Students hold a walk-out and rally in protest to U.S. President Donald Trump’s inauguration in Seattle, Washington, U.S. January 20, 2017. IMAGE: Jason Redmond/Reuters
Written by J.Hawk exclusively for SouthFront
A study published by the More in Common initiative titled Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape, attempts to map out the state of the US polity and also to chart ways out of the current sense of political impotence.
According to the researchers, America is divided into Progressive Activists (8%), Traditional Liberals (11%), Passive Liberals (15%), Politically Disengaged (26%), Moderates (15%), Traditional Conservatives (19%), and Devoted Conservatives (6%), which paints a picture of a divided America with a fairly sizable middle block of passive or utterly disengaged electorate, but with the liberals holding a slight edge over the conservatives, and naturally with each of these segments having its own preferred set of political opinions.
A screenshot of the front page of the study
In historical terms, US politics are nowhere near as violent or divisive as they used to be. Considering the violence of the pre-Civil War United States, with its “Bleeding Kansas” and the occasional brawl in the US Senate between proponents or supporters of slavery, or the late 19th-Century Gilded Age with violent labor strikes, two successful presidential assassination attempts, and even more violent police reaction, the 1920s Red Scare when the US police forces could arrest thousands of “subversives” on a single day, or even the early 1930s “Bonus Army” which shut down Washington D.C. and required a military response, today’s United States is still something of an island of stability. There is no underground militancy, or even violent civic unrest comparable to France’s Yellow Vest movement that could shut down Paris.
But that does not mean the situation cannot escalate. In the past, whenever divisions reached a boiling point, the US political system moved to defuse the problems through appropriate social policies in the form of Progressive Era, New Deal, and Great Society. The one exception was the US Civil War, when the system clearly failed to address the deep divide—in fact even the war itself failed to address it. Only the frontier expansion, at the expense of Native America tribes which were exterminated and/or herded into reservation, ultimately provided the safety valve that made the post-Civil War “healing” possible.
Therefore, if one is to use US history as a guide, it is evident that whenever the social tensions threatened to boil over, the US political system responded with expanding the police state, experimenting with social democracy, or expanding into a frontier or some collapsing empire, starting with that of Spain in the late 19th century. But the authors of the study seem unaware of the role of government policies with perceptible, tangible impact on ordinary citizens when it comes to building a sense of shared identity under which violent internal conflict is unlikely. Instead of looking back upon history to see how earlier US leaders dealt with the fraying of the US polity, they limit themselves to calling for political leaders to use uniting rather than divisive rhetoric, activists to appeal to underlying shared values, philanthropists investing in “thousand points of light”, and other palliative pseudo-solutions. Which means they have not grasped the core of the problem.
For the last nearly three decades, expansion has been the order of the day, with “American Exceptionalism” being the ideology justifying US use of force to advance its economic interests around the world. Indeed, some three-quarters of the individuals polled for the study agree or strongly agree that United States are a “better country”, suggesting that “American Exceptionalism” is deeply ingrained, and the waging of war on other , “worse” countries is seen as a perfectly normal state of affairs. The project fails to note the impact of RussiaGate on US politics, which is an unfortunate omission because with this issue being absent from discussion, it makes it look like the only xenophobic faction of US politics are the conservative-leaning anti-immigration activists, and the omission might be a reflection of an unconscious bias on the part of the researchers. But since America’s RussiaGaters are predominantly Obama- and Hillary Clinton-supporting liberals, the difference between liberals and conservatives in this study amounts to little more than the flavor of “American Exceptionalism”—induced xenophobia each wing of the US polity is advocating.
But the vacuum of power that the end of the Cold War created three decades ago is now closing. Most of the countries of the Soviet sphere of influence have been digested by Western economies and are now threatening to become a permanent burden rather than an economic asset. Russia’s recovery and China’s growth moreover mean that the US now has some pretty stiff competition even in regions it has complacently regarded as its own to rule, including the Middle East, South-East Asia, the Pacific Region, and even the Latin America which has been viewed as America’s exclusive preserve ever since the “Monroe Doctrine” has been promulgated. So now if the US wants to throw a few sharp elbows, it would not be against the collapsing Yugoslavia of the early 1990s, but against a great power boasting a strong conventional arsenal and a reliable nuclear deterrent. In other words, game over.
If expansion has run its course, what about experimenting with social democracy once again? Here the results of the study leave very little indication the US political system can move in that direction. Among the respondents to the survey, liberals are actually wealthier than the conservatives. It means that even though they may often think they are socialists (and the conservatives do not hesitate in labeling them as such), in practice they vote with their wallets for people who do not threaten to empty their contents. People like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi who are very much the creatures of the wealthy elites and the very embodiment of the term “limousine liberal”. Even when the Democrats control all three branches of government, they can’t deliver anything other than bank bailouts and the lackluster Obamacare. The conservatives, on the other hand, are ideologically opposed to redistribution which likewise makes them unlikely to pursue policies overtly contradicting their professed ideals.
Therefore, practically by default, the most likely way by which national unity can still be produced that is within reach of the US political system is some form of a police state. In fact, the US has been sleepwalking in that direction ever since 9/11. But while at the time the Patriot Act, the warrantless surveillance, Guantanamo, all manner of violations of civil liberties may have been dismissed as temporary aberrations induced by the terrorist emergency. The selection of Russia as America’s new enemy and the ensuing creeping censorship of the social media suggests that the US powers that be have already settled on a way to ensure national unity, but it is not one that the authors of the study have yet noticed.
An article that sort of stops, before an actual conclusion is reached and a real means to get to it.
It states -“There is no underground militancy, or even violent civic unrest comparable to France’s Yellow Vest movement that could shut down Paris.”….. really, no BLM or Antifa ?.
If we state that a police state will or may come; someone has to be THE fascist or part of the underground militancy to do that – so will that be, where, when ?.
In my view, with the economical disaster looming, or even the continuation of the failing social environment, whether or not there is a war to end all wars, the US is doomed one way or the other – a race war, a civil war, cessation; or whatever. If Europe doesn’t stop putting the US on a pedestal, we will follow.
F0ck the NWO, fock the Globalists and Fock the twat politicians that do not stand up for their citizens and Country before their own personal wealth.
By making citizens disposable, along with public infrastructure, etc., Globalizing nations will be weaker ultimately losing influence over those pursuing sovereignty (read China, RU and many secondary players, I would put CZ and Hungary in this category too). The so-called NWO was only possible under fleeting conditions of overwhelming dominance of one captive agent (US govt. for example after 1990, along with EU team dominated by same. Both the dominance (external to DC/EU and captivity factors (e.g., CZ-Hungary resistance within EU) are lessening significantly, future wealth will reflect upon natural resources, industry and productivity, if US can re-invigorate domestic industries (see Russian example) it might not be too badly-off, from perspective of ordinary citizens, the biggest losers will be those with large investment incomes.
Hey SF do you mean ” Sleep Walking” I have never heard of Sweep Walking
Every citizen of the US is born an indentured servant to the state.
Every hour of labor of every citizen anywhere on the globe is claimed by the state.
Resistance and noncompliance to this servitude results in citizens being processed by a system keeping violence as its only regulatory device.
So how exactly are US citizens ‘sleepwalking’ 100 years or more into the past?
The whole planet is a farm system. But its human labour(and occasional humans!) Who are farmed and consumed by the ostensible rulers.
I sure wish more would see it as you do.
I’ve taken to pointing out to people, ‘if you don’t kill your owners, you stay their slave.’
a) there is no political ideology that is so clever disguising its true nature like fascism. So b) disunited states of America is a true and unadulterated fascistic political system – have no doubt about it – although it’s true nature is cleverly camouflaged to such an extent that it can still, to some extent, pass itself off as a democracy – which is a laugh. n.b. there is a number of nations that actually is or is on the way to become fascistic governments but they still pass a minimum requirement of what is a democracy, to some extent, because they can befuddle the voters to more or less believe anything they are told!
Democracy is the most sullied word on the Planet
The People power existing really only with the Swiss Direct Democracy, under permanent improvements since 1230 Voting and consensus to maintain the Cultural Diversity is the tradition since that Times and works quiet well, none Wars since 1515…
But it’s a confetti State out of 26 micro Federal States with different identities, religions and languages…
After Geneva destroyed it’s fortifications in 1849 to have room for enlargements, among the first realisation done was a Russian Church 1866, a Catholic Church 1857, an Anglican 1853 and a Synagogue 1859, finally a Mosque was built in 1978
Geneva is traditionally laic society, today it’s mostly Atheist, social, religious, and Racial discriminations looks inexistant. Residents Majority is Foreigners from 195 Countries… !
Correct – there is more democracy in Switzerland than the rest of the EU together. The concept of democracy in the EU is a joke and there is very little hope that there will be any kind of improvement. England took a democratic vote on the subject and decided to leave the EU and that is probably the most democratic decision in Europe over the last 84 years. A number of countries are well advised to follow England but that won’t happen since the leaders are meek and weak.
Comparing like that make no sense. If You should compare it would be with the states inside USA like Holland, Greece, Spain, Sweden.
The BREXIT problems are
1) British should have put their weight for positive little Changes in Bruxelles, step by step, everything should be negotiable… 2) British didn’t have a voting Culture… Almost every thing said during the debates was fake on both sides… 3) Europe is a Counties mosaic in-between Gibraltar and Oural. The system should varies according to circumstances with a proximity Democracy area by area and Countries by Countries. 4) In Switzerland, often important “Referendum” or “Initiatives” needed to be voted twice or trice. It’s take times but it’s stable (lol)
If a kind of BREXIT will occur, the Majority will cares of the Minority with delays and adjustments, it isn’t a black or white Nationalism, we didn’t have King since Barbarossa pass away in 1190, but a Collegial Government representing the main tendencies. A new BREXIT “Referendum” will take place and will see better explanations to make a new choice.
NB: For local, and National matters there is votes every 3-4 months on 3-4 subjects, you win or loose doesn’t really matters, with some you had agree, some others not, an other vote will come… It’s a small Democratic Europe since it exist, built step by step. It should be considered an Historical inspiration laboratory for how to make different peoples and interests to stick togethers
Europe Cultural interests is already there since Centuries, every area has his Writers, Musicians, Artists, etc., adopted by all others, commune leading values are abundant
England, in a true democratic spirit, allowed the Scots to vote for independence. A year later Cameron, after realizing that the EU would never allow England to repatriate certain powers from Brussels to London, in a true democratic fashion, allowed the British people to vote about the continued membership in the EU. And the people voted out, a decision that the remainers, in a truly undemocratic fashion, has been sabotaging every step of the way. Fortunately May seems to be bent on the democratic decision and is in the process to deliver to the British the EU exit.
That is an example of how democracy should be exercised and performed but at the same time it is something the EU will never ever be able to do and no independent member country will ever be able to allow such a democratic process to take place.
In fact, the EU is a shameful project for the few and not for the many.
Beg your Pardon, but
“England, in a true democratic spirit, allowed the Scots to vote for independence. A year later Cameron, after realizing that the EU would never allow England to repatriate certain powers from Brussels to London, in a true democratic fashion, allowed the British people to vote about the continued membership in the EU”
EC Democracies and EURO are a NATO scam for US Lobbies ! BREXIT or Sarkozy, Hollande, Macron elections is as shameful as Tony Blair & Cameron “War Criminals” deserving a “Nuremberg Court”
Thanks of the US/UK imported “methods”, Europe Air, Soils, Sea’s and Food is poisonous and Polluted.
Peoples and Environment have to be put urgently at the center of all preoccupations. US/UK masses education can’t be more shameful to ease medias horrendous manipulations !
The Simulacra Democracy https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/10/26/the-simulacra-democracy/
Your “True Democratic spirit” is rubbish at the best !
dumb comment – to deny that the two referendas aren’t the most democratic expressions in europe over the last 84 years is just plain stupid and what’s more, the government is respecting the will of the vote and is about to deliver the exit from the more than corrupt behemoth known as the european union.
n.b. that there is no other country in the eu that is prepared to give the voters a say in the process by way of referendums and where that has been the case (denmark, netherlands et al) the unfavourable outcomes have quickly been turned by immediately announcing a new vote and more money spent on the favourable outcome required by brussels.
I was observing the French Monarchic Republic since Dictator President General Charles de Gaulle.
In Holland my great Gand-Father was Cavalry General and the wonderful Queen Wilhelmina “Rietmaster”
The Swiss didn’t have the same viewpoint angle for Democracy, even if Scandinavia, Holland and Germany are Europe Best !
I am a fervent European, but Bruxelles is a failed NATO Vassal scam, particularly for Democracy !
Lets hope for Bruxelles Democratic improvements and changes, it’s sad if UK didn’t contribute and want an “Alleingang” (staying independent)
America’s and humanity’s number one problem is Jews. Who are the cause of the policies of endless war and massive debt. To advance their Jew world order hegemony drive and the enslavement and exploitation of non Jews, including Americans who are the primary engine of Jew power. The best thing that could happen to America and our planet is for Judaism to be outlawed and the planet dejudified to create a much better Jew free future for humanity.
– Who Controls America? When Victims Rule: A Critique of Jewish Pre-Eminence in America –
https://thezog.wordpress.com/
“Banking/Finance Who Controls the Economy? Who Controls Wall Street? (Part 2) Who Controls Wall Street? (Part 1) Who Controls Goldman Sachs? Who Controls American International Group? Who Controls the Treasury Department? Who Controls the Federal Reserve System? (Part 1) Who Controls the Federal Reserve System? (Part 2) Mass Media Who Controls Big Media? Who Controls Hollywood? Who Controls Television? Who Controls Music? Who Controls Radio? Who Controls Advertising? Who Controls the News? (Part 1) Who Controls the News? (Part 2) Government/Politics Who Controls the White House? Who Controls the Senate? Who Controls the Congress? Who Controls the Supreme Court? Who Controls the State Department? Who Controls the Justice Department? Who Controls the Defense Department? Who Controls the Treasury Department? Social Engineering Who Controls the Ivy League? Who Controls the Think Tanks? Who Controls Professional Sports? Who Controls the Anti-Defamation League? Who Controls the Southern Poverty Law Center? Who Controls the American Civil Liberties Union? Who is Behind Gun Control? Who is Behind the Climate Change Hoax? “New World Order” Who Controls the Group of Thirty? Who Controls the Bilderberg Group? Who Controls the Trilateral Commission? Who Controls the Council on Foreign Relations? (Part 1) Who Controls the Council on Foreign Relations? (Part 2)”
https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1519407912147.jpg
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/11/23/thieves-like-us-the-violent-theft-of-land-and-capital-is-at-the-core-of-the-u-s-experiment/ ============================
Thieves Like Us: the Violent Theft of Land and Capital is at the Core of the U.S. Experiment
by ROXANNE DUNBAR-ORTIZ
The United States has been at war every day since its founding, often covertly and often in several parts of the world at once. As ghastly as that sentence is, it still does not capture the full picture. Indeed, prior to its founding, what would become the United States was engaged—as it would continue to be for more than a century following—in internal warfare to piece together its continental territory. Even during the Civil War, both the Union and Confederate armies continued to war against the nations of the Diné and Apache, the Cheyenne and the Dakota, inflicting hideous massacres upon civilians and forcing their relocations. Yet when considering the history of U.S. imperialism and militarism, few historians trace their genesis to this period of internal empire-building. They should. The origin of the United States in settler colonialism—as an empire born from the violent acquisition of indigenous lands and the ruthless devaluation of indigenous lives—lends the country unique characteristics that matter when considering questions of how to unhitch its future from its violent DNA.
The United States is not exceptional in the amount of violence or bloodshed when compared to colonial conquests in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and South America. Elimination of the native is implicit in settler colonialism and colonial projects in which large swaths of land and workforces are sought for commercial exploitation. Extreme violence against noncombatants was a defining characteristic of all European colonialism, often with genocidal results.
The privatization of land is at the core of the U.S. experiment, and its military powerhouse was born to expropriate resources. Apt, then, that we once again have a real estate man for president.
Rather, what distinguishes the United States is the triumphal mythology attached to that violence and its political uses, even to this day. The post–9/11 external and internal U.S. war against Muslims-as-“barbarians” finds its prefiguration in the “savage wars” of the American colonies and the early U.S. state against Native Americans. And when there were, in effect, no Native Americans left to fight, the practice of “savage wars” remained. In the twentieth century, well before the War on Terror, the United States carried out large-scale warfare in the Philippines, Europe, Korea, and Vietnam; prolonged invasions and occupations in Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic; and counterinsurgencies in Columbia and Southern Africa. In all instances, the United States has perceived itself to be pitted in war against savage forces.
Appropriating the land from its stewards was racialized war from the first British settlement in Jamestown, pitting “civilization” against “savagery.” Through this pursuit, the U.S. military gained its unique character as a force with mastery in “irregular” warfare. In spite of this, most military historians pay little attention to the so-called Indian Wars from 1607 to 1890, as well as the 1846–48 invasion and occupation of Mexico. Yet it was during the nearly two centuries of British colonization of North America that generations of settlers gained experience as “Indian fighters” outside any organized military institution. While large, highly regimented “regular” armies fought over geopolitical goals in Europe, Anglo settlers in North America waged deadly irregular warfare against the continent’s indigenous nations to seize their land, resources, and roads, driving them westward and eventually forcibly relocating them west of the Mississippi. Even following the founding of the professional U.S. Army in the 1810s, irregular warfare was the method of the U.S. conquest of the Ohio Valley, Great Lakes, Southeast, and Mississippi Valley regions, then west of the Mississippi to the Pacific, including taking half of Mexico. Since that time, irregular methods have been used in tandem with operations of regular armed forces and are, perhaps, what most marks U.S. armed forces as different from other armies of global powers.
By the presidency of Andrew Jackson (1829–37), whose lust for displacing and killing Native Americans was unparalleled, the character of the U.S. armed forces had come, in the national imaginary, to be deeply entangled with the mystique of indigenous nations—as though, in adopting the practices of irregular warfare, U.S. soldiers had become the very thing they were fighting. This persona involved a certain identification with the Native enemy, marking the settler as Native American rather than European. This was part of the sleight of hand by which U.S. Americans came to genuinely believe that they had a rightful claim to the continent: they had fought for it and “become” its indigenous inhabitants.
Irregular military techniques that were perfected while expropriating Native American lands were then applied to fighting the Mexican Republic. At the time of its independence from Spain in 1821, the territory of Mexico included what is now the states of California, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, and Texas. Upon independence, Mexico continued the practice of allowing non-Mexicans to acquire large swaths of land for development under land grants, with the assumption that this would also mean the welcome eradication of indigenous peoples. By 1836 nearly 40,000 Americans, nearly all slavers (and not counting the enslaved), had moved to Mexican Texas. Their ranger militias were a part of the settlement, and in 1835 became formally institutionalized as the Texas Rangers. Their principal state-sponsored task was the eradication of the Comanche nation and all other Native peoples in Texas. Mounted and armed with the new killing machine, the five-shot Colt Paterson revolver, they did so with dedicated precision.
Having perfected their art in counterinsurgency operations against Comanches and other Native communities, the Texas Rangers went on to play a significant role in the U.S. invasion of Mexico. As seasoned counterinsurgents, they guided U.S. Army forces deep into Mexico, engaging in the Battle of Monterrey. Rangers also accompanied General Winfield Scott’s army and the Marines by sea, landing in Vera Cruz and mounting a siege of Mexico’s main commercial port city. They then marched on, leaving a path of civilian corpses and destruction, to occupy Mexico City, where the citizens called them Texas Devils. In defeat and under military occupation, Mexico ceded the northern half of its territory to the United States, and Texas became a state in 1845. Soon after, in 1860, Texas seceded, contributing its Rangers to the Confederate cause. After the Civil War, the Texas Rangers picked up where they had left off, pursuing counterinsurgency against both remaining Native communities and resistant Mexicans.
The Marines also trace half of their mythological origins to the invasion of Mexico that nearly completed the continental United States. The opening lyric of the official hymn of the Marine Corps, composed and adopted in 1847, is “From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.” Tripoli refers to the First Barbary War of 1801–5, when the Marines were dispatched to North Africa by President Thomas Jefferson to invade the Berber Nation, shelling the city of Tripoli, taking captives, and blockading key Barbary ports for nearly four years. The “Hall of Montezuma,” though, refers to the invasion of Mexico: while the U.S. Army occupied what is now California, Arizona, and New Mexico, the Marines invaded by sea and marched to Mexico City, murdering and torturing civilian resisters along the way.
So what does it matter, for those of us who strive for peace and justice, that the U.S. military had its start in killing indigenous populations, or that U.S. imperialism has its roots in the expropriation of indigenous lands?
It matters because it tells us that the privatization of lands and other forms of human capital are at the core of the U.S. experiment. The militaristic-capitalist powerhouse of the United States derives from real estate (which includes African bodies, as well as appropriated land). It is apt that we once again have a real estate man for president, much like the first president, George Washington, whose fortune came mainly from his success speculating on unceded Indian lands. The U.S. governmental structure is designed to serve private property interests, the primary actors in establishing the United States being slavers and land speculators. That is, the United States was founded as a capitalist empire. This was exceptional in the world and has remained exceptional, though not in a way that benefits humanity. The military was designed to expropriate resources, guarding them against loss, and will continue to do so if left to its own devices under the control of rapacious capitalists.
When extreme white nationalists make themselves visible—as they have for the past decade, and now more than ever with a vocal white nationalist president—they are dismissed as marginal, rather than being understood as the spiritual descendants of the settlers. White supremacists are not wrong when they claim that they understand something about the American Dream that the rest of us do not, though it is nothing to brag about. Indeed, the origins of the United States are consistent with white nationalist ideology. And this is where those of us who wish for peace and justice must start: with full awareness that we are trying to fundamentally change the nature of the country, which will always be extremely difficult work.
A version of this article originally appeared in the Boston Review.
And your point is what?
It explain why and how the US/Jews violence is a Cultural problem since they exists until they will maybe collapse after WW3 Every Empire has his own destruction genes
Which is why dejudification is necessary.
Same usual conclusion. Jews and we never will behave and insist in staying low in the most stupid way in the whole world.
And Yes, Russia as the only ones lost WW1 3 times. They made same mistake after WW2 and even took Berlin – and collapsed again. Ottomans collapsed for very good reasons. Japanese collapsed.
So did others like Britts , French, Italians and Dutch.
But USA has collapsed. No they have not.
Even so, You are very negative.
And where are the long list of Yours showing Your succes. Well of course jews did it, bacause You hardly raise Your asses and do like them and us.
Some few million jews decide for a billon muslims. If I had a car like that, I would use a horse or camel instead.
Buy a clander, if You know what it is. USA fx was forced into WW1 as well as WW2.
In 1938 USA had 400.000 soldiers inclusive 180.000 of the national guard, which not was allowed to leave the country.
They then raised to 1 mio. but it was gainst the japanese. They had no guns, no uniforms, no local tranportation as well for crossing pacific and atlantic oceans. And even if they had, they had no supply to those soldiers as well.
Good examples for Your nonsense. And You forget, they replaced nazis, japanese, Britts, french, Italians.
There was a “before”. Adding those others, the different is not as bad as it seemes in Your context of non sense.
The U.S. wasn’t forced into WWI & WWII…. but Lured in with False Flag Attacks: The Lusitania & Pearl Harbor (they already knew they Japs were coming) which made the Americans Happy to Join their British Brothers as Cannonfodder in both Wars… which were Started by Great Britain, France & the Banksters…WWII was partially started to Create the Beachhead IsraHell & to Create the European Union…
In Russia is already fascism.
dream on – Russia is in comparison with the disunited states of America a paragon of virtue and the fascistic elements in the American society are everywhere whereas Russia has gone the other way and the wealth of the country is, to a large extent, for the good of te people. you might not like Russia and/or Putin but that doesn’t mean that it is a fascistic bulwark on the same scale as the disunited states of A and/or the european union, which is rapidly transforming into fascism.
In Russia you go in prison for unauthorized protest, it has the same president for 20 years and probably when he will be prime-minister again that function will have more power than the presidential one. Also there are over 200 investigations journalists assassinated in 20 years that means 10 journalists per year.
do you think that you can have an unauthorized protest/demonstration anywhere in europe/americas – of course not. 20 years is nothing if he has proved himself good for the country and for the people. so be glad that he is around protecting the country against america’s capitalistic overtures. and in america the cops are militarized to kingdom come and they will shoot first and ask questions afterwards, when the corpses are cooling and they know that they can do so with impunity – fascism is rampant in the disunited states of America to a much larger extent than anywhere else in the world. true successor of benito mussolini, that is the white house incumbent. rest assured!
That’s why so many Americans and Europeans migrate in Russia
“In Russia you go in prison for unauthorized protest”
You get arrested and go to prison in every single western country for unauthorized protest, you lowly tool.
HAHA, not even close. Putler introduced this in Ru only 5 years ago.
bullshit, and in Europe is been like this since the end of ww2. i can provide all the relevant penal codes if needed. and gfy.
Admittedly, street protests and similar plebeian gatherings are exactly what every state wishes for.
Peaceable assembly and petition of grievances as it’s mentioned in the US constitution at least has nothing to do with lowly workers stomping around the streets, which is always a meaningless exercise.
That peaceable assembly is to do with what the US federal government would likely take as conspiracy to over throw it.
Men assembling peaceably to determine their future separate from or properly reconciled with an errant government.
All that to say, street protestors are fools unwittingly put to use by those they despise and deserve everything they get, 20 years in prison or a bullet.
Street protesters are fools, that’s why Putler is so afraid of them.
Exercising power in order to dominate a rival faction, or group influenced by foreign actors seems to me rather distant from the emotion fear.
That sounds convenient for someone who needs to believe that his mighty leader has no fear.
Does my writing style really indicate to you that I’m Russian?
Totally!
Totalitarianism definitely, ideologically it’s more like bolshevism than fascism. But it’s all fake, controlled by the establishment. 20 years ago young people fought against globalism (*Seattle riots) today they are so utterly brainwashed, they are fighting for the establishment not against it.
‘Resist! by voting democrat!’ they cheer.
more than towards fascism, it’s sleepwalking toward a cliff so deep that you can’t hear the sound of a rock coming up, after throwing one to measure it.
More like towards authoritarianism.