A Cold Civil War

by Tim Jones5/2/17

Back in January conservative columnist Dennis Prager gave his take on the state of the union – and it was not good. In a piece called America’s Second Civil War, it begins with the following:

“It is time for our society to acknowledge a sad truth: America is currently fighting its second Civil War.

In fact, with the obvious and enormous exception of attitudes toward slavery, Americans are more divided morally, ideologically and politically today than they were during the Civil War.”

The culmination of the radicalism of the Sixties has come into fruition and a new kind of civil war has begun. Although there isn’t any shooting or fatalities, at least not yet, make no mistake a “cold” civil war has started. It’s a cold civil war that’s in its infancy and very likely could become a hot civil war like the big one in the 1800s . This one won’t be geographic in nature nor over the principle of universal human freedom. No, this one will be authoritarian in nature where a small group of extreme Leftists are creating enough mayhem to ignite widespread violence in their goal to overturn the existing political, social and economic order that’s been in place since the founding of the country. Places like Berkeley and Portland as well as most of academia are  testing grounds of what will spread beyond the perennial locations of protest. A recent piece in the Weekly Standard bluntly put it: This Is War.

“Now we’re in the midst of the ultimate battle in the culture war – the battle for the First Amendment – and if Republicans don’t recognize this is a war and fight like their existence depends on victory, nothing else will matter.”

The Democrat Party is in the process of being completely co-opted by the most extreme Leftists who were midwifed out of the tumultuous 1960s. There have been feeble objections by the current leaders of this new Left, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, to let conservatives have their say in the midst of a nationwide veto of the First Amendment by violent and unruly protests. They even criticized Obama for getting a $400,000 payday speaking to Cantor Fitzgerald, the epitome of a Wall Street financial organization that he railed against during his presidential campaigns and administrations.

The pleas of Sanders and Warren to uphold the sanctity of the First Amendment had a shelf life of about twelve hours and were completely ignored by the mainstream media. Even Bill Maher and the ACLU have spoken out against the radical “antifa” (as in anti-fascist) left. The only coverage this group is getting is on conservative websites. But during a rally recently held in Boston, Sanders and Warren appeared together and reverted to form by egging on their faithful followers and signalling to their extremist base to stay the course in the “revolution” by preparing for their next big fight against Trump.

In an outstanding piece recently posted, surprisingly, by the Chicago Tribune, The LIes We Were Told About Who Would Silence Free Speech:

“It’s there in front of you, the thuggish mobs of the left killing free speech at American universities. The thugs call themselves antifas, for anti-fascists. They beat people up and break things and set fires and intimidate. These are not anti-fascists. These are fascists. This is what fascists do. Surveys suggest that many young Americans think the First Amendment should be amended so as to not allow offensive speech. So the students have learned their lessons well.”

In the end however, Sanders and Warren, are the faces of the latest incarnation of the most radical and authoritarian Leftism that’s been rearing its head off and on since the Sixties. A Sanders acolyte is even challenging Nancy Pelosi, one of Congress’ most enduring liberals, in a primary, which tells you everything you need to know how extreme the Democrat Party has become over the last fifty years.

Now it appears to be approaching critical mass where its hippie forefathers would be proud. The new Leftists might think they’re the vanguard of a social revolution but it goes much deeper than that. They are precipitating a new kind of civil war, one that in all likelihood will not end well. Another quote from This Is War puts the current movement in historical context:

“History has shown a small group of people, especially when they’re willing to oppress others and commit violence against their fellow countrymen, can attain power.”

Lenin, Marx and Mao would all be proud as well.

Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (189 views)

This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to A Cold Civil War

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    In many ways, a closer comp may be events in Spain in 1936. There, the liberals and moderate leftists decided to align with the radical left — as has happened here. Both Left and Right refused to abide by unfavorable results; that has certainly happened here with the Left (i.e., the Demagogues). There was a strong body of anarchists who didn’t really care which side won, as there is here. The result was an increasing outbreak of political violence involving both sides; we’re seeing increasing violence by leftists, but not yet by the Right.

    Some time back, I brought up an exchange in the Cortes a month before the civil war started. As I observed then and is true now, there is much to be learned from that debate. This includes Gil Robles’s point that a nation might survive any type of government — but not anarchy (by which he really meant chaos). Another is Calvo Sotelo’s comparison of the Spanish premier (Santiago Casares Quiroga) to Count Karolyi, who betrayed Hungary to Bela Kun (just as the Demagogues today — including the synoptic media — are betraying the American tradition to revolution.

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I can’t help thinking that ultimately this is a religious question. From what I gathered from Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” is that a driving force (and one that explains their many inconsistencies) is the exulted feeling they get from being immersed in and amplified by a mob — a feeling of heightened importance and meaning.

    I may be wrong about this, but normal people who have a job, friends, family, hobbies, and a God have no use for getting their kicks from the street violence or demonstrations. That is, what we are seeing is either addictive behavior or addictive behavior combined with malignant personal defects or deficits.

    These Snowflakes and other monsters will continue to test the limits of their power. And so the stage is quite possibly set in the near future for our own version of brownshirts to fix or confront what the legitimate authorities (or at least authorized authorities) will not do.

    I’m not hoping for this. I’m not promoting this. But on the other hand, if the police and other adults are going to give this mob free rein, then I’ll shed no tears if some squad of modern brownshirts puts them in their place.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Ann Coulter discussed the mob aspect of liberalism in Demonic, which was based on actual psychological research in mob psychology.

      After (I believe) the brief Federal occupation of Fredericksburg (which involved a lot of looting and vandalism), a staff officer wondered to Stonewall Jackson what they could do with them. His answer was, “Do? Why, shoot them.” His wisdom is badly needed today.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I suppose mobbism (mobbery?) is a cheap date and a cheap sport. I also think it’s about a whole lot of freeloaders trying to psychologically keep the focus off their own failures or lack of effort and blame another.

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    This link will take you to an article about how the FBI abused its powers to release information on Americans to third parties who had no business receiving the information they got.

    There is something going on with Comey which is fishy. The man seems to be like Hoover in that he gathers info on others to make sure no one can come after him for his crimes.


    • Timothy Lane says:

      In the final analysis, Comey was an Obama Gangster in good standing. It was a corrupt, power-abusing reign, and he generally cooperated with it in its criminal treatment of political opponents.

  4. Steve Lancaster says:

    Hoffer in “True Believer”

    “Those who see their lives as spoiled and wasted crave equality and fraternity more than they do freedom. If they clamor for freedom, it is but freedom to establish equality and uniformity. The passion for equality is partly a passion for anonymity: to be one thread of the many which make up a tunic; one thread not distinguishable from the others. No one can then point us out, measure us against others and expose our inferiority.”

    This is the modern progressive. They will destroy all and then cry about the waste. If you desire a life free of the chaos that travels with them then they must be defeated.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      An interesting interpretation. It depends, I suppose, on what degree of equality you seek. But it certainly fits those who want total equality.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Islam is a foaming-at-the-mouth madness. Only slightly less so is Leftism as practiced by the zealous. Although both have a general ideology, I don’t believe either movement is about ideas, per se. It is a supremacist identity highly flattering to the ego and sense of superiority combined with “higher goals” as a mask for a deep-seated grievance. This grievance almost always has a component of self-hate.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Rush today reported on a study by a British university that socialism appeals to physically weak men. They actually measured the various physical characteristics (including physical strength) and plotted them against political views.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          There can be little doubt that many use government “equalization” as a way to try to make up for their perceived shortcomings. This, I would say, is different from the healthy and traditional perspective that people must necessarily band together to protect themselves. The individual is weak and must inherently make up for this by banding together with others.

          But this banding together, under the American brand, is for the purpose of the individual (including all his free associations) to prosper (or fail) according to his inclinations, talent, and just sheer luck. It is so he is not swamped by the whims of those who would take by force or are the most unscrupulous (which is why I could never be a libertarian). The American brand of banding together to form a society is not about trying to make up for existential sleights from God (or Darwin).

          However, I would add one major caveat: I’ve seen too many instances of tobacco-chewing, country-music-listening, red-white-and-blue-bleeding Americans who have no reservation whatsoever in taking advantage of government give-aways. And most of these people are bright, gifted, and physically healthy.

          Socialism is both a character issue and a metaphysical one. It answers the question “Why are we here?” with “To be comfortable and to make damn sure all my petty little grievances are expressed through some small-minded tinpot democratic dictator who is elected to office on my behalf.” And for the rest who slouch into the system, it’s just about getting “free stuff.”

          • Timothy Lane says:

            In Eugene Burdick’s The 480, there is a scene in which the hero, John Thatch, observes that farmers talk of their independence while living off of government subsidies. Of course, most crops received no such subsidies, but I suspect most farmers produced at least some that did. Once one starts receiving such money, it’s very hard to say “no”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *