What? You want me to spoil the surprise?
Trust the plan.
Bagster
Posted on 06/20/2018 10:49:53 PM PDT by ransomnote
There seems to be an unfortunate trend here of attributing statements to people which they never said
I never said that “America is a democracy”. I said there are a lot of red pills, and democracy is one of them. (That is people who believe it’s the best way to run everything are deluded, in the same way that people who think there are no intrinsic differences between men and women are.)
Again, the topic was the origin of the term “red pill”, which Q followers have adopted.
Very interesting post. I think you are onto something.
It’s interesting to go see the memes that the Russians (supposedly) used. They fit your theory a lot better than the idea they were trying to help Trump.
So let's get you on the record and remove all doubt...what is America's form of government?
Riiiiiiight!
The term "red pill" was originally used in the movie "The Matrix" as an indicator of one's desire to know the truth and break out of mental conditioning and mental slavery.
"...alt-right race realists"...
Gobbledygook, like much of what you say!
Thanks for the term. Some interesting things, like this, popped up.
Trying to pin something on a race or group of people is stupid, IMO.
Marxist/Socialist indoctrination is more to blame, IMO. People tend to believe what they're taught in schools/universities/colleges and Marxism/Socialism has been surreptitiously taught for decades with no counter education.
What has the KKK wrought? What has the BLM wrought?
From whence does the formulation of their ideologies come?
AN INTRODUCTION TO MARX'S THEORY OF ALIENATION
Mark for later. Thank you
I’ve always preferred: “if that’s what you want to believe”
I refuse to provide them any potential agreement that I may be some label they want to put on me.
At this point I’m a ‘never give ground’ for anything but supported facts.
Sorry about the poor language. It was a clipboard remnant intended to another thread.
I shall endeavor to be more civil in the future.
Clever
We need a famous “Cohens” of modern history.
One vote for Mark Coen, “Walking in Memphis”.
One vote for Sasha Baron Cohen.
:: p.s. Leave Milo alone ::
Enquiring people want to know...is bagster working up yet another #nohomo proposal?
What? You want me to spoil the surprise?
Trust the plan.
Bagster
There was a very concerted effort to obfuscate this fact that took place from roughly 1950 until breakthroughs in genetics made that position intellectually untenable. The dirty little secret of our current year is that scientists clearly understand this, but they larger world of "social sciences", which in turn controls much of our media and government policies continues to deny it, and operate under the older and discredited 'blank slate' theory.
The alternative to race being real is the "blank slate theory", which was put forward by a group of social scientists, Franz Boas "The Father of American Anthropology" (according to Wikipedia) perhaps the most famous among them.
The Boas theory was that humans are born empty, like a blank slate, and that culture writes all their personality, intelligence, emotional response into them.
At the time I attended college this was called the "nature vs. nurture" controversy, and my Prof's made it clear that it was almost always "nurture".
The left took this and ran with it. One of their favorite slogans is "race is a social construction", that is race isn't real.
But that's just silly. Humans can easily identify people by race quite easily, and always have (some rare ethnic groups or mixed race individuals perhaps being hard to easily guess). And of course now that we have $68 DNA tests advertised on TV it's quite easy to find out if you really are 1/16th American Indian or not. Because race exists, and it's even quantifiable in your genome: it is measurable.
All races are not the same, and all people within races are not the same. Both statements are objectively true. The Blank Slate theorists deny the first clause, and latch onto the latter. But everyday observations tell us this isn't true.
Let us take the physical differences of blacks. It's pretty obvious watching the summer Olympics that black genetics are required to perform at the highest levels of sprinting. Here, take a look at the 100 meter, the ultimate test of human quickness. Here is a nice overhead shot of the finalists crossing the line at the 2014 Summer Olympics in Rio:
There is nothing unusual about this, the same effect has been seen in countless top level Track and Field meets since blacks were given an opportunity to compete and train. Their domination of the field is near total at this time.
We as a society are trained (maybe by Marxists, as you claim) to pretty much ignore that. The NBA is 75% black, and no one claims "it's their culture". I've been to plenty of high school basketball games, the sport is beloved by white kids just as much as black. They join teams in equal numbers and work just as hard to make the cut. You see blacks predominating in the higher level college teams, and you see a lot of white kids who just don't make the cut for the NBA, despite playing hard and on the same teams that the black guys are coming from.
It's not "nurture" that is allowing blacks to dominate in track and field, and basketball, it's genetics. We all know it, and we're even allowed to joke about it. Hell, they made that movie "White Men Can't Jump".
And yeaah, sure, *some* white men can jump, but we all knew what the movie was getting at, and no one really objected.
So, the status quo is that we are allowed to acknowledge racial differences when they reflect positively on non-whites (like saying "most of the great basketball players are black") but we can not, under risk of total-life-destruction tell the truth about aspects of genetics that do not feature black superiority. For instance: race and IQ is a nearly forbidden topic. Not because it's not true, there is a ton of consensus on it among serious scientists, but simply because of the hold of Leftism in the academy.
Recall that one of the two men who discovered DNA, and won the Nobel Prize in biology for it, James Watson, was driven out of science after making the simple statement:
He says that he is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really", and I know that this "hot potato" is going to be difficult to address.
This statement essentially cost him his career, and he was eventually forced to sell his Nobel medal to pay his bills.
So, who do you go to for support for your views. It's really funny: you choose The Guardian! In the same post that you are claiming that "racism" is a Marxist plot you are quoting the most Left Wing newspaper in existence to bolster you claim.
There are a lot of social policy implications to continuing to believe the false "blank slate" theory. If it's true that black "achievement gaps" are (as the Left claims) due solely to environmental factors: poverty and racism, and so we all, the whole society must continue to turn ourselves upside down to "Fix" the broken system that results in lower black test scores.
But that's just B.S. Black IQ (on average, not to say there are not brilliant black people, there are) is about one standard deviation below average white IQ. (And North Asians about 1/2 a S.D. above) and things like SAT tests and non-biased grading simply reflect this reality.
To try to "fix" the black academic achievement gap would be like trying to come up with high school P.E. programs that resulted in a proportional representation in NBA starting lineups. A fools folly.
Here is a very good, very mainstream book that you can read, if you want to move from your misconceptions to understanding what current science has shown us.
|Pinker is a a very mainstream sort of guy. His Wikipedia bio says:
" Steven Arthur Pinker (born September 18, 1954) is a Canadian-American cognitive psychologist, linguist, and popular science author. He is Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University, and is known for his advocacy of evolutionary psychology and the computational theory of mind., about as far from being a marginal person stuck in the 1960s as you can imagine.
My views on this topic were not formed by professors, Marxist or otherwise, my last university class was sometime in the early 1980s. At that time I held beliefs similar to yours, and to be fair a genetics and socio-biology were in their infancy.
Much of the racial grievance that is so destructive to our society, like the BLM movement, is based on rejection of science leading to insane conclusions (ie: white-privilege theory) when a simple explanation, based is science is sitting right in front of us.
Conservatism isn't going to make any headway bucking reality by claiming that blacks and whites are identical, when we know they are not. Inevitably racial disparities in results will be used to bludgeon every merit based institution in our society until the "problem" is "fixed".
Except the NBA being mostly black. That's not a problem. That's a celebration of the inherent greatness of the black athlete.
It's this sort of thinking that has doomed the whole National Review wing of the Conservative movement and led to them being mocked by Millennials as "cuckservatives". By agreeing to the false axioms of the Leftists they are left with only the most specious of arguments, and are eventually forced to retreat once again. (The signature move of the Conservative movement is losing gracefully, ala Mitt Romney and John McCain).
As an exercise: which modern Republican leader seems most "woke" about race, most willing to acknowledge fundamental differences between groups of people?
Well I've always liked the formulation "A Republic of Republics" as a short hand for the original design of the founders.
But obviously we've grown far from that over time, I'm not sure what simple terms I'd used to describe the current behemoth.
Let's get you on the record: how do you describe the current American form of government? It's certainly a lot less "republican" and a lot more "democratic" than it was in 1783.
(17th Amendment direct election of Senators, Progressive Era reforms, including citizen initiative, activist life-time tenure judges making laws up out of thin air, attempts to abolish the electoral college, executive orders in place of laws, administrative "laws" in place of legislation, fake treaties not ratified by the Senate, massive deconstruction of the Bill of Rights, etc.)
So you don't know, or won't say, what our form of government is. Duly noted.
Thanks for playing.
Constitutional Republic (as there are many republics in the world)...emphasis on Constitutional. Look it up.
If you can't figure that out on your own you're even more stupid than I originally concluded.
To answer you more directly...we're still a Constitutional Republic as the Constitution still exists, (doesn't it?) and it's still the law of the land (isn't it?).
When the Constitution is no longer the law of the land then we can have another discussion on the matter, though I'll probably be dead from having defended its elimination.
You don't have enough information to surmise what my beliefs are so don't even try that BS with me.
You are being very pedantic. Here's the Wikipedia definition of Republic:
In American English, the definition of a republic refers specifically to a form of government in which elected individuals represent the citizen body[2] and exercise power according to the rule of law under a constitution, including separation of powers with an elected head of state, referred to as a Constitutional republic[4][5][6][7] or representative democracy. [8]
I speak American English, so when I say "Republic" I mean one with a Constitution.
Many other countries use the term "republic" in their name, but that doesn't make them a republic. For instance, would you consider North Korea a "different kind of Republic" merely because they have the word "republic" in their countries name? I would not, it's a totalitarian dictatorship.
So what legitimate Republics exist which are not Constitutional but some other type? I'm not really aware of any.
So, I still prefer my three-word description to your two-word one, because it's not redundant and calls out the truly unique thing about the USA: the 50 States, which is quite different from all other (true) Republics that I am aware of.
And, while I answered your question (again!), you didn't answer mine. As usual.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.