Thoughts on Race Commentary In The Dissident Right

16 million men today are descended from Genghis Khan. That's some serious mixing.

Many progressive have obsessed over race to the point its turned them into bitter people who can’t take time off to enjoy life. For others they’ve become self-loathing “allies” too busy worrying about their privilege to realize there’s more lessons to be learned from history than just “oppression.”

So take a hint from the self-inflicted pain these people put them through and DONT DO THE SAME.

One things many of us on the Dissident Right should be aware of is history and how demographics across the world have adapted and changed through conquest, migration, colonization, and various other methods.  They all overlap in various circles and variables.

Humans are tribal.  We always have been and likely always will. Race, ethnicity, cities, families, regions, tribes, etc all represent various “circles” that overlap.

Think of the Google+ circle overlap of friends, acquaintances, etc.  The internet, ease of travel, and technology have changed our “identities.  Because you can travel 100 miles with a car in mere hours, you and a host of other people can show up at a metal concert, all look somewhat similar, mosh and partake in an event that builds an identity for all those there.

Yes, “Us vs them” is a natural human instinct and its effect up until the last 300 years can’t be understated when used to distract the populace from their real overseers. It doesn’t however mean everything should be “us”, whoever that might be, vs some other group. Not every aspect of life is not a zero sum game.

Now I’ll admit, I may have a bias. I don’t even know if I’m bi-racial. The Turks burned all of our damned records in the genocide, but considering how many different times Armenia was conquered and how many different Empires and other groups have gone through it, I probably have a whole host of Middle Eastern, Russian, and maybe even Asian blood in me. (I’m going to take an ancestry test).  My European half is various mix of ethnicity.

I don’t live in Chicago, but even in the part of Illinois I live, I know ALOT of mixed, bi-racial people, not just including both sides of my family and my wives.  It’s not deliberate persay, it just happened – probably because the Lake County area generates ALOT of jobs, just as nearby Kenosha County in Wisconsin is starting too. People move to where the jobs are. (Cook County is dead to me.)

One

 Stop seeing the extremes and loud voices from external groups as the complete representation.  Most black people don’t care about Black Lives Matter, social justice, or intersectional nonsense. Sure, they might have some agreement with the overall thrust behind BLM, but they’d much rather just go about living life than obsessing over the white man.

Again you will have the malcontent trust fund types who have too much time on their hands and a luxury of funds to major in African studies, but most black people dont. They aren’t wasting their time studying about “oppression”.  They are working, trying to survive like everyone else, and enjoy the time they have.

Most Hispanics don’t care about La Raza.  The most disagreeable position they might have with you is immigration, and even then, it’s not uniform. They don’t hate “whites” anymore than any other group. Sure, they have they radicals, but if you aren’t at a college campus in a VERY urban city, they won’t care.

 Two

Interracial sex and in some cases marriage is inevitable. Hell, in 50 years, it will be harder to tell who is mixing with who. Just because it’s been weaponized by progressive race obsessed miserable fanatics doesn’t mean it’s somehow wrong, bad, or negative.

What’s inevitable about it?  Simply history shows that groups will intermingle given migration, conquest, or in today’s day the ability to simply pack up and move.   Sure, there are some rather nasty statistics that have been mentioned ad nauseum already that we shouldn’t overlook. (Particularly that most black men regardless of the race of the women they have children with often don’t just refrain from marrying the mother, but often leave her as well. Granted I have a strong sympathy for black men – not because of racism/opression, but that’s for another time.)

Those of us in the “manosphere” should be very familiar with the numerous reasons why black and white men in particular might choose to date and marry outside of their race and I can’t fault them for it either.

Three

While the DailyStormCucks are obsessing about white purity and how it looks via ghetto trash representatives and the occasional armchair philosphers, they keep overlooking that what it means to be “white” has changed drastically in the last 100 years alone.

Zimmerman was a “White Hispanic”.  Italians, Greek, and various Balkanites weren’t white 100 years ago.  Just two hundred years ago the Irish were looked at as mongrels.  We can’t even tell if people from North Africa are White, Arab, or “African” or some mixture of all or how different they are from each other in the two thousand years of constant warfare between each other, invasions, conquests, and migrations.

Even Hispanics originating from Hispania – that’s Spain and Northwest Africa – are part white and whatever else after mixing with the local natives – another example of “interracial” inevitability.  Look at other parts of the world.

How many people from Asia and the Middle East have Mongolian, Seljuk Turk, or Mughal in them?  How many people alone are descended from Genghis Khan today? How many people in Western Europe, Russia, etc have Scandinavian Viking in them? Yes, the Japanese and Han Chinese might be their own exceptions.

Racial purity isn’t necessarily good or bad, but it’s unlikely somewhere like the US where you’ve had various waves of immigration.  Yes, people do stick to their own groups, but plenty will look for love elsewhere and where it’s most easily available. (Not to exclude opportunity, work, education, etc.)

Four

Acknowledging racial, ethnic, gender, etc differences is important. Ignoring them doesn’t make any of it go away. James Damore was fired for daring to talk about it.

If we don’t, we will never be able to improve our lot, or those around us.  Dave Rubin did an interview with Stefan Molyneux on the subject, and while I’m not sure I place the same stake in “IQ” tests that he does, it’s worth watching to see how it affects how we live.  (Criticism from a left-leaning source here.)

Acknowledging racial and ethnic differences doesn’t mean we need to sterilize “low IQ” people or thrust some crazy eugenic influence into law like the early social progressives tried to do with their social Darwinism.

It simply means that we need to address what we know.  Now there’s plenty of insanity in this category with lots of supposed “pseudo-science” being clung around, but regardless the more we talk about it, the better it can be vetted.

There’s this idea that high IQ people have no flaws and are always ideal to a countries prosperity and success.  Sure, they are important, but their penchant to do evil with their brilliance is also a possibility.  Low IQ types may resort to crime, but many don’t and won’t.

Africa might have some of the lower IQ averages, but it’s more of an indication of constant and complete population displacement and a lack of exposure and well traveled trade routes that facilitate the exchange of knowledge and eventual academic undertaking.

Give some place like Uganda relative peace, 500 years of generations being exposed to a consistent 8th grade level education, majority of the populace being literate and watch what happens. Europe, the Middle East, or Asia didn’t magically build universities, hospitals, ect in 100 years.

It’s going to take time for the 3rd world to get to a 2nd world level. Unfortunately for Africa, the corruption that is so innate to MANY of the cultures of African countries – and the governments there -will test to see if it’s possible.  Perhaps the worldview shift taking place in parts of Africa – the rise of Christianity – will start to have an effect on the corrupt culture.

Don’t forget the kind of effect Christianity had on the culture and peoples of the Germanic tribes, Gauls, Franks, Danes, and even the Vikings.  Look at what Sweden became – or virtually all of Europe for that matter. It didn’t happen overnight.

Ideas have consequences, regardless of the culture they are from. If there’s anything history tells us, it’s that certain ideas – often many of those in the Anglosphere, some in Asia, and others in Europe and the Americas can uplift a society.

The Middleast is stuck where it is for a reason, despite dominance up to the mid 17th century.  An industrial revolution and the ideas necessary for it never took old.  The same can be said for most of Africa.

With the introduction of the internet and incredible easy accessible means to learn, share, and obtain information, that may change.  However, it will take at least several generations for those changes to start to take root and have results.

Six

You can’t have a cohesive stable functional identity based on race. You can have one based on commonalities, but race doesn’t quite fit the bill here. Brazilians don’t have much in common with the Venezuelans, the Poles with the English, the Japanese with the Vietnamese, the Nigerians with the  Somali, etc.

Even similar ethnicities like the Belgian Walloons and Flemmings don’t have much in common, despite sharing the same country. Old ties die hard.

A “white” ethnostate is not just a stupid idea – considering what alt right whites like Spencer and ultra liberal whites like Michael Moore have in common, but an impractical one. It’s just as dumb as any other racial ethnostate. The modern world and means of travel make it an impossible one.

Also the constant melding of people over time means one wont know who is necessarily white, black, brown, asian ect over time if the Hispanics – who are partially white just from their spanish roots – are already demonstrating.  The “mutt” of various European blood which intermixed will soon happen here on an even bi-racial scale  here.

Sure, you might be able to form an identity based on who you are comfortable living next to, but spend some time in urban, rural, and everywhere in between and you’ll find out how different the world is.

Yes, we are tribal.  I feel loyalty to men in the manosphere, as well as some of those in the dissident right, but my familial obligations and loyalty come first – even more so than I thought.

Right there is where you form your identity. Family isn’t necessarily biological and blood related – it’s the close friends, often in similar circles, you make over your lifetime that become like blood.  This is where we must start.

You Didnt Care About Abuse Of Executive Power And Neither Do We Now

“But Muh Constitution!!!”

For the last two decades, we saw an increase in executive orders that covered everything from immigration policy to what amounts to military interventions in places like Libya without congressional approvalHundreds of drone strikes later on Pakistani elementary schools, the screaming shrieks over Trump’s slew of orders are laughable because we know the critics don’t hold themselves to said constitution and all of it’s problematic founders.

On a side note, what have all the previous presidents been doing? Trump in his ripe old age is on the rhoids of presidential power with the speed he’s gone about attempting to fulfill his promises during the campaign.  Anyway, back to the subject at hand.

Image and Credit to UPI
How do you like a taste of executive orders?

What media and higher academia taught us just this last decade – specifically in this election cycle – is that stomping on the constitution, shredding it, and then burning it while pissing on the ashes is not only acceptable, but a necessity.    Praise be to those admirable activists purging us of our intersectional systematic sins of “ist”, “ism”, and “phobia” by ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

Do as I say, not as I do and that “doing” will take place regardless of any constitutional protections, restrictions, and rights.  So why the absolute hypocrisy from our modern day leftist saintly paragons of righteousness?

Examine the logic at the core from our intolerant friends who justify their intolerance because the ends justify the means.  This is beautifully displayed in all of it’s logic by Mr. Tucker Fitzgerald in a Medium defending “Intolerant Liberals” in their lack of academic diversity and embracing of double standards.

“The progressive liberal agenda isn’t about being nice. It’s about confronting evil, violence, trauma, and death. It’s about acknowledging the ways systemic power, systemic oppression, systemic evil, work in our world around us. I’m not fighting for diversity. I’m not fighting for tolerance. I’m fighting to overturn horrific systems of dehumanizing oppression.”

So I and many other sinful shitlord deviants who haven’t checked our privilege enough have taken our crimes to heart.  This logic goes down to the very core. Double Standards for behavior, action, and everything else under the sun is okay because some animals – radical leftists apparently – have more rights then others.

“When liberals storm the cities’ streets to protest, rally, and yes, riot, in response to a Trump election, conservatives cry foul. They cry double-standard. Liberals expect conservatives to accept election results they don’t like; why won’t the liberals accept election results that didn’t go in their favor? Why won’t the liberals be relativists, like we want them to be, and treat all outcomes as equally valid?

Because all political decisions aren’t equally right. Aren’t equally moral. Aren’t equally recognizing of human dignity and justice and freedom. Because liberals recognize that there are wrong and right decisions, because they parse good and evil, contrary to what my church taught me about them.

Because democracy isn’t the only value we hold. We don’t accept the 51% enslaving the 49% by popular vote. We believe in human rights. We believe in the Bill of Rights. Because we balance the will of the people with the sanctity of each individual life. And no, your right to not sell flowers doesn’t outweigh someone else’s right to get married. Because not all rights are equal.”

Has the bitter realization of today’s actual political climate taken hold yet?  Not only are people like Fitzgerald not playing by the rules, but they expect you to hold those rules as sacred as Muslims do the Koran.

Double standards? They are above pesky standards and rules, but you aren’t and they will scream on the highest peaks about your immoral actions, words, and oppressive executive orders feigning belief in the red, white, and blue while burning during their street riots.

As TheAngryBlackWoman puts it, “Do shut up and listen“, you white ally scum.  Remember, you are next, no matter how much you act as cannon fodder.

We now know how the game is played.  There are no rules now. Common sense is Dead, and I’m not just referring to Thomas Paine.  Embracing executive orders as just another means to fight back and level the playing field is now part of our playbook.   The left has forced us to forget about a moral high ground they don’t even bother to hold.  You are now a target.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHCFtp2aDZQ

Once you’ve seen the face of the devil, you have no choice but to utilize his own tactics to make politics equal again.   Meanwhile, we won’t care about the unconstitutional measures used by Trump to Make America Great Again because we know Fitzgerald didn’t during the eight years of “Hope And Change”.   Now we are going to give you a revenge taste of Judicial activism.

Berkley’s recent peaceful riot should have awakened our bitter visualizations of  the future of “debate” via the flagpole of masked AntiFa and BlacBloc protests of “white supremacy”. If we don’t fight back, we will face an enemy that won’t be afraid of legal repercussions.  Sally Zelikovsky at The American Thinker makes this point in a very sobering article,”The Blood Libels Of The Left”

“Here is the cold hard truth:  with each riot and outrageous accusation, the left is emboldened.  It doesn’t matter that their message is chaotic, their delivery cacophonous. It is irrelevant that WE think they look ridiculous.  What matters to them is that they can manipulate the political scene today to achieve long-term goals ASAP.  This is the culmination of decades of liberal efforts behind the scenes.

They are simply leveraging the online infrastructure they have constructed, the vast networks they have built among the schools, the culture, the media, ex-Presidents, and current politicians, and the unity they have cultivated.  They have just been waiting for the right moment to pounce.

The election of a guy like Trump at a time when the fate of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance, when all political power in the states and federal government has shifted right, has provided them with that Arab Spring, Cuban Revolution, Bolshevik moment that gives them a collective thrill up their legs. “

Not only do we need to be prepared to defend our deplorable selves and our children, but we need to fight those wielding fire with fire and not care how our means are accomplished.  Rest assured, neither do they – and that includes the very Berkeley staff as to what Academia thinks about “diversity” of thought.  Don’t forget about the man in Seattle  at the Milo riot there because the shooter thought the victim was a “white supremacist” . It can and has now gone that far.  Yet again, “peaceful protestors“.

Even the blackest disabled man can be beaten by them if he holds ingrained said white supremacy in his heart – however the hell that works in concern to nonexistent diversity of opinion.   All “minorities and marginalized groups” must think alike, or be treated – and beaten – like us fellow deplorables as anyone can become a Nazi these days. In fact, if you’ve ever been physically beaten at a college campus, thank a professor.

https://twitter.com/anon19821902/status/827838881978519553

When you hear the faux moral pleadings, laugh in amusement while pointing out they never cared about morals in their quest to force immoral measures upon the rest of us…. all in the name of modern morality; equality, diversity, unity, etc.   If they’ve endorsed punching “Nazis”  as a moral thing to do, then I have no problem with them being punched in the face for any reason regardless of moral implications.   I’m at that point.

As they became demons through their methods, they created demons in the rest of us.  When the Moors poured into France, Charles Martel took up the sword at Tours to defend Christendom from the Islamic crusaders.

Against groups like AntiFa, the time to turn the other cheek is past as is to be a part in a new Foxe’s Book Of Martyrs.  Summon your inner Charles Martel. Stand like  Jean de la Valette  on Malta and turn back the Turks.  Pick up your sword and repel the enemies at our gates.

The next time I hear about minorities being oppressed, I’ll point out that not only am I a minority, but that they never cared about the oppression of the rest of us.  Remember everyone on your Facebook feed that applauded punching “Nazis” when they say that Antifa don’t represent their protests because we are all “Nazis” now.

Trump Supporter = Nazi. 50% of the population apparently are Nazis.

Rejecting Guilt By Association

Regardless of what mortals you follow, adore, admire, and pay homage you will at some point disagree with them.  Whether it’s most of the time or almost never, no one will ever hold exactly all the viewpoints that you have come to cherish.

A tweet from Milo Yiannapolous prompted the above line of thought in which he voices disagreement with libertarians on the NSA spying incident – color my libertarian tendencies irked.

https://twitter.com/Nero/status/591284596190347264

Obviously, he is mistaken, as his his later tweet about Snowden being a traitor and not a hero.   I’m also above reproach in my conclusion. 

Today, the internet echo-chamber or “communities” as we call them is often bereft of any actual substance in discussion when it comes to disagreement over just about anything.  Dissenters are labeled “concern trolls” or just “trolls” in general.   In fact the word, “troll” has lost it’s meaning because of the abuse of the term.

Throw in “safe-spaces” and this takes on a whole new layer of people who immediately dismiss anything that comes from an opposing side.   If you make the mistake of identifying with a label that is considered “bad” or triggering, everything you say is immediately dismissed – regardless of the validity of what you say.

We need to start judging statements, comments, and opinions based on what they actually are –  the merit and validity of them – instead of who said them.    Whether they come from a radical liberal feminist or a neo-con warhawk, it shouldn’t matter; we need to reject guilt by association.

Encountering the “Other Side”

Take for example Cindy Brandt’s site/blog which I recently came across and her post, “You Don’t Need To Tell Me You Don’t Agree.”   She actually makes alot of good points, despite certain… social justice affiliations.

Well, I don’t agree.   Okay, I couldn’t resist.  Take a look at this specific observation:

“Which one of us agrees on everything with any other single person? No one! Certainly, many of us share similar passions and congregate according to common interests, it’s only human to interact with those who you resonate easily with. But if you dig deeper, or you spend enough time together, it isn’t long before one discovers there are indeed some, if not many points of disagreements with those we are in relationship with.”

As she points out, no one will  ever agree on everything, but with today’s identity politics and culture its often either all or nothing.  If someone doesn’t share enough “similar” passions, interests, and convictions,  chances are that most people won’t give anything they say the time of day.   This is more likely if they know about your “opinions” and affiliations before they evaluate what you’ve actually said.

“If we are honest with ourselves, adding the phrase is a form of social insurance. We want to protect ourselves from the risk of being associated with certain things this person represents. “

It certainly is a form of social insurance, but why?

People seem conditioned to pre-judge and make assumptions based on labels and what they “represent”, so what choice is there but to adjust? Unfortunately, this is the reality of where we are at.  It rather sucks that these qualifiers are needed, but can anyone point to topics of conversation where they aren’t?

The risk of being associated with someone who is deemed a racist, bigot, homophobe, ect or any other culturally deemed demagogues can be cause for your employment to be revoked. Consider Razib Khan who was initially hired by the New York Times, but then let go because of his “association” with right-wing publications who were deemed to be mired in racism.    So much for diversity of opinion right?

Whoever was working here must have spilled this paint...
Whoever was working here must have spilled this paint…

Shockingly, the fact that he isn’t even white was enough to save him from the wrath of social justice warriors who usually excuse certain people from terrible actions, deeds, and statements based purely on their genetics.  Another mighty journalism giant bows before Gawker and SJWs.    Apparently, all you need to do is label someone a racist enough to make them suffer the effects of today’s modern heresy.

For instance, Cindy describes herself as “social justice-y” on the side bar of her site.  GASP!

Someone, pull the alarm.   Danger is near.

  My spidey sense is tingling.

Now a large amount of people will probably dismiss anything she has to say because of the affiliation with social justice.  Don’t make that mistake; don’t fall prey to guilt by association.  I  may fall to this ever constant trap subconsciously, but then force myself to read what is actually state.  Some exceptions are made for Tumblr…

I strongly disagree with almost everything  modern day social justice folks advocate – what normal sane person wouldn’t – but I won’t necessarily dismiss something because of who is advocating it.

“We can dialogue with people as people, other human beings with different personalities, life experiences, and ideas. We can celebrate common ground without erecting walls or drawing boundary lines. We can connect without disclaimers, embracing the whole of our conversation partner along with her ideas. Let’s base our conversations with one another from a place of shared humanity instead of basing it on fear by association. “

Is this really possible? Can we connect without disclaimers? I don’t think we can.

Tales From The Online Crypt

I recently encountered and “argued” with some conservatives on TheRightScoop about the subject of police abuse.   Obviously, they deny this is a real problem.  In order to even get them to look at anything I have to say, I had to utter the following disclaimer, “I’m not a democrat…”

This is of course true, but if I didn’t point this out, said conservatives would assume I’m some sort of liberal because I disagree with one of their viewpoints.

Behold, the current state of online discourse.

If you disagree with someone on an issue you are immediately considered to be a follower of the opposing “side”.   If you disagree with some of the trash on the Huffington Post, you are a right-wing bigot, ect, ect, ect.   If you take issue with something on Breitbart you are left-wing marxist, socialist, ect, ect, ect.    Qualifiers are absolutely necessary.

“The power of association, of tribes, of communities, is so strong that we take extra measures to ensure boundaries are clearly marked, compelling us to insert disclaimers even in casual conversation. We are so fearful of being grouped with the “wrong” crowd as perceived by the person we are speaking with.

I do not think this is a healthy way to dialogue. I think it is a sign of disrespect to curate someone’s ideas, extracting it from their whole selves with all of their complexities and personhood.”

She is right; it’s not a healthy way to dialogue.   Yes, we must consider the context of a person – if that makes sense –  which is necessary to fully understand their ideas and why they have them. However, in today’s charged, “guilt by association” culture, you absolutely have to introduce qualifiers into the conversation or anything you say will be dismissed based on you supposedly are.

The need for safe spaces...
The need for safe spaces…

One popular “Debate” tactic is Godwin’s law.   To sum that up, it means that you equate a certain argument, idea, or even person to Hitler.  This of course invalidates anything they have to say.  Or does it?

Just because Hitler said something, doesn’t qualify it as being incorrect – such as his radical environmentalism, state control of “healthcare”, ect.   In fact, I’m sure almost everyone today holds some positions that Hitler advocated on economics, state control and power, and the environment.

Color me shocked.

This time-held tactic is “guilt by association/wrong by association” and is employed by disingenuous teenagers, tumblrites, and many adults who want to shout down others based on who they are, rather then what they’ve said on extremely important blogs and websites where their comments clearly make a difference.

 

Don’t be one of “those” people.

People who engage in daily displays on their Facebook feeds in guilt by association tactics usually have something in common;  they are angry, upset, and jaded.

Their life is a never ending stream of  un-fulfilled selfies, self-loathing, and vicious attacks on anyone who looks like they wallowed in depression for weeks upon end.   All of these bitter people online have one goal in mind; if they can’t be happy – neither can you.

Go outside of your bubble and live.

It’s been said that you can’t argue with certain people, and that is true. Argument however shouldn’t be the goal of every interaction.  You don’t need to “win”.    All you need to do is engage, discuss, and see if any new seeds are planted in either your mind or your “opponent.”   In order to any of that, you must reject guilt by association.

Perhaps, you may just develop a relationship with someone where you don’t need qualifiers, but you must take the initiative to do just that.

I encourage all to go out and have face-to-face conversations with people you know you disagree with. You will be surprised at what happens when both of you or others involved have a conversation that isn’t based on “convincing” anyone of a particular point, but is focused on the exchange of ideas and worldviews.

This is how you grow and become a more rounded individual.

 It is one of the first steps in today’s vicious culture in becoming a renaissance man.

Reject guilt by association.

The Left and Right: Principled Ideological Differences?

Sometimes, you have mini epiphanies come to you out of nowhere. It’s happened to me at work, but I never have time to write it down there. This time however, I was shaving when my “epiphany” occurred. Can I really call it that? Perhaps.

Today when we think of the “right” and the “left”, most of us think of two differing ideologies that are clashing with each other on both a cultural and political scale. I suppose that’s true.  You can also be a libertarian like me and look at both sides Ideology as inherently statist, but that just isn’t relevant to this point/idea that cropped up in my rather unfocused mind. (I really am rather jealous of those who can focus their thoughts into concise points and articulate them like talking heads who know exactly what they are talking about.)

Notice alot of the issues that have popped up since the early 2000s, both culturally and politically. When you mention the word “big government” concerning an issue to someone who is supposedly a progressive or on the left on whatever the issue might be, what happens?

  • You are assumed to be a conservative.  (But I’m a libertarian!)
  • They advocate in favor of whatever action big government is participating in concerning the subject.
  • Their position on the action big government is taking becomes more valid in their mind.

Most liberals I know define their support or opposition of big government based on the concept that conservatives define it by.  So notice the trend. Depending on whatever position conservatives advocate, liberals will advocate the opposite even if that is not necessarily their position on the subject. This applies vice versa as well.   It’s almost as if a kind of “partyspeak” exists.  People tow a certain party line.

When it came to the subject of the Patriot act, note the opposition that was there when it was enacted and notice it now.  Apply that same line of thought to the issue of drone strikes. Apply it to the whole Monsanto debate.  Apply it to the War on Drugs. Apply it to recent censorship and internet piracy debates.  Keep applying it to much of the political dialogue over the last decade. Notice anything?

Liberals and Conservatives aren’t necessarily opposed to big government or in direct support of it. They are all of course opposed to whatever the other side supports.  Do you know any liberal or conservative who is actually in support of unrestricted Drone Strikes? Indefinite detainment of American citizens? Invading or participating in more foreign conflicts? Internet censorship?

I suppose the assumptions we make about either side somewhat become a self-fulfilling reality even though the specific boxes and categories we try to put people in really don’t fit as well as they should.  Could some of these attempts to categorize people and make very widespread assumptions about said people result from our Western drive to categorize, organize, and make every kind of distinction we can? Even if it is, I’m not sure if we can shed those presuppositions and our thought process that may be one of the factors in what drives party line ideology today.

I believe our very time-saving and “immediate” cultural attitude and behavior may be somewhat at fault here. We however must make the effort to not be lazy and avoid the time consumption convenience  of assuming either side or whatever the ideology may be is always wrong.   If an idea is valid, it doesn’t matter who proposes the idea.  Guilt by association just doesn’t seem to be the proper mindset if one actually wishes to examine and  filter ideas through as many individual perceptions on a subject to determine the validity of said ideas.