salus Maior]

So what's a pile more at your own hands, I take it?

What's the point of saying history is inevitably bloody and then, it seems, moralizing about it like this?

If the wheel of history turns by blood and tears, might as well try and steer the cart to a better place.

My point is that revolutions don't do that without excessive human cost and, ironically, human rights abuses. Not to mention cultural destruction, economic turmoil, incessant wars, etc.

[Salus Maior]

Tell you what Salus, you have acknowledged that the current state of things--the status quo--is evil, built upon evil, and motivated by evil. It creates and begets evil, it survives on evil. This is a no-brainer.

At the same time, you acknowledge that the creation of a better world requires evil itself. It takes evil to destroy evil.

So here's my question for you: what's your solution? If the status quo isn't the answer, and revolution isn't the answer, then what other alternative is there?

There needs to be a serious movement for reform that isn't carried off of the back of "we need to exterminate x people".

[Salus Maior]

Russia is better off from what it used to be?

I mean, yeah? Not many people would seriously make the argument that the USSR was worse than the Russian Empire. Modern Russia is probably worse than both in a number of ways but that's because everything after the USSR dissolved went about the worst way possible for them.

I would actually, in a few ways.

The Soviets executed more people in two decades than the Romanovs did in their entire dynasty's reign.

[Sordhau]

Russia is better off from what it used to be?

Refresh my memory: did the Russian Revolution create the Russian Federation?

Further, revolution (and the slaughters that occurred in it) isn't the only means of achieving meaningful and positive change.

It is the most reliable and effective means, and the only means of achieving Socialism. Do you think if we march on Washington and ask the elite to politely dismantle capitalism that they will willingly comply? Has that worked for BLM?

1. It's debatable whether the American revolution was truly a revolution.

Not really.

1. A political upheaval in a government or state characterized by great change.
2. The removal and replacement of a government, especially by sudden violent action.

The American Revolution fits both definitions.

2. The American revolution didn't restructure society from the ground up as the French and Russian revolutions attempted to.

It did, actually. It reconstituted the 13 Colonies from the private colonial provinces of a constitutional monarch and his parliament into a fully independent federal democratic republic. That's a fairly radical restructure.

3. I have reservations about the American revolution, anyhow.

I know, because you believe in monarchism; an inherently evil system whose intrinsic evil you routinely refuse to acknowledge.

What happened in the Russian Revolution was actually that enough of the military and military leadership ended up on the Bolsheviks' side. That's how they won the civil war.

I'm aware. Are you aware that, before this occurred, the Tsar started cracking down on the revolutionaries through violent repression via police, gendarmes, and the Okhrana which only led to the population--including the military--further sympathizing with the Reds?

How's your movement's relationship to the military?

Ask me again when the Fed. Gov. starts mobilizing our Armed Forces to gun down protesters - many of which will be their own relatives, neighbors, friends, and colleagues.

[Sordhau]

What's the point of saying history is inevitably bloody and then, it seems, moralizing about it like this?

If the wheel of history turns by blood and tears, might as well try and steer the cart to a better place.

My point is that revolutions don't do that without excessive human cost and, ironically, human rights abuses. Not to mention cultural destruction, economic turmoil, incessant wars, etc.

The American and Belgian Revolutions beg to differ.

[Sordhau]

Tell you what Salus, you have acknowledged that the current state of things--the status quo--is evil, built upon evil, and motivated by evil. It creates and begets evil, it survives on evil. This is a no-brainer.

At the same time, you acknowledge that the creation of a better world requires evil itself. It takes evil to destroy evil.

So here's my question for you: what's your solution? If the status quo isn't the answer, and revolution isn't the answer, then what other alternative is there?

There needs to be a serious movement for reform that isn't carried off of the back of "we need to exterminate x people".

What people am I calling for the extermination of?

I mean, yeah? Not many people would seriously make the argument that the USSR was worse than the Russian Empire. Modern Russia is probably worse than both in a number of ways but that's because everything after the USSR dissolved went about the worst way possible for them.

I would actually, in a few ways.

The Soviets executed more people in two decades than the Romanovs did in their entire dynasty's reign.

The Soviets also took Russia from being an impoverished backwater fraught with frequent mass starvation into a global superpower.

[Salus Maior]

The American Revolution fits both definitions.

It did, actually. It reconstituted the 13 Colonies from the private colonial provinces of a constitutional monarch and his parliament into a fully independent federal democratic republic. That's a fairly radical restructure.

I know, because you believe in monarchism; an inherently evil system whose intrinsic evil you routinely refuse to acknowledge.

I'm aware. Are you aware that, before this occurred, the Tsar started cracking down on the revolutionaries through violent repression via police, gendarmes, and the Okhrana which only led to the population--including the military--further sympathizing with the Reds?

Ask me again when the Fed. Gov. starts mobilizing our Armed Forces to gun down protesters - many of which will be their own relatives, neighbors, friends, and colleagues.

1. Among historians it is debatable. I know this because I've studied it as a history major. There are historians who believe that the American revolution was radical (aka, truly revolutionary) and funnily enough those tend to be Americans. A lot of French and Russian scholars don't believe the American revolution is a true revolution because the American revolution differed greatly from the French and Russian which they believe is the standard.

2. The colonies were already self-governing, and the structure that existed before the declaration of independence was basically the same as the one after that.

3. I'm aware of the weaknesses of monarchism and that evil policies have happened under monarchies, but most of them pale in comparison to the atrocities that revolutionary socialists committed. Tsar Nicholas II might have had a lot of shortcomings and poor policies and is rightly criticized for many reasons, but at least he didn't create an industrial murder complex and literally invent the modern concentration camp as Lenin did.

In short, I see nothing intrinsically evil in royal systems that haven't been done either the same or worse under Socialist or Liberal governments.

4.Crackdowns that paled in comparison to what happened under the communist governments with the Cheka and NKVD. Ironically, those crackdowns killed more leftists than the Okhrana ever did.

5. Assuming they don't do what China does and gets regiments from other parts of the country to mow down protesters in certain regions. That seems to be working for them.

[Salus Maior]

There needs to be a serious movement for reform that isn't carried off of the back of "we need to exterminate x people".

What people am I calling for the extermination of?

I would actually, in a few ways.

The Soviets executed more people in two decades than the Romanovs did in their entire dynasty's reign.

The Soviets also took Russia from being an impoverished backwater fraught with frequent mass starvation into a global superpower.

Whoever happens to oppose the revolution I imagine, that's certainly what you're implying.

Imperial Russia was en-route to economical superpower status regardless of the Soviets. In fact ,the revolution stymied Russian growth from what it would have been if it didn't happen thanks to the Civil War and the famines from the collectivization.

Granted, WW1 also screwed that up, but the civil war and the revolution delayed it further.

[Kowani]

The American Revolution fits both definitions.

It did, actually. It reconstituted the 13 Colonies from the private colonial provinces of a constitutional monarch and his parliament into a fully independent federal democratic republic. That's a fairly radical restructure.

I know, because you believe in monarchism; an inherently evil system whose intrinsic evil you routinely refuse to acknowledge.

I'm aware. Are you aware that, before this occurred, the Tsar started cracking down on the revolutionaries through violent repression via police, gendarmes, and the Okhrana which only led to the population--including the military--further sympathizing with the Reds?

Ask me again when the Fed. Gov. starts mobilizing our Armed Forces to gun down protesters - many of which will be their own relatives, neighbors, friends, and colleagues.

1. Among historians it is debatable. I know this because I've studied it as a history major. There are historians who believe that the American revolution was radical (aka, truly revolutionary) and funnily enough those tend to be Americans. A lot of French and Russian scholars don't believe the American revolution is a true revolution because the American revolution differed greatly from the French and Russian which they believe is the standard.

"the american revolution was not as revolutionary as the french/russian because of its implentation of power structures" revolutions is one thing (with a large degree of serious analysis and thought put into it), "the american revolution was not a revolution" is a fundamentally unserious position largely based on national chauvinism
the radicality of the revolution comes not in the revolution itself or the Early Republic (which largely serves as an economic outpost of the british empire and is dominated by the same mercantile interests)-it's the Second Party System where things kick off and the revolutionary potential is truly unleashed, drawing largely from a particular brand of jeffersonianism
important to note here that this revolutionary protentional did not really threaten the slave power and came at the expense of thousands of native americans, not just for moral reasons (those too) but because of what it tells us about the power centres in the first and second party systems (and odd coalitional developments at the time)

[San Lumen]

https://thehill.com/news/house/3471459- ... re-a-liar/

Greene spars with CNN’s Acosta on Trump texts: ‘You’re a lia

[The Jamesian Republic]

https://thehill.com/news/house/3471459-greene-spars-with-cnns-acosta-on-trump-texts-youre-a-liar/

Greene spars with CNN’s Acosta on Trump texts: ‘You’re a lia

Reject Trump, Return to Christ.

I think I shall say this to the Trumpists when they come up.

[Shrillland]

PAC requests ethics investigation into Madison Cawthorn's conduct