You don’t know? The other some odd half part of the US white pop was fighting for Demoncrats in keeping slavery. Out of ignorance.

Even here you can ask around and Southerners will say Lincoln was a tyrant and the CW1 was one of “Northern Aggression”. Meaning the pro slave as the Constitutionalists and the Northerners the traitors.

Just cause you lose a war doesn’t mean people give up their deceptive traditions. Spain…

Blood and Soil has been suppressed by the CW1 victory and the Holy Ghost, but not for long now. Just a little bit longer, humans, a little bit longer before you see it. Stay on Target. Well, even if you die, it won’t matter, once you get resurrected you’ll be standing at the Last Battle. No way out of this war, whether live or dead. Hah.

No nation can endure for long its citizens approaching each other from the standpoint of enemies, or at the very least as moral debtors to moral creditors.

The First US Civil War was about slavery, the economic, political, and religious dominance of Southern Baptists, Demoncrats, whites vs blacks. It makes sense that the Second Civil War will be about something similar, because the first one only kicked the football down the field.

WW1->WW2 CW1->CW2

It’s natural to see Americans going crazy, because after all, Spain is doing the same thing in their civil war.

How do you endure it? It must be fatiguing to have to be be so much on guard in your daily dealings with fellow citizens of colour.

Not really. Some of us are in protected enclaves, while others like physics or Art over there has to live with Leftists at jobs, etc.

Some of us are just sharpening our tools and cleaning the weapons. Or as Parker likes to say, reloading more ammo by hand. (People can do that now due to 3d laser printers)

The US is bigger than some Empires, and certainly has more population density than Rome. Every province is different from every city and state.

The more the Left destroys the US Constitution, the more they allow the war to go hot, since the only thing restraining US patriotic militias is the Rule of Law. Replace the Rule of Law under the US Constitutional Authority with “Hussein as Messiah” or “Trum as God King”, and everything will go as predicted.

A good explanation of how academic US “elites” turned from weak spined Old Left to the New Left in less than 10 years.

In this case, clearly the ultimate result will be a caste system much more rigid than anything India ever came up with, with the untouchables being the white, Christian, heterosexual men. Everyone will be assigned a score which shows how they rank on the SJW worthiness scale, and your priority in everything will be determined by your score.

For instance, in the inevitable bread lines, your SJW score will allow you to jump in line according to your ranking of moral worthiness (determined largely by things you don’t control like sex and skin color, and by your adherence to leftist dogma, the more in lockstep you are, the better you’ll do (but not above your station, as defined by your race and other accidental characteristics). I really can’t imagine that the most devout white man in the liberal utopia will ever be able to escape the dhimmitude of his race and sex.).

I have to hand to the leftists. They’ve studied both “1984” and “Brave New World” and picked out the most dystopian elements of each for their doctrine.

It puzzled me at the time that I was seemingly in the minority in that opinion, which seemed to me at the time like the obvious reaction for a liberal but certainly was not. I had a lot to learn about myself and my fellow liberals.

Okay, and by now you’ve learned a lot, correct?

Can you do a post (perhaps you’ve already done one?) summarizing what you later came to understand about “liberals?”

I don’t know whether it’s one of the things you’ve learned, but here’s something I learned which is, I think, an important insight:

“Ideas Have Consequences, but most people choose their Ideas after they already embraced certain Consequences.”

(“Ideas Have Consequences” is the title of a famous and important book by Richard Weaver, but I’m applying it a little more loosely here than he does. Hang with me….)

When people think (or, opine) about How Things Ought To Be, most of them are not terribly philosophical about it. I mean: They don’t spend a lot of time reasoning their way up from “first principles.” Instead, they usually follow five steps:

1. Notice a recurring “pain point” in their world;
2. React to it emotionally;
3. Opine unreflectively that it “shouldn’t be this way”;
4. Float some kind of half-serious “fix” (a crude policy proposal) for the problem (“They oughta just….”);
5. Gradually get more and more attached to their previously-suggested “fixes” if no drawbacks become obvious to them over time.

Now, “liberals” are that group of persons who tend to notice and talk about certain “pain points” more than others, and/or who gradually attach themselves to certain “fixes” more than others.

Here’s the catch: Certain “fixes” will be naturally ruled out by certain Foundational Principles if, and only if, the individual already consciously believes those principles before they become attached to their favorite “fixes.”

But if the individual “falls in love with” a “fix” prior to identifying their Foundational Principle, what will happen? Usually, they’ll adopt whatever Foundational Principle allows them to keep their favorite “fixes.”

That’s the first place where “Ideas Have Consequences.” If American traditional/conservative ideas of “equality before the law” and “equality of opportunity” get in the way of the policy proposals a “liberal” is in love with, he/she will be faster to reject the idea, than to revise the proposal!

If a person already believes that Equality means Equality of Opportunity, not Equality of Outcome, then that person will not propose a “fix” which involves making everyone equally wealthy. If they lack that foundational principle, they might become sufficiently attached to Equality of Outcome, and when someone objects on the basis of unfairness in opportunity, they will defend their “pet fix” by rejecting the principle that opportunities should be equal.

But now that they have rejected a core idea of the American Experiment In Liberty, what will happen next?

Easy. Any future “fixes” they come up will be those consistent with their non-libertarian Foundational Principles. The authoritarian/Marxist/post-modernist ideas which are the alternative to “Americanism” will become their new starting-point for thinking about the world. That’s the second place where “Ideas Have Consequences.”

Neo, I think part of what confused you is that you thought all “liberals” were operating from identical Foundational Principles…that a certain set of Foundational Principles was what made each of these persons “liberals,” and let to them identifying similar social problems and proposing similar “fixes.”

But that’s not right.

I think they (and you…it’s normal human behavior and nothing shameful about it) started out with more-or-less the same emotionally-driven “fixes” (e.g. Affirmative Action). That’s what caused you to be identified as “liberals.” To call someone a “liberal” is a very surface-level observation.

As time goes by, some “liberals” later identify a conflict with existing principles they hold dear, like Equality of Opportunity. They respond by rejecting or modifying the “fixes” they previously held.

Other “liberals” sense the same conflict, but have no prior loyalty to the principle which conflicts with their “fix.” Their loyalty is to the “fix.” They respond by constructing new foundational principles, and any future “fixes” will emerge organically from those principles, once they become established.

I could have said all that less repetitively, I’m sure. Sorry for going on for so long! But…you get the idea.

(BTW…shouldn’t we stop calling folks “liberals” once they’ve evolved their way to anti-liberal core principles? They are actually leftist-authoritarians, aren’t they?)

Does “he” get called on first or do the liberal teachers’ heads just explode???

I am not American so it is not my place to intrude into your purely internal domestic politics but if I may, just this once, venture an opinion on how your people appear to be handling the issue of racism – because I know my view is shared by many of your cousins out here in the rest of the english-speaking world.

This relentless obsession with race has gone too far. Much too far.

It appears to this observer, and to many of my friends, that your peoples’ very discourse – public and private – is fractured in its soul.

No nation can endure for long its citizens approaching each other from the standpoint of enemies, or at the very least as moral debtors to moral creditors.

It seems that the sentiments that a white can express to another white is one thing – along with the vocabulary he or she may use;

what a white can say to a black is very, very different again and is much more limited and must always be related in a tone of apology and wariness;

what a black can say to another black is different yet again;

and what a black can say to a white is something else completely – with this last conversation, (black to white), being the broadest and the only one that is permitted to proceed from hostility in tone and substance, because: slavery.

Have none of your politicians except Trump read Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech? It may seem a little thing but I share Prof VDH’s admiration for Trump’s constant reference to “our”, as in “our soldiers”, “our firefighters”, “our miners”, etc. It bodes well for unity.

The self-flagellating of your white “do-gooders” who not only feed but actively encourage POC’s in their resentment of whites, (which is insatiable and will never cease by the way), is truly appalling to behold from a distance. How do you endure it? It must be fatiguing to have to be be so much on guard in your daily dealings with fellow citizens of colour.

Surely that the race hucksters and grievance industry are now forced to mine so deep to come up with an actual wrong that they can only now assert some unspecified, amorphous “unconscious/systemic white privilege” is proof that your country has come so very far and has remedied the real injustices.

When the race hucksters and racial grievance industry point the finger at modern day whites for slavery which ended with a war that concluded in 1865 and/or over the residual, more subtle, evils that the US has whole-heartedly attacked since the 60’s and ever since – why do you not point out that over half a million northern white men died to free the slaves?

I like very much the scene in Gettysburg featuring Jeff Daniels as Colonel Joshua Chamberlain where he rallies his troops by pointing out:

“We are a different kind of army…this has not happened much in the history of the world. We are an army out to set other men free”.

That is something very, very special indeed and needs to be acknowledged by your SJW’s of every colour even as they attempt to force your whites to the back of the bus.

Heads, hearts, and limbs for sale!

Sold in color-matching sets of two, three, progressive.

The Pro-Choice Church and in all of its twilight fringe and selective, unprincipled, and opportunistic gore.

“Amazing! People in her class might actually get an education…”

A poster asked how so. She replied –

“The experience of being a voice that is relegated to the back seat and the opportunity to hear the voices of others”

A poster said “Gawd you ppl are hypocrites” (referring to leftists). Rogers became defensive.

“you people…”

“They mean social justice warriors, not whatever you’re thinking.”

“WOW! This whole back-and-forth reminds me that people were also offended when a group named itself “Black Lives Matter”.

“nancy u cant actually be defending prioritizing people based on the color of their skin. that is the very definition of racism lololololol”

A Madi Katz chimed in.

“Nope its not. Racism is prejudice + power. Reverse racism can’t exist for that very reason bc white people have the power”

But not everyone agreed.

“this, this right here, is why trump is in office. people like madi and this insane logic”

An Adam Ember replied: “No, ignorant white people are why trump is in office. Maybe it is ‘racist’ to us poor disparaged white folks, but its still true.”

I suppose non-ignorant, non-racists whites voted for Clinton or Bernie then.

(Madi) “Nah, I speak the truth, sorry. If u knew history of racism in this country maybe you would understand. Watch 13th on Netflix for starters.”

Apparently one gets accurate history (made by the makers of Selma) via Netflix. Who knew.