Republican Senator Warns "Violence Is Coming" If 'Identity Politics' Continues

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

Republican Senator Ben Sasse from Nebraska feels like there’s most likely more violence coming in the near future.

Following last weekend’s deadly clash between neo-Nazi groups, and left-wing counter-protesters in Charlottesville, VA, Sasse posted a long comment on Facebook that’s prophetic, and disconcerting.

“It feels like violence is coming,” Sasse wrote at the end of a long Facebook post on Friday evening, titled “The next Charlottesville.”

 

I’m not sure if this moment is like the summer of ’67 or not. But it might be. Before that violence strikes again, it’s up to us to reaffirm that exceptional American Creed again today, with our neighbors, and in our kids’ hearts.”

*Please note: Sasse did not condone any violence, he merely states in his post that he believes it to be inevitable.

His long post is filled with prophetic warnings of a civil war, yet those words aren’t specifically mentioned except when he references the historical American Civil War. Earlier in the online note, Sasse listed out a number of “observations” from his family discussions this week.

Within that 16-point list, the lawmaker said he expects the violence to “come when white supremacists and the alt-right fight anarchist groups aligned with the extreme left.”

He is wrong about one thing.  

Anarchist groups don’t “fight” for the right or the left; in fact, non-aggression is the key to most anarchist’s philosophy.  The anarchists actually want no government; not a left or right version and don’t stand with either side. Yet that’s a common mistake many people make, and he goes on detailing a rather bleak looking near future if Americans can’t set their desire for violence aside.

Sasse seems to be blaming pretty much all sides of the political spectrum and suggests that a race war could break out, and soon; and he doubts the government’s ability to stop the violence he feels is imminent. Of a conversation with a person, Sasse claims it was said to him:

But “when the next rounds of violence come, I’ll bet you most of it will come from the left. And then some folks I know will respond in kind. It’s gonna be a powder-keg.”

Sasse repeatedly wrote of the importance of the “American Idea.” The idea “that all people are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights” and urged Americans to embrace open debate versus “identity politics,” racism, and violence.

The post by Sasse came off as a quite condemning to President Donald Trump as well, with the lawmaker saying he doubts Trump’s ability to quiet the violence brewing in the United States right now.  Even with his critique of the president aside, Sasse could be right about one thing: violence is inevitable.  We may have reached the point of no return.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
AntiMatter's picture

“Contrary to what so many good people – out of sheer terror of ‘Communism’ – think, Capitalism is not ‘free enterprise,’ an incentive for success, ‘a chance for all.’ Capitalism is trusts, speculation, parasitical usury. Capitalism is J. P. Morgan, Rothschild’s bank, ripping apart the nations like maddened swine. Capitalism is the Jewish frying pan in which culture is rendered down to the grease of money. Following it, as the night to day, is the thrice hotter Jewish fire of ‘Communism.’” William Striker

http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/bolshies.html

Looney's picture

 ... I’ll bet you most of it will come from the left

Just feed them Snowflakes with Hillary’s new dish - Edible Yoga Pants, Hillary’s Skid Mark®.  ;-)

Looney

The Cooler King's picture

Thanks for the 'head's up'! Now I'll REALLY keep my eye out for 'Soros' funded & staged FAKE NEWS events.

Gaius Frakkin' Baltar's picture

Condemning identity politics is too little too late.

The only reason anyone cares is now White people are playing.

Just because a non-White says he/she isn't playing identity politics doesn't mean they aren't benefiting from it.

Billy the Poet's picture

Capital is the preparation one makes today in order to work more efficiently tomorrow. The entrepreneur who reinvests his profits, the student who learns a valuable trade and the farmer who sharpens his plow all practice capitalism. Why would anyone think it's a bad idea for folks to make preparations for the future?

Escrava Isaura's picture

Your statement could very well be used for slavery. Slaves on the 18th century were much more productive than the slaves of the 17th century.

Your argument about capitalism is terrible.

 

 

Billy the Poet's picture

No, your insane interpretation of my argument is terrible. It's as if I said, "Everybody's got to eat," and you condemned the statement as being supportive of cannibalism.

I assume that you have been educated and that you attempt to perform useful work. Can you explain why the necessity to learn a trade and maintain your tools makes you a slaveholder?

 

J S Bach's picture

This is utterly ridiculous.  "Identity Politics" is defined as:

"a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics."

So what the hell is politics, anyway?!  Every species in nature adheres to this definition for their very survival.  Humans are no different.  The egalitarian lies of "everyone bleeds red and we're all the same" is a devious ploy on the part of our (((ruling masters))) to weaken, confuse and ultimately erase the white race.  This is not paranoia... it's happening - slowly, but surely.  So, yet another label comes to the fore to obfuscate and cloud the necessary path that white Christendom must tread to regain its sovereignty and independence.  Ignore it... and stick to your instincts when contemplating these very serious issues.

Never One Roach's picture

"Hey, is that a Bat in your pocket or are you excited to see me?"

algol_dog's picture

Genetics and archaeology have proven Man's beginnings in Africa, and I would assume, as "blacken" skinned version? (Don't bother elucidating on the conspiratorial and deceitful root of that science. It's par for the course). My point is there is no race.

If each man was a carbon copy of each other there would still be prejudice, for it is the nature of the ego mind (what you refer to as, "nature adheres to") to separate and cut in perpetuity. I personally would espouse a higher state than ego is the idealized goal of humanity.

But what the fuck do I know ....

NidStyles's picture

Apparently nothing, because genetics says nothing about humans coming from Africa. It says one branch of humanity came from there, but that branch is long gone...

algol_dog's picture

All branches have. Study the science .... (Fake news doesn't count)

kochevnik's picture

Only because Africa was part of supercontinent Gondwanaland, before plate tectonics split the continents

lew1024's picture

Completely different timelines. Gondwanaland split 200M years ago, mankind as a modern species is perhaps 1M years old. Neanderthal ancestors left Africa about 400K years ago, humans about 60K (lots of arguments about that yet).

No, pretty clear that 1M years ago, we were all black, because anyone who lives near the equator has to be, just like anyone who lives at northern latitudes needs to be white.  Vitamin D controls that, needs sunlight on skin, too much is harmful.

Neanderthals were the first humans in northern latitudes, the first whites.

For such large and brawny men, they had some serious deficits compared to gracile Africans, however :

https://thinkpatriot.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/neanderthal-genome-researc...

https://thinkpatriot.wordpress.com/2015/10/31/african-advantage/

Son of Thor's picture

I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do… http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jobproplan.com%3A68UoF1LgzM-Yo3S...

Honest Sam's picture

Butt, you haven't stated your argument as to your understanding of what Capitalism is.  

Please do so, or step away from the keyboard, shut the fuck up, sit down, and look straight ahead.

GUS100CORRINA's picture

Republican Senator Warns "Violence Is Coming" If 'Identity Politics' Continues

My response: How about VIOLENCE IS ALREADY HERE! The first victims were American statues. What is next: The Statue of Liberty or Mount Rushmore?

VIOLENCE IS HAPPENING IN OUR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS EVERY SINGLE DAY!

I guess some people just live in a BUBBLE.

Robert Winthrop, Speaker of the U. S. House in the 1800s,  "Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet."

Never One Roach's picture

Perhaps Sasse was asleep when the left wing Democrat Bernie supporter gunned down those Repugnicans at the park?

 

He and Sessons must be on the same sleeping meds.

veritas semper vinces's picture

We don't know what Capitalism is. At least,not any more.Since we don't have it.We have only Cronyism and Predatory Capitalism ,mixed with Bolshevism to make a PARASITOCRACY or if you want modern Feudalism.

At least,this is how I see it.

Billy the Poet's picture

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Now where have I heard that before?

veritas semper vinces's picture

Yes,Billy. This is the known unknown,but we are at the fase where we have more of the unknown unknown.

I don't know if Rand knew about this when she wrote it.

fattail's picture

I enjoy reading your comments and seeing your viewpoint, but if its that hard to form a coherent argument, there isn't one to be made.

Barney Fife's picture

You are a fucking idiot with a reading comprehension problem.

Rusty Shorts's picture

TODAY'S HISTORY POST: The Truth. The first slave owner in America was an African American named Anthony Johnson. In 1654, the Northampton Court ruled that African Americans could own slaves. Actually, at one point in our country's history, African Americans owned slaves in every state. African Americans also owned white slaves and Indentured Servants. In reality, all African Americans were not slaves. William Ellison, of South Carolina,was a blacksmith who founded a very prosperous cotton gin factory. This African American owned 63 slaves. Several African Americans owned white slaves. 

JiminyCrickets's picture

Obama's Kenyan ancestors sold slaves.

 

Trump's didn't.

the artist's picture

Correct Sir. 

It was this johnson guy that started the whole thing in the US. It was the lawyers who did the mental gymnastics to let him do it. Prior to that there were only indentured servants who were free men after 7 years and given land. 

I told this story to a friend yeasterday. Should have seen his head explode. I went on to tell the tale of Yale the Slave trader. All the ivy league schools, Duke, Stanford etc. are built on blood and slaver money along with 200 years of usery. 

You want to tear something down? Start there. 

Sparkey's picture

What you say is probably true Rusty, but it doesn't fit the narritive, reality has nothing to do with anything, white people were slaves in coal mines in Scotland but that doesn't fit either, you want to unite people but the people who control the narritive want to shatter society so society is under attack from the family unit to the entire Nation, we can't defend ourselfs because we can't identify our own best interests nor can we identify those who would destroy us or their methods of destruction. Individuals can think, the mass reacts to stimulus, the media stimulates the mass reacts, at least that is how it is supposed to work, look and see what is really happening, our children are under attack from the monent of conception we all know that, yet we are unable to protect them somehow our very instincts for self preservation have already been neutered, if we can't protect the children what future do we face?

This has nothing to do with statues nor with race this has to do with divide and conquer, people have been conditioned to hate and fear each other so just a little stimulous will get the fire started.

kochevnik's picture

Slavery is sanctioned by religion, not capitalism. Of course you put every idea into a shredder then posit they are equal, socialist

The Cooler King's picture

This clown is getting 'sound bytes' published during the MONTH OF AUGUST (while Congress is on one of its 265 out of 365 days per year holiday breaks).

 

Relax dude, you're from NEBRASKA... Unless you go full Rachel Dolezal, you'll get re-elected in 2018... FFS ~ if you STFU, maybe even Warren Buffet will toss you a few sheckels from the bathtub just for yuks.

 

& if that doesn't happen, FFS, you can switch parties & Buffet will send you straight to the White House as soon as he gets some fotos of you in BOYS TOWN.

Omen IV's picture

Stassel is a promoter no more no less -who is not very talented - Neb. should get rid of him he is fundamentally a democrat

Michael Musashi's picture

Sasse is one of the smartest guys in Washington, and is one of the good guys. Just because he disagrees with Trump sometimes doesn't make him bad. I love Trump, but sometimes he does things that make me mad or makes me think "WTF?" Any intelligent person thinks the same way. Check Sasse out on Youtube. The guy is smart, would rip apart a Liberal in a debate, and is very pro-American. He's basically a likable Ted Cruz. I hope he's President some day.

Barney Fife's picture

A lot of the guys here are still sucking Turmp's cock because their egos will not let them admit they were wrong. 

I am not going to give them an opportunity to save face. I want to deflate their egos, and destroy their psyche. 

Then they can be built up again, into men. 

Uncle Sugar's picture

Wrong, and should have went with Cankles?  #NeverCankles

bearwinkle's picture

Somebody called Barney Fife is going to build up a man into a real man? WTF?? 

top kek

 

Proofreder's picture

 

I've been making a man, with blond hair and a tan

and he's good for relieving my tension.

So come up to the lab -

see what's on the slab.

I see you shiver with antici ...

pation.

 

kochevnik's picture

Wrong perhaps, but still alive and uncharred from thermonuclear holocaust

jeff montanye's picture

it's not.  

but the real world is far more tricky because, as adam smith noted,free markets are so easily corrupted via merchant or producer collusion.  throw in the power of government corrupted via campaign finance and it's a recipe for disaster.  in today's world it requires strong regulation/countervailing forces to keep free markets operating relatively freely.  unions have a part to play as do highly educated, informed and organized consumers, not to mention voters who vote out the corrupt lawmakers, as much as can be done.

Billy the Poet's picture

"The movement that I’m in favor of is a movement of libertarians who do not substitute whim for reason. Now some of them do, obviously, and I’m against that. I’m in favor of reason over whim. As far as I’m concerned, and I think the rest of the movement, too, we are anarcho-capitalists. In other words, we believe that capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Not only are they compatible, but you can’t really have one without the other. True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism." -- Rothbard 

 

If free markets are the will of the people then the people can organize themselves freely to protect those markets. I see no reason why individuals can't pursue common goals through voluntary interaction rather than by demanding to be coerced by strongmen. In fact, people work more efficiently when they do so of their own volition than they do under duress and constraint.

Escrava Isaura's picture

Wrong.

Capitalism and anarchism are incomparable because anarchism has a broader back.

Capitalism core is to maximize personal gains at the expenses of others. Now try to run a family under these values. The family will self-destruct.

“Capitalism is the theory that the worst people, acting from their worst motives, will somehow produce the most good”. – John Maynard Keynes

 

Billy the Poet's picture

Capitalism core is to maximize personal gains at the expenses of others

 

No, the only way to succeed in a free market system is to satify the needs of others.

Can you tell me your occupation and then explain the methods by which you personally seek to exploit others through that occupation?

El Vaquero's picture

I would argue that, while free markets and capitalism go well together, they are not the same thing.  You can have state ownership of an industry that sells its goods into a free market.  That's not capitalism, but you do have a free market. Conversely, you can have a privately owned producer that sells into a heavily regulated market, and have capitalism without the free market.  Public power companies are such an example.  I would say that the Fed is an example too, but the only thing it produces is Ponzinomics. 

Billy the Poet's picture

while free markets and capitalism go well together, they are not the same thing.

 

Yes, that's true and I was being just a little bit lazy by using the two interchangeably. Pressed for time, you know.

I'm heading out back to pick some pears which I will then stew up with white sugar, brown sugar and cinnamon. The energy I'll acquire from eating those pears will enable me to build out my websites and maintain my rental unit.

Capitalism is delicious, nutritious and nice way to spend a sunny afternoon.

Escrava Isaura's picture

Reader be aware that what I am attaching to this post is what I think is the best solution for an industrial society, in general. Personally, and because I am a liberal, I would not like to see this implemented, because of the size of our current society. And because it would not work under our current mindset.

Anyway, here it is: Government in the Future

I think it is useful to set up as a framework for discussion four somewhat idealized positions with regard to the role of the state in an advanced industrial society. I want to call these positions: (1) classical liberal, (2) libertarian socialist, (3) state socialist, (4) state capitalist, and I want to consider each in turn. Also, I’d like to make clear my own point of view in advance, so that you can evaluate and judge what I am saying. I think that the libertarian socialist concepts, and by that I mean a range of thinking that extends from left-wing Marxism through to anarchism, I think that these are fundamentally correct and that they are the proper and natural extension of classical liberalism into the era of advanced industrial society.

In contrast, it seems to me that the ideology of state socialism, i.e. what has become of Bolshevism, and that of state capitalism, the modern welfare state, these of course are dominant in the industrial societies, but I believe that they are regressive and highly inadequate social theories, and a large number of our really fundamental problems stem from a kind of incompatibility and inappropriateness of these social forms to a modern industrial society.

Continue reading………

 

JimBobJenkins's picture

The problem lies in the people. It doesn't make one fuck of difference what system you apply if lazy niggers sit on their ass and expect to be taken care of. 

El Vaquero's picture

While there are going to be different flavors of capitalism, all forms of capitalism will have two defining features:  The enforcement of private contracts and the enforcement of private property rights. 

Escrava Isaura's picture

Sorry Vaqueiro (Portuguese version).  Too narrow of a view of capitalism.

Try this by Kobe Beef:

A modern nation under fiat debt control is akin to a people farm. In the initial part of the cycle, the extension of fiat credit allows for the expansion of the farm, investments in infrastructure, and progresses toward the rearing and shearing of greater numbers of consumer livestock.

The farm grows. Debt grows. Payments received for debt grow. But, due to the laws of diminishing returns and compounding interest, the farm eventually reaches a point where shearing the existing stock no longer pays for the interest demanded by the creditors. The farm, while remaining somewhat productive, is rendered unprofitable.

In this phase of the cycle, the operations of the farm tends toward skinning the livestock, with no attention paid to growing the herd or maintaining its condition. At the final stage in the cycle, the farm and all its flock must be liquidated. The land is cleared, and the cycle can begin again.

The liquidation phase is called war. We are not seeing desperation here, but rather the planned liquidation of a farm by creditors who explicitly profess people to be nothing more than cattle.

Our democratically-elected/creditor-selected managers are complicit in the process. End the credit, end the cycle. Eliminate the creditors, or be slaughtered anew.

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-27/nato-deploy-tanks-eastern-europe-shortly-after-vp-europarliament-says-ukraine-russia#comment-5495497 

 

FixItAgainTony's picture

Good to see your PR contract got renewed.

True Blue's picture

Fiat allows pseudo 'capital' to be created from literal nothing; which makes it anti-capitalist by definition.

"Too narrow a view of capitalism" is the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy.

Your entire view of capitalism is extremely warped and sick; here it is in a nut shell small enough for you to understand. Capitalism is two people meeting in a market to freely exchange goods or services without coercion. That is it. Either you want what the other is selling and are willing to pay what he asks or you do not and therefore do not purchase or barter in exchange for it. What about that exactly strikes you as unjust? Or are you merely wanting to get something for nothing; demanding that others be enslaved to your wishes and desires? Capon.

El Vaquero's picture

Narrow?  It's extremely broad.  You don't get a broader definition of capitalism than what I gave.