The Coming Second American Civil War (9 of 14)

For a full version of this study go to, click on “University”, then click on “History”, then click on “Political History” and finally click on “The Coming Second American Civil War”. Or just click HERE.



Debate 3. Post-modernism. While I’m using the word “debate” only the first was a debate. Progressives and post-modernists believe their ideology is so righteous there is no need for debate. Progressivism over time evolved into a radical ideology we now call post-modernism. Also from the website Deep Spirits we find this definition:

Postmodernism is difficult to define, because to define it would violate the postmodernist’s premise that no definite terms, boundaries, or absolute truths exist.

Their concern centers around the West’s continued reliance on ancient and traditional religious morals, nationalism, capitalism, inept political systems, and unwise use and adverse impact of promoting “trade offs” between energy resources and environment, for economic gain.

According to the Postmodern Worldview, the Western world society is an outdated lifestyle disguised under impersonal and faceless bureaucracies. The postmodernist endlessly debates the modernist about the Western society needing to move beyond their primitiveness of ancient traditional thought and practices.

Postmodernists do not attempt to refine their thoughts about what is right or wrong, true or false, good or evil. They believe that there isn’t such a thing as absolute truth. A postmodernist views the world outside of themselves as being in error, that is, other people’s truth becomes indistinguishable from error. Therefore, no one has the authority to define truth or impose upon others his idea of moral right and wrong. (There is more to this definition and you should read it for yourself HERE.)

Post-modernism also includes neo-Marxism defined as:

It covers such phenomena of social life as gender ideology, political correctness, favoring and promoting all minorities (just temporarily they are LGBT or Muslim), repressive tolerance, sexualization of children, striving for the legalization of pedophilia and incest, the fight against Christianity and Catholicism in particular, striving to destroy traditional values such as family and respect for women, pseudo-feminism, limiting parents’ rights towards children, adoption of children by homosexual couples, euthanasia, abortion on demand, destroying the work ethos and supporting the growth of precariat, supporting the idea that theft is the easiest and fastest way to get rich, the fight against all forms of patriotism and the very notion of a nation, media stupefaction techniques such as virtue signaling (sic), fake news and self-censorship. This is called “the Neo-Marxism” because it was mentioned in the “Paris writings” of young Karl Marx, much more radical than the one from the period of the Communist Manifesto.

When Rahm Emanuel was White House Chief of Staff for President Obama he made this statement in an interview to the Wall Street Journal: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. … This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not before.”

Marxism is about hating capitalism and religion.

In Spark Notes in their summary they say this about Marx and Engels’s Communist Manifesto:

Modern Industrial society in specific is characterized by class conflict between the bourgeoisie (the rich/haves)and proletariat (the poor/have nots). However, the productive forces of capitalism are quickly ceasing to be compatible with this exploitative relationship. Thus, the proletariat will lead a revolution. However, this revolution will be of a different character than all previous ones: previous revolutions simply reallocated property in favor of the new ruling class. However, by the nature of their class, the members of the proletariat have no way of appropriating property. Therefore, when they obtain control they will have to destroy all ownership of private property, and classes themselves will disappear.

“The Manifesto argues that this development is inevitable, and that capitalism is inherently unstable. The Communists intend to promote this revolution, and will promote the parties and associations that are moving history towards its natural conclusion. They argue that the elimination of social classes cannot come about through reforms or changes in government. Rather, a revolution will be required.”


If in the late 1800s progressive ideology came across the Atlantic from Marx and Engels and was absorbed by our intelligencia that then influenced our politics and our political leaders beginning with Theodore Roosevelt, blossomed in Woodrow Wilson, and made national policy in Franklin D. Roosevelt, why? The opposition in Debate 1 changed in Debate 2 under progressivism in whole, not in part. The opposition in Debate 1 held to the same principles (mostly) of our founding, including capitalism and religion, they just wanted in Hamilton fashion a much more aggressive central government because the opposition did not believe we could meaningfully govern ourselves.

Marxism has no middle ground. At least this is true in its idealistic form that defines everything in absolutes and black and white, no grays.

  • One of the greatest factors that has led us to this new civil war and that will drive us out of a cold war into a violent hot war is our intransient belief that issues are always absolutes, black and white, leaving out any ability to compromise or see it otherwise.

 It has been written that the story of humanity is the struggle for freedom. But freedom from what? From my Judeo/Christian perspective it’s from the curse found in Genesis 3:16-18:

To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”

If there is no God and we are just some form of Darwinian freak chance of becoming something complex and wonderful, for some unimaginable reason we also know that the world is flawed and everything in it. And even for a greater unimaginable reason we have some kind of dull idea of a perfect world we can have, but we have to make it so. In this case our search for freedom is freedom from this flawed world and our flawed selves into a utopian one. I think it’s harder to believe this over God but it’s your choice and good luck with that.

Whether you believe in God or not-God we find a lack of control we humans have over our environment, limited (though much greater since the IR) technological advancement, tyranny of one class over another, and our limited ability to connect those dreams to our social reality.

While capitalism has made good changes to our lives and our search for freedom, Marx saw it differently. “The problem is that capitalists, the elite, the governments, wish to preserve their privileges at the expense of those who produce the wealth of the world. The system of capitalism creates the conditions for freedom but requires exploitation in order to function.” (A quote from Quora: How Can Marxism be Explained in Simple Terms.)

  •  We accept truths as Truth without ever asking questions about their truth. Common sense would tell us otherwise but we refuse to accept common sense over our preferred narrative.

 Some people are sad, others are happy; some people are poor, others are rich. Sadness cannot be a quality of freedom but happy can, so an ideal world would be one where everyone is happy. One of our unalienable rights, Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, is “the pursuit of Happiness”. What Marx observed was that those societies where capitalism operated some were still sad, and poor. Why? he asked. Those who were happy, and rich, were those who exploited the workers keeping them poor, and unhappy. His conclusion: capitalism was systemically evil and always exploitive of the workers for the benefit of the few.

Was he right? No. And yes. No because he made everything either/or, absolute this and absolute that when the truth was not all the poor, not even a lot of them, were poor because the rich stole from them. Conversely, not everyone who was rich got their wealth by stealing from the poor, though some did.

  •  It’s rarely either/or, most often it’s both/and. Either/or falls into our false category of absolute where we never see Reality. This keeps us in the whirlwind of civil war.

In the face of the chaos, the nastiness we seem to delight in, the hate that fills our souls, the desire to stab to death our history to rebirth a new one forces me to find my place in our history. As I’ve already written I’m not one of the one-third who didn’t have an opinion whether we should form a new nation or not; I care so I have to find for me the right side and move in it. I was your typical self-centered-the-world-revolves-around-me teenager viewing the world as wonderful and would remain wonderful because there was always those who cared who kept it that way.

There is a new term that has become our catch-word: “woke”. The Urban Dictionary gives us this one definition: “From the running social zeitgeist, it would described it as modern hipsters referring to a person being described has been enlightened or having just discovered some politically Progressive ‘truth’ about society or the oppression and class status of marginalized people, and the obligation to treat them as extra-special/revered in society.”

Words are always being coopted from their past usage as new groups use them in a wholly new way to define themselves overwhelming the traditional usage so it can no longer be traditionally used. For instance, when I was growing up it was common to use the word “gay” for happy. It had no cultural or political meaning, anyone who went to a party could say they had a gay night and everyone understood it was a fun night. Then someone in the homosexual movement chose to use gay as a term defining homosexuality, it became popular among homosexuals and suddenly they owned that word and no one could use it other than to define homosexuals.

Similarly the word “woke” has been coopted by radical progressives. When I went to bed last night I entered a long, deep sleep where I was aware of nothing. Not aware of me, my wife, my bed, my house, my neighborhood, the people still driving around, the state of the nation, I was oblivious to it all. But even more oblivious to everything came when I had a four hour surgery  and during those four hours there was no reality in the same way that from just seconds from my birth the days, years, decades, centuries, eons before were not real. Then I woke. The real came back into focus and I remembered I was part of it. According to Wikipedia its political usage reaches back to 1962. Its recent vernacular usage supposedly comes from the Black Lives Matter movement for social and racial justice. It has been adopted by the LGBTQ (and whatever letters and symbols they now adopt), the #Me Too, and 4th Wave Feminism. They all woke to realize that the traditional values of our nation, capitalism, religion are all evil and they are establishing a new reality based on neo-modernism.

Are you woke? Well, only if you agree with the new modernism replacing history ushering us into a self-designed by the radicals reality where everything goes, if it fits their definition.

When I became aware (here I would normally use “woke up”) that culturally and politically the United States was dramatically changing was in the middle sixties in the riots on college campuses, especially the free speech riots in Berkeley (which ironically wasn’t about free speech but the radical’s speech) and the riots in the streets ostensibly against the Viet Nam war but really about changing out the government. It was a Leninist attempt to move the ball forward faster into a fully progressive Marxist-like State but was wholesale rejected by the larger public. While the radicals went underground the greatest success was in the colleges and universities who gave into radicalism and became liberal (politically liberal) institutions training new generations into progressivism.