Preventing civil war -------------------- Civil war can erupt between a repressed people and the criminals that rule them, however it can also be stirred up between sections of the population by the ruling class. This method is aptly known as Divide & Conquer. It seems that Divide & Conquer techniques are currently - 2017 - being activated. An interesting part of the developing Divide & Conquer in the USA is how both sides are increasingly radical, rude, violent, unreasonable and uncompromizing. The following chart is an attempt at creating a system to compare ones own behavior to, so that a civil war might become less likely. This chart is not meant to stifle the political debate. On the contrary this behavioral system is meant to bring out the debate, and reach some sort of eventual situation by not resorting to bloodshed. A threat with Divide & Conquer is that the power doing it will use the violence to justify a dictatorial or even tirannical regime. Then the debate will be stifled, and the people could be said to have shown that they are incapable of a civilization. They will then be repressed and forced to listen to their rulership, because perhaps that is a quality they are missing. The dictatorship then becomes a solution for the lack of civilization, even while itself not being civilized. Chart ----- This chart is a matrix of 6 points, divided in a left column which denotes behavior toward ones self and ones own group / movement / ideological affiliation, a right column which denotes behavior of ones self to the other group, an opposing movement / ideological affiliation(s). The chart comes in 3 rows which from top to bottom broadly refer to intellectual / mental effort, emotional / social effort, and action / will effort. Together they could be a model of civilized behavior. internal external intellectual/ Try to nuance and | Try to understand mental broaden your own | others their ideology, if | ideology and possible. | motivations. __________________________|___________________________ | emotional/ Point to the flaws | De-escalate relations, social in your own movement. | keep to arguments. __________________________|___________________________ | action/ Behave exemplary, | Offer negotiation will constructively. | compromizes. internal/intellectual: Try to nuance and broaden your own ideology, if possible. With this is meant to work on what you really belief. Is it as wise as it could be ? Does it include reasonable answers to a wide variety of concerns ? Is it a nuanced understanding ? Have you worked hard on your ideological position, could more be done ? Has history been taken into account ? The phrase "if possible" is added, because in some cases it just isn't possible to somehow gain a broader perspective on what is true and just. The idea is not to degrade your own position, until you don't belief it yourself anymore but at least you do not get into a war with someone else, but to honestly see if there is more to be discovered, so that rather then toning your own position down, you are refining it further and belief in what you belief in even more. external/intellectual: Try to understand others their ideology and motivations. Understanding the opposing party their ideology is a good thing when having a debate or any sort of political contest. There is also something else to understand, which may not be part of what the other party is saying but that nevertheless could be part of their motivations. In this it is important not to only look for distasteful violent or criminal ideology and motivations, but also look for motivations that are understandable, agreeable or even sympathetic. How can there be any sort of democratic society, if both sides do not understand each other ? The situation will likely become a dictatorship if both sides refuse to understand each other, but become increasingly radicalized and agressive because of their frustrations. internal/social: Point to the flaws in your own movement. Cycles of violence are driven by only pointing to what the other side did wrong. Has your own (our own) movement been as civilized, affording and well behaved as it could have been, and should have been ? Was there a mild provocation that then sparked off a cycle of worse provocations between the parties ? Admitting the wrongs of your own (our own) side can help de-escalate the tension and getting back to a debate on content, rather then see an escalation into violence. It alters the internal emotional / social state to be ready for the behavior in the next point. external/social: De-escalate relations, keep to arguments. Rather then escalate provocations, from shouting arguments to shouting insults, to getting in the way of people to smearing paint on properties, to vandalism and muggings, to serious bodily harm, murder, mass murder and then organized mass murdering over years (civil war), the reaction to provocations should be to de-escalate one or more steps. The objective and ideal is to stay always on well pronounced and elegantly given arguments, and to stay the course for the long haul. Excluded here however is reasonable self defense and defense of others, but again in the most de-escalating ways as reasonably possible. internal/action: Behave exemplary, constructively. Rather then wait for society to suddenly change itself according to your own design, or becoming upset that it takes too long, it is usually more fruitful to simply try to behave according to your own ideals and try to create your ideal society around you (to the degree that it is a civilized ideal.) By focussing on the constructive and best possible personal behavior, a measure of frustration and hopelessness can be released which might otherwise seek a way out by unreasonably antagonizing opposing groups. external/action: Offer negotiation compromizes. Rather then stay in a sort of tense peace with an opposing group, it might be better to broaden your own ideology again to even include a spectrum - even a world - of possible compromises that may seem like a useful and hopeful step into the future for both opposing groups. Is there nothing both can agree on, which can be achieved first ? Especially in cases of ruling class financed Divide & Conquer assaults on the population, it is likely that many in the population who are getting divided against their own brothers and sisters have deeply held common beliefs that center around the problems that their common ruling class is generating. With that we are back at the first point in this matrix. P.S. This matrix came about while interjecting a call for both sides to stop driving their situation into a civil war, and seemed like a possible way out for their situation. Unfortunately such efforts will not likely succeed, because the power of money is usually overwhelming to the population, although they seem not to realize how much they are being prodded, manipulated, radicalized, simplified, angered, frustrated and provoked by the same force.