Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

[Bob Butler]

I would say the Republicans were the traditional home of the conservatives and to a lesser degree the libertarians well back through the Gilded Age. They picked up a racist element with the Southern Strategy. It was there, but not so overt. Obama’s election turned it overt, and Trump eventually became a center of it. What you called realignments were just the racist tendency becoming more open.

No comments on how the GOP treated the libertarians.

The collapse of fusionism had nothing to do with anything race-related. It had everything to do with the so-called "conservatives" being unfaithful to the even the basics of small government and liberty in general. The Bush years taught people like me that most so-called "conservatives" are willing to sell out on any issue as long as it benefits the GOP, as if the GOP were some sort of god that could not be defied. And the Trump years taught me that these same people didn't learn a damn thing during their time in the political wilderness (aka, the Obama years).

I could agree that the Republican attitude towards the libertarians during the unraveling had little to do with race directly. Still, the Republicans chased power by boosting the elitists and racist elements, since Obama using obstructionism. Naturally, we have different opinions on the merit of the Obama years.

[Bob Butler]

This article seems plausible to me. I'd love to hear what Navigator and any other military / LE readers think.

https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... erica.html

Hmm. Another perspective.

The Neo Con element of the Bush 43 administration was a disaster. The Neo Cons were correct that the US military could defeat most any other nation in a conventional war with things like tanks, uniforms and air forces. They were unwilling to listen to the Pentagon in terms of how many extra boots on the ground it takes if a war goes proxy and insurgent. There was no cohesive plan, with the Neo Cons planning on going in and out, with the big oil companies wanting to hold onto the prize, non extant WMDs and some who thought changing a culture at bayonet point was a neat and easy idea. They managed to destabilize the Middle East.

The other element is that the US military has a culture borrowed from the cavaliers. The Cavaliers may have been neat fighters and a culture that has contributed much to America, but they attempted to force their culture on the military. That fought the blue idea that the military ought to be culture neutral. All the alternate cultural elements of mixed genders, minorities, new gender roles irked the cavalier prejudices.

And the article overall assumes blue plans that I have never heard of. It is typical of conservatives these days, to make up lies about the opposition to make their position seem more attractive. Well, sorry, but Bush 43’s wars and an attempt to impose cavalier culture on the military does not seem attractive.

[Bob Butler]

We have to first define what "collapse" really means. Many have suggested that has already happened. The issue is that most don't see it, as this has been a multicultural failure but economically prosperous and still that way with the reserve currency, generally speaking. So that's what it means.

If you love harmony, safety, national identity, God, etc YES the US has collapsed already. Most boomers though only see the almighty $, and they already gave up God for the lie, so collapse to them is only something like really low standard of living or ... no vacations. Some asinine stuff like that.

"America is an idea."

"America is a nation."

No. It is both. Or rather, it was both.

America still a united nation, but the idea behind its existence is almost dead. When the idea finally dies, then the nation will quickly follow suit.

You want America to survive as a nation? Then restore the idea. That requires not changing demographics, but changing hearts.

With the revolutionary crisis, Americans embraced democracy and rejected colonial imperialism. With the Civil War crisis, they rejected slavery and limitation to expansion. In FDR’s time, they embraced regulating the economy, rejected depressions, rejected expansionist dictators and ended isolationism.

Each crisis represented change and growth. They didn’t limit or destroy the idea or the nation, but allowed them to become greater. Always there was a conservative faction trying to evade change, to continue the status quo. The defeat of said faction in the crisis heart does not leave America dying, but the obsolete conservative idea dying. After a crisis, America becomes more itself, that much the greater.

[Bob Butler]

Okay, then. Tell me.

Do you believe that America a unique nation, to where it cannot be just another part of Britain? If so, what do you believe makes America unique?

Interesting. My first instinct to point out a difference was the Revolution. There was a rejection of kings and colonial imperialism on the part of the Americans. That doesn’t hold up very well. What America rejected was being on the receiving end of colonial imperialism. They wanted to be a center of manufacturing with a trading capability that was not limited to the mother country. The kings in Britain lost their central position when Victoria lost her husband. Both countries built empires of sorts. Britain’s was famously international while the United States just went into a west they perceived of as open, even if others were already there. The United State oppressed the Native Americans, Blacks, and Latinos, lording over the culture, taking land at whim. Britain did much the same thing without having a specific focus and direction.

Which was how things were in the Industrial Age. Tribal Thinking. It was what Hitler tried with his supposedly superior Aryan supermen and contempt for Jews, Slavs, the French and most anyone else. Use force to oppress other ethnic groups. The Fascists were obvious about it, but tribal thinking was the norm.

The difference? The US saw itself in a position to compete and win, to have a golden time. World War II bombed out a lot of other powers. It was a win to forgive lend lease if the then mother countries opened their ports. That essentially ended the British and many other efforts at colonial imperialism. With open ports, in many places the former colonies became free to trade anywhere. The former colony’s cheaper labor and more profitable if less effective environmental protections eventually allowed them to become manufacturing powers.

I’m not sure it was a difference in nature or tactics. Britain would have done it too had they enough advantage in intact manufacturing, if they saw the chance for a couple of golden decades. As is, they lost their empire while the US kept much of North America. The problem is in thinking the advantage might be permanent, that the golden age of the US would continue after the rest of the world had rebuilt. It was a big win for Truman and Ike which faded thereafter.

To some degree it was also a propaganda thing in World War II. If China was our ally, should we avoid prohibitive immigration policies for the Chinese? How are we different from the Axis powers? What are we fighting for if not to end tribal thinking? Can we adjust our policies so the tribal thinking is less obvious, the oppression of ethnic groups other than Hitler’s supposed Aryan supermen? Would this lead to the current crisis, where the Blacks, Latinos and Native Americans are looking to end a long prejudice, to pursue the old theory of equality, democracy and human rights that once only applied to male Aryan supermen?

So I am not so sure we are so unique. We still have a remnant of the old white supremacy and suppression of minorities existing in our culture. The current crisis is focused among other things in putting a severe dent in it.

[Bob Butler]

Would you care to say what the idea (of America) is?

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, enforced by decentralized powers plus a Bill of Rights.

A concept that appears to have been rejected by nearly the entire American public at large many times over, in an era where identity politics and party worship are what’s “in.”

I can agree with the central expression, but the problem was that most people were not ready to share it. Some states thought the Bill of Rights only applied to white male protestant landowners. We had a federal Bill of Rights but no federal police powers to enforce it. We have already had a Civil War and a Civil Rights Movement to deliver what was promised, in both cases complete with white supremicists. Today we have racist oppression still, the blacks, Latinos and Native Americans still not receiving what the Bill of Rights tried to establish.

One more push anyway. We will have to see if that is enough.

[Bob Butler]

I agree that WW3 will be a population vs population war, that casualties, military and civilian will be horrific. Every time mankind enters this part of the cycle it far outdoes what happened in the past (US Civil War vs Napoleonic Wars; WW1 vs US Civil War; WW2 vs WW1) .

And as long as people don't learn that tribal thinking is a big loose, it will continue. I suspect that such point has already been reached, but the bulk of people here seem to agree that it has not. Having people who are into racism, oppression and violence seems like a good thing. :/

[Bob Butler]

Every intelligent species will invent automation technology and
artificial intelligence technology that eventually grows into a
Singularity for that species. That is, the species will create a new
AI species that will replace it.

So ultimately Artificial Intelligence will destroy us?

Not necessarily. The fact that there has been no overt interference to date indicates whatever is out there is not tribal thinking, subjugating, hating and using violence as a matter of course. There is no subjugation of anything different. There seems to be, as far as we can tell in our limited evolution, some sort of blue or evolved beyond blue universe. I think you are projecting a tribal thinking dominance which does not seem likely.

[Guest]

I think you are projecting a tribal thinking dominance which does not seem likely.

What gobbledygook. If anyone is projecting, it's you.

[Bob Butler]

I think you are projecting a tribal thinking dominance which does not seem likely.

What gobbledygook. If anyone is projecting, it's you.

I for one consider an invading dictator, a criminal, or a racist, as a bad guy. Currently, the red, rural faction is contaminated by all three. Putin, Trump and the KKK, oh my. There is nothing wrong with conservative thought that can’t be solved by purging such trends. (Well, maybe the division of wealth, keeping too much in the hands of a few is a problem as well.)

So, yes, I may be projecting. We are currently trying to purge these things. The bad guys are trying to pretend that everything is fine, other than if people don’t think like them civilization will collapse. Invasion, violence, greed, criminality is a good thing, Details.

But I can’t see them welcoming a violent racist autocratic civilization loose upon the galaxy. Say, when the first interstellar generation ship gets ready to pull out of orbit and head out to the stars, and an alien spaceship shows up with a copy of galactic law as generally practiced, it might be neat if we were already a culture that mostly went along with it.

[Bob Butler]

but I wish he (and many others) would stick to what they're good at, and not feel compelled to comment on things they know nothing about.

That's why I don't interact with Bobby B anymore. He's delusional. BLM is a lying, marxist organization. Every single one of their complaints or grievances is outright false, or at best, misplaced. None of their martyrs were decent people, in fact, they were all criminals. The best part about it for BB is that Democrat cities run the mayhem, participate in it, or better yet (for his foolish positions, which he'll never address) do not involve themselves at all while the black lives that apparently matter kill one another to the tune of nearly all the murders in said cities. The man, like BLM, is a joke. Luckily, we're not that stupid to listen to him about anything.

There were many issues and conflicts involved in the protests last summer. Will the bad cops stop murdering minorities? Will the cops stop cowering in their HQs so they can do their jobs? Will the military involve itself in domestic politics, allow itself to be used as a partisan tool? Will the protesters provide enough cover for the looters to loot? Will the federal government which originally had no police powers attempt to override the local policies of the people with clear authority?

If you focus on one issue, one question, you miss a lot. That doesn’t so much imply stupidity, but rather a lock into one world view. Too many people pay attention to some issues, and ignore what is not part of their perspective. Is deliberate ignorance the same as stupidity? Well, everybody is to some extent locked into their perspective. It’s that it is often a tribal thinking variant, with the resultant affinity for criminal, racist, violent behavior. Kill. Spread vile stereotypes with no truth. Violate the law. Oppress people.

There are aspects of conservative thought worth preserving, but tribal thinking isn’t one of them. It is constructive to do academic studies to predict an understand tribal thought in far away cultures, but advocating them in one’s own culture is foul.

One of the central tenants of my perspective is understanding all the perspectives involved. Deliberately not understanding, ignoring valid perspectives on the situation because reality conflicts with your own world view, does not say a lot for your worldview.

By the way, if you want to avoid my correcting your faulty worldview, it might be prudent not to fault my worldview by name. If you recognize your worldview cannot be defended, you might just stop posting.