Alright, here is the grok. You posted a commentary about the 2 internal aspects of a tribe...the 2 tribes within a tribe. One is hawkish and the other is nurturing and they are diametrically opposed but both are necessary for survival. You ascribe this as to being conservative and liberal. I posted that that assessment is way off base...whether or not these two aspects exist or not it is not that anti government solution conservatives are hawkish, warlike and non nurturing. That's not it. However, this is a consistent strain in yours and liberal's thoughts. I say this because when I've been critical of something you've gone up in arms over how can I be so callous and uncaring, etc. This thought pattern goes right in line with these two aspects of hawkish vs nurturing. But this is not what conservatives are or what conservatism is. The problem possibly lay with government choice of words. For instance: The Affordable Care Act, "welfare", Planned Parenthood, etc. This means being critical of a government program such as welfare equates to you that a person is critical of actual welfare instead of a government program. I've seen this in shanic where criticism of Black Lives Matter equals to shanic that a person doesn't think black lives matter. So this went round and round with you where I'm saying that conservatives aren't anti nurturing. Conservatives are against government as a solution. They are against setting up a bureaucracy to handle something. They are against taxes and expenditure by bureaucrats to resolve an issue because of enantiodromia or whatever you want to call it but it's a disease where the government, not caring or tied to personal outcome or results because of lack of private property ownership, is the trustee of some echelon of society and they're against this because of the dismal failure of results every single time when this is done. Whenever these views get stated liberals immediately start in with these accusations that conservatives are against nurturing or protecting or helping or assisting. Lately this has gone to the extreme that if a conservative states that minimum wage has been proven over and over to be destructive to the poor then they are immediately accused of racism, sexism, bigotry, anti gay phobia. Crazy shit. The point is not between those hawkish non caring warmongerers and the nurturing aspect of welfare and help. The point is between an effective solution that demonstrably works and a proven ineffectual solution that worsens the problem. If I believed, personally, that bloodletting cured people of ailments and then my kid got sick and I started in with the bloodletting and you tried to reason with me that I was worsening the child's health by bloodletting and I started screaming at you that you don't care, you're greedy, you're a racist with privilege, you're sexist, you're a bigot and anti-gay would you grok that then? This is what myself and others have been posting for years now on the Trump thread and others. This latest book I know nothing about but the video discussion from 59:00 to 1:08 specifically talks about these two factions making each other out to be a threat to democracy. This discussion assumes that these two factions, which they consider to be conservative and liberal, are mistaken. I don't believe that that is true as a premise. I personally believe that the progressive liberal agenda is a direct threat to democracy. I believe this for multiple reasons but one of the clearest, starkest examples is Antifa rioting over LEGAL elections. Where does that ever happen but to subvert a country into despotic rule? Tiananmen Square is exactly the opposite of this. The U.S. and French revolutions were exactly the opposite of this. Not a single liberal media outlet considers these riots, intimidations and violence to be threatening to democracy but they howl incessantly about Russian interference. I don't know how else to state this. I've used umpteen examples and postings, etc. and it always comes back with you not getting it. Even with your post where you're talking about unbridled corporate wrecking of the environment for profit. Having the government minimized is not the same as no government. Reducing government growth and keeping it limited is not the same as no government. The private sector should be allowed to handle social problems. My personal belief is that social programs are used to bribe for votes for a duplicitous party that wishes to subvert the government for despotic purposes.