Civil War...?

I studied the origins of the American Civil War at university

I can't help but feel today is a similar thing happening. The same ramping up of tensions.

Anyone else agree?

I agree the only problem is much like the fire eaters of their day the sides pushing for conflict are full of incapable idiots. On the regressive side we have 300+ pound women and 90 pounds or less twinks running around with the most bargain bin run of the mill local gun store guns yelling about muh revolution and muh evil white mam . And on "our" side we have dipshits and nazi larppers how think Jews have done every thing in the world and don't understand a single thing about how the nazis actually came to power running around with more useful and unique weapon choices ( mostly guys from k who also frequent pol ) but both sides are actually tiny if we factor in those willing to actually commit to a war which our side would have the advantage of. Relay a war would be quick and hell maybe even with little blood because unless leftist wage a full scale socialist/communist or the alt right with a racist/natsoc overthrow of the government the us military would be called in and tards with glocks vs tards Lugers and won't last long if even be willing to fight the full force of the military. A smaller scale conflict like those predateing the American civil war seems likely but a civil war will only come if either dems get back in office and start going full authoritarian commie and then pass me a rifle I'll fight that or the right does something that pisses off enough lefties to get a mass scale revolt

...

>civil war
>only one side has guns and a military

I'm not saying there *will* be a civil war at all.

I'm just saying that the current mood reminds me of the development of the Civil War. In 1820 they had the Missouri Compromise... in 1854 they had the Kansas-Nebraska Act... there were DECADES of tensions.

I'm sure in today's day and age, things will be resolved PEACEFULLY (probably. Although small-scale street violence is very likely of course.)

I'm not saying there'll be another Civil War, I'm saying there might be another seismic shift. Doesn't necessarily have to be violent.

no it's not really the same. The Civil war was sectarian in nature and had two geographic groups of states opposed to each other. Nothing like that is happening.

Although if republicans keep winning the presidency but losing the popular vote I could see the blue states trying to secede after a while.

also whites still hold the majority of the power in this country and voted trump 2 to 1. There's nobody who could oppose them.

no. a civil war because the traditional PC crowd don't like modern day PC crowd?

literally until the power runs out or theres no internet no one gives a shit

life is too good even for the poorest citizens in america, everyone is too fucking fat eating burger king and watching the kardashians. you have serious autists on both sides who like to roleplay and """protest""" but thats it

nothing will happen

Gonna keep the muh Weimar Amerika meme going here. We are gonna see more like that maybe not to the scale of violence but the same idea. To extreme views clash (the alt-right and regressives ) one is nationalist and working class the other is communist/multicultural in nature and everyone in the middle has to pick a side because republicans can't get shit done and democrats just are "progressive " enough for the monster they created. In the end it will be a choice of who applies to the most and who is the least annoying/dangerous and sadly the appeal to the masses will be in the regressives favor because the open borders multicultural communist state sounds nicer then the closed borders ethno state fascist or at least workers state.
>( live in the Deep South and the vast opinion is that the unit the right rally is bad because nazis and everyone here is a bible thumper and we know what the Bible says about the Jews and we know what Hitler did to the Jews people here are even ok with the shit Israel is trying to get through with the boycott thing because the Bible says Jews are good)
How ever even if unit the right was a disaster in many respects people will tolerate a group that is " violent" some of the time more then they will tolerate a group that is violent ALL of the time like antifa. So realy I can't say who will win in the end

That's the thing, there is a geographic separation now. Yes it's probably more complicated, but it still exists.

I'm not saying there will be another civil war, that's not what I'm saying. Instead it might be a secession, like you say. Or some division of the country.

>There's nobody who could oppose them.
Apart from the entire coalition of the left which comprises most of the minorities and quite a few cucked whites.

No I'm not saying another civil war will happen, I'm just saying the current time reminds me of the escalating tensions that led to the Civil War. It took decades of tensions before the war actually happened.

In today's world it might just be a secession of states, or just a political reorganisation of the land. I don't know. I have no idea. I'm just asking whether others agree that the escalating tensions feel similar to those that preceded the Civil War.

Not sure I agree, there are people on both sides who clearly feel passionately about having people like them (usually meaning people of their race) in the positions of leadership of the country.

I was watching a Jared Taylor interview where he said he thought multi-racialism was doomed to failure simply because different races have different interests and proclivities, and thus will always have tensions between each other. Maybe he's right and maybe separation will eventually happen.

not yet
the most likely time it'll happen is on the next election

IF the leftists (socialists/commies) win that and try to implement their ironic view of anti-fascism on the country then yeah america will have a coup not a civil war since a war implies one side can win over the other

the military is 99.9% on the right of the spectrum and the civilians won't even need to bother shooting lefties themselves

>*either side can win iver the other
corrected
point is lefties don't stand a chance in hell to win in an armed conflict

The tensions are there, but the spark hasn't happened yet. We can still decide not to do it. It's not too late.

But when it comes, if it comes, it will be so fast.

so, the patriots/ self proclaimed defenders of the constitution. owe their allegiance to rightwing ideology not the country/constitution/people?

I knew it.

Let us not forget the bolsheviks only masked themselves as a workers movement the leaders and even the doers in the party where upperclassmen who had never know the struggles of the working man. Lenin was little more then a ritch kid from a political family who would got to lead russia into its darkest times. They may not be a real threat on their own but neither where the bolsheviks as they hide in their underground meeting places and descused ideas of revolution under estimating the enemy is how we lose.
>As history as taught good men will do horrible thing if they think it will help them and other. Just look at the men of the czars army how when they and there families waited in breed lines for the minimum to eat and then when revolution came they marched on thier leader and nation and would become the fist of soviet oppression as they staved just the same as before

If you mean foreign bankers funding subversive movements and influencing people's opinions through controlling information, then yes.. same old tune that we dance to.

>humans aren't capable of changing things on their own and need bankers to push for it

liberality

If you think trillionaires have humanities best interest in their motives you can get bent. Keep your grass cut low, and you can always see the snake slithering in the grass.

Liberal meant something different back then my friend. It meant something very different

Found this out the other day...

Everyone has an agenda but not every event in history was at thier hand if it was we wouldn't be in a situation even this good for ourselves or the are the most incompetent overlords
>not saying they don't do it just it's not always them

George McClellan was a biiiiiiiiiiiiiitch

what do you mean?

It's not really a civil war if half the population are interlopers.

Liberal back in it birth meant a movement to liberty a movement away from kings and queens of the old world and embracing the freedom of all men ( please ignore the slavery ) now liberal means little more then self entitlement and restricting some groups rights so the preferred group can have advantages it deems it deserves. The liberals of old would look at to days liberals like Hitler and the Germans of the 30/40s would look at merkel and germany today with bitter disgust and point out this is the very thing we fought to get away from and now you have embraced it whole heartedly.
>some people have developed a theory that this is the natural course of liberalism but I disagree I feel the idea has been stolen and warped

...

This is my point compare this statement to modern "liberal" ideology they don't want freedom or a better world. at best they want to virtue signal without actually thinking and at worst they want an authoritarian state that just does what they want it to while silencing anyone who speaks our or challenges them and hell with the rest of it

cultivation of manners? piety?gee that never really worked out for the righteous.
those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protection of civil government. gee neither did that did it

The ideas are sound where they have gone is far from those ideas. What was once a betterment of society has become a gibs me dat I'm oppressed and muh feels Olympics to see who can either destroy thier once great nation first or turn it into a full on dictatorship but with a smile
>my bet is on sweden destroying itself first and germany turning into an authoritarian dictatorship with a smile

There will be no civil war. Please plan accordingly.

it's the right crying oppression.
can't beat up the gays no more
can't beat up minorities no more
can't call people names no more...
that what the right calls being oppressed.
as for gibs, the right is all for gibs as long as it goes to the rich.

I wonder if he realized that democracy could be undermined from “below” as well as crushed by tyranny from “above” by people who didn’t want the freedoms?

>it's the right crying oppression.
can't beat up the gays no more
can't beat up minorities no more
can't call people names no more...
that what the right calls being oppressed.
as for gibs, the right is all for gibs as long as it goes to the rich.

1 that's strom front and Nazi larpping idiots on pol and a few dipshits ( i personally don't care as long as you act like a decent human follow laws and don't consider yourself more important then anyone else just because of sexuality)
2 dipshits from stormfront and pol again. It's not minorities most right wingers have a problem with it's the im blank race you owe me because of my race and the we wuz kangz morons who ignore science and logic just to push thier race as superior (something the nazis did )
3 literally just words my guy
And yes with more and more places embracing this a certain race/s must be given special right intun making them a special class of citizen based only off race and as we are told we can't say things and aren't allowed to have opposing opinions based only on people's feelings clearly something is wrong in that society

The geographic divide is urban vs rural. If California secedes, who gives a fuck? The US is strong enough to survive without that god-forsaken state.

Democracy just didn't exist then realy a few nations may have had what we would call democracy but that like saying did the first communist realizes all the problems communism has

politicians, journalists and jews first

Bullshit presidential democracy it's shorter term monarchy.

You are technically right in theory democracy would be mob rule ( humans coming together on anything if every person gets a say on everything is nie impossible) but the early liberal definition is that the productive and useful members of society would help make it better by having a say (not a bad system but not really democracy because only a certain class would have a say granted the class I want to have a say but eh....)

not exactly. not along the same lines. the south is not specifically the social battle ground. I actually think it is southern California and the general northeast.

three distinct differneces are:

>the south is not being forced to remove a critical part of its commerce.
>the south is not so isolated, hence the support of Trump, a Yankee and not strictly a supporter of the confederacy or its ideals. (he uses the revolutionary ideals instead, similar but distinct).
>the south has neither back door referendums being made nor provocateurs, those that would be I.E. the KKK at large support trump, even if he doesn't support them.

I agree. I don't think that this country survives as a unified whole by the end of the century. Maybe within our own lifetime. The differences between the culture of the Middle United States and the Coastal States is too great. Night and day on every issue. Every major issue is split down the middle 50/50. Not only that, but people have very little tolerance for difference of opinion. As this board itself has shown. A country is a combination of a nation and a state, and we no longer are a nation of people. I have nothing in common with leftists, and I see them as a completely different group from me. As foreign as Chinese style communism. You're right, we are the beginning of some sort of secession movement.