What the F*ck is Going On? The Sensemaking Series, Rebel Wisdom

[bigheadfred]

Sensemaking. Making sense.

This is an interesting video on why things are at the state they are.

Different perspectives from people who study the anthrpology

If you have some time listen to some of it


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkKnOEQlwl4&t=1546s

[bigheadfred]

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

[roamer_1]

This is excellent @bigheadfred

I am going to have to go over it again to get a more coherent argument going...

But it is a fertile field.

 

[Free Vulcan]

Watching it now @bigheadfred

Much of what they are saying I'm seeing myself in academia, journalism, politics, etc.

We can beat it, but it will take alot of money, organization, smart people, and utter ruthlessness toward the left.

End of the day, this is old radical Bolshevism repackaged for the modern era.

[roamer_1]

We can beat it, but it will take alot of money, organization, smart people, and utter ruthlessness toward the left.

Funny that, as the IDW has been the most coherent opposition - and it is free. Money making even.

End of the day, this is old radical Bolshevism repackaged for the modern era.

That part is right.

[Free Vulcan]

Funny that, as the IDW has been the most coherent opposition - and it is free. Money making even.

But, the Empire is striking back. As it is that glimmer of hope is rapidly being chewed up and spit out.

We need a well funded guerilla insurgency on social media, and alot of other places.

[Absalom]

This call for reflection is way past overdue.
Hopefully it will trigger a realization that we are little more that
insignificant dwarves who see as far as we do only because we
stand on the massive shoulders of the colossal giants of antiquity
who preceded us.

[truth_seeker]

Funny that, as the IDW has been the most coherent opposition - and it is free. Money making even.

That part is right.

Both terms, "Intellectual Dark Web" and "sensemaking" coined by Eric Weinstein, also an IDW founding member.

IDW members, although not "conservative," are critical of the New Left.

Now I'll view the video. I intend to follow the series.

[roamer_1]

I think I have just figured out what's rubbing me wrong here...

The idea of integrated thinking... Taking the bast of everything in order to create principles defining the Theory of Everything...

Faulty in the first part... There is not necessarily a 'best' found in all things. Some things are just depraved.

In the second part part, defining or assembling principles has already been done...
And lastly, there is no theory of everything on this side of forever. The more astute communication would recognize differences and understand them... and allow in understanding, the ability to live and let live.

[roamer_1]

But, the Empire is striking back. As it is that glimmer of hope is rapidly being chewed up and spit out.

We need a well funded guerilla insurgency on social media, and alot of other places.

I don't see that... Truth calmly spoken outweighs all.

[roamer_1]

Both terms, "Intellectual Dark Web" and "sensemaking" coined by Eric Weinstein, also an IDW founding member.

IDW members, although not "conservative," are critical of the New Left.

Now I'll view the video. I intend to follow the series.

@truth_seeker

I am happy that IDW is not Conservative, with emphasis on the fact that Conservatism is represented therein, and represented well. Shapiro is no mere token. And Conservatism by another name is winning the argument often... Rubin as an instance, began from the far left, and now is fairly well defined by Classic Liberalism, which is close kin to Conservatism... And in the end, Rubin and I could find much in common.

I am not afraid of the true and honest exchange of ideas. Quite exactly the opposite. I think it's terrific.


Edit to add: Yes, I too will watch the series.

[Cyber Liberty]

Isn't Victor Hansen part of IDW?  I don't know Shinola about it....

[truth_seeker]

One point worth making, is the IDW are known and possibly influence important people.

Eric Weinstein works for Peter Theil, a billionairre.

Scott Adams, while not officially in IDW, visited Trump at the WH.

Joe Rogan had Elon Musk (another billionaire)  on his show at least twice.

All together they number about a dozen, and they have each other as guests Ruben and  Owens both hosted Larry Elder..

Other names: Heather McDonald, Jonathan Haidt , Stephen Pinker,  Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Ayan Ali Hirsi, Douglas Murray, Claire Lehmann

Moving the circle out a bit, nets Ben Shapiro, Dennis Prager, Dave Ruben, Candace Owens.

Another circle brings in Glenn Beck, Dan Bongino, and so forth--Political poscasters.

IDW is not political, but critical of New Left.

 

[truth_seeker]

Isn't Victor Hansen part of IDW?  I don't know Shinola about it....

Never mentioned as such. He's a powerhouse, in his own right.

He's a PhD, as is Peterson, Weinsteinx2  Heying, Haidt, Pinker, Harris.

There has never been an offficial membership, and I've taken liberty, to add some.

Some have youtube channels. If Hanson does, I have not seen it ye. He does appear with the Hoover Institute Stanford.

There are two criteria  a) the IDW and b) video material

[Smokin Joe]

I don't see that... Truth calmly spoken outweighs all.

Among those willing to listen, yes. But among the badgerers and disrupters of the interwebs not so much. One of the reasons I am seldom on twitter of bookface is the tendency for shout-downs by those who are indoctrinated to disagree. They may not even know why they disagree--unlikely they have given their position that much thought--but that does not preclude such attacks, commonly profane, without intellectual substance, which eventually badger the poster to silence. There are simply better things to do than spend the day bickering with morons on a preschool level.

I will check this out.

[sneakypete]

I think I have just figured out what's rubbing me wrong here...

The idea of integrated thinking... Taking the bast of everything in order to create principles defining the Theory of Everything...

Faulty in the first part... There is not necessarily a 'best' found in all things. Some things are just depraved.

 

@roamer_1

The "best" is a value judgement based entirely on the prejudices of those making the determination. What is "best" for you may not be the "best" for me.

[sneakypete]

One of the reasons I am seldom on twitter of bookface is the tendency for shout-downs by those who are indoctrinated to disagree. They may not even know why they disagree--unlikely they have given their position that much thought--but that does not preclude such attacks, commonly profane, without intellectual substance, which eventually badger the poster to silence. There are simply better things to do than spend the day bickering with morons on a preschool level.

@Smokin Joe

Twitter is for Twits.

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe

Twitter is for Twits.

Plenty on there, that's for sure.

[aligncare]

Among those willing to listen, yes. But among the badgerers and disrupters of the interwebs not so much. One of the reasons I am seldom on twitter of bookface is the tendency for shout-downs by those who are indoctrinated to disagree. They may not even know why they disagree--unlikely they have given their position that much thought--but that does not preclude such attacks, commonly profane, without intellectual substance, which eventually badger the poster to silence. There are simply better things to do than spend the day bickering with morons on a preschool level.

I will check this out.

@roamer_1

The "best" is a value judgement based entirely on the prejudices of those making the determination. What is "best" for you may not be the "best" for me.

My thinking aligns closer with these two observations than with @roamer_1

Conservatism’s eternal truths are completely lost on postmodernist millennials obsessed with technology and consumerism. Talking conservative principles with them would be like delivering a long monologue to a group of people only to find out they don’t understand a word of English.

[roamer_1]

Among those willing to listen, yes. But among the badgerers and disrupters of the interwebs not so much. One of the reasons I am seldom on twitter of bookface is the tendency for shout-downs by those who are indoctrinated to disagree. They may not even know why they disagree--unlikely they have given their position that much thought--but that does not preclude such attacks, commonly profane, without intellectual substance, which eventually badger the poster to silence. There are simply better things to do than spend the day bickering with morons on a preschool level.

I will check this out.

The exact opposite is true in the rise of the IDW and its long format discussions. And why so many of their viewers are millennials... Why do you think Jordan Peterson rocketed to fame = Because he calmly spoke the truth - A truth that young men across the country had never heard before. And they stopped and listened by the million.

That is not something that can be countered in 240 chars, nor with a 10 minute presentations with 3 liberals shouting down a token 'conservative'.. That can only be countered in the long format discussion where actual ideas are examined... And in that forum, liberalism cannot stand a chance.

As fora itself proves nicely. Liberalism cannot survive reason.

This answers you too @aligncare   

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1

The "best" is a value judgement based entirely on the prejudices of those making the determination. What is "best" for you may not be the "best" for me.

@sneakypete
Then the only end game is anarchy and the survival of the fittest.
I can't agree with that.. 

[aligncare]

The exact opposite is true in the rise of the IDW and its long format discussions. And why so many of their viewers are millennials... Why do you think Jordan Peterson rocketed to fame = Because he calmly spoke the truth - A truth that young men across the country had never heard before. And they stopped and listened by the million.

That is not something that can be countered in 240 chars, nor with a 10 minute presentations with 3 liberals shouting down a token 'conservative'.. That can only be countered in the long format discussion where actual ideas are examined... And in that forum, liberalism cannot stand a chance.

As fora itself proves nicely. Liberalism cannot survive reason.

This answers you too @aligncare   

Maybe, as you say, liberalism cannot survive reason, but it has survived and thrived in Washington D.C. for a century while conservatism sat in the back of the bus. Just being right is not enough in politics.

[roamer_1]

Maybe, as you say, liberalism cannot survive reason, but it has survived and thrived in Washington D.C. for a century while conservatism sat in the back of the bus. Just being right is not enough in politics.

This is not politics. This is way-of-life. Speaking truth is what will change minds, not gamesmanship, not polls or speeches tuned to segments of the electorate...

[aligncare]

This is not politics. This is way-of-life. Speaking truth is what will change minds, not gamesmanship, not polls or speeches tuned to segments of the electorate...

Well, you’re not wrong—in a perfect world. But, the world exists in a constant state of opposites. Good and evil, right and wrong, light and dark; you know this. Evil and wrong and dark is in ascension now in America. It’s difficult to deny that. Just as evil has swept through time and place since the beginning, it’s a battle of wills. The Crusaders knew this and fought evil, no doubt committing some evil and wrongs themselves in their quest to drive the Ottomans from Central and Eastern Europe.

Being right is not enough without the power (in this case, political power) to fight back. Like Malcolm X said, it’s the ballot or the bullet.

[roamer_1]

Well, you’re not wrong—in a perfect world. But, the world exists in a constant state of opposites. Good and evil, right and wrong, light and dark; you know this. Evil and wrong and dark is in ascension now in America. It’s difficult to deny that. Just as evil has swept through time and place since the beginning, it’s a battle of wills. The Crusaders knew this and fought evil, no doubt committing some evil and wrongs themselves in their quest to drive the Ottomans from Central and Eastern Europe.

Being right is not enough without the power (in this case, political power) to fight back. Like Malcolm X said, it’s the ballot or the bullet.

Perhaps you are right in the short term - But what then? When does politics turn back to what's right and look to the long term? Never the way we are going...

And in my mind, the long term is better taken to the streets. The long form debate is changing minds. And in fact, politics should follow. Liberals would fall by the wayside... The only other thing that would entail, would be politicians learning how to be statesmen.

You are not stealing any votes from the Dems. And they are not stealing any from you. Y'all keep playing games when there is an electorate twice the size that is disaffected. Speak the truth. Change minds. Prove your cause, and mean it... And then they will listen in the millions. That beats Washington every which way.

[sneakypete]

Conservatism’s eternal truths are completely lost on postmodernist millennials obsessed with technology and consumerism. Talking conservative principles with them would be like delivering a long monologue to a group of people only to find out they don’t understand a word of English.

@aligncare

Sadly,there are in MY mind,too many faux "conservaotives" today that think THEY MUST get every one of THEIR personal boxes "checked" regardless of the wishes and needs of everybody else,or even what harm it may cause anyone else,or they will take their toys and go home.

This is where the "Bad Orange Man" people "live".

MY opinion is that conservatism is rooted in the desire of the Founding Fathers to build a government that allowed the maximum amount of people to live their lives free of government intrusion,as long as they weren't breaking any laws and restricting someone else's individual freedoms.

Like them or hate them,groups like homosexuals ARE American citizens,and have the same damn rights as every other American citizen. They do NOT have nor do they deserve any "SPECIAL" rights,but they damn sure have a right to live their personal lives in peace without being attacked for merely being homosexuals.

If homosexuals,for example,don't have the right to live their lives in peace,neither do any of the rest of us.

Yet,some so-called "conservatives" STILL get upset at the very thought they are even "allowed to live amongst us "Gawd-fearing people" and want the government to punish them in some way.

These people are probably the largest section of the "Orange Man Bad" group of alleged conservatives,but they damn sure ain't the only ones.

Too many so-called conservatives today are all about "me,me,ME,DAMMIT!" to the total exclusion of "us" as a group.

I have no answers to this problem because there are none. The only thing that can change the minds of people like that is themselves. Yeah,you/the government can FORCE compliance on them,but there is a huge difference between forced compliance and true belief.

Once again,we are either all free to live our lives in peace,or none of us are. There really is no "in-between" position.

[Free Vulcan]

Perhaps you are right in the short term - But what then? When does politics turn back to what's right and look to the long term? Never the way we are going...

And in my mind, the long term is better taken to the streets. The long form debate is changing minds. And in fact, politics should follow. Liberals would fall by the wayside... The only other thing that would entail, would be politicians learning how to be statesmen.

You are not stealing any votes from the Dems. And they are not stealing any from you. Y'all keep playing games when there is an electorate twice the size that is disaffected. Speak the truth. Change minds. Prove your cause, and mean it... And then they will listen in the millions. That beats Washington every which way.

In 20 years of politics I heard dozens of soaring speeches, yet I saw very little ground game and execution.

Hate the Left all you want, but have an excellent ability to take long term vision and organize it into action. The only reason the GOP even wins is that their house is built on lies and deception.

Converatives won't put that kind of skin in to the game. They make a speech, intellectualize, and then walk away. While I agree we need long term, we need short term as well, challenging them and knocking them back, throwing them off their game, negating their momentum.

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete
Then the only end game is anarchy and the survival of the fittest.
I can't agree with that.. 

@roamer_1

I see the exact opposite being true. You either agree to allow others to live their lives in peace,or you have no right to demand everyone else allow you to live YOUR life in peace.

You do NOT have to agree with or "approve" of anyone else. All you have to do is LEAVE THEM THE HELL ALONE unless they are attacking you.

Seems like a simple concept to me.

[Absalom]

[quote author=aligncare link=topic=405919.msg2234451#msg2234451 date=1592738415
Conservatism’s eternal truths are completely lost on postmodernist millennials obsessed with technology and consumerism. Talking conservative principles with them would be like delivering a long monologue to a group of people only to find out they don’t understand a word of English.
[/quote]
---------------------------
Intuitive, yet permit a related reflection.
Principled Conservatism was the norm of Rule (by Monarchy) across Europe, from
ancient times till the French Enlightenment.
As well, Man despite his failings, flaws and foibles, never ignored his spiritual temperament
which reinforced the values and virtues required for culture/society to survive and thrive.
The proof of this was his astonishing creativity in every facet of Art and Science.
Then the Enlightenment dawned some 300 years past, altering the earlier dynamic
by replacing Man's spiritual anchor w/materialism; a change the world has experienced
ever since and emphatically hardy for the better.
We moderns are indeed obsessed w/consumerism and technology, as we have obliterated
the vision of those who proceeded us as well as the values and virtues that sustained them.

[truth_seeker]

ed... And in that forum, liberalism cannot stand a chance.

As fora itself proves nicely. Liberalism cannot survive reason.

This answers you too @aligncare   

There is a vocabulary issue.

Reagan succeeded to turn "liberal" into a dirty word with conservatives.

Now conservatives want to reinstate "classical liberal" into the name/describe of their philosophy.

It can be confusing.

[Absalom]

@aligncare
Sadly,there are in MY mind, too many faux "conservaotives" today that think THEY MUST get every one of THEIR personal boxes "checked" regardless of the wishes and needs of everybody else, or even what harm it may cause anyone else, or they will take their toys and go home.
This is where the "Bad Orange Man" people "live".
MY opinion is that conservatism is rooted in the desire of the Founding Fathers to build a government that allowed the maximum amount of people to live their lives free of government intrusion, as long as they weren't breaking any laws and restricting someone else's individual freedoms.
Like them or hate them, groups like homosexuals ARE American citizens and have the same damn rights as every other American citizen. They do NOT have nor do they deserve any "SPECIAL" rights,but they damn sure have a right to live their personal lives in peace without being attacked for merely being homosexuals. If homosexuals, for example,don't have the right to live their lives in peace, neither do any of the rest of us.
Yet, some so-called "conservatives" STILL get upset at the very thought they are even "allowed to live amongst us "Gawd-fearing people" and want the government to punish them in some way.
These people are probably the largest section of the "Orange Man Bad" group of alleged conservatives, but they damn sure ain't the only ones.
Too many so-called conservatives today are all about "me,me,ME,DAMMIT!" to the total exclusion of "us" as a group.
I have no answers to this problem because there are none. The only thing that can change the minds of people like that is themselves. Yeah,you/the government can FORCE compliance on them,but there is a huge difference between forced compliance and true belief.
Once again,we are either all free to live our lives in peace,or none of us are. There really is no "in-between" position.

--------------------------
As Burke observed, "Reading w/o reflection, is akin to eating w/o digestion." Take note!
Principled Conservatism, predates our Founders by some 4,000 years!
It was birthed by the Natural Law, which was uncovered thru logical reasoning, engaging
concepts of the moral order familiar to all eras of Mankind since Adam and Eve.
Natural Law was derived from an appreciation of Human Nature rather than any rules
within a culture/society and has nothing to do w/economics, politics or religion. NOTHING!!!
It is a body of unchanging precepts which form the basis for human conduct; it's foremost
being that the Family Unit of Father, Mother and Children, is the bedrock of the state/society.
Therefore any attitude, behavior, impulse or sentiment harmful of the Family is verboten;
including abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism and the rest of our neurotic sexual behaviors.
As for the notion that freedom was a paramount value of our Founders is dubious to say the least.
Rather freedom (liberte'), was a slogan of the French Revolutionaries and while some of our
Founders embraced this, notably Jefferson, it was an individual rather than a group value.
Our legacy/heritage was derived from Great Britain who ruled us for some 200 years while
instilling in us the critical importance of discipline, individualism and order for a nation/state
to survive and thrive.
Certainly all are entitled to their opinions, yet to be taken seriously any opinion needs
to be grounded by some degree of reality; otherwise it is nothing more than the hopes
and wishes of a fairy tale.

[sneakypete]

--------------------------
As Burke observed, "Reading w/o reflection, is akin to eating w/o digestion." Take note!
Principled Conservatism, predates our Founders by some 4,000 years!
It was birthed by the Natural Law, which was uncovered thru logical reasoning, engaging
concepts of the moral order familiar to all eras of Mankind since Adam and Eve.
Natural Law was derived from an appreciation of Human Nature rather than any rules
within a culture/society and has nothing to do w/economics, politics or religion. NOTHING!!!
It is a body of unchanging precepts which form the basis for human conduct; it's foremost
being that the Family Unit of Father, Mother and Children, is the bedrock of the state/society.
Therefore any attitude, behavior, impulse or sentiment harmful of the Family is verboten;
including abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism and the rest of our neurotic sexual behaviors.
As for the notion that freedom was a paramount value of our Founders is dubious to say the least.
Rather freedom (liberte'), was a slogan of the French Revolutionaries and while some of our
Founders embraced this, notably Jefferson, it was an individual rather than a group value.
Our legacy/heritage was derived from Great Britain who ruled us for some 200 years while
instilling in us the critical importance of discipline, individualism and order for a nation/state
to survive and thrive.
Certainly all are entitled to their opinions, yet to be taken seriously any opinion needs
to be grounded by some degree of reality; otherwise it is nothing more than the hopes
and wishes of a fairy tale.

@Absalom

I LOVE it when Nazi's self-identify.

[DCPatriot]

--------------------------
<snip>

Certainly all are entitled to their opinions, yet to be taken seriously any opinion needs
to be grounded by some degree of reality; otherwise it is nothing more than the hopes
and wishes of a fairy tale.

ROFL!   You made me spit out my water.

Do you even understand the concept of self-awareness?

Because you and your gang.... oh nevermind.     

[Absalom]

Suggest the predictable and usual scholarly suspects dispense w/ their infantile theatrics
and internalize the wisdom of Burke.
Begin w/rigorous and extended fasting while continually researching medical websites for
institutions that facilitate the implant of 'brains for toddlers'.
Hey you hafta start somewhere!!!

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1

I see the exact opposite being true. You either agree to allow others to live their lives in peace,or you have no right to demand everyone else allow you to live YOUR life in peace.

You do NOT have to agree with or "approve" of anyone else. All you have to do is LEAVE THEM THE HELL ALONE unless they are attacking you.

Seems like a simple concept to me.

@sneakypete
Well sure, AFTER the establishment of law and social norms. Social order has its purpose. If you begin from 'Leave me the Hell Alone' you wind up with the Wild Wild West, not a place suitable for good women, the rearing of children, and the caring of the elderly, which is the primary purpose of the establishment thereof.

Even within your sturdy libertarian view, which I admire and agree with, you submit to much in the social order that come before that liberty, of a necessity.

[roamer_1]

There is a vocabulary issue.

Reagan succeeded to turn "liberal" into a dirty word with conservatives.

Now conservatives want to reinstate "classical liberal" into the name/describe of their philosophy.

It can be confusing.

@aligncare
I understand what you mean, though 'Classic Liberalism' as defined, and versus 'Liberalism' in the modern, bastardized sense, has never left my vocabulary. Many today calling themselves liberals would be aghast to discover what it actually means in the classic sense.

Likewise, the same is happening in Conservatism and Libertarianism, to a somewhat lesser degree, the definition of those terms having suffered super-hyphenated prefixes and suffixes to the point that many of their subscribers have no idea what they mean.

Thus the true meaning is now hyphenated even as 'Classic-Liberalism' has become defined.  One finds one often must winnow the terms down to 'Principled Conservatism', and to 'civil-libertarianism' in order to call up the proper rule set in peoples minds.

But I assure you, I am one who is particular about defining things properly. Words mean things. 

[roamer_1]

ROFL!   You made me spit out my water.

Depending which end you are referring to, that might just be an old guy thing. 

[roamer_1]

Sadly,there are in MY mind,too many faux "conservaotives" today that think THEY MUST get every one of THEIR personal boxes "checked" regardless of the wishes and needs of everybody else,or even what harm it may cause anyone else,or they will take their toys and go home.

This is where the "Bad Orange Man" people "live".

At the risk of turning this beautiful thread into yet another Tumpster fire... You are stone dead wrong.
To claim Conservatism,as it touches the political realm, you necessarily fall with in one of three definitions: Goldwater, Reagan, or Factional.

The Goldwater Coalition preserves the unmovable principled things of three factions: Fiscal conservatism, Military and Foreign Policy conservatism, and civil Conservatism (ie: civil-libertarianism). The proverbial three-legged stool of Conservatism.

The Reagan Coalition embraces Goldwater, and adds the unmovable principled things of Social conservatism - The political formation of the Christian Right... Adding a faction.

To claim the name of a Goldwater Conservative, you must in fact embrace and support ALL the principles of Goldwater... In support of ALL its factions.

To claim the name of Reagan Conservative, you must embrace and support ALL the principles of ALL the factions found in Reagan. That is, the original three factions of Goldwater, and the addition of Social conservatism. 

If you support one faction or another, but not the whole, you are but a factional conservative... Not to lessen that value - factional conservatives are the point. But none of the factions are strong enough on their own, which is the point of coalition.

Principled Conservatives 'take their ball and go home' because one or more of those factional principles are not being met... Which is the proper thing to do in service of a coalition in which the agreement was to support each and every faction together, according to their principles.

When I say I will not support Tumpy because I refuse to throw Fiscal conservatives under the bus, it is in service of that promise held through both Goldwater and Reagan to support those coalitions without fail.

It is not about self at all. Rather, it is about the unity of Conservatism in service to Reagan's Coalition.

Too many so-called conservatives today are all about "me,me,ME,DAMMIT!" to the total exclusion of "us" as a group.

The exact opposite is true. I am structuring my vote according to 'us', meaning Conservatives, meaning the Reagan Coalition. It is I that is in support of the principles of all of those factions, and will not let them down. Period.

When you ask me to do otherwise, it is you that is being divisive.

[roamer_1]

As for the notion that freedom was a paramount value of our Founders is dubious to say the least.
Rather freedom (liberte'), was a slogan of the French Revolutionaries and while some of our
Founders embraced this, notably Jefferson, it was an individual rather than a group value.

I will take the opportunity to agree with you in large part, and to delineate the difference. as noted in a broad way, between the two - Between French freedom and American Liberty:

Liberty has responsibilities.
Freedom has consequences.

Liberty is not freedom.
Liberty takes work and perseverance, and eternal vigilance. Like working a garden, if the work is not done, the bounty will surely fail. Liberty is hard to do. But the rewards of liberty are evident in the exercise of opportunity. In saddling the responsibilities, and seeking one's own fortune.

French freedom, I would argue, is the beginning of socialism in thought - the idea that freedom is found in idleness... And is the exact progenitor of what we call today, the welfare state. And the consequences of freedom are readily apparent today.

It is a wonder to me, these two ways, offered up nearly in the same breath in history... The differences are subtle, but profound. I would argue that there are TWO 'enlightenments' at work. While both were well meaning, one is the truth of it and one is but a caricature.

[sneakypete]

At the risk of turning this beautiful thread into yet another Tumpster fire... You are stone dead wrong.
To claim Conservatism,as it touches the political realm, you necessarily fall with in one of three definitions: Goldwater, Reagan, or Factional.

HorseHillary! Half the voters of today can't even tell you which century Goldwater and Reagan lived in,never mind the base of their political viewpoints.

As for Reagan,I admire the man greatly,but flat-out,he was just too damn nice and polite with the left. Not to mention trusting.

A 2020 non-professional career politician who doesn't give a squat whose toes he steps on is not only what we need,but what we MUST have if there is going to be any hope of saving America as a free and independent nation.

The Goldwater Coalition preserves the unmovable principled things of three factions: Fiscal conservatism, Military and Foreign Policy conservatism, and civil Conservatism (ie: civil-libertarianism). The proverbial three-legged stool of Conservatism.

There IS  no Goldwater Coalition in existence,and there won't ever be one if Trump isn't re-elected.

The Reagan Coalition embraces Goldwater, and adds the unmovable principled things of Social conservatism - The political formation of the Christian Right... Adding a faction.

The "Christian Right" are NOT political conservatives. They are members of a religious cult,and like ALL religious cults,their primary concern is with preserving and strengthening the power and influence of that religion.

Political parties are nothing more than a tool to be used for this purpose,and if any were to ever take control,the Bill of Rights would be history,and mandatory prayer by one of THEIR cult leaders would be the order of the day.

And it makes no difference if they are Christian in one of it's many flavors,Muslim,Hindu,Jewish,or any of the other hundreds,maybe even thousands,of faiths. Their ultimate goals are always the same,which is obtaining the ultimate power they need in order to be able to dictate their faith be the law to everyone alive.

They are about slavery,not freedom.

As for claiming the name of Goldwater (BIG fan!) or Reagan (WAAAY too polite and willing to go along) I am and have no intention of doing either. MY prime concern at this point is stopping the advance of the international left who have now gone so far left they are far right Fascists.

If you support one faction or another, but not the whole, you are but a factional conservative... Not to lessen that value - factional conservatives are the point. But none of the factions are strong enough on their own, which is the point of coalition.

HorseHillary! There is no such thing as a coalition with religious fundamentalists. To borrow a term,it is "a deal with the devil" because the devil will always lie and try to gain total control. Religious fundamentalists will NEVER compromise and  will only accept total control.

BTW,"communism" is also a religion.

Principled Conservatives 'take their ball and go home' because one or more of those factional principles are not being met... Which is the proper thing to do in service of a coalition in which the agreement was to support each and every faction together, according to their principles.

See? Even you agree with me on this.

When I say I will not support Tumpy because I refuse to throw Fiscal conservatives under the bus, it is in service of that promise held through both Goldwater and Reagan to support those coalitions without fail.re the unity of Conservatism in service to Reagan's Coalition.

It is in service to your ego and your religious cult,NOT to America and people who want to live free.

The exact opposite is true. I am structuring my vote according to 'us', meaning Conservatives, meaning the Reagan Coalition. It is I that is in support of the principles of all of those factions, and will not let them down. Period.

Some people just ain't happy unless they are losing and have a crusade to fight. The "Reagan Coalition" no longer exists,and I sincerely hope it never returns because that is the type of thinking that "threw American away" with their compromises,right when we had a return to Constitutional law and sanity in our grasp.

When you ask me to do otherwise, it is you that is being divisive.

I can live with that. Never been one of those "we iz da wurld" people,anyhow. I am a free American who demands the right to live free and make up my own mind about what is right or wrong.
 

[catfish1957]

Plenty on there, that's for sure.

Twitter has become the ultimate communication tool of the left for not only propaganda, but a means of carrying out planning and execution of urban warfare. 

[roamer_1]

HorseHillary! Half the voters of today can't even tell you which century Goldwater and Reagan lived in,never mind the base of their political viewpoints.

Then you seem to prefer the globalist view of Conservatism, lacking all definition, where it can be anything they want it to be. Welcome the likes of the Bushes and McAin't and Romney into the hallowed halls... After all, they too make the claim of Conservatism.

Enjoy your big tent.

[truth_seeker]

Conservatives need to remember that persuassive messaging  comes first.

Nixon and Reagan won elections.

Buckley did not.

Just win baby, win.

Think Win.

[roamer_1]

Conservatives need to remember that persuassive messaging  comes first.

Nixon and Reagan won elections.

Buckley did not.

Just win baby, win.

Think Win.

Winning means nothing if the principles one is supposed to defend are sacificed. Pyrrhic victory is no victory at all.

[catfish1957]

Winning means nothing if the principles one is supposed to defend are sacificed. Pyrrhic victory is no victory at all.

Sadly, have to agree with about 95% of that.  As bad as Trump seems he is still the only dam we have left preventing a socialist tsunami.

[roamer_1]

Sadly, have to agree with about 95% of that.  As bad as Trump seems he is still the only dam we have left preventing a socialist tsunami.

That is an incredibly low bar. So low as to be insufferable.

And what is being lost on the way is true Conservatism, which in the end will predictably be the bagholder.

[truth_seeker]

Winning means nothing if the principles one is supposed to defend are sacificed. Pyrrhic victory is no victory at all.

Nothing I wrote precludes principles.

[roamer_1]

Nothing I wrote precludes principles.

But the emphasis is wrong IMHO. 

[sneakypete]

Then you seem to prefer the globalist view of Conservatism, lacking all definition, where it can be anything they want it to be. Welcome the likes of the Bushes and McAin't and Romney into the hallowed halls... After all, they too make the claim of Conservatism.

Enjoy your big tent.

@roamer_1

You must have been staring into a mirror while holding a Boy Jorge autographed photo while writing that brain fart.

You couldn't have been more wrong if you had tried.

[sneakypete]

Winning means nothing if the principles one is supposed to defend are sacificed. Pyrrhic victory is no victory at all.

@roamer_1

As much as it pains me to keep pointing out the obvious,you have to win in order to make changes.

You might want to write that down somewhere,so you don't forget it.