Liberals Need to Stop Calling for War

There will be a war.
Our side does not want it, but sooner or later (most probably sooner) there will be a tipping point.
It is long past time to consider and handle progressives as traitors and enemies of the country.

It was no accident, which made me make The New York Times the antagonist in my political novel, Return Of The Gods. The issues, here, are all dealt with in the Kipling themed novel. And see:

Feminist Hatred For Judge Kavanaugh

I’m you’re huckleberry chuckie...

Your comment: “culture is downstream of race”? Who came up with that ugly nonsense?

The full comment from my post is:

Politics is downstream from culture, and culture is downstream from race.

The first part of the formulation, Politics is downstream fromu culture is usually attributed to Andrew Breitbart, and is sometimes referred to as the Andrew Breitbart doctrine. Here is an article on his theory from his site: Politics Really Is Downstream from Culture

Summarized, his theory is that people's political ideas are formed by things like the television they watch, the way they interact with friends in social settings, and that politics is largely an extension the culture they experience.

So, one of his ideas was that to change politics one should work on changing the culture. His websites were his way of working to change the culture, by changing the media environment.

Here's another article on how this key insight, the Breitbart Doctrine, was used by election analysts in 2016 in the Trump campaign. Politics is Downstream from Culture.

The second part of my formulation is "Culture is Downstream from Race" is the part you particularly object to as "ugly nonsense". It's an extension of Breitbart's Doctrine that has been made frequently by various dissident right-wing commentators. The first reference I can seem to find for it is from this article at American Renaissance on why corruption is so common in some parts of the world, and not in others. The Color of Corruption

The observation is based on the observation that many groups seem to reproduce many aspects of their culture even when taken away from it. Haiti is more culturally similar to Africa then to the Dominican Republic. East Los Angeles is more culturally similar to Mexico City than to Beverly Hills.

The older theory many of us were taught is that culture is completely an artifact of nurture, and has nothing to do with nature. This is the "Blank Slate" theory of Humanity. People's culture, according to this theory, has nothing to do with their physical self: any human can adapt any culture if given the right incentives.

This is claimed to be true at both the individual level (ie: an adopted black kid raised in a white environment will 'act white'), and at a group level: mass migration of Muslims into Europe isn't a problem because they will quickly (one or two generations) acclimate to European cultural norms.

Unfortunately for advocates of the Blank Slate (which includes most liberals and many older conservatives) science doesn't really support that hypothesis. There is an excellent book on this topic by Professor of Experimental Psychology and popular science author Stephen Pinker, called "The Blank Slate". The book was quite influential, as science books go, and there is a pretty good summary of it in the Wikipedia article on it.

When you start understanding the fallacies that outdated beliefs like "the blank slate" have driven it changes your perceptions of many things. For instance if you look at this diagram, you have a different understanding of why some societies create cultures which are, for instance, more corrupt than others. Ultimately it has to do with the people who comprise those societies.

I'm sorry that you find this concept "ugly". It is a concept that many of us, particularly those educated in the 20th century when the "Blank Slate" theory was in full bloom, and genetics a young science do find hard to accept at first. (For instance The Human Genome Project was only completed in 2003, so even things like "23 and Me" were not possible at the start of the previous decade.)

None the less the more we learn about humans the more we understand that group differences are real, and they influence many aspects of behavior.

Clicked over to “American Renaissance”

It is an ugly website.

Again, Blow is a racist.

A commie too.

5.56mm

Clicked over to “American Renaissance” It is an ugly website.

Yeah, it is. Somethings, even if true, are not worth wallowing in.

Ultimately as a human I am interested in things that can life up humanity. Ideally the best programs are ones that can lift up everyone, regardless of their inherent weaknesses, capabilities and failings.

There are not a lot of things that fit that description.

Capitalism, particularly advanced capitalism as originated in the USA and other social democracies is one of them. In the last 50 years India and China have both made amazing gains in ending base poverty. These conincided with both adopting capitalism as their economic system and getting rid of socialism, which wasn't raising people up.

I would argue that Western Colonialism for all of its faults (there were many) mostly raised the level of civilization for the countries colonized.

That's because the colonialists did not suffer from doubts about their own superiority, based on both race and culture. That's quite clear reading what they wrote. They felt they were ordained by God to bring Christianity and civilization to lesser, primitive peoples. And that their culture was obviously superior.

The entire belief system that supported that endeavor is now considered racist and evil, so that can't happen anymore. And mostly, the colonized people are not able to maintain or even improve what they inherited (in terms of culture and civilization) from the Colonial period. You see this in Africa most starkly.

In the modern era the belief that "All men are created equal" (which when the founders said it was meant as a spiritual claim, not a statement about individual capabilities) has changed to "all ethnic groups are created equal". In which case there is no need for the culture of one ethnic group (say English culture) to be implanted in another ethnic groups culture (say the Ibo tribe of Africa).

So, to moderns Colonialism was bad. Most conservatives feel this way.

I do not, so while admitting that some truths are ugly, and not wanting to over-focus on things like HBD, I think we still need to admit the obvious.

It is important, because if the Blank Slate is true, then there is no reason to fear inundation of 33 million Mexicans and Guatemalans. They will all realize the American Way is superior and soon will be little Americans.

In fact, we've seen this doesn't happen, and won't work. To some extent the Iraq War was driven by "Blank Slatism", of the Neocons, who kept saying that Iraqi's wanted the same things we want. Freedom, Democracy, an opportunity society, harmony between groups.

It turned out Iraqi's didn't really want these things.

America doesn't have magic dirt. If we bring in enough people from Place A, we will end up with a culture like Place A. So, it does matter where people come from, when thinking about allowing them to immigrate to the USA.

In my view ideas like "the diversity lottery" are based on very false premises. Still a lot of conservatives stlil hold on the blank slateism.

The ugly meme "cuckservative" was really pointing out this divide, with the younger Conservatives calling out their older comrades for failing to admit the obvious. The fact that there was a generational divide added to the sense of difference in views.

Er ist Kein Kindergarten Krieg... Er ist Vernichtungskrieg!!!

I have no idea what that means, sorry. I looked it up, and used Google translate, and it's "this is not a kindergarten war, it's a war of annihilation."

I see it's a saying of yours from this post from 10 years ago on Free Republic (same icon even!):

If there is some historic background beyond this I don't have it.

Things in the USA are bubbling up, but I don't think we are even at the Kindergarten War level yet, we're in the pre-war conflict stage, as we have been for 20 years, at least.

I trace a lot of the bad blood to the Bush V. Gore election, in 2000. The Donks never got over Gore losing in such a close way, and their cheating not being allowed.

And they have been acting like retards ever since.

it means that when the time comes,(you're right it hasn't started yet) it will be no kindergarten war but a no quarter kill-em to the last man conflict so that there will be no lingering conflicts, no revenge or retribution because there will be nobody left to try it, it has to be complete devastation that will take generations before the next socialist ideas sprout, and then to rubbed out at the first sign

Yes. If they burn Portland to the ground, I suspect it will backfire.

If they burn Portland to the ground, I suspect some folks will be waiting to shoot them dead as they flee their own flames, then toss their bodies back into the flames to mitigate any major public health issue.