** 17-Jul-2019 Civil war
Millenial83 wrote:
> As even John has written in his book and in his various analyses,
> often in a Crisis Era the ideas of the previous Awakening are
> either enshrined permanently or are rejected. The ideas of this
> cycles awakening were Civil Rights for Blacks, opening the door to
> American to non-white immigrants (1965 Act) and family destroying
> feminism.
> As the demographic changes are now coming to a head from the 1965
> Act and illegal immigration, the white majority is starting to
> feel it's back up against the wall and is pushing back, hard,
> hence MAGA, and rightfully so.
> I foresee the trigger being the 2024 election, where only for
> demographic reasons Texas flips blue, because it turned
> brown. Once that happens the grassroots right will understand that
> demographics is about to end all national political power and the
> Civil War will begin. The two sides are obvious the Red Side:
> Traditional (Real) White America vs Blue Side: Weak ubran
> brainwashed self-hating whites, Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims,
> and Homosexuals. Obvious the red side would win in this fight and
> in the process Make America White Again.
> We can all feel it, the fight that is coming in the Crisis is
> internal, not external. There is no "Bomb China" chant
> spontaneously erupting Trump rallies but "Send Her Back" is.
> "Send Her Back" will morph into "Send Them All Back!"; blacks to
> segregation, post 1965 non-white immigrants back where they came
> from (born here or not), women back to the home, gays back to the
> closet as the Civil War kicks off.
This is almost completely fatuous nonsense, so much so that I'm
wondering if you're posting it as a joke. The idea that "traditional"
Whites will start a war with "self-hating whites" or gays or whatever
is really silly.
Also, your posts are getting close to crossing the line into hard core
racism. Please don't force me start deleting your posts, which I
definitely do not what to have to do, but will if forced to.
Beyond that you're describing a political split (red vs blue), and
claiming that it will trigger a civil war. There are sharp political
splits at one time or another in every country, and so if your
reasoning were correct, then we'd see a lot more civil wars. But we
don't.
When there are civil wars, there's always a lot more than a political
split. It's Hutus vs Tutsis, it's Alawites vs Arabs, it's Hindus vs
Buddhists, it's Christians vs Muslims. Actually it isn't even
Christians vs Muslims so much as farmers vs herders.
Nobody was chanting "Bomb Germany" or "Bomb Japan" prior to WW II, but
we ended in wars against them anyway.
Even the American Civil War did not have the characteristics of an
internal civil war, since there was no slave uprising. Instead, it
was a war along a geographic fault line, north vs south, with southern
Blacks supporting the Confederates.
So America has no history of the kind of civil war you're describing,
and there's no sign of one forming.
With regard to the 1960s Awakening era, yes, a fault line can form and
turn into a civil war during the following Crisis era, but nothing
like that happened. In particular, there was no fault like between
blacks and whites. Also, there can never be a civil war along a
feminism fault line, because there's too much fraternizing with the
enemy.