+- Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory (http://generational-theory.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Fourth Turning Forums (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Current Events (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-34.html)
+---- Forum: General Political Discussion (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-15.html)
+---- Thread: The Maelstrom of Violence (/thread-824.html)
RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Kinser79 - 08-16-2017
(08-15-2017, 11:45 PM)gabrielle Wrote:(08-15-2017, 05:59 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I'm not inclined to believe the worst even of the racist element. A lot of their ilk could be wearing swastika because it makes their elders over react, not because they really want to push minority folk into cattle cars heading for gas chambers. Some people just like attention, violence and belonging. Some will adapt beliefs to get these things. Alas there are lone nuts and patriotic believers mixed in who take it beyond games.
At this same time, sensationalist and partisan elements of the media are willing to blow everything way out of proportion.
I know, lamestream media is always blowing everything out of proportion. I mean, who hasn't donned a swastika and terrorized some black clergymen in a bit of youthful folly?
I don't know about you, but I would do it if only to terrorize a certain black clergyman. But enough about my sperm donor issues.
RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - noway2 - 08-16-2017
(08-16-2017, 09:14 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: On the old forum I had posed the question of what event might be a trigger for this 4T as Harper's Ferry was to the Civil War 4T. Could the events in Charlottesville this past weekend be the one? After all, they both occurred within the same state.
Interesting question. One that I am not going to quickly dismiss out of hand as being impossible. Quoting from history.com
Quote:Brown was captured during the raid and later convicted of treason and hanged, but the raid inflamed white Southern fears of slave rebellions and increased the mounting tension between Northern and Southern states before the American Civil War (1861-65).
I will say that the defacing and desecration of historical monuments and the one sided rhetoric coming from most of the politicians, save a few such as Trump, is absolutely infuriating a subset of people, myself included. I have seen comments in a regional forum state things like: demands to take down and destroy MLK monuments and street signs, calls to start flying flags of the confederacy, arming up and defending the monuments, buying dodge chargers and going bowling when the BLM bastards block a highway, giving these antifa assholes more violence than they bargained for, and talk of buying and placing lawn jockeys. In short, this has the potential to escalate and when it does, it could get real ugly, very fast So from this perspective, yes I would say it has that possibility, or at the very least is fomenting tensions, animosity, and hatred, but would note that the feelings aren't entirely race based as the objects of ire include: BLM, snowflakes, regressives, Marxists, fascists, liberals, and other derogatory terms for "leftists".
On the other hands, I would say that this, in and of itself, is not going to be a trigger element because the timing isn't right. My feeling, which I think is backed by the 4T theory says that the climax will likely be around 2025.
RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - David Horn - 08-16-2017
(08-16-2017, 02:23 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:(08-15-2017, 05:09 PM)David Horn Wrote:(08-15-2017, 02:07 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: I'm far more worried about Antifa, as they have a direct connection to a group of elites ready to take power. When I see you spending as much time criticizing Antifa as you do white nationalist demonstrators, I'll know we can start worrying about the white nationalists. Until then, I'll concentrate on the greater threat.
As far as I can tell, Antifa is a consortium of privileged children doing penance, SJW types from college campuses and simple joiners looking for a rush. I fail to see any evidence of "a direct connection to a group of elites ready to take power". Enlighten us ... please.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/03/look-who-funds-the-group-behind-the-call-to-arms-at-milos-berkeley-event/
Sorry, but that's pretty small potatoes in comparison to the funding the right gets from the likes of Sheldon Adelson and the Kochs. And let's be honest, Cornell West and George Soros are players, but they aren't power players. On the other hand, Rupert Murdock funds an entire phalange of RW media: papers, TV outlets and networks.. So does the Sinclair Group. And even more to the point, the right has been doing this for a very long time. Rush Limbaugh started in talk-politics in 1984, not surprisingly, just after Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine.
So don't pitch manure when you're standing in a cesspool.
RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - pbrower2a - 08-16-2017
(08-16-2017, 09:14 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: On the old forum I had posed the question of what event might be a trigger for this 4T as Harper's Ferry was to the Civil War 4T. Could the events in Charlottesville this past weekend be the one? After all, they both occurred within the same state.
Virginia in 2017 is not Virginia in 1859. John Brown, mixed up as he was, had sentiments with support in large parts of America. Fascist pigs such as the KKK and neo-Nazis have no mass support in any part of America. The killer is about as morally attractive as the late John Allen Mohammed (remember him? He was the serial killer who shot people from inside the trunk of his car. He was executed in Virginia for murders in Virginia).
We generally recognize the Klan and neo-Nazis believing things completely out of touch with any but a minuscule part of America and no part of the commercial, culture, religious, or political elites in America.
What is exposed is the moral depravity and the incompetence of the President. We all associate Nazis with mass murder on the greatest scale in the shortest time. We associate Klan groups with support of hatred that began as nostalgia for the old slave system but that has morphed into a call for genocide once Klansmen started adopting Nazi symbols and ideology. Such is nothing new. What is new is that we have a fresh victim -- a pretty white girl with no objectionable characteristics. This is more effective for consolidating sympathy for her than does some black kid who made a fatal mistake when the cops made a fatal mistake in a lethal encounter.
Americans have never been less tolerant of ethnic, racial, sexual, and religious bigotry. Elected Republicans are scared of the crass, mealy-mouthed statements of this President. In a parliamentary system there would have been a vote of no confidence for a Prime Minister who has shown such crass indifference to the sensitivities of well over 99% of the People. We have a President who acts as if he has no responsibility except to those personally connected or sharing his ideology.
It is time for President Trump to resign for the good of America and even for the good of the Republican Party. Sure, I am a Democrat, and I recognize that it might be advantageous for my Party that a crippled President be in office so that my Party can make political gains that it cannot with someone like Mike Pence (more extreme in his economic and social agenda, but more competent).
There are just too many clear and present dangers, most obviously an insane leader in North Korea who could initiate a Korean civil war with the potential for mass death on the scale of the Rwandan genocide and the horrors of the Khmer Rouge. .
RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - pbrower2a - 08-16-2017
(08-16-2017, 09:22 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:(08-16-2017, 02:07 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:(08-15-2017, 02:07 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:(08-14-2017, 01:13 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Americans, prepare yourselves for the worst time in your history. Do not compromise with evil even if it has an American flag attached. And yes, that means you, Warren.
People waving Confederate flags in WWII did not bring back slavery. People waving WWII German flags are not going to bring back Hitler.
I am surprised that you do not have a problem with admirers of the Confederacy aligning themselves with Nazis.
Who would you expect them to align with? They're both justifiably lost causes.
Quote:Quote:I'm far more worried about Antifa, as they have a direct connection to a group of elites ready to take power. When I see you spending as much time criticizing Antifa as you do white nationalist demonstrators, I'll know we can start worrying about the white nationalists. Until then, I'll concentrate on the greater threat.
When someone from Antifa drives his car into a crowd of right-wingers in a peaceful demonstration, then let me know.
How about when they kill several policemen trying to assassinate a congressman?
Antifa is left-wing authoritarians. They would be glad to turn their enemies over to law enforcement and the legal system, ideally leading their fascist opponents to a Gulag.
RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Warren Dew - 08-16-2017
(08-16-2017, 09:14 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: On the old forum I had posed the question of what event might be a trigger for this 4T as Harper's Ferry was to the Civil War 4T. Could the events in Charlottesville this past weekend be the one? After all, they both occurred within the same state.
I don't see Charlottesville as the equivalent of John Brown at Harper's Ferry, but then I don't see Harper's Ferry as the trigger to the Civil War, either.
RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - David Horn - 08-16-2017
(08-16-2017, 08:14 AM)gabrielle Wrote: Black Lives Matter Is Not a Hate GroupEven if I agree in full, which I do with some reservations, they are still a net negative on the left. Is it any wonder that the Democrats can't win anything anywhere when their allies spend 99% of the time, and nearly that much of the political oxygen, advocating for narrow interests that are, by definition, exclusionary. At least Bernie Sanders understands that if none of the other politicos on the left do.
This is about a year old, but I don't believe there's been any major change in the direction of BLM since then.
When a group calls itself Black Lives Matter, the majority of Americans hear it as Only Black Lives Matter. That's not fair, but it is reality. The same applies to any of the other narrow interest groups with a limited agenda that focuses on a minority rather than the whole. You can't win with 100% support of 25% of the people. If you don't win, you can't do anything.
RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - David Horn - 08-16-2017
(08-16-2017, 09:22 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:pbower Wrote:When someone from Antifa drives his car into a crowd of right-wingers in a peaceful demonstration, then let me know.
How about when they kill several policement trying to assassinate a congressman?
How about Timothy McVeigh? Come on, these are both lone-wolf cases, just like Dylan Roof. What made Charlottesville different was the context. The violence at Berkley in opposition to Milo Yiannopoulos is more similar.
RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - David Horn - 08-16-2017
(08-16-2017, 01:13 PM)noway2 Wrote: I will say that the defacing and desecration of historical monuments and the one sided rhetoric coming from most of the politicians, save a few such as Trump, is absolutely infuriating a subset of people, myself included. I have seen comments in a regional forum state things like: demands to take down and destroy MLK monuments and street signs, calls to start flying flags of the confederacy, arming up and defending the monuments, buying dodge chargers and going bowling when the BLM bastards block a highway, giving these antifa assholes more violence than they bargained for, and talk of buying and placing lawn jockeys. In short, this has the potential to escalate and when it does, it could get real ugly, very fast So from this perspective, yes I would say it has that possibility, or at the very least is fomenting tensions, animosity, and hatred, but would note that the feelings aren't entirely race based as the objects of ire include: BLM, snowflakes, regressives, Marxists, fascists, liberals, and other derogatory terms for "leftists".
On the other hands, I would say that this, in and of itself, is not going to be a trigger element because the timing isn't right. My feeling, which I think is backed by the 4T theory says that the climax will likely be around 2025.
If your argument rests on these "historical monuments" then you're already on shaky ground. These were, for the most part, the products of unreconstructed Confederates and their kin, and intended to make the point that the Southern white man was still king in the South. Most were erected in the early 20th century, not immediately after the ACW. Their historical import is dubious, unless it's intended to remind everyone of segregation and, oh yeah, lynchings.
RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - noway2 - 08-16-2017
(08-16-2017, 02:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: If your argument rests on these "historical monuments" then you're already on shaky ground. These were, for the most part, the products of unreconstructed Confederates and their kin, and intended to make the point that the Southern white man was still king in the South. Most were erected in the early 20th century, not immediately after the ACW. Their historical import is dubious, unless it's intended to remind everyone of segregation and, oh yeah, lynchings.
I'm not entirely certain what you mean by on shaky ground. If you're trying to claim that these blacks and their white snowflake lackeys that are committing vandalism have some sort of moral high ground for their actions, you would be grossly mistaken. They are, however, running the risk of getting put down, hard, as other people are taking great offense to the desecration. The biggest thing preventing it is that the unlike this crowd, some people have jobs and obligations.
RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - David Horn - 08-16-2017
(08-16-2017, 02:26 PM)noway2 Wrote:(08-16-2017, 02:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: If your argument rests on these "historical monuments" then you're already on shaky ground. These were, for the most part, the products of unreconstructed Confederates and their kin, and intended to make the point that the Southern white man was still king in the South. Most were erected in the early 20th century, not immediately after the ACW. Their historical import is dubious, unless it's intended to remind everyone of segregation and, oh yeah, lynchings.
I'm not entirely certain what you mean by on shaky ground. If you're trying to claim that these blacks and their white snowflake lackeys that are committing vandalism have some sort of moral high ground for their actions, you would be grossly mistaken. They are, however, running the risk of getting put down, hard, as other people are taking great offense to the desecration. The biggest thing preventing it is that the unlike this crowd, some people have jobs and obligations.
It's hard to desecrate a symbol intended to sow fear and keep "them" in their place. You don't see Hitler statues in Germany, but Stalin is still "revered" in Putin's Russia. I wonder why.
RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - noway2 - 08-16-2017
(08-16-2017, 02:33 PM)David Horn Wrote: It's hard to desecrate a symbol intended to sow fear and keep "them" in their place. You don't see Hitler statues in Germany, but Stalin is still "revered" in Putin's Russia. I wonder why.If you really believe that what these monuments represent, you'd be wrong, but I can't help you. Oh no doubt blacks have convinced themselves of the "institutionalized racism" and see these statues as a symbol of the white man keeping them down. It's easy to blame someone else for their lack of progress rather than looking in the mirror and seeing the fault lies with themselves. The thing is that no matter how much history they destroy they will never get ahead and actions like this will only create more bigotry against them at best and get them put back in chains at worst. I really do hope that this country is able to balkanize and these elements can be purged from my portion of it. In reality, it would probably be enough to take away their handouts and to simply watch their "society" implode as a result.
I wasn't born in the South, but I chose it as my home and I am proud of the heritage of these people who stood up and fought against an out of control and illegitimate federal government. The funny thing is that I used to believe, like most leftists do, that "government" can be used as a force for good and to establish equality. I've since come to the realization that this isn't true and that "government" will always lead to oppression.
RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Warren Dew - 08-16-2017
(08-16-2017, 02:02 PM)David Horn Wrote:(08-16-2017, 09:22 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:pbower Wrote:When someone from Antifa drives his car into a crowd of right-wingers in a peaceful demonstration, then let me know.
How about when they kill several policement trying to assassinate a congressman?
How about Timothy McVeigh? Come on, these are both lone-wolf cases, just like Dylan Roof. What made Charlottesville different was the context. The violence at Berkley in opposition to Milo Yiannopoulos is more similar.
The guy who killed someone with his car was at that point acting on his own, away from the protest location. His connection was political motivation, but the Congressional baseball assassin was clearly politically motivated too. The parallels are accurate.
Timothy McVeigh was way back in the middle of the third turning, and his target was not an opposing political faction.
RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Bob Butler 54 - 08-16-2017
(08-16-2017, 01:42 PM)David Horn Wrote:(08-16-2017, 02:23 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:(08-15-2017, 05:09 PM)David Horn Wrote:(08-15-2017, 02:07 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: I'm far more worried about Antifa, as they have a direct connection to a group of elites ready to take power. When I see you spending as much time criticizing Antifa as you do white nationalist demonstrators, I'll know we can start worrying about the white nationalists. Until then, I'll concentrate on the greater threat.
As far as I can tell, Antifa is a consortium of privileged children doing penance, SJW types from college campuses and simple joiners looking for a rush. I fail to see any evidence of "a direct connection to a group of elites ready to take power". Enlighten us ... please.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/03/look-who-funds-the-group-behind-the-call-to-arms-at-milos-berkeley-event/
Sorry, but that's pretty small potatoes in comparison to the funding the right gets from the likes of Sheldon Adelson and the Kochs. And let's be honest, Cornell West and George Soros are players, but they aren't power players. On the other hand, Rupert Murdock funds an entire phalange of RW media: papers, TV outlets and networks.. So does the Sinclair Group. And even more to the point, the right has been doing this for a very long time. Rush Limbaugh started in talk-politics in 1984, not surprisingly, just after Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine.
So don't pitch manure when you're standing in a cesspool.
How valid is the 'follow the money trail' argument generally? Is anyone who contributes to any cause responsible for the actions of violent lone nuts associated with said cause? There are both rich partisans and violent lone nuts everywhere.
RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Bob Butler 54 - 08-16-2017
(08-16-2017, 09:14 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: On the old forum I had posed the question of what event might be a trigger for this 4T as Harper's Ferry was to the Civil War 4T. Could the events in Charlottesville this past weekend be the one? After all, they both occurred within the same state.
I'd suggest a trigger in a military crisis would be the event that sends a lot of young to the recruiting center. In the Civil War, by that standard, Fort Sumter would be the trigger. Modern Charlottesville would not be.
But there are 'catalyst' events and markers which escalate tensions and demonstrate how some people feel about issues without being the immediate cause of open conflict. Modern Charlottesville, Harper's Ferry and the election of Lincoln could easily be given the catalyst tag. Generally, you don't get to the trigger without a number of catalysts first.
RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Bob Butler 54 - 08-16-2017
(08-16-2017, 03:02 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(08-16-2017, 02:02 PM)David Horn Wrote:(08-16-2017, 09:22 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:pbower Wrote:When someone from Antifa drives his car into a crowd of right-wingers in a peaceful demonstration, then let me know.
How about when they kill several policement trying to assassinate a congressman?
How about Timothy McVeigh? Come on, these are both lone-wolf cases, just like Dylan Roof. What made Charlottesville different was the context. The violence at Berkley in opposition to Milo Yiannopoulos is more similar.
The guy who killed someone with his car was at that point acting on his own, away from the protest location. His connection was political motivation, but the Congressional baseball assassin was clearly politically motivated too. The parallels are accurate.
Timothy McVeigh was way back in the middle of the third turning, and his target was not an opposing political faction.
McVeigh was responding to a US government policy, but arguably it was a highly partisan policy. I think McVeigh an important element in understanding the spiral of rhetoric and violence.
Also, from my perspective, the Iraq war was set in a crisis period, was potentially a full scale transforming crisis. Bush 43, seeing the US as a sole superpower, attempted a neo colonial pattern. Invade. Build bases, a giant embassy, and establish a puppet state. Once secure, invade again, go for the next country. Stay the course against cut and run was a truly a big deal debate. For a brief time, after the initial formal clash, Bush 43 actually had the Iraqi people on his side. If he had won his war, if what he intended worked with no economic collapse, I'd have to call him a grey champion and acknowledge how much the new values changed America. America's role in the world would be very different.
Of course, Bush 43's new values didn't work out as well as he liked. They died stillborn. I have come to label this a false regeneracy. McVeigh saw this first hand, boots on the ground. What he did was a big deal in America, but detonating explosives and causing mostly civilian casualties was the norm in Iraq, par for the course for Bush 43 and his army.
Anyway, It looks like you are cherry picking. I don't think McVeigh should be forgotten.
RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Warren Dew - 08-16-2017
(08-16-2017, 08:37 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(08-16-2017, 03:02 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(08-16-2017, 02:02 PM)David Horn Wrote:(08-16-2017, 09:22 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:pbower Wrote:When someone from Antifa drives his car into a crowd of right-wingers in a peaceful demonstration, then let me know.
How about when they kill several policement trying to assassinate a congressman?
How about Timothy McVeigh? Come on, these are both lone-wolf cases, just like Dylan Roof. What made Charlottesville different was the context. The violence at Berkley in opposition to Milo Yiannopoulos is more similar.
The guy who killed someone with his car was at that point acting on his own, away from the protest location. His connection was political motivation, but the Congressional baseball assassin was clearly politically motivated too. The parallels are accurate.
Timothy McVeigh was way back in the middle of the third turning, and his target was not an opposing political faction.
McVeigh was responding to a US government policy, but arguably it was a highly partisan policy. I think McVeigh an important element in understanding the spiral of rhetoric and violence.
Also, from my perspective, the Iraq war was set in a crisis period, was potentially a full scale transforming crisis. Bush 43, seeing the US as a sole superpower, attempted a neo colonial pattern. Invade. Build bases, a giant embassy, and establish a puppet state. Once secure, invade again, go for the next country. Stay the course against cut and run was a truly a big deal debate. For a brief time, after the initial formal clash, Bush 43 actually had the Iraqi people on his side. If he had won his war, if what he intended worked with no economic collapse, I'd have to call him a grey champion and acknowledge how much the new values changed America. America's role in the world would be very different.
Of course, Bush 43's new values didn't work out as well as he liked. They died stillborn. I have come to label this a false regeneracy. McVeigh saw this first hand, boots on the ground. What he did was a big deal in America, but detonating explosives and causing mostly civilian casualties was the norm in Iraq, par for the course for Bush 43 and his army.
Anyway, It looks like you are cherry picking. I don't think McVeigh should be forgotten.
If the policy McVeigh was responding to was partisan, which party do you think it was associated with? He was reacting to Ruby Ridge and Waco. Ruby Ridge happened under the Republicans, Waco under the Democrats.
No, the Oklahoma City bombing and the subsequent change in federal policy in the direction desired by McVeigh was just part of the unraveling.
And what does the Iraq War have to do with McVeigh? He was dead before the Iraq War started. Senior moment?
RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Warren Dew - 08-16-2017
(08-16-2017, 01:42 PM)David Horn Wrote:(08-16-2017, 02:23 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:(08-15-2017, 05:09 PM)David Horn Wrote:(08-15-2017, 02:07 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: I'm far more worried about Antifa, as they have a direct connection to a group of elites ready to take power. When I see you spending as much time criticizing Antifa as you do white nationalist demonstrators, I'll know we can start worrying about the white nationalists. Until then, I'll concentrate on the greater threat.
As far as I can tell, Antifa is a consortium of privileged children doing penance, SJW types from college campuses and simple joiners looking for a rush. I fail to see any evidence of "a direct connection to a group of elites ready to take power". Enlighten us ... please.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/03/look-who-funds-the-group-behind-the-call-to-arms-at-milos-berkeley-event/
Sorry, but that's pretty small potatoes in comparison to the funding the right gets from the likes of Sheldon Adelson and the Kochs. And let's be honest, Cornell West and George Soros are players, but they aren't power players. On the other hand, Rupert Murdock funds an entire phalange of RW media: papers, TV outlets and networks.. So does the Sinclair Group. And even more to the point, the right has been doing this for a very long time. Rush Limbaugh started in talk-politics in 1984, not surprisingly, just after Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine.
So don't pitch manure when you're standing in a cesspool.
There is substantially bigger money around - on both sides - but it is not going to the neoconfederates (white nationalists, whatever you want to call them) in this protest. Between the two sides at Charlottesville, the Antifa has direct connections to elites, the neoconfederates do not.
RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - gabrielle - 08-16-2017
(08-16-2017, 01:53 PM)David Horn Wrote:(08-16-2017, 08:14 AM)gabrielle Wrote: Black Lives Matter Is Not a Hate GroupEven if I agree in full, which I do with some reservations, they are still a net negative on the left. Is it any wonder that the Democrats can't win anything anywhere when their allies spend 99% of the time, and nearly that much of the political oxygen, advocating for narrow interests that are, by definition, exclusionary. At least Bernie Sanders understands that if none of the other politicos on the left do.
This is about a year old, but I don't believe there's been any major change in the direction of BLM since then.
When a group calls itself Black Lives Matter, the majority of Americans hear it as Only Black Lives Matter. That's not fair, but it is reality. The same applies to any of the other narrow interest groups with a limited agenda that focuses on a minority rather than the whole. You can't win with 100% support of 25% of the people. If you don't win, you can't do anything.
Bernie Sanders supports Black Lives Matter. You know, it is possible to care about "narrow interests," like whether black people are being unfairly and violently targeted by law enforcement, and many other things as well.
If the majority of white Americans think that the goals of racial justice and equality are exclusionary, that only goes to show how badly they are needed.
RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Eric the Green - 08-17-2017
(08-16-2017, 01:53 PM)David Horn Wrote:(08-16-2017, 08:14 AM)gabrielle Wrote: Black Lives Matter Is Not a Hate GroupEven if I agree in full, which I do with some reservations, they are still a net negative on the left. Is it any wonder that the Democrats can't win anything anywhere when their allies spend 99% of the time, and nearly that much of the political oxygen, advocating for narrow interests that are, by definition, exclusionary. At least Bernie Sanders understands that if none of the other politicos on the left do.
This is about a year old, but I don't believe there's been any major change in the direction of BLM since then.
When a group calls itself Black Lives Matter, the majority of Americans hear it as Only Black Lives Matter. That's not fair, but it is reality. The same applies to any of the other narrow interest groups with a limited agenda that focuses on a minority rather than the whole. You can't win with 100% support of 25% of the people. If you don't win, you can't do anything.
Democrats don't spend 99% of the time on those issues.
It's important that they spend the time on them that they do. Blacks and other marginalized groups are an important part of the Democratic Party. Without them they can't win.
With them, they can't win either? That doesn't speak well for "the majority of Americans" and what they choose to hear. If Americans are capable of good will and conscience, and support human rights, as Americans claim to do, they will realize that violations of rights for some is a violation of rights for all. If they don't, then we have already lost our country, and it deserves to become the poor banana republic that it has already been on the way to becoming for 40 years (as of 2020).
Yes, it's important that Democrats stress the issues that affect all of us, like the economic equality gap, climate change, etc. But violations of human rights is a fundamental challenge to what this country is supposed to be, and must be addressed by any political party interested in our country (speaking of excluding, that may exclude the Republican Party).