Perhaps leftist doesn’t apply. I see that the majority of Americans are liberals to varying degrees, whether they are Republicans/“conservatives” or liberals/democrats.
Nearly all have been swayed to think like a leftist/liberal.
A lot of that comes off to me as if you’re against people being free and seems like you’re implying laws should be put in place to control how people live.
I asked how far back you’d go to get to when you claimed thing’s were better and I’m genuinely curious. The further back you go women had less freedom and were expected to be submissive. Was it better when blacks were slaves?
I’m not trying to set you up here but I’m not sure there ever were social norms that kept things in check. Maybe you should clarify what exact “things” were in check.
I don’t do emotional blackmail talk. You might not be trying to do this but that’s the talk of emotional blackmail.
Slavery, which existed for all races throughout history, has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I’m also not a white knight or male feminist. I have yet to hear evidence of how women collectively suffered in the West and Anglosphere. Do you have any?
1 Like
Free for what?
Can you give me one positive effect from sexual “liberation” or the attack on the nuclear family? I can provide several serious consequences.
Anyone who actually thinks that leftism offers freedom has no specialized knowledge on leftism.
Leftism is a form of tyranny.
1 Like
Not trying to blackmail you. I think you’re making vague statements.
Free to do what they want within the law.
Not sure how one is an attack on the other. No one is forcing you to be a certain way.
I find this ironic because it seems you’re the one in favour of controlling how people live.
1 Like
Nixon, Reagan, Bush, the other Bush, and Trump were leftists?
I wouldn’t say so. Why?
Having pro-social controls and norms, some of which were never encoded into law, is not tyranny.
I’m against anything that is inconducive to a normal social order.
This ties back into the main topic here. I believe people with fundamentally different outlooks on society and life should go their own ways. What do you think of such an idea?
1 Like
I agree with this, but it’s easier said than done and in the end impossible because there will always be differences.
It has been done.
Anyway, @YellingAtClouds you said separation is the nuclear option. Do you mean that a coming civil war will involve nuclear weapons?
My uncle and I discussed civil war and Balkanization this morning. We used to predict them coming in 100 year. Now we predict 50, definitely in both of our children’s life times.
When?
I want to ask something. Not all opinions are reviewed, but someone earlier said that there were many American states in which there was a predominant population of a particular religion or race. In my opinion, in order to have Balkanization in the United States, there must be the presence of not small territories in which a certain population of a similar ethnicity or religion significantly predominates. This is the main factor. Ok, there are other criteria, but this was the leading one in Europe. Balkanization is the disintegration of multiethnic states. But these ethnic groups were concentrated in separate territories, from which the larger state was formed. In the United States, as far as I know, there are no territories that are inhabited, for example, by 90% only white Christians, descendants of Germans or English, in others by locals, in others only by Muslims, in others only by African Americans and such as. Ok, somewhere a certain ethnicity or religion prevails, but if this territory separates, I think it does not have the resources to exist as an independent state. In my opinion, there may be tensions, riots, discontent, but the Balkanization in the United States seems to me objectively impossible, because there are no prerequisites for this. If there is any separation, it will be only for some economic reasons. For example, richer areas want to be separated and revenues and profits go only to them. I see no other possibility.
The entire inland northwest is almost certainly +90% white folks who lean right.
Yeah, my state is 85% white, and I’m willing to bet of mostly similar European ancestry (Germans from Russia, Norwegian). The remainder is mostly Native American, 70% of whom live on reservations.
But I don’t think there’s any location bigger than a county or two in the country that’s Muslim or black or something. Certainly no entire states, haha.
2 Likes
The only balkanization that can realistically take place on a national level is along political lines, not religious or ethnic.
We also seem to be sorting ourselves commercially, with politics increasingly shaping our spending priorities. I’m currently shopping for insurance after 25 years of being a State Farm customer.
Why? Because I refuse to give my money to an insurance company that actively worked to suggest to children as young as 5 that they might be and can be members of the opposite sex.
I don’t care if they’ve since walked back. They can’t un-ring that bell with me.
They were control freaks.
Anyone who lives in the United States and has American citizenship can be called an American. And this is in the legal sense. But when I was younger, in the minds of most people in my country during the communist era, Americans were personified as tall, big, and strong people with blond hair, who are the majority in the country, speak English because their ancestors from England conquered North America. That’s how we imagined Americans😁
Idaho is 93% white, Montana is actually only 89% white. Whitest of all (that I could see) is Maine at 94% white. Wowsers they must buy a lot of sunscreen!
No need with how much time we spend in the dark here.
I think if balkanization were to occur, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, Wyoming and Idaho could be one entity. They would then be able to break the 1 million person population barrier.
I think that area is about is homogeneous as it gets in the US.