Actually it is. We have had "tribalist infighting" for years however, it was never "thoughtfully" harnessed. The woman's movement we back to Susan B. Anthony days, racial tensions, since the Civil war, Class Warfare ever since the industrial revolution and on and on.

Gramsci obviously pondered these point when he wrote his "manifesto" while in prison. It was that missive being essentially the last major writing on the tenets and "way ahead" of the Communist worldwide movement. It seems to have provided a "sensible" way ahead post Lenin and the Bolshevik revolution.

He understood that World Communism, in order to succeed had to change tactics perhaps becoming more Fabian in its approach. It also had to get away from a "one size fits all" of revolution.

Gramsci (to his credit) was able to essentially "think out of the box" especially when targeting the most difficult Western Democracy to overcome. Europe was easy, America! Not so much and he knew that. Hence, a well thought out, long range plan was needed. One incidentally that didn't get put into effect until the mid fifties thanks to Stalin and his understanding of "useful idiots"and how they could be "co-opted" and of course, Allinsky with his radical new approach.

The rest I guess you could say is history.

Yes. I think in the late '90s Rush Limbaugh made the observation that sometime during the '70s the civil rights movement converted to the civil rights industry. The "rights" issue was met, but there was power to be had and money to be made. The old Jim Crow was deep-sixed and the new Jim Crow began to rise.

Post-modernism/neo-Marxism --> irrational/illogical Identity politics. Denigrate and destroy Western Enlightenment derived Natural Individual rights and science facts by overpowering them with so called 'civil rights'.

Thanks for the info.

You didn't say *how * you think a 1930s Italian prisoner did all this in America. Ideological collectivism with its modern version of tribalist infighting through pressure group warfare and battles over ethnicity aren't explained by that.

These groups are divisive and striving to segment society to suit their own agendas.
While each may have some legitimate positions to rise from which should be addressed, all, in their effort to attract a broader base, expand their views and actions, radicalize to varying degrees, beyond being a healthy construct for the society which spawned them.

I'll add, if they are taking money from Soros and taking advice from him or O, they are today's brown shirts or black shirts.

Like all movements, especially those with their genesis going back to the 1960's, they must be taken on two levels. The one that they ostensibly stand for and the other being how they support agendas other than the one's stated. Saul Allinsky orchestrated this very deftly.

It should be noted that Antonio Gramsci (Italian Communist) developed the "way ahead" for Communism and the defeat of the Industrial Democracies while in prison back in the 1930's.

Part of his approach dealt with how to defeat the most difficult of those democracies, that being the US. His plan was brilliant!

He knew that our greatest strengths were derived from our diversity (E Plusibus Unum - "Of many one"). Secondly, our deep seated belief in God and lastly, our national character and unique Constitution.

He felt that the best way to defeat the US was to turn our greatest strengths against us. Our diversity would end up being our Achilles heal. It was brilliant how he developed the way ahead for those who followed him (I.e., Saul Allinsky, etc.). He first turned Blacks against Whites, then Women against Men and then all of the other "Identity" groups until we became so Balkinized" that have been on a downward spiral ever since. In addition to the above, the assault on religion has been relentless and highly successful. Christianity has been somehow turned into some type of Terrorist tool thanks to the Mainstream Media, Hollywood and a relentless assault through the judiciary and other government organs.

Now that the stage has been set by our "diversity" there are those moving in for the Coup de grace and the worst part is that we did all of this to ourselves with our eyes wide open but our brains on "standby". Shame on us!

Civil rights are the implementation and specific application in law of moral rights of the individual. The name 'civil rights' has been co-opted by collectivists who oppose individual rights. The real civil rights battles today are mostly on behalf of property rights in various forms against the establishment and the left.

Most of these groups are not fighting for legitimate civil rights at all, but "Social Justice" demands which amount to communism. And quite a few of them are not even real grassroots groups, but fronts which rely mostly on paid fake demonstrators and are funded by Soros or people like him.

For instance, here's a lady blogger who personally saw protestors wearing "BLM" shirts and protesters wearing "KKK" shirts arrive in Charlottesville together on the SAME buses. http://lesliebard.blogspot.com/2017/0...

Feminism, like the NAACP, were legitimate civil rights movements in the past but didn't stop when they won, and are now simply "gimme-ist" groups fighting for all the unearned and undeserved special favors they can grab for their members. If asked why I don't support them I point out that their "victim cards" were only backed by the "Bank of White Guilt", which as Ann Coulter says, went bankrupt for good around the time of the first OJ Simpson trial. Those people are simply not victims of anyone but themselves any more; the individuals who suffered unjust discrimination are all over 60, and so are the individuals who did it.

As for police using unjust force, that does happen but (1) it is not about race (though most non-blacks have better sense than to provoke the police to the degree they do in BLM videos), and (2) most of BLM's chosen "martyrs" forced their opponents to kill them, including their first, Trayvon Martin.

The only civil rights movements I care much about right now are anti-SJW movements, including the movements to legalize drugs and sex work. And most of the groups mentioned in the title are part of the enemy.

Yes, BLM is not for individual rights and is not "fighting for civil rights". It is a violent, mob-action overtly racist collectivist 'ethnicity' movement package-dealing sympathy for real victims with demands for entitlements and exemption from the law for those committing or legitimately suspected of crimes.

"please read up on BLM."
My UU congregation has had their sign up for the past two years. I have not followed all the details. If you're up for a sermon, here is our minister speaking issues related to BLM.
https://youtu.be/yvrGMVPYAZA?t=52m20s

" Feminism " aside, groups like blm, ows, antifa, etc. are simply renamed communist groups, the communists in the early 20th century changed to "progressives" when Americans found out who they really were, no different now - change the name, goal is the same. I have covered "occupy " a couple times, the two constants are, the presence of communist/marxist groups in prominent positions throughout the "community" and the overwhelming demand for extra Constitutional new "rights", free money, anti capitalist,no borders, punishing "banksters". We need look no further than this, the founder of blm, check out her resume - and who supports her, including noted anti Americans Tom Hayden and Bill Ayers, here : http://keywiki.org/Alicia_Garza

Considering only 13% of US population is black, something is seriously wrong....

++++++++++++

Yes.

Bravo! You are exactly right in describing them. I lived for 18 years in a communist tyranny. They loudly proclaimed what you quote: "If you are not with us, you are against us." It is clear to me that these intolerant groups now lust for that kind of tyrannical power. We all know how that ends.
Thank you for spelling it out for the uninitiated.
EDIT: Corrected spelling.

"...a catalyst of exclusion, oppression and violence."

I believe that is their purpose; if not the rank and file, then the organizers/financers.
Goal? Extreme chaos convincing people of the need for extreme government control
(and not meaning law enforcement, which if used rationally, would stop much of this).

Too many aggrieved parties have couched their demands in terms of 'civil rights', which from the beginning was a poor choice of wording. Legally it should have been Constitutional rights, the rights granted to all persons who are citizens of The United States. From the Latin 'civitas' the English language developed civic, civil, civilian, civility which infers a sense of communality and interaction between people as opposed to uncivil and incivility. Equality under the law is a Constitutional proviso, however, when demands for certain accommodations are referred to as 'civil rights', they must also be weighed against the consequences which are either intentional or unintentional. For instance: Black lives do matter but when BLM advocates killing cops and then is responsible for the death of a black police officer, how can that be rationalized into claiming a 'civil right'?
Next is that claiming 'civil rights' and imposing one perspective upon society denies those with an opposing view to challenge it. 'Civil rights' is The Constitutional football, the team which possesses it is in control of the game and usually the score. Rights are not scores, specific or selective rights are dangerous, the same rights apply to all or there are no rights.

"That about sums it up." Yes it do !!!!!!!!!!!

They are no longer necessary.
2. Equal rights are important, but largely available, and remedy for real issues are available and effective.
3. Much activity and communication from these groups are are to incite, create issues where none exist, garner political support and special rights, which are inconsistent with item #2.
Therefore, these groups are a net negative at this point. If anyone really wanted to solve this issue, they would coach people to ignore race, gender and gender identity as an issue. Similarly poverty would be better served by eliminating welfare.

I used anomaly because, by definition: "something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected." I wish that it wasn't proper usage, but I'll bet if you were to ask Madam C. J. Walker, she would agree with me. ;) Thank you for the link. I totally agree with you about successful (non-victim) minorities not fitting into the progressive (read: Marxist) agenda.

They are all far left groups that serve the purpose of giving the useful idiots something to do, also to keep their names in the media, to prohibit free speech, and foment riots. They are are not fighting for civil rights. M.L. King, Jr. would reject them out of hand. In some cases, even their group's name is a lie, not to mention the slogans they shout and the words they spew.

Information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madam_C... . Actually, I don't consider her that big of an anomaly, since I've known a number of energized minorities of both genders that have achieved a degree of success. The reason you don't often hear of them is because it doesn't fit the progressive agenda of minorities as victims.

I won't engage but I will P**s them off if I can...still an outspoken rebel... Love it when they spit and sputter.

Feminism is pro-women over all others. BLM is pro-black over all others. That is racism. It's a joke that they are fighting racism. Support true individual rights.