Why is the Left so Violent?

Cocaine is a hell of a drug. I think she would be OK otherwise. That stuff ages you man.

I’m completely fucking it up, but there was more to it than just skin color. More to do if you were a black or white descendant of certain original French families, and THEN shades of color within that group. Also Catholic vs. Protestant, and then what type of Protestant.

I tried to read this book on the rig, but got bored (the prose is pretty dense) and lost it:

Like quadroons, octoroons and macaroons?

She was pretty hot.

But she creeped me out ever since the movie about the Devil she had with Mickey Rourke, who is just a nasty guy.

I know a fair bit about the period, but I could always learn more. But beyond the shadow of any doubt, for Lincoln it was preservation of the Union and Slavery, the latter being very important to him personally. He abhorred the institution and his election is why S. Carolina and then the rest succeeded. They were afraid he was going to outlaw it and they were right, he was.
Yes, other interests were at stake, but slavery was far and away the most important issue at least to Lincoln. It wasn’t the triangle trade with England, or the other various economic interests that were factors but not the outright cause.
The cause was that the South succeeded and declared war. And they did it so the rich people could keep their slaves and make them lots of money.

I disagree and so did Lincoln. - “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

Edit: He wanted to end slavery, but he fought the war for the Union. The war also subsequently served as opportunity to further other political goals that weren’t his reason for fighting.

Tell me if this is true or not. I’ve heard that slavery was on its way out in the USA, regardless, and the primary beefs in the South were two:

(1) whether the “owners” (gag me) would get compensated by the government for their loss when slaves were freed and

(2) Southerners were pissed about export/import taxes on their goods and needs, which did not tax industry in the North.

I think #2 is true just because it sounds true. #1 I have no idea, but it also sounds plausible.

1 was definitely talked about and what the south wanted if slavery was going to end, and not without some justification. The industry in the north grew off southern agriculture and it isn’t unreasonable that the north should suffer some cost for weaving and reselling slave cotton. Though I agree it disgusts me to think of owners receiving that compensation.

2 absolutely was true. There was a growing cultural and political divide outside of slavery. The south was very bitter over political bullying from the north. The north was having their way with the fed and pretty unfairly handling things like trade to benefit the north at the south’s expense. South Carolina specifically very nearly rebelled over tariffs and with good cause IMO. However, defending slavery was absolutely the rallying cry for the south, go read their declarations of session. But it was largely, “look at all these things they’ve bullied us into, now they are going to take our slaves too.”

1 Like

LOL sounds like a fucking mess. Even funnier about the book. Thanks bud will look into it!

1 Like

I know his primary objective was to preserve the Union at all costs. And it’s not one thing, but many that led to the Civil war that was decades in the making, almost from the very beginning. The central issue revolved around slavery. The southern economy depended on it and the south saw his election as a threat to it, hence the succession.

“Causes Of Secession
Before the Civil War, the country was dividing between North and South. Issues included States Rights and disagreements over tariffs but the greatest divide was on the issue of slavery, which was legal in the South but had gradually been banned by states north of the Mason-Dixon line. As the US acquired new territories in the west, bitter debates erupted over whether or not slavery would be permitted in those territories. Southerners feared it was only a matter of time before the addition of new non-slaveholding states but no new slaveholding states would give control of the government to abolitionists, and the institution of slavery would be outlawed completely. They also resented the notion that a northern industrialist could establish factories, or any other business, in the new territories but agrarian Southern slaveowners could not move into territories where slavery was prohibited because their slaves would then be free .”

Lincoln didn’t originally fight the war to free slaves but protect the Union and respect the rule of law. But ending slavery was in his sights from the very beginning, not through war, but law. The north did not start the war, the South did. Their main purpose of succession was to preserve the institution of slavery.
Obviously, Lincoln did not want any kind of war but he always wanted slavery ended. He just preferred legal means.

So, what I am saying is the core issue for the Civil War was slavery. Not so much because the north wanted to end it as much as the south wanted to keep it. The north did not originally fight to free slaves, but preserve the union. The south did succeed to protect slavery which they felt was threatened as the U.S. was moving away from slavery as it grew larger. The Union did not fight necessarily to free slaves, in the beginning. But the south declared war and fought to protect slavery. I

I don’t think we are really saying anything different. The south succeeded over slavery, the north fought to prevent succession. Slavery was the root cause of the conflict. I only point out that the north fought primarily against dis-union because it’s something most people misunderstand. I am not saying that preserving the union was the cause of the war.

The pissed went both ways. They were trying to stick it to each other.

I reckon we were talking past each other


LOL! I watched that movie, solely because she was in it. Then I regretted it, as it was a terrible and creepy affair. She wasn’t worth the screen time of enduring that flick. It did not seem to do her any favors either in the acting world. She was posed to be a big star and never could quite get their. I could say I had a crush on her back then.

I think that professor of yours has some terms wrong, National Socialism being one of them, which is Nazism. As far as I understand it, from reading much of Mein Kampf out of sheer curiosity, National Socialism is an all-encompassing governmental system that goes beyond politics, laws, and an economy in the way most people think of a government. Pretty much every important policy in the Third Reich was made with the intention of white/European peoples’ progress on this earth, ranging from child-raising, healthcare, to education and so on. Pretty much everything important had a racial component. National Socialism is a pretty much a religion for white people, and white people only, which would exclude me, a Jewish man, and literally did exclude some of my not-so-distant relatives.

The socialism in National Socialism referred to a system in which welfare was used to help one another out (whites only, with some friendly ties to Japan), not to develop an underclass of resentful, malicious, vice-laden, parasitic bums who feed off solid, hard-working people. It was not a socialistic economy in the way most Americans think of socialism. It was what one might call authoritarian capitalism.

Some people say that Stalin was a Russian nationalist. I don’t believe this. He was a cosmopolitan and internationalist who used his overwhelming power, authority, and influence, to directly and indirectly persecute and murder millions of Europeans. And then those who took his ideology seriously went on to murder people of all races.

1 Like

All of the socialism have the same base ideology, they differ in unifying motivations. Communism is socialism by unification of workers (USSR). Fascism is socialism by unification on nationality (Italy). Nazism is socialism by unification of “race” (Nazism). The core theology is the same, but the application and the way they manifest is different because of the previously mentioned difference in motivation.

None of them were truly socialist if you want to think of them in your terms, but Nazism/Fascism is as socialist as Communism ever was. The only difference was who gets to make the decisions. The workers representatives, or the industry’s representatives.

1 Like

I ask this in all seriousness. How were National Socialism and Soviet communism in any way alike? Maybe the degree of authoritarianism was similar, but I don’t see how they are in any way alike. That is, I don’t understand how they are the same in base ideology.

Although I think communism is the most asinine system around, I am not against all forms of socialism.

Oh the irony:

Communism is an aggregate of Socialism. The core idea that the individual is not capable of deciding what’s best for themselves and that a state or system has to take control of that are at the center of the problem. Any time you cede control of something to a larger power you never get it back. That power, then, forever decides what’s best for you. If we were all the same and had the same likes and dislikes then it would be fine. But taking power from the individual over control over their own lives is the key tenet of Socialism that most of us who oppose it, oppose.

They were very similar ideologies. Both are Marxist. Both are deep left wing. They were enemies because they fought over the same constituents, not because they were different. Fascism/Nazism was something of a more functionally practical application of socialism. For many Nazis communism was a stepping stool to fascism “first brown then red”. The Nazis and Fascist movements grew out of communism and were largely endorsed and mirrored by the left in the US (at least initially). Social programs, collective ownership, eugenics, planned economy and industry. All very similar. Different means to the same ends.