Posted on 11/07/2012 9:10:56 AM PST by teflon9
But whether Barack Obama is elected to a second term or Mitt Romney is elected the 45th president, the contours of their support during this fiercely fought campaign show that we live in two Americas.
The culturally cohesive America of the 1950s that some of us remember, usually glossing over racial segregation and the civil-rights movement, is no longer with us and hasn’t been for some time.
Niche media has replaced universal media.
One America listens to Rush Limbaugh, the other to NPR. Each America has its favorite cable news channel. As for entertainment, Americans have 100-plus cable channels to choose from, and the Internet provides many more options
We tend to choose the America that is culturally congenial. Most people in the San Francisco Bay area wouldn’t consider living in the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex, even for much better money. Most metroplexers would never relocate to the Bay Area.
There are plenty of smart and creative and successful people in both Americas. But they don’t like to mix with each other these days.
One America tends to be traditionally religious, personally charitable, appreciative of entrepreneurs, and suspicious of government. The other tends to be secular or only mildly religious, less charitable, skeptical of business, and supportive of government as an instrument to advance liberal causes.
The more conservative America tends to be relatively cohesive. Evangelical Protestants and white Catholics make common cause ... Southern or northern accents don’t much matter.
That’s typical of the Republican party, which has always had core support from people who are seen as typical Americans but are not by themselves a majority in our always diverse country.
The more liberal America tends to be diverse. Like Obama’s 2008 coalition, it includes many at the top and at the bottom of the economic ladder.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Too many layers of law enforcement to organize a civil war; however, serious discussions of peaceful secession definitely need to considered. It could be like a big National Divorce.
Why would the majority of takers allow the makers to leave? Makers are feeding the takers, after all. Nothing short of a civil war (the red states vs. the US Army) will do. The takers are planning to feed on the makers until no more makers are left; then they will turn onto each other - as they always do; history is full of such examples.
I was already quietly envisioning this hypothetical before the election.
Would the US Army fire on armed seceders? Of course we all remember the terrible murderous assault upon innocent men, women and children at Ruby Ridge and Waco ... but that was done by the rogue ATF --and in the case of Waco, by Clinton's DOJ (headed by Eric Holder under a figurehead Janet Reno).
I don't believe the US Army would fire, at least not in the near future. However Obama is steadily destroying morale in our military, discouraging enlistment by the kind of soldiers they used to attract. Might not be long before we can easily imagine Obama ordering our military to fire on our own people.
However I think secession movements will be peaceful. Hence Obama will simply send in law enforcement to arrest those who refuse to pay their ObamaTaxes. Off to the gulag with them.
>>>Why would the majority of takers allow the makers to leave? Makers are feeding the takers, after all<<<
The vast majority of takers don’t see it that way. They think that Government somehow creates this massive pile of wealth and that the makers (they call them “the rich” or the “1%”) are stealing most of this mythical, government, created wealth, leaving the takers with far less than they “deserve”.
They believe that if they get rid of off the “rich” (makers) they will finally get their “fair share”. (Actually, they would get their “FAIR” share, but it would be next to nothing.)
I live in a Democrat state, I know how the takers think.
“Too many layers of law enforcement to organize a civil war”
That’s what Bahsar al-Assad thought. Dude has his hands full now.
Couple observations if I may:
1. Most active-duty military personnel are “red” staters. Most veterans (i.e. people that know a butt from a barrel and can actually aim a weapon) are “red” staters. So there’s some advantage.
2. It’s very difficult to get *regular* soldiers (as opposed to “security-forces” types like the old ZOMO in Poland or Securitate in Romania that were actually chosen from sociopaths and trained to kill civilians) to fire on their “own” people. In the USSR, in 1962, bread riots broken out in the south Russian city of Novocherkassk. Local police were ineffective, so regular army soldiers were brought in. Instead of suppressing the rioters, the soldiers actually acted in sympathy with them! Kazakh Interior Ministry troops, who viscerally hated Russians, had to be brought in to put the riot down. Just an example.
I am worried for the future of our military though. As I posted before, Obama is steadily destroying morale in our military, discouraging enlistment by the kind of soldiers they used to attract.
Because of Clintonized/feminized/Obama-ized policies, our military of the future will not have the same ethics; or the same understanding of America; or the same sense of what they (the military) are (or were) fighting for.
Here is a speculation. The Dems seem surprised a bit to have won. Maybe the plan was to tweak things just enough to throw the election into a Bush v. Gore long drawn out battle with riots and ultimate discrediting of a Romney win, at which point “President” Romney would get the blame for what they already know is inevitable, then they come back in and have it all. Instead things went a LITTLE more in their favor than they thought, plus the last minute storm pushed things more in their direction and when that is added to their tweaking it creates this odd looking election. Convoluted, but Liberal minds are convoluted.
You have read Apollo and Dionysius essay by Rand, huh?
Yes. But it needs to be helped along with finesse. Remember that Obama has the mass media in his corner.
My caveat should not be taken for more than it is. Helping others to recognize the inherent conflict of interest in one who exploits them for political advantage is an altruistic act. But again, act with good-will & finesse.
As for the direct point of the essay, see War Against Cultural Continuity.
William Flax
The PTB have decided, for their own reasons to abandon God and everything it was that made this country great, and the liberal followers don't even see it. My father in law is a great guy. I real salt of the earth, Christian type fellow who would give you the shirt off his back, and them some if you are in need. He ain't dumb either. He's a genuine rocket scientist with a degree in same from A&M that says so, and he helped put us on the moon back when. However, he lives in his own liberal world that I am absolutely incapable of understanding. We have no real common ground beside family. It's sad really because I'd like for him to see how thoroughly his party has abandoned God and everything He stands for, but his worldview just simply will not allow him to see it.
This is not an accident or happenstance that just grew organically in this country. We have been completely propagandized to separate us into two almost perfectly equal and opposing sides to make us easy to control. It's working great. Sadly, I don't see how we're going to escape from it without things getting really, really, really bad.
History of the world convincingly demonstrates that armies have no problem assaulting "their own people." That was true thousands of years ago, when one tiny tribe of Greeks slaughtered another tiny tribe of Greeks. That was true in the middle ages, when condottieri recruited peasants and urban rabble and then led them to rape and pillage the same villages and the same cities where the mercenaries hailed from (if they could remember those details in drunken haze.) That was also true in all civil wars in all ages.
To get to that point soldiers are trained to not think. If they must think then an image of a fierce enemy is conveniently constructed and presented (see Bill, the Galactic Hero.) With media under control, the dictator can invent any harebrained reason for the war and he will be believed. If 100 DOJ agents had no moral problem with incinerating helpless, surrounded people then 1,000 such groups will have no problem either.
And there is one more handy trick. The soldiers may feel sympathy to the opponent, but that only lasts until first shots are fired. When sodier's buddy falls down with a hole in the head all sympathies fly right out of the window, and the soldier becomes an unthinking machine of revenge. Somewhere in bushes a provocateur is all smiles - his job is well done.
The society is already divided - and with election of Obama 4 years ago it is also cracking along the racial lines. The future of George Zimmerman is pretty dark at this point. If the President simply gives permission to minorities to kill whitey the latter will be either dead or a refugee in no time. Most victims are no fighters; those who are will simply be an excuse to send the troops in. This is what happened in Zimbabwe - large gangs of blacks, well armed and fully supported by Mugabe, attacked and took control of farms that belonged to white farmers. Mass murders were simply ignored, and the white farmers are no more.
You will say "But Zimbabwe is hell on Earth" and that would be also true. It doesn't matter as long as the people in charge can exercise their power of life and death. This is why dictators are in no hurry to abandon their evil ways and declare the age of enlightment. You will find a dictator on every level of power, from the level of a prison cell to the level of a country.
Since takers are not makers, they depend on taking for survival. When taking gets tough you should expect additional taxes, up to the level of confiscation. This is what Communists did in Russia - they took all the grain from peasants, and millions of peasants died. As the anger of the takers grows ("those 1% again stole all our food!1!") you can be sure that there will be hordes of young, aggressive men who, if they "accidentally find" weapons and ammo, will become the Sturm Abteilung of the new regime - a handy gang of provocateurs and murderers, with tacit support and protection of the government. This will be all done under the banner of democracy because "they" now have the numbers and you don't.
Neither. We are headed toward repression of the group currently out of "power," currently represented by denizens of Free Republic and "their ilk," or "our ilk," if you like.
I guess you missed posts 45 and 46. Who do you think the rebels are in Syria? Regular soldiers from the Sunni majority who’ve gone off the reservation. And why didn’t highly trained Soviet soldiers obey orders to fire own their own people? Bronze Age Greek villagers fighting each other was the beginning of what would become warfare between nations. It’s true that brigands and gangsters will attack their own people. They’re sociopaths, after all. That’s the exact group that dicatorship recruit their security forces from. You forget that real, “regular” soldiers, whether 1962 Soviet or 2012 American, are not recruited from that demographic. Indeed, they’d be barred from serving (at least in our military). Regular soldiers (and their junior officers and NCOS!) and military veterans in the US hail from precisely the same regions that would be most likely to secede. You’d have a huge meltdown in discipline and mass defections were they asked to attack fellow citizens. You want to go back into history, then tell me how well did Nicholas II, Chiang Kai-Shek, and Nicolae Ceaucescu’s militaries do in preventing their own soldiers from defecting en masse to rebels? And unlike most societies, the United States is flush with deadly weapons and the ammo they require—just check out the sporting goods section of a WalMart. That’s a real wild card right there. And as for Zimbabwe, that’s tribal, sub-Saharan Africa. Comparing that to the US is really apples and oranges.
obama does not need to keep them together. That is only necessary at election time. It will be up to someone else next time.
Yes. I remember that the red and blue colors switched every election. Then the libs stuck us with red. It would have been better if Republicans were stuck with blue, but the Dems made us get stuck with red. Pissed me off at the time.
You bring up a good point. Barry has never tap-danced in his life; and yet will outlast the Clintons to become the titular head of the Democrats in four years; and yet couldn't give a shit when Cuomo has to face Rubio in 2016.
I had a hard time remembered who’s red or blue.
Then I came up with, red for the blood of Jesus, blue for airheads. Have no problem now remembering.
They definitely had a plan to mess with the election. I think that they extent that they did with the blatant fraud, buying votes, ignoring laws, surprised even some Dems, but they don’t seem to care. Not a peep out of them about the fraud, intimidation, nothing.
Agree. Throwing down the gauntlet is stupid. And this is not 1861 and Obama is not Lincoln.
The tragedy of it all is that it wouldn't be necessary if we would simply allow federalism to be. But when you try to micromanage the lives of 300 million people dissolution becomes inevitable, one way or another.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.