Is America Being Deliberately Pushed Toward Civil War?

[simon99]

Taku ... A mirror for Christmas. What is Alinsky? How do you know and where did you learn it? Show us your birth certificate. The thread asked about being 'Forced' into civil war. Hold your hand up and let another place their hand against yours and the push. Most will push back with equal, or greater force, which then leads to a 'War'. This can be an example of being pushed into a civil war. Relax and do not push back and their can be no war. One can choose to simply not play the game. Namaste' Taku.

Pacifism doesn't work. " Relax and do not push back and their can be no war".......that's ridiculous. How many hundreds of millions of lives over the years could have been saved if they would have acted rather than just showed apathy.
Like sheep to the slaughter...

 

[U201491]

Pacifism doesn't work. " Relax and do not push back and their can be no war".......that's ridiculous. How many hundreds of millions of lives over the years could have been saved if they would have acted rather than just showed apathy.
Like sheep to the slaughter...

Yes....
They always learn too late.
That history can never be allowed to repeat itself.

 

[MikeE]

Right down a party line.
Attacking someone and trying to make them sound uneducated, only puts the doubt of your education in question. You really have to stop following Alinsky. All those rules have been worn out.
You are detracting from the thread.

The issue here isn't 'Alinsky', it's Milosovic. In the former Yugoslavia, Serb nationalists were constantly screaming about how the 'Bosnian' enemy was pushing for civil war, when it turned out the Serb nationalists were the perpetrators. Same thing happened in Rwanda with the Hutu nationalists. Maybe we should start calling your politics Hutu politics?

 

[simon99]

Yes....
They always learn too late.
That history can never be allowed to repeat itself.

I mean seriously.....when I hear such apathy it makes my blood boil. Apathetic people usually are living in their little Orwellian bubble. Sitting around the campfire, holding hands and singing Kumbaya to the bongos doesn't solve anything when evil people are pointing the barrel of a rifle at you. I pretty sure there were a lot of Jewish families who were riding in a cattle car to Dachau who then questioned their stance of pacifism, but by the time the doors opened it was far to late for anything other than a Zyklon B shower.

 

[luke23]

All right. This thread is, I must say, quite interesting. Forgive me if my response is a little general at first, but I think it requires some broader perspective as context before we can discuss the direct civil war issue.

Now, I've seen 'Marxist' bandied about here. Please direct such complaints to me, as I actually am a Marxist. Caveat, this does not mean I want to take away your guns or your personal liberties. It just means I don't want a market economy here for necessary items. I'm not your enemy, I'm not at all interested in oppressing you. In fact, I consider everyone here allies. We're all the common people. I did crap jobs before I knuckled down to college, and I know that the conservatives that democrats like to bash on are hard workers who care about their families and their country. As strange as it sounds, I'm a lot like you in some ways. Just different in others.

So, context for the discussion. I'm a history student, and history is absolutely full of revolutions, civil wars, and all kinds of domestic conflict. Also regardless of 'why' or 'who can I blame?' the United States is decaying. Honestly we should expect that. The Roman Empire lasted so long because it became an Empire. Autocracy usually has better staying power than elected governments. Despite that, Rome is the best comparison. Citizens who had a lot of rights, plenty of technology, but increasingly luxurious and deluded.

We've gotten to the point in this country where we cannot function anymore. It's basically just two sides who believe about half of the same things, and spend their whole time blocking each other from doing anything. It got us downgraded, and we've had government shutdowns and fiscal cliffs. It should be pretty clear this system isn't working. In some places, that'd be enough for a revolution.

But, here's the caveat. Like Rome, we have an excellent security apparatus here. As long as that's intact, armed revolution or civil war is simply not practical. Given US traditions and patterns, I can't say exactly what will happen, but I can envision two basic options.

Remember how we got rid of the Articles of Confederation? We ignored them, then formed conventions and wrote a constitution. It's entirely possible people will get disgusted with this system at some point, the majority of people will make a new one, and everyone will slide into that without much trouble.

Alternatively, there's armed conflict to various degrees. Generally anyone who gains power won't willingly give it up. However, ultimately any revolution is done via popular support. At some point the government will get so bad, both parties will get so hated that the people will demand a new system without the bloody parties.

Now the usual civil war theories here? FEMA death camps, Obama this and that... I don't buy it because that expects some competency out of the administration. I feel like we could replay it to 'Yakety Sax' from Benny Hill at 2 times speed and it would be hailed as a comedic classic.

It's actually, to me, a hilarious parallel to the way the democrats reacted to Bush. "He's an idiot!" or "He's an evil puppetmaster of darkness!" were the two opinions I always heard, often from the same people within ten minutes of each other. I'm not going to pretend Dubya was our finest leader and strategist, but he's hardly an evil genius. Just the product of our political system, a politician who usually follows the platform, doesn't do too much on his own, and is singularly unsuited for the presidency. In other words, like Obama, but a Republican, not black, and from Texas.

Honestly I see both sides as pretty damn similar. The thing is, American politics are inside a bubble. The 'liberals' here are actually conservatives by any other standard in the world, and both sides agree with the principle of the system. Two parties with the same basic platforms of economics and foreign policy, under a mixed-market system that leans very heavily towards free market.

Ultimately, for me the debate seems to come down to guns vs healthcare. My problem with Obamacare? It's utterly halfass, like putting a bandaid over a broken leg. At least I can trust people to protect my gun rights.

 

[U201491]

I mean seriously.....when I hear such apathy it makes my blood boil. Apathetic people usually are living in their little Orwellian bubble. Sitting around the campfire, holding hands and singing Kumbaya to the bongos doesn't solve anything when evil people are pointing the barrel of a rifle at you. I pretty sure there were a lot of Jewish families who were riding in a cattle car to Dachau who then questioned their stance of pacifism, but by the time the doors opened it was far to late for anything other than a Zyklon B shower.

 

[simon99]

All right. This thread is, I must say, quite interesting. Forgive me if my response is a little general at first, but I think it requires some broader perspective as context before we can discuss the direct civil war issue.

Now, I've seen 'Marxist' bandied about here. Please direct such complaints to me, as I actually am a Marxist. Caveat, this does not mean I want to take away your guns or your personal liberties. It just means I don't want a market economy here for necessary items. I'm not your enemy, I'm not at all interested in oppressing you. In fact, I consider everyone here allies. We're all the common people. I did crap jobs before I knuckled down to college, and I know that the conservatives that democrats like to bash on are hard workers who care about their families and their country. As strange as it sounds, I'm a lot like you in some ways. Just different in others.

So, context for the discussion. I'm a history student, and history is absolutely full of revolutions, civil wars, and all kinds of domestic conflict. Also regardless of 'why' or 'who can I blame?' the United States is decaying. Honestly we should expect that. The Roman Empire lasted so long because it became an Empire. Autocracy usually has better staying power than elected governments. Despite that, Rome is the best comparison. Citizens who had a lot of rights, plenty of technology, but increasingly luxurious and deluded.

We've gotten to the point in this country where we cannot function anymore. It's basically just two sides who believe about half of the same things, and spend their whole time blocking each other from doing anything. It got us downgraded, and we've had government shutdowns and fiscal cliffs. It should be pretty clear this system isn't working. In some places, that'd be enough for a revolution.

But, here's the caveat. Like Rome, we have an excellent security apparatus here. As long as that's intact, armed revolution or civil war is simply not practical. Given US traditions and patterns, I can't say exactly what will happen, but I can envision two basic options.

Remember how we got rid of the Articles of Confederation? We ignored them, then formed conventions and wrote a constitution. It's entirely possible people will get disgusted with this system at some point, the majority of people will make a new one, and everyone will slide into that without much trouble.

Alternatively, there's armed conflict to various degrees. Generally anyone who gains power won't willingly give it up. However, ultimately any revolution is done via popular support. At some point the government will get so bad, both parties will get so hated that the people will demand a new system without the bloody parties.

Now the usual civil war theories here? FEMA death camps, Obama this and that... I don't buy it because that expects some competency out of the administration. I feel like we could replay it to 'Yakety Sax' from Benny Hill at 2 times speed and it would be hailed as a comedic classic.

It's actually, to me, a hilarious parallel to the way the democrats reacted to Bush. "He's an idiot!" or "He's an evil puppetmaster of darkness!" were the two opinions I always heard, often from the same people within ten minutes of each other. I'm not going to pretend Dubya was our finest leader and strategist, but he's hardly an evil genius. Just the product of our political system, a politician who usually follows the platform, doesn't do too much on his own, and is singularly unsuited for the presidency. In other words, like Obama, but a Republican, not black, and from Texas.

Honestly I see both sides as pretty damn similar. The thing is, American politics are inside a bubble. The 'liberals' here are actually conservatives by any other standard in the world, and both sides agree with the principle of the system. Two parties with the same basic platforms of economics and foreign policy, under a mixed-market system that leans very heavily towards free market.

Ultimately, for me the debate seems to come down to guns vs healthcare. My problem with Obamacare? It's utterly halfass, like putting a bandaid over a broken leg. At least I can trust people to protect my gun rights.

Interesting post, albeit very disconcerting.
I find it troubling that a self proclaimed lover of firearms would support such a stance. A Marxist gun lover? Its an oxymoron, much like a pro-life abortion clinic or a civil war.
Forgive me for my approach and boldness, but how can I or most any other person take your post seriously? Do you actually comprehend and understand the line that you’ve drawn in the sand and the position that you’ve places yourself in? You are basically making the claim that Islam, in any of its twisted forms, is a centralized religion of peace and that only the Taliban are the bad guys. Sorry if I don’t take the educational system of Hawaii where you go to college that seriously. Despite what you may have studied in books at your school or from you philosophy professors, some of us on this forum have actually spent years of our lives in these areas that you discuss. I’ve seen first hand what the Taliban and Islam are capable of. So forgive me if I come off as slightly unimpressed with your notion stating the opposite. Just so some of your other forum komrades are aware, ( from Alex R. Knight 111) in an 1872 speech in Amsterdam, Holland, Karl Marx proclaimed that, “a social revolution or economic conquest could be accomplished by peaceful means in America by taking advantage of libertarian traditions and free institutions to subvert them.”
It is easy to see that Marx had little regard for the individual, not only from this evident disdain for basic liberty, other than as a convenient mechanism through which to vend his poison, but in the fact that communistic theory and philosophy held the State as a sovereign and all-powerful entity against which no one person would have any recourse for grievance. …..Sound familiar Barak Obama?…. In communist ideology, there is no question raised – the legislative absolutism of the State is sacrosanct.
Yes, true enough, Hitler and his Nazis unleashed their horrors upon the world in grand enough fashion, as did Hirohito’s Japanese Empire, Mussolini, and countless other dictators and regimes of a fascist or other statist bent. But the Third Reich lasted a mere twelve and a half years (way too long), and one or another junta even less. The ideas engendered and championed by Marx, at their peak, lasted over 75 years – three-quarters of a century from the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 – and enslaved some one-third of the world’s population by the early 1980s. Of this percentage of the world’s population, an estimated ninety-four million were slaughtered by governments established to advance the ideals of Communism. Today, its oppressive influence is still very much felt in not only the aforementioned Cuba and North Korea -- but in China, Vietnam, Africa, and other parts of the Third World where the flags and slogans of yesteryear may have been sublimated, but the core elements of Marxist control remain firmly in place.
One look at the Federal Reserve, the IRS, property taxes, public schools, and gun control demonstrate the rotten and pestilential fruits of Karl Marx’s highest ambitions.


So…again, I find your post to be, at least, slightly misguided and at worst, completely delusional.

 

[luke23]

Interesting post, albeit very disconcerting.
I find it troubling that a self proclaimed lover of firearms would support such a stance. A Marxist gun lover? Its an oxymoron, much like a pro-life abortion clinic or a civil war.
Forgive me for my approach and boldness, but how can I or most any other person take your post seriously? Do you actually comprehend and understand the line that you’ve drawn in the sand and the position that you’ve places yourself in? You are basically making the claim that Islam, in any of its twisted forms, is a centralized religion of peace and that only the Taliban are the bad guys. Sorry if I don’t take the educational system of Hawaii where you go to college that seriously. Despite what you may have studied in books at your school or from you philosophy professors, some of us on this forum have actually spent years of our lives in these areas that you discuss. I’ve seen first hand what the Taliban and Islam are capable of. So forgive me if I come off as slightly unimpressed with your notion stating the opposite. Just so some of your other forum komrades are aware, ( from Alex R. Knight 111) in an 1872 speech in Amsterdam, Holland, Karl Marx proclaimed that, “a social revolution or economic conquest could be accomplished by peaceful means in America by taking advantage of libertarian traditions and free institutions to subvert them.”
It is easy to see that Marx had little regard for the individual, not only from this evident disdain for basic liberty, other than as a convenient mechanism through which to vend his poison, but in the fact that communistic theory and philosophy held the State as a sovereign and all-powerful entity against which no one person would have any recourse for grievance. …..Sound familiar Barak Obama?…. In communist ideology, there is no question raised – the legislative absolutism of the State is sacrosanct.
Yes, true enough, Hitler and his Nazis unleashed their horrors upon the world in grand enough fashion, as did Hirohito’s Japanese Empire, Mussolini, and countless other dictators and regimes of a fascist or other statist bent. But the Third Reich lasted a mere twelve and a half years (way too long), and one or another junta even less. The ideas engendered and championed by Marx, at their peak, lasted over 75 years – three-quarters of a century from the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 – and enslaved some one-third of the world’s population by the early 1980s. Of this percentage of the world’s population, an estimated ninety-four million were slaughtered by governments established to advance the ideals of Communism. Today, its oppressive influence is still very much felt in not only the aforementioned Cuba and North Korea -- but in China, Vietnam, Africa, and other parts of the Third World where the flags and slogans of yesteryear may have been sublimated, but the core elements of Marxist control remain firmly in place.
One look at the Federal Reserve, the IRS, property taxes, public schools, and gun control demonstrate the rotten and pestilential fruits of Karl Marx’s highest ambitions.


So…again, I find your post to be, at least, slightly misguided and at worst, completely delusional.

I find your post exactly the same sir. Have you read the Communist Manifesto or Das Capital? Marxism is economic theory. It centers around state control of the means of production. That is the fundamental tenant of Marx. Various other associations are all incredibly skewed. I doubt anyone is interested in a full lecture on Marxism, but suffice to say the end goal of Marx is communism. Communism is a theoretical existence devoid of any state control, in which the people organize themselves and cooperate with each other as needed to accomplish a goal, without wealth or power as goals. The interim role of socialism is to abandon the concept of money, abandon the concept that things like food, shelter, or medicine are commodities to be bought and sold, and to change societal perception until the government can simply fade away. As this would be a major step in human evolution, I think it would take thousands of years at the least.

Another Marx quote for you. "When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character."

As to why a Marxist would support gun rights, it's very simple. Do I feel comfortable in a society where guns are only possessed by those with wealth who own the economy and the government? Such a system leaves the working class (Proletariat) in a more vulnerable position for coercion, and in that disarmed state the majority of people can very easily be oppressed by their rulers. In the end you and I likely agree on this point. An armed society means the common man is safer than he is alone.

And also to clarify, North Korea isn't socialist (it's a dynastic dictatorship devoid of any real socialism), China is state capitalist (one party system, free market economy), Vietnam is following China's Deng Xiaoping Thought, and Africa is a continent. And just to add, 'third world' is a cold war term that specifically refers to countries not aligned with either the free market west or the socialist bloc.

Finally, to touch briefly on the Islamophobia there... I've been good friends with a number of Muslims and a number of Arabs. I've studied a lot of their culture and some language. I have been able to do this free from the filter of any hostility, so I can guarantee you my perception without setting foot in Iraq (for example) will be much more accurate than someone deployed to Iraq to fight a war. That's simple psychology. And as to Islam itself, it's like any other religion. You've got some good people, and some not good people. Judging all Christians by the Westboro Baptists or all Jews by Baruch Goldstein or Yigal Amir is essentially the same level of clueless reaction.

 

[simon99]

Luke,
its been an interesting discussion. I guess at the end of the day, we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I suppose that what you see as cultures of higher civilization and edification are what I see and fought against as the very empires of tyranny and oppression. As I've stated in numerous posts, I'm not the type to engage in schoolyard name calling and the like. But I hope you can in the future expand your worldview beyond the limited borders its at right now.
Enjoy your guns and freedoms while you can....

 

[luke23]

It was interesting, and I'd like to say thank you for staying polite and civil. I appreciate when people with differing opinions can coexist.

 

[U201491]

To Luke23

Marxism.
(Quote)
If one reads The Communist Manifesto carefully one discovers inconsistencies that indicate that Marx had not reconciled the concepts of catastrophic and of permanent revolution. Moreover, Marx never analyzed classes as specific groups of people opposing other groups of people. Depending on the writings and the periods, the number of classes varies; and unfortunately the pen fell from Marx’s hand at the moment when, in Das Kapital (vol. 3), he was about to take up the question. Reading Das Kapital, one is furthermore left with an ambiguous impression with regard to the destruction of capitalism: will it be the result of the “general crisis” that Marx expects, or of the action of the conscious proletariat, or of both at once? (end quote)

Marxism was distorted through Germany and Austria and then
To Russia.

(quote)
Russian and Soviet Marxism

Das Kapital was translated into Russian in 1872. Marx kept up more or less steady relations with the Russian socialists and took an interest in the economic and social conditions of the tsarist empire. The person who originally introduced Marxism into Russia was Georgy Plekhanov, but the person who adapted Marxism to Russian conditions was Lenin.

Lenin assigned major importance to the peasantry in formulating his program. It would be a serious error, he held, for the Russian revolutionary workers’ movement to neglect the peasants. Even though it was clear that the industrial proletariat constituted the vanguard of the revolution, the discontent of the peasantry could be oriented in a direction favourable to the revolution by placing among the goals of the party the seizure of privately owned land. As early as 1903, at the third congress of the party, he secured a resolution to this effect. Thereafter, the dictatorship of the proletariat became the dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. In 1917 he encouraged the peasants to seize land long before the approval of agrarian reform by the Constituent Assembly.

Among Lenin’s legacies to Soviet Marxism was one that proved to be injurious to the party. This was the decision taken at his behest by the 10th congress of the party in the spring of 1921, while the sailors were rebelling at Kronstadt and the peasants were growing restless in the countryside, to forbid all factions, all factional activity, and all opposition political platforms within the party. This decision had grave consequences in later years when Stalin used it against his opponents. (End Quote)

It passed through Stalinist to Maoism, Daoism and all of it was anti capitalist
and repressive to the people.
It was destruction of the individual and only supported collectivism.
.
(Quote)
Western Marxism has found support primarily among intellectuals rather than the working class, and orthodox Marxists have judged it impractical. Nevertheless, the Western Marxists’ emphasis on Marx’s social theory and their critical assessment of Marxist methodology and ideas have coloured the way even non-Marxists view the world. (End Quote)

America is not compatible with Socialism, Marxism, Communism or any variant of them.
We were intended to and will remain a Free Republic at any cost.
We have free will and the ability to achieve any goal we set for ourselves as individuals. Because of a few idealistic power hungry politicians have distorted our political system will not change that.
They feel they can twist and corrupt our votes, lie to us and do their own will to achieve their agendas will not be long lived. We were founded on representation and representation has ceased to exist. That will not be tolerated for much longer !
There are enough loyal Americans that will stand and no longer tolerate what the last 2 administrations have done. When, that happens you will have to decide who you really are.
America as a republic will prevail !
Eyes are being opened more by the day.

 

[simon99]

It was interesting, and I'd like to say thank you for staying polite and civil. I appreciate when people with differing opinions can coexist.

I concur.
As a side note, for a mental exercise I have read the Communist Manifesto and Das Capital. That expanded worldview thing again....

 

[DMax]

Here's a perspective and what evolved out of Marxist the main stream media will not tell us.

Glenn Beck: Progressives are the lunatic fringe ? Glenn Beck

 

[U201491]

Here's a perspective and what evolved out of Marxist the main stream media will not tell us.

Glenn Beck: Progressives are the lunatic fringe ? Glenn Beck

One of the best articles I have read to date.
This is one everyone needs to see.
I just sent him an email requesting reprint privileges.

 

[Hook686]

Pacifism doesn't work. " Relax and do not push back and their can be no war".......that's ridiculous. How many hundreds of millions of lives over the years could have been saved if they would have acted rather than just showed apathy.
Like sheep to the slaughter...

The question was not, 'Will you be killed if you do not resist', the question was, 'Was the U.S. being forced into civil war'. My reply was that one cannot be forced into anything that one does not want to be. The price might be death of the body, but if you are afraid of that, then I can understand people promoting that civil war is being forced upon us. People show their true nature when their actions match their words, otherwise they speak with a forked tongue.

How many here promote Christianity as the religious philosophy that forms the thread of the United States ? How many refuse to turn the other cheek and instead promote casting the first stone ? 'Thou shalt not kill' really does not apply to civil wars does it ? 'A man has to do what a man has to do', right ? If that means picking a side in a civil war, so be it, right ? 'My way, or the highway' is the way to go, right ?

Some times it is difficult to listen to another view without harsh judgement, right ? Einstein suggested that space and time were relative to the observer, so can all of us be right, or wrong ?

 

[U201491]

The question was not, 'Will you be killed if you do not resist', the question was, 'Was the U.S. being forced into civil war'. My reply was that one cannot be forced into anything that one does not want to be. The price might be death of the body, but if you are afraid of that, then I can understand people promoting that civil war is being forced upon us. People show their true nature when their actions match their words, otherwise they speak with a forked tongue.

You live in an illusion. A fiction of ideals whithin your own mind.

Too bad...............
An attempt was made to warn and alert you. No one can do much more that that.

 

[luke23]

To Luke23
Snip

America is not compatible with Socialism, Marxism, Communism or any variant of them.
We were intended to and will remain a Free Republic at any cost.
We have free will and the ability to achieve any goal we set for ourselves as individuals. Because of a few idealistic power hungry politicians have distorted our political system will not change that.
They feel they can twist and corrupt our votes, lie to us and do their own will to achieve their agendas will not be long lived. We were founded on representation and representation has ceased to exist. That will not be tolerated for much longer !
There are enough loyal Americans that will stand and no longer tolerate what the last 2 administrations have done. When, that happens you will have to decide who you really are.
America as a republic will prevail !
Eyes are being opened more by the day.

I don't want to get in a knock-down and drag-out debate here, but the thing is, 'America' is a state and a region. It's constantly adjusting and adapting, and ultimately what Marxism is... Is economics. Everything else is flexible, and no one is after your free will.

The goal is simply to give you other freedoms to depend on. Freedom from hunger, freedom from sickness, freedom to live under a roof and warm in the winter cold. If you want an actual discussion, go ahead and message me about it, and I can fill you in on my details.

Otherwise, let's stop the divisive squabbling and unite around our gun rights.

 

[U201491]

I don't want to get in a knock-down and drag-out debate here, but the thing is, 'America' is a state and a region. It's constantly adjusting and adapting, and ultimately what Marxism is... Is economics. Everything else is flexible, and no one is after your free will.

The goal is simply to give you other freedoms to depend on. Freedom from hunger, freedom from sickness, freedom to live under a roof and warm in the winter cold. If you want an actual discussion, go ahead and message me about it, and I can fill you in on my details.

Otherwise, let's stop the divisive squabbling and unite around our gun rights.

There wasn't any squabbling. You expressed your views and we expressed ours.
Pretty clear discussion as they go here.
My convictions are solidly based. Not looking for anyone to try to convince me of anything.
I have established that base on 67 years of observation and experience. Not much chance of you altering my viewpoint now.
I love my country and what it was intended to stand for.
JA's are f=ing that up for us and our children and grandchildren and I don't like it. Quite simple really.
If you are truly pro 2nd Amendment, we stand on the same issue.
What you equate as Marxism is more like socialism, and that side I disagree with.
But you have what you think you need.
I will do what I have to to get the country back to what it was intended to be.
Earn what you get, Get what you earn, and unless too invalid to earn, stop living off of others labor.
Pretty simple really, again.

On another note, when the politicians and global marxist, socialists want to give up all their money and live on the average income of all others, I will give some slight credibility to their convictions about their spread everyone else's wealth. I don't see the fearless leader offering to give up all his assets and stop taking multi million dollar vacations and trying to live on 50 to 70 K a year.
Nor bloombutt, soros... or anyone else in their circle.

 

[MikeE]

I think we did this civil war thing once before:
Committed!! "Shouting"! The Battle Cry Of "Freedom"!! - YouTube

 

[U201491]

I think we did this civil war thing once before:
Committed!! "Shouting"! The Battle Cry Of "Freedom"!! - YouTube

Not since the 70's...... the 1770's. It was called the American Revolution.