2nd Civil War Theorycrafting Thread, Peaches Free

  • Thread starter Deleted member 88
  • Start date
I think the big initial source of disagreement early in the thread was this big contention:

Are we ("the right") on the verge of winning, or the verge of losing "forever".

My sense of things is that we're in the last bit of struggle before we enter 50 odd years of one party democratic socialist rule. We might squeak by a win in 2020, and then we'll enter one party rule like california or Mexico had for 50 years.

So, we'll have 50 years or so of awfulness, the country will collapse, and we'll have our own "break up of the soviet union" moment and emerge as a new nation like russia: not as crazy socialist as we just came out of, not as conservative as what we were before the revolution.

I just don't see the right winning at this point: Trump was more a lucky delay because the actual leadership of the democrats was going through a period of immense weakness as their leadership grew incredibly old and were wreaked in many ways by Obama, a weakness which still won a majority of votes.

I'm not really sure Trump will win 2020, but the immense weakness of the current leadership might grant him another term, on a knife edge.

After that, eh. Ive said before i think the US is already dead, and were at the picking its corps stage. But I've tended to pessimism.
 
Re: assimilation and nationality.

The past is a foreign country, populated by foreigners. I would like it if it didn't become foreign so fast I'm a foreigner in the nation of my birth.

Also, different groups living cheek to jowl can remain assimilated for thousands of years. Look at the castes in India- they're just very tolerant of the diverse groups around them that they, until very recently, would never dream of marrying.
 
Last edited:
Imma disagree. We've seen all this before. One advantage to being old and mildly conservative is that you can take a longer view and not worry so much because you've seen all this happen before.

Remember the 60s? Hippies chanting peace and love, destroying all sexual norms, pushing for ultra-liberal values, smoking all the weed, protesting in colleges, living-in-a-commune-with-all-possessions-shared, opposing the government in every way?

Those were the Boomers. The arch-conservative boogiemen the Millennials are desperately hoping will die off so they can usher in a new liberal era. Somehow they became the conservative of conservatives... how? It's not just the Overton window, their positions are visibly changed, for instance they were the drug-crazy generation and the free love generation but now they oppose legalizing marijuana and abortion. Their motto was "Give Peace a Chance" and they hated soldiers, but now they support the military. Why?

Now, and for the foreseeable future, students, internet media, and most of the MSM will be extremely liberal, for one reason: money. There's a basic conservative cliff a generation goes over when they quit being supported by government money and suddenly have to get a job and pay for other people to be supported by government money. Colleges, which are heavily supported by government money, tend to continue to be liberal because that's what gets them money. Working adults tend to conservatize as they realize how much those programs cost them. This doesn't happen instantly because the low-wage jobs a college student goes into don't pay much taxes, but by the time they're thirty and raking in the dough, they have to pay through the nose and start to conservatize rapidly. Moreover, this is important, the older a generation gets, the more reliably they get out and vote.

Media will continue to be liberal-dominated because College students have the most time to browse and consume that media so it tends to focus on their interests. So don't worry about the MSM and students, they'll always be liberal but the students will reliably become more conservative by the year soon after getting real jobs.

The US fairly reliably pendulums with the party-in-charge changing every 4-12 years, and the legislative branch reliably switching to whichever party isn't controlling the executive branch. After 8 years of Obama it was the Republican's turn to be President and the Democrat's turn to control the Senate. And thus it happened. Only twice in history has it not gone that way, once after Lincoln when the Civil War happened, and once with FDR when WW2 happened. Only the Judicial branch is actually stable and conservatives have taken that branch over for the next few decades.

I foresee two major changes ahead for the country. One is a maturation of our understanding of social media. Right now it's still a new technology, poorly understood and having ramifications we can't foresee and can't control. There's notable massive flaws in how we perceive things, for instance one can throw up any random chart or link any random study, regardless of it's quality or accuracy, and call it "proof." This habit will eventually fail, much as people no longer believe claims on TV about how well a product works based on "clinical studies," people will quit thinking an unattributed chart with no methodology constitutes proof.

The biggest change is going to be a massive party shift that will generate so much salt. The democrats are going to continue to push immigration until after the census, at which point California will have artificially inflated it's numbers and thus political importance for the next decade and immigrants will suddenly become far less important, just as happens every decade. However, after taking the presidency, possible in 2020 but maybe 2024, we'll have an (estimated) 8 years of Democrat rule in the white house.

Then around 2032-6 the Republicans will run a Hispanic or possibly Latin candidate. As has been noted many times on these forums, for all the claims of hatred and racism, conservative media is far more prone to having minority and female heroes and mixed ancestries amidst it's cast. Starship Troopers is the seminal ultra-right-wing work and it's main character is... Phillipino (Made into a white person, of course, in the liberal movie version because of course they did).

There won't be a problem selling said candidate. Mexicans and Latins in general are socially deeply conservative and the utter failure of communist and socialist rule in South America tends to sour the refugees on liberal values. The main reason they tend so liberal currently The massive wave of immigrants currently coming in will taper off once it's no longer politically advantageous for Democrats to boost numbers with them. Once here many of them will sour on allowing any more immigrants in as well (see: Mexican views on allowing in more Cubans). And with a candidate saying what they like, the massive wave brought in will flip. California itself might even be flipped red. The salt will be glorious.

So I don't think there'll be a civil war. It didn't happen in the 60s and that was an even more divided time than today. The most liberal generation ever, the Boomers, spontaneously conservatized over time and the Millennials will be no different. The wins the liberals gain today will turn on them tomorrow. Just relax and go with it.
 
Where does this belief that people from countries which have been deeply socialist for a 100 uears and have done massive programs to crush Christianity in them are deeply conservative?

Its a declaration with no proof. Maybe some cubans are anti socialist. Your average Mexican or guatimalian? No.

And its stange for you to interperet the total victory of the small, fringe 60s counter culture over the broader culture as a "defeat" also strikes me as, odd.
 
TBH, I’ll acknowledge the Democrats accusation as true.

The republicans do want to remain in power, my response is “yeah and that’s what we intend to do”.

The Republican electorate is well aware the winds of demography and the Overton window of political discourse are against it.

Why do you think we back Trump so fervently?

He is the last shield against political oblivion.

*I am being entirely sincere in what I am about to say, controversial as it is.

I firmly believe anything must be done to hold power(for myself and the party) and by that anything. Ideally without violence or large scale political suppression.

The problem is republicans simply cannot win due to the power of new immigrants and big cities. And the decline of the rural and religious right.

My attitude is simple, “if we can’t win via the ballot box, we’ll have to hold via a wall of bayonets”

Most of the republican electorate and party members do not yet put it in such blunt terms, but I am always an exception to these sorts of things.

If we must dispose of democratic governance entirely-it would be a terrible tragedy, but the Democrats have left us no alternative.
I think I'll probably put something in my sig to point out that I don't endorse the views of anyone else on the site or something in the case that one of you guys gets this site under FBI investigation.
 
Last edited:
I think I'll probably put something in my sig to point out that I don't endorse the views of anyone else on the site or something in the case that one of guys gets this site under FBI investigation.

Nah you gotta pay for a subscription to legally divest your opinions from anyone else on TS. Otherwise it's de facto assumed every opinion expressed on TS is yours and yours alone regardless of who made it. 😢
 
I think I'll probably put something in my sig to point out that I don't endorse the views of anyone else on the site or something in the case that one of guys gets this site under FBI investigation.

Don't worry, I assure you that website staff is very attentive for anything which violates the rules of this website, which includes any kind of advocacy for a constitutional overthrow. This website's rules very explicitly ban any kind of illegal advocacy, and needless to say, there is a fine but clear line between defending the Right to Revolution enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and opinions which will quickly get you banned.
 
Just in case of INTERPOL I would like to take a moment to say I might add to my sig that while I am a fan of Star Wars I am no way endorsing terrorism, murder, smuggling, bounty hunting, child trafficking, spice trading and droid equality.

Toxic fandoms be toxic.
 
Now, and for the foreseeable future, students, internet media, and most of the MSM will be extremely liberal, for one reason: money. There's a basic conservative cliff a generation goes over when they quit being supported by government money and suddenly have to get a job and pay for other people to be supported by government money. Colleges, which are heavily supported by government money, tend to continue to be liberal because that's what gets them money. Working adults tend to conservatize as they realize how much those programs cost them. This doesn't happen instantly because the low-wage jobs a college student goes into don't pay much taxes, but by the time they're thirty and raking in the dough, they have to pay through the nose and start to conservatize rapidly. Moreover, this is important, the older a generation gets, the more reliably they get out and vote.
Not just money, responsibility is another major factor. On of the biggest psychological differences between the left and right is that the right is duty motivated while the left is compassion motivated.
 
Where does this belief that people from countries which have been deeply socialist for a 100 uears and have done massive programs to crush Christianity in them are deeply conservative?

Its a declaration with no proof. Maybe some cubans are anti socialist. Your average Mexican or guatimalian? No.

And its stange for you to interperet the total victory of the small, fringe 60s counter culture over the broader culture as a "defeat" also strikes me as, odd.
Pretty much personal experience, as pointed out in my first sentence. Honestly I'm baffled that you response to my statement that it's my personal experience is a variant on "That's just, like, your opinion man!" Yeah, no kidding, that's why I called it that.

But if you want proof look no further than Wikipedia. The Latino National Political Survey, has found a consistent finding that Latinos identify themselves ideologically as moderates and conservatives. Social conservatism usually originates from religion, which oftentimes predicts Latino's opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage, support for the death penalty, and support for traditional gender roles.

Or examine the "surprising" records that showed that Trump pulled over a third of the Latino vote, Bush got half of it, and Republicans consistently tend to pull in 30-40% despite supposedly being the party that hates minorities.

There are specific ares where Latinos don't typically mesh with the Right, such as Gun Rights because they're accustomed to guns only being in enemy hands. But on a fairly wide swath, Latino immigrants tend to be extremely conservative.

Again, I'm looking at a broader swath of history rather than changes since last Tuesday. Once upon a time there was a famine, and massive hordes of Irish came to the US seeking a better life. And now, they are all Borg Americans. Chinese coolies laid the railroads that crisscross the nation, but could not turn the US into China (granted most returned to China, the ones that stayed became Americans). From 1910 to 1915 millions of Poles, Slaves, Jews, and Italians came to the US fleeing the political systems that were tearing Europe apart. A few returned and the others assimilated. None of them turned the US into Europe.

As for what you find odd, honestly I can't even parse your sentence there and I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I said nothing of defeat or victory because I don't regard things in those terms and did not use any such language. Which of my statements are you disputing, that the Boomers were Liberal, or that they are now Conservative? Please engage my actual statements if you want to discuss them.
 
Re: assimilation and nationality.

The past is a foreign country, populated by foreigners. I would like it if it didn't become foreign so fast I'm a foreigner in the nation of my birth.

Also, different groups living cheek to jowl can remain assimilated for thousands of years. Look at the castes in India- they're just very tolerant of the diverse groups around them that they, until very recently, would never dream of marrying.
Europe is a much better cache of examples. Gypsies pretty much anywhere - more or less half a millenium in multiple systems. They went through feudalism, constitutional monarchy, republics, communism, democratic socialism, fascism, liberal democracy, a whole lot of different political systems and eras in different countries...
Yet they still aren't assimilated.
Or how places like Ukraine and Latvia are not assimilating their Russian minorities, even though they are fellow Slavs, so by all reason it should be super easy...
Or another way around, how a mere half a century behind the Iron Curtain made East Germans have some minor yet noticeable political and cultural differences from the West ones that still aren't going away.
And then there are those definitely not assimilated separatist groups in Spain, even though they have lived in the same place since the age of kings and castles, if not longer...
Overall, there is a western world sized, ideologically driven tendency towards hyperoptimism regarding the "assimilation question", to almost take it for granted. But that vision is close to reality only with relatively small numbers of immigrants, preferably isolated from a larger community of their fellow countrymen, whether back home or in their new home. As a good example, if you take a theoretical one family of immigrants, they have no choice but to assimilate, even if slowly - after all, if they want to have any children, they will have to marry into their host culture. On the other hand, if you have millions of immigrant families living relatively close to each other, free to practice their ways? Then it's mostly a matter of preference. And if for whatever reason (like, say, religious imperative, or historical quarrels with the host culture) they have a tendency to say no more likely than yes...
I think the big initial source of disagreement early in the thread was this big contention:

Are we ("the right") on the verge of winning, or the verge of losing "forever".
It's a very unstable situation. Every election is a potential inflection point, as shown most clearly with Trump getting elected. It's nearly impossible how much and which direction will the line flex in next few ones, and those in turn will have a major "butterfly effect" on future ones - immigration policy changes being just one of many factors.
Its a declaration with no proof. Maybe some cubans are anti socialist. Your average Mexican or guatimalian? No.
Immigration's social profile can also matter a lot, Cuba is a good example. Especially early Cuban immigration to USA was essentially the anti communists, businessmen and other people on communist's shitlist escaping Castro's rule. Their political and economic tendencies obviously did reflect these facts, which were not representative of the average Cuban. Likewise, Guatemalan peasants who are "escaping poverty" have their own profile of characteristics, and by common sense, and it's certainly not making them nearly as attractive immigrants as the former.
 
Last edited:
Question, how much does Rural America need from Urban America in order to survive? The latter is where the major factories are

And I don’t think 3D Printing Technology is that adequate
The majority but in no way all manufacturing is urban. The US is heavily decentralized.
 
Okay question for everybody.

How do we define a nation or ethnic group?

Food and flag colors?

Skin color?

Religion?

Is there some sort of mystical “national soul” or can it be measured empirically?

Ethnicity is a group of people that identify with each other based on the basis of a shared culture, history, language, and generally bloodlines. They also generally share a similar and local geography.

So the natural question is, which is the defining factor or factors?

But before we can do that, we need to look at what a nation or a ethnic group actually is; it is a super organism. A super organism is an organism that is made up of various individual organism that acts as a single entity. This is most obvious in species like ants and termites, who are also super organisms. This is why when anyone, down to a child, studies an ant colony, they can notice strong commonalities between human society and ants.

Now, with an ant colony, who is and is not part of the tribe is generally dependent upon genetics and smell. If you don't come from the queen ant's line (ignoring male ants) then you are generally seen as a competitor and it's war. An interesting look though, is at the super ant colony of Argentine ants that now expands worldwide.

humilemap1s.jpg


Argentine ants have various Queens in their colonies, which allows for higher reproduction rates and their colonies tend to span a much larger range than most other ant nests. Another interesting note is that the ants themselves are so genetically identical to each other that ants can go from one nest to a neighboring nest and not be attacked--they are in fact, accepted as one of them. This gives them a competitive advantage over the ants of other parts of the world, because those ants make smaller nests and are more genetically diverse. Only members of different super colonies appear to have some adverse reaction to the other, from simply avoiding each other to outright killing each other.

Now, within Argentina itself, these ant colonies are not so massive as they are elsewhere. Because the genetic differences have already set in within other Argentina ants and so despite these species of ants having larger nests than other ants, they still fight with each other as is more common with different ant nests. Eventually though, even these super colonies may collapse as stretching over such large areas, these super colonies will each begin to adapt in different ways and that adaption itself will produce genetic differences that will cause these super colonies to collapse.

In fact, the University of California is working on spraying these ants with a special chemical that is similar to the ones they use to determine colony affiliation, so as to collapse these super colonies by forcing diversity into their social structure.

So what does this have to do with humans and ethnicity?

It's simple. Just as ants, humans are a super organism. Just like ants, we have traditionally associated ourselves with our near genetic groups. Unlike ants, we use to determine this association not with smells, but rather based on physical appearance, language, cultural norms, and historical knowledge passed down from parent to child (as a side note, ants have been tested and shown that they remember things long after the initial ants die; they create scent trails and patterns around their nests that although each individual ant does not remember having done, the super organism itself remembers, which has been compared to the human mind, in which individual cells die, but the knowledge is retained).

Also unlike ants, we do not all come from the same female mother and lack general competition within our own super organism. Instead, our male to female ratio is closer to 50/50, with men and women competing against those within their own gender for the best mate, which takes into various complicated information such as established genetics, ability, health, wealth, and social status within that super organism. What that means is that when you compare ants and humans, ants within the same colony are almost genetically identical compared to humans.

This is from basic math. If you have one queen that produces all the workers from being impregnated by the male ants, then you have a very uniform genetic history with a hundred ants. If however, you have a hundred humans, you have 50 pairs of people mixing their blood. More onto that is that those humans can and will mingle with other humans from different tribes that they find to be attractive. This induces a great deal more genetic, social, and linguistic distinctions than what would otherwise exist if we were more like ants.

And that brings us to the answer in your question. What makes up an ethnicity is the belief of a shared group association. It is within the nature of all things to mutate and change. The Argentine ant super colonies will become genetically diverse to adapt to their local geographies. And in doing so, they will "forget" their ethnic identification with their mother colony. Just as humans can forget through time and distance to be related to each other.

Take African Americans within the United States, for example. Most African Americans are actually 24% European. But they do not associate themselves as 'white' for various factors. The first is that mixed children within the Deep South were always considered to be black, not mixed, as was part of the caste system. Thus, the vast majority of these African Americans never held the social memory of having been 'white'. Therefore, they associate themselves with the black nation. More and more now however, you see men and women of mixed relations thinking of themselves as mixed and less as 'black'. This trend will likely continue.

And if you look at Hispanic people within the US, you find that they are on average 65% European and only about 18% Native. And yet they're treated within the US as a completely different race. The reason is of course that they are Spanish and have had centuries to build up a different culture than we have.

What will happen is this; African Americans will probably see a blurring effect as people slowly began to disassociate them from being black to being mixed to being American with African and European heritage, as Europeans themselves were eventually merged and saw themselves first as Americans, then second as of holding a different heritage. The Hispanic population will be slower and the closer they are to Mexico the less likely this effect will take place, but they till will be absorbed. However, because of Mexico's proximity to the US, there is a means of maintaining a separate identity to the US.

This will happen because the US itself is a very fluid system of mobility within its geography. Getting to the US continent is hard, but once you have a foothold, the geography actually encourages inter-connectivity. That's not to say there aren't and can't be conflicts, but they are lower than in places like Europe and within the US, the common identity shared as being one whole group is most advantageous and will probably continue into the foreseen future.
 
Or examine the "surprising" records that showed that Trump pulled over a third of the Latino vote, Bush got half of it, and Republicans consistently tend to pull in 30-40% despite supposedly being the party that hates minorities.

There are specific ares where Latinos don't typically mesh with the Right, such as Gun Rights because they're accustomed to guns only being in enemy hands. But on a fairly wide swath, Latino immigrants tend to be extremely conservative.
Part of the problem with those poles is they probably lump both legal and illegal immigrants under the same umbrella.
 
I think I'll probably put something in my sig to point out that I don't endorse the views of anyone else on the site or something in the case that one of you guys gets this site under FBI investigation.
Don't worry, I assure you that website staff is very attentive for anything which violates the rules of this website, which includes any kind of advocacy for a constitutional overthrow. This website's rules very explicitly ban any kind of illegal advocacy, and needless to say, there is a fine but clear line between defending the Right to Revolution enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and opinions which will quickly get you banned.
Eh, was there some sort of misunderstanding here?

I made it pretty clear I find violence undesirable and not once did I mention revolution in that post. Or terrorism for that matter.

About the most controversial aspect was that if left with no alternative, conservatives should hold onto power via autocratic or semi autocratic means for their own survival.

That’s definitely not a kosher thing to say, (even if more people have thought of it than you would think), but it isn’t illegal as far as I know.

Or against the rules of this forum. As best as I understand them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Lord Invictus advocating for an overthrow of the constitutional order is against the rules of this forum. Taking measures of extremity to defend it is not. I don’t see your post as doing so, because the US isn’t a democracy, but I do understand why it looked concerning to others, so a comment was in order.
 
Ah thanks for the clarification. Apologize for any misunderstandings.

And yes that is exactly what I meant. Taking extreme measures to defend the constitution and the republic.
 
Ah thanks for the clarification. Apologize for any misunderstandings.

And yes that is exactly what I meant. Taking extreme measures to defend the constitution and the republic.
It is a dark path to suspend the Constitution to save it.

I have noticed that there seems to be disagreement when it comes to bring American. I will make this clear. We are a civic nationalist state. No race, creed, or religion is necessary to be American. Our values and national story makes us American.

It is true that Judeo-Christian values plays a role in our thought and values. The Enlightenment played a large role in our values too. It is through this synthesis of philosophies along with the American experience that the bedrock of American values came about:

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

A man may not interfere with the pursuits of another unless their actions endanger another's life or liberty.

This basic tenet, this value, is something that can be taught and accepted by anyone. We live and die as a nation by the promulgation of this tenet. Anyone who violates it is fundamentally not American.

That is why Communists, "democratic" socialists, Nazis, theocrats, and authoritarians in general cannot be called American in my view. Each of these groups will violate the life, property, and pursuit of happiness of another. In doing so, they attack the foundation of this nation. You cannot be American if your values are not American.
 
Question, would anybody think it would be possible for a Civil War within the Left itself at the same time? I mean there are ANTIFA who are pro-gun
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top