Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory
The Maelstrom of Violence - Printable Version

+- 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)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37


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 Group

This is about a year old, but I don't believe there's been any major change in the direction of BLM since then.
Even 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.  
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 Group

This is about a year old, but I don't believe there's been any major change in the direction of BLM since then.
Even 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.  
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).


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Eric the Green - 08-17-2017

(08-16-2017, 08:56 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(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.

I'd have to see some figures and names on that contention. And the "elite" are not college professors, they are the owners and bosses.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Eric the Green - 08-17-2017

(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.

Both were politically-motivated killings. But I don't know what you mean by "away from the protest location;" he drove right into it.

McVeigh's motivation was political as well. He was motivated by some of the same sorts of right-wing sentiments as those right-wingers who demonstrated and hurt people at Charlottesville.

"McVeigh’s sub cultural values were also heavily influenced by right wing militia ideologies. McVeigh was found to have a copy of The Turner Diaries in his car. The book written by William Pierce, founder of the Neo-Nazi National Alliance is often cited as the manual for the bombing."
https://blindtohear.wordpress.com/university-essays/timothy-mcveighs-terrorist-motivations-drifting-towards-and-neutralising-mass-murder/

His opponent was the federal government of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Bob Butler 54 - 08-17-2017

(08-17-2017, 05:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Both were politically-motivated killings. But I don't know what you mean by "away from the protest location;" he drove right into it.

McVeigh's motivation was political as well. He was motivated by some of the same sorts of right-wing sentiments as those right-wingers who demonstrated and hurt people at Charlottesville.

"McVeigh’s sub cultural values were also heavily influenced by right wing militia ideologies. McVeigh was found to have a copy of The Turner Diaries in his car. The book written by William Pierce, founder of the Neo-Nazi National Alliance is often cited as the manual for the bombing."
https://blindtohear.wordpress.com/university-essays/timothy-mcveighs-terrorist-motivations-drifting-towards-and-neutralising-mass-murder/

His opponent was the federal government of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno.

I would say 'the federal government of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno' was McVeigh's perceived opponent, more than actual. Prior to Clinton, the federal police doctrine was fairly firm and violent against political protestors. Thus, you had problematic incidents such as Ruby Ridge and Waco. The Clinton 42 administration implemented a much less violent and hurried approach that helped end that particular spiral of violence. However, McVeigh didn't get a copy of the memo and went violent after said change was already underway.

The pendulum seems to be swinging back towards a more interventionist and violent police presence, though the trend may be more local than federal.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Eric the Green - 08-17-2017

(08-17-2017, 05:51 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(08-17-2017, 05:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Both were politically-motivated killings. But I don't know what you mean by "away from the protest location;" he drove right into it.

McVeigh's motivation was political as well. He was motivated by some of the same sorts of right-wing sentiments as those right-wingers who demonstrated and hurt people at Charlottesville.

"McVeigh’s sub cultural values were also heavily influenced by right wing militia ideologies. McVeigh was found to have a copy of The Turner Diaries in his car. The book written by William Pierce, founder of the Neo-Nazi National Alliance is often cited as the manual for the bombing."
https://blindtohear.wordpress.com/university-essays/timothy-mcveighs-terrorist-motivations-drifting-towards-and-neutralising-mass-murder/

His opponent was the federal government of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno.

I would say 'the federal government of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno' was McVeigh's perceived opponent, more than actual.  Prior to Clinton, the federal police doctrine was fairly firm and violent against political protestors.  Thus, you had problematic incidents such as Ruby Ridge and Waco.  The Clinton 42 administration implemented a much less violent and hurried approach that helped end that particular spiral of violence.  However, McVeigh didn't get a copy of the memo and went violent after said change was already underway.

The pendulum seems to be swinging back towards a more interventionist and violent police presence, though the trend may be more local than federal.

Although Waco and Ruby Ridge happened under Clinton and Reno in 1993. Thus, they were McVeigh's targets.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - Bob Butler 54 - 08-17-2017

(08-16-2017, 08:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: And what does the Iraq War have to do with McVeigh?  He was dead before the Iraq War started.  Senior moment?

Yep. Wrong war. McVeigh's experience in US Middle East policy came in Desert Storm under Bush 41.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - David Horn - 08-17-2017

(08-16-2017, 08:56 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: 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.

That's similar to the argument made for the RW in the 1950s: fringe and unimportant.  Well, a lot of those same groups, or their direct offshoots, are still out there today.  That's not possible without backing in a big way, and old money tends to be far right.  Just look at the political funding by the Mellon-Scaife family, as a prime example.  These are low profile, very wealthy people with distorted views of their rights and yours.  I would call them American aristocrats, but they lack even the basic noblese oblige that goes with the title.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - David Horn - 08-17-2017

(08-16-2017, 09:02 PM)gabrielle Wrote:
(08-16-2017, 01:53 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(08-16-2017, 08:14 AM)gabrielle Wrote: Black Lives Matter Is Not a Hate Group

This is about a year old, but I don't believe there's been any major change in the direction of BLM since then.

Even 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.  
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.

You can preach or govern: Your choice.  There is a large contingent of very disgruntled people out there, and it's easy to make them hate those advocating for the better treatment of everyone but them.  The GOP Dog Whistle Brigade is based on keeping that anger stoked, and it's served them well.  If you wish to break that stranglehold, you can't do it by doing the same failed things over and over.

It's down to this: break the narrative. I argued with Playwrite about this when he was still active here and on the old forum.  The liberals of the 1970s let the old narrative die, and this is the result.  I don't see the GOP doing the same.  Even Trump seems to be too little to turn the tide, so the task will not be easy.  And no, I don't have a magic bullet plan either.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - David Horn - 08-17-2017

(08-17-2017, 05:13 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Democrats don't spend 99% of the time on those issues.

Actually, they do.  Its race or gender, abortion access or open borders.  There are only two issues that must be addressed: pay and equality, and climate change.  The others will follow if those two are addressed successfully, but no one will get the chance if they don't focus.

Which brings us to the 'how', which is hard ... very hard.


RE: The Maelstrom of Violence - David Horn - 08-17-2017

(08-17-2017, 06:13 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(08-16-2017, 08:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: And what does the Iraq War have to do with McVeigh?  He was dead before the Iraq War started.  Senior moment?

Yep.  Wrong war.  McVeigh's experience in US Middle East policy came in Desert Storm under Bush 41.

I would ask what the Iraq War has to do with the fringe-right, whatever you want to call them.  That fringe was around in the 1950s too.  It's predecessor was around in the '20s and '30s.  You can't just draw a line on the calendar and say, 'It starts here'.