Hilliary vs. Trump: The 2016 US Presidental Election

Here's a quote from one of the few republican that I respect.

If you want to preserve democracy as we know it, you have to have a free and many times adversarial press, Without it, I am afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time. That’s how dictators get started.”

- Sen. John McCain

 

I see McCain and raise you Old Spicer, from a Politico [one of the outlets banned] interview in December. When asked about Trumpet banning press from his rallies he replied -

 

Until that same free press is against you, then is become OK to censure them.

 

Those darn lugenpresse never learn.

 

Not that they lack motivation, but reporters should bare this in mind:
A lot of the time they get little or no public credit for their hard work reporting important news...
However, file a report that takes down a president and you get portrayed by Robert Redford or Dustin Hoffman the film about it

 

https://www.depressioncomix.com/posts/331/

 

Interesting view on current American politics.
Link to the video referred to in the above.

 

Linking progressivism with leftwingers would be like linking neocons with rightwingers, at best it's painting with very broad brush strokes, at worst it's like saying all conservatives are fascists.

 

So Trump has decided not to attend the correspondents' dinner.

A thinned-skinned ***** like him skipping out on an event where the President is traditionally on the receiving end of pissing-taking and poking fun, who woulda thunk it?

 

I disagree. You're not talking about two different species of animal. What we loosely call "conservatism" and "progressivism" are attitudes that all people can display in their behaviour over time. When people are anxious and uncertain they prefer stability and tribal conformity, and they are "conservative" in their behaviour. That may make good sense in uncertain times when the tribe needs to pull together and not rock the boat. When times are relatively safe and comfortable, it is safe to experiment, discover and expand one's horizons as diversity is strength and that's how the human species progresses.

It may also happen when things are so unsustainably bad that it may be better to risk change than to plod on as you are. Of course as soon as such revolutions have overthrown the old order people feel anxious and uncertain again and things quickly reassemble in some new conservative order, often same as the old one. That is why it may seem that what you call "left wingers" have no staying power.

The other factor is that conservatism is inherently preserving, so self-maintaining. Progressivism is all about change and moving forward. So conservatism seems more consistent and to have more staying power.

A third factor is that the human species has for the most of its existence lived with uncertainty and threat. Conservatism is kind of the baseline of its existence. But without progressivism we would still be living in a fundamentalist religious feudal medieval society. We need both, and they need to be in balance.

 

The only diversity of value and strength is the diversity of thoughts and ideas, that's how we have progressed, at least in the west. We have progressed within the conservative (cultural etc) frame and we've been very successful at it. There's been balance, and this conservative frame has been paramount for our success.

 

Actually we also need genetic diversity and the diversity in culture and language that brings those new thoughts, ideas and ways of looking at the world. We need to stick together in tribes, yet at the same time travel and mix with other tribes.

Basically if you want to see where progressivism without conservatism leads, look at traditional cultures which have been dislocated by the tsunami of Western globalisation. If you want to see where conservatism without progressivism gets stuck, look at fundamentalist Islam or Christianity.

 

Fundamental Islam and Christianity are different - whilst inherently conservative (at least in the middle east) , as part of their holy book they have a means to accept progression from others - as long as they fully accept the tenements of the faith in the first instance, they can absorb new ways of thinking , so long as they can be compared to a passage in the book.

 

You get that genetic diversity within your own specific race, even within your own specific ethnicity. The diversity in culture and languages and thoughts and ideas are also had within the very same frame, add to that that we also get input from other races, ethnicities and cultures from trade and travelling. That's how balance and diversity is achieved and maintained. It's also what historically has made Europe so successful. Other continents too.

Putting everyone in the blender not only removes diversity of race, ethnicity and cultures over time, but of the thoughts and ideas that all of those differences were the source for, not only that, it creates a monoculture in which all these forms of diversity is destroyed in the first place. That's not a world that I would like to live in, or reincarnate into to. What a nightmare.

That's not progression. But regression. It's anti-human it's anti-nature. To be blunt, it's a form of genocide.



It really becomes an issue when people actively works toward it, tries to normalize it rationalize it defend it and justify it.


Edit (late one)

Globalization, is, apart from being the theft of the natural resources of sovereign nation states by corporations, also, what I just mentioned, namely: monoculture, it's pushing monoculture, and that monoculture is what's actually destroying our own respective native cultures in the west, therefore, it is an enemy or ours as much as it is an enemy of other cultures. It is not what I'm in favor of. It is a modern form of Imperialism.

 

There are no good muslims and bad muslims
There are no good christians and bad christians.

There is theocracy and there is secularism and that's it.

 

Fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity both uphold strict, literal and unmovable interpretations of their scriptures.

Only if you're African, which has the highest level of genetic diversity. Other races have a pretty narrow band of diversity. When it gets too narrow, well... just look at the Ashkenazi Jews for instance, or some parts of the British Asian population and see what is happening there.

Not so. Europe has a long history of migration and conquest as well as trade, during which of course people did what they do best and assimilated and had a lot of mixed babies. We're all mongrels.

As for what makes for "success", well, that is a whole different discussion.

Not so. It is in our nature to constantly change and diversify. Genetically through mutation; culturally, well, we just do. Split any tribe and keep them separate for a century and you'll be surprised how different they have become. Heck, even in a tiny, fairly homogeneous nation like the Netherlands a Fries and a Limburger can barely understand each other's dialect. Japan is probably as monocultural as it comes, but there are again distinct cultural, linguistic and even ethnic differences between the islands.

So if you put humanity in a blender, within a few millennia you'd have again the same diversity you started off with. Ironically, it is progressivism that would drive that, not conservatism.

It becomes an issue when people have a poor understanding of evolution and anthropology. And most people really, really do have a poor, poor understanding of it, even when they think they do not.

 

There's plenty enough of genetic diversity for that to not become a problem. In fact. It's been enough of this diversity to go around to create, build, and maintain all these differences. Same principle as in nature.

You are now talking about white migration and conquest, not the migration and conquest by other races into native white lands. So yes, my point still stands and holds true. As for the balance and diversity it is all upset when you mass migrate and conquest native lands of others, often times it leads to genocide. Don't necessarily have to be any mass killings involved either.

Indeed, add to that when it's a political agenda as its driving force, rather than nature herself. Recipe for disaster.

That's not necessarily so at all, because it assumes (in fact requires) that the same genetic mutations would happen all over again, to create the diversity and differences we see today.

 

What the hell is a native white land?

 

Again, it's not as simple as that. Nature and culture interact. If you have an excessively conservative culture that suppresses the natural expression of genetic diversity and the natural process of interbreeding between tribes, then you get inbreeding.

The natural state of affairs is for people to mix and change. Our continued adaptability and survival absolutely depends on it. It's why we're not a homogeneous tribe of cavemen, but a human species rich in ethnic and cultural diversity very different from the hominids from which we evolved.

No, I'm not just talking about European tribes fighting and mixing with each other, but also about Mongol conquest and migration into Europe, and North African conquest and migration into Europe (and of course these things happened in the other directions as well).

Again, not that simple. Politics is part of culture and civilisation. Conquest is political. Migration is political. Religion is political. Who can marry who and who can make babies or not, is political. Everything in life has a political agenda driving it. It's part of culture, and hence of human nature.

 

As pointed out already this diversity is found within your own race and specific ethnicity and assures both it's survival, balance, and diversity. Same principle in nature, nothing is being suppressed. It becomes a problem if say they are too few in numbers. Again, same principle in nature.

What conquest would that be? I'm a history buff and have not read anything about Europe being conqouered by either Mongolians of Africans. In case of the Monglians they attacked Eastern Eurpe at which point largte parts of Eastern Europe were abandoned, depopulated, only to be repopulated once the Mongolians had been defeated. Also, they didn't stay. They left. They were nomadic.

In case of Africa I assume you are inferring to the Moors who invaded parts of Spain, well that was as far as they got, they also got kicked out. That's not all of Europe.

If you think about Muslems they tried twice to invade Europe but failed, they did get a small foothold in the Balkans and left behind pockets of the religion of Islam, but they ultimately failed and were driven out.

You're confusing the context of nature I gave you with that of tampering with nature, and humans are the only species able to tamper with nature. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.