academic freedom agit-prop, opinion manipulation and well-poisoning games Defending our Civilization Geo-strategic issues Governance & control vs anarchy Lessons of History Liberty Media Manipulation, Agit-Prop &/or Lawfare

Is the USA going over the edge as we speak?

Spread the love

Scott Adams, American cartoonist and commenter on events with a particular view to persuasion and narrative dominance seems to agree. Transcript of key comments:

I think I’ve been telling you for some time the obvious way that these protests/riots/looting episodes were going to go. There was only one way that these would go under the assumption that the police would not get more aggressive and that the local government would not let the federal government come in and take care of the violent stuff. There was going to be no adult supervision and that was intentional. The local leadership decided to not have any adult leadership during the protests/riots/looting. So it was obvious that the locals would end up arming themselves because what else would happen? Could you think of any other outcome? It was obvious this would be the outcome. And this is just the beginning, not just a one-off. It’s pretty obvious that more militia or more citizens are going to bring heavier arms…and they’re going to start showing up…. There’s probably no way it’s going to stop.

The worst case scenario is if the protesters [–> further?] arm themselves…ultimately this is the way it had to go. I feel bad for anyone who gets hurt and I don’t encourage any violence but as a prediction this was the way it had to go. It will end, but with more of this.

Sobering, and familiar.

Regulars at UD will know that I have long been very concerned about a kinetic escalation/spiral in an ongoing 4th generation culture revolution style, Red Guards driven civil war in the USA, geostrategic centre of gravity of our civilisation. Events over the past few days in Wisconsin (U/D: additional, here also see background here with here, here & here, contrasting what is not seen here) underscore that concern, to the level of juggernaut– out- of- control. (The first just linked seems to be at least a good point of reference for thought on a very regrettable but all too predictable event; the second gives background on the metaphor.)

Let me hark back for a moment to my 2016 global geostrategic framework shared here at UD (after public presentations here in the Caribbean):

That is deep backdrop, as we ponder where our civilisation is in the case of the lynch-pin state, the USA.

What happens to the US over the next six to eighteen months is fraught with global consequences that the general populace is at best dimly aware of; but, bet your last cent that movers and shakers behind the scenes have these considerations (from whatever perspective) in mind.

Now, too, for twenty years, I have often used a representation of sustainability-oriented strategic decision-making tracing to/adapted from the Bariloche Foundation of Argentina, set in the context of Environment Scanning and SWOT analysis:

(This is of course precisely the decision theory model which has led me to point to a serious ethics-epistemology breakdown in managing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and how treatments are evaluated.)

Further to such, there is a more stringent version, in effect the challenge of the juggernaut i/l/o Machiavelli’s hectic fever model of political disorders:

Warning-signs, there have been in abundance, complete with many blood-dripping lessons of history. However, in a deeply polarised polity, building critical mass . . . “consensus” is implausible and half-measure compromises will predictably be built-to-fail . . . in good time to avert going over the cliff is hard, hard, hard. Such, is the nature of problematiques.

Perhaps, the problem can be recast instructively in terms of the dilemmas implicit in the Overton Window:

What happens when the acceptable limit imposed by dominant factions and their narratives locks out good solutions? What would shift the window?

The answer comes back, pain; pain and shattering from going over the cliff.

Or, if we are lucky, enough see the signs in time to act as a critical mass towards sound change before the cliff-edge collapses underfoot.

History, however, is not on the side of prudent foresight, and the history of radical revolutions has been particularly bloody and predictably futile. Never mind the pipe dreams sold by tenured profs and promoted by pundits and community organisers. As just a warning, let us compare a fools-cap image from the 1966 Mao-backed Red Guards:

. . . and a notorious recent incident in Washington DC:

. . . not forgetting the tragedy of the man who refused to salute in 1930’s in a Germany ruled by the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (and yes, contrary to the dominant narrative, they meant the “Socialist” part and the “Worker’s” part):

We need to pause and think again, I am somehow unable to take it for granted that we cannot turn back, even at the brink. Maybe, I am being irrationally hopeful for reprieve; but, let us at least ponder a case from an often overlooked classical report:

Ac 19:23 . . . [c. AD 57] there arose no little disturbance [in Ephesus] concerning the Way.

24 For a man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought no little business to the craftsmen.

25 These he gathered together, with the workmen in similar trades, and said [–> behind the scenes manipulative plotting], “Men, you know that from this business we have our wealth. 26 And you see and hear that not only in Ephesus but in almost all of Asia this Paul has persuaded and turned away a great many people, saying that gods made with hands are not gods. 27 And there is danger not only that this trade of ours may come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis may be counted as nothing, and that she may even be deposed from her magnificence, she whom all Asia and the world worship.”

28 When they heard this they were enraged and were crying out, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”

29 So the city was filled with the confusion, and they rushed together into the theater, dragging with them Gaius and Aristarchus, Macedonians who were Paul’s companions in travel. 30 But when Paul wished to go in among the crowd, the disciples would not let him. 31 And even some of the Asiarchs,5 who were friends of his [–> they had charge of the very Temple in question; obviously, Paul’s lectures in the Hall of Tyrannos and his reaching out to people had won him respect and even friendship], sent to him and were urging him not to venture into the theater.

32 Now [in the unlawful assembly] some cried out one thing, some another, for the assembly was in confusion, and most of them did not know why they had come together. 33 Some of the crowd prompted Alexander, whom the Jews had put forward. And Alexander, motioning with his hand, wanted to make a defense to the crowd.

34 But when they recognized that he was a Jew, for about two hours they all cried out with one voice, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”

35 And when the town clerk had quieted the crowd ] –> doubtless, sent by the Asiarchs], he said, “Men of Ephesus, who is there who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is temple keeper of the great Artemis, and of the sacred stone that fell from the sky?6 [–> apparently a meteoritic object turned into an idol] 36 Seeing then that these things cannot be denied, you ought to be quiet and do nothing rash. 37 For you have brought these men here who are neither sacrilegious nor blasphemers of our goddess. 38 If therefore Demetrius and the craftsmen with him have a complaint against anyone, the courts are open, and there are proconsuls. Let them bring charges against one another. 39 But if you seek anything further,7 it shall be settled in the regular assembly. 40 For we really are in danger of being charged with rioting today, since there is no cause that we can give to justify this commotion.” [–> in effect he hinted of the regiment doubtless camped not too far away; cf. the Nika riots under Justinian]

41 And when he had said these things, he dismissed the assembly. [ESV]

How easily, the democratic impulse deteriorates into the raging, out of control, manipulated, riotous, destructive mob!

And if there was no excuse for rioting under a lawful oligarchy (what the C1 Roman Empire had become, after failure of the Republic through envy, selfish ambition, assassination and civil wars leading to the rise of Octavian as Augustus), how much more so, is it inexcusable in any reasonably functional modern constitutional democracy?

I give a bit of context:

U/D: context:

U/d b for clarity, nb Nil

Further U/D, Sep 5, context of the seven mountains model for mapping society/culture/ civilisation and its main pillars of influence:

Governance is visibly failing, some think the mob will be appeased (it cannot), we are at cliff’s edge, with alarming cracks.

Can’t we stop before we go over the cliff?

Please . . . ? END

F/N, Sept 4: FTR, here is a clip of the actual transcript in the context of an incident where Mr Trump is routinely and falsely said to have endorsed Neo-Nazis etc as fine people:

It is obvious that this is precisely the sort of condemnation of neo-nazis that it is suggested Mr Trump has failed to give. That such tainting misrepresentation continues to be routinely promoted speaks volumes on disregard for truth and fairness. Notice, too, how he anticipated the progression from attacking statues of confederate leaders to American founders, with the obvious extension that cancel culture has no limits.

F/N2: Anatomy of a Red Guards Brigadista hit team/swarm in action, Portland USA:

(I add, Sep 6, while the above photo is already demonstrative of a coordinated murderous ambush, there is a video analysis here, UD can only embed YT. This event likely shows that both major front groups involved in the Red Guards brigadista insurgency are joined at the hip. For instance, the shooter had a BLM fist tattoo on his neck and declared himself 100% Antifa. His later suicide by shootout likely shows commitment to not be taken alive, i.e. he had knowledge of key information he judged worth guarding at the cost of his life. Modern interrogation techniques will credibly eventually “break” anyone.)

Let’s clip:

Portland Police are seeking help to identify a possible accomplice pictured here in the Portland Patriot Prayer member shooting. Here is a picture of the moments before the shooting. Notice the shooter is beginning to move as he draws his weapon, even though he does not have a sightline to the targets yet, and his position behind that cover would seem to be far enough back he could not otherwise have known his targets were hitting that position at exactly that moment. How did he know his targets were about to enter the killzone right then, and he needed to draw and begin moving? Even more interesting, in the criminal complaint on page 17, it points out he was initially walking with a woman in a white T-shirt, coming from one direction to that corner, and both were staring down the street at the targets who were a ways away, coming from a completely different place, as if the shooter and his partner had been told over the air to go there, and the targets they were about to shoot were coming from that direction, and they were identifying them. Once they got a bead on the targets, the woman stopped at the corner and loitered as he continued on and took cover in that alcove. Taking a corner gave her sightlines up and down all streets there, which would be second nature to the trained surveillance operative. And yet not having a sightline to the shooter, how would she communicate with him?  They were linked by radio. Look up behind the targets in the picture above, and you will see a lone guy who looks like the guy they are looking for. Notice his hand is covering his mouth just as the shooter begins to move, and the shooter is not holding a walkie talkie to receive any broadcast. It looks an awful like the guy behind the targets had taken surveillance command of the targets, he was trained enough that casually covering his lower face as he whispered into his chest was second nature, and he was radioing to the shooter who had an earpiece to receive, and probably a chest mic to transmit, triggering his movement at that moment, coordinating it to the targets. Also interesting, this new character may be surveillance aware enough he turned away from the surveillance camera as he came into view of it.

It takes a lot of time, recruitment effort, ideological motivation/desensitisation to morality, tactical training by experienced experts and rehearsal to run a complex hit like this. (For sure, this is no hothead running up to someone they hate and shooting in a rage, the surveillance cam shot demonstrates an orchestrated hit of the type used by Intel agency wet work teams or sophisticated terrorists. “mostly peaceful” and “protest” are off the table.)

That has to have a significant, years-long logistics trail, with face to face and communications networking, yielding traffic patterns.

So, this one case may be a break into what is now clearly a terrorist network.

Take it as a yardstick indicating the extent and depth of what is going on, a full-orbed 4th generation war insurgency backed by years of organisation and serious logistics, with carefully laid plans and organisation.

F/N3: And yes, “NAZI” lives don’t matter:

Clear intent to slander, brand and rob of right to life. Instead, we must recognise that life is the first right, without which there are no other rights. Therefore, we start with mutual respect and go on from there.

722 Replies to “Is the USA going over the edge as we speak?

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    Is the USA going over the edge as we speak?

    –> a plea for sanity at the brink of chaos

  2. 2
    Truthfreedom says:

    Well, Mr. Dawkins has offered us a perfect explanation of why life is as it is:

    “In a Universe (or multiverse*) of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference”.
    Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

    Enjoy the Darwinian Gospel.

    *(robotically added)

  3. 3

    First, it’s a very exciting and interesting time to be alive. I’m fortunate to be alive at this juncture of history.

    At this point, some kind of civil war is without doubt going to happen. In fact, it’s going on right now, but most of the people on one side have – to this point – been keeping themselves sidelined because the other side has been attacking their own base camps (Democrat-run cities).

    As you say, the question is whether or not enough of the public is informed and willing to stand against the anarchists/marxists this time around instead of falling for their routine. I think it’s pretty clear this is the case here in the USA. Every day this continues, more and more of the public is seeing what is going on and what is at stake.

  4. 4
    john_a_designer says:

    One of the big problems in the U.S. is the lack of an objective and journalistically ehtical news media. A couple of months ago (for many reasons) I cancelled my cable T.V. subscription. One of the big reasons was so-called 24/7 news channels. There is not enough relevant news to warrant 24/7 coverage. 98%+ of what we get is opinion– OPINION IS NOT news! And even most of that is not from actual political operatives but from panels of “talking heads” who are paid by the networks to do “analysis.” I don’t need people like that– on either the right or left– to tell me what to believe and think. Whatever it is that’s happening to American culture, it’s getting more and more Orwellian.

  5. 5
    mike1962 says:

    Is the USA going over the edge as we speak?

    Naaaaa. It’s a click-bait [SNIP-language] show.
    The Commucrats have tried to exploit the “unrest”, then realized it’s helping Trump’s re-election.
    Yeah, have guns and plenty of ammo just in case.
    This is good advice in any case.
    99.999999999 of the country is utterly unaffected. And will continue to be.
    It will be interesting to see how long the Commucrats hold on to their positions
    as mayors and council-members of the affected cities.
    Turn the “news” off and enjoy your life.
    P.S. are Joe and Kammy ever going to answer any non-scripted questions from the press?

  6. 6
    kairosfocus says:

    M62, I think we beg to differ. In 1789, seemingly isolated events set off a stream of chaos to 1815, with echoes down to today. You are right that the events are for the moment concentrated in urban centres and have faced enabling behaviour with agit prop trumpeting and twisting. However, the mere fact that related riots etc rapidly spread to Europe should give a clue that something is going on subsurface, and certainly I see deepening polarisation here in the Caribbean echoing the events. The fact is, Red Guard insurgencies happen because of sponsorship and organisation, if you think the 1966 events in China were not part of a power grab, or that the Arab Spring as it was called just happened, or that other things have no roots, think again. You are right that people are backing away on polling trends and are trying to rewrite what calling for defunding or abolishing police, reversing the courts and more mean . . . anticivilisational . . . but the genie will resist being stuffed back into the lamp. KF

    PS: At minimum on broken window theory please watch language. The palpable, widespread coarsening (not helped by a NY Contractor in chief) is not helpful.

  7. 7
    kairosfocus says:

    JaD, historically, the invention of the press, growing literacy, publication of the vernacular Bible, use of bills, rise of newspapers and meeting houses for chocolate or later coffee etc and discussion were pivotal to democratisation then civil rights movements. The rise of post literacy, amplification of slander through viral media, ideological censorship and corruption of dominant media all point to undermining key buttresses of constitutional democracy. Those who are undermining buttresses need to think again. KF

  8. 8
    kairosfocus says:

    WJM, good to see you about. We are back to hinterland, peasant uprising but it looks like enough tocicity is present that the ballot box will not settle the issues. Sad, but the juggernaut has been set rolling. KF

  9. 9
    Eugene says:

    As these protests are obviously not just happening, but are allowed and encouraged to happen (while ANTIFA is obviously well infiltrated by FBI), one is then left to choose from a few plausible “conspiracy theories”:
    – The protests are there to create bipartisan consent for installing marshal law if/when the pandemic does not get better while we can’t keep printing money forever. Basically to guard against the real riots later.
    – The protests are there to create bipartisan consent for cracking down on DNC / Globalist NGOs by declaring ANTIFA a terrorist organization and then going for its donors. Yes, I know, a man can dream.
    – The protests are there to somehow hurt Trump re-election odds. This almost gives too much credit to Trump, and is rather unlikely, given that DNC earlier more or less agreed to give this election to Trump (possibly because Epstein?)
    – The protests are there to show that the Globalists have already took all the power and are just giving everyone a free preview of what is to come (“Red Guards”) when Trump loses in November. Yes, because they just can’t help it to keep it secret for a couple more months.
    – Any other options?

  10. 10

    Eugene,

    Here’s one: riots deployed in an attempt to get Trump to respond with Federal troops in order to make portrayal of him as a totalitarian racist stick before election. Trump didn’t take the bait and it is now backfiring on them, as even CNN and others have recently opined.

    I guess this does fit in one of your options, though.

  11. 11
    GCS says:

    Could be the turning point, but we will not know for a while.

    Example of why we need to know real history. Organizations often used marginal, violent people to front their activity. Kenosha showed this. The gentlemen shot were marginal, violent people who had been encouraged to let go their violent side by the media. They were thriving, acting out violently – whereas in the past that behavior was, we might say, discouraged (that is why they had convictions). Their actions, egged on by months of an encouraging media, led to their deaths and injury. This will have a very sobering impact on other very smart/street wise, but often violent persons, who have been likewise participating.

    I pray for those who died and for all affected, but ignorance of reality will always lead to tragedy.

  12. 12
    kairosfocus says:

    Eugene & WJM, or is it the FBI is infiltrated by Antifa etc? In short, one can make up many scenarios, but it is material evidence and prudence that guide conclusions. The targetting of a wide array of symbols of our civilisation (Yes, even Russia is Western) including abolitionists, American Founders, churches, statues of saints, statues of writers, a realistic statue of an elk and one of a dinosaur, backed up by culture form marxist, critical theories, deconstructionism etc points to the pattern of the red guards and recent 4th gen war insurgencies in North Africa and Europe. Red guards have backers, most easily traced through the money trail to fund logistics, above and beyond the recent wave of corporate donations. The way videos have been put up instantly with accusations of all sorts, points to the pervasive notion of media traps manipulating through whose report do you believe; as of now, I have good reason to doubt a significant list of headlined narratives. I no longer have doubts about major media, they are utterly corrupt and deceitful agit prop operators. Yes, social permission for lawlessness and rampaging mobs has clearly been extended, though an incident in Wisconsin seems to be giving pause. So extreme is this destructive pattern that Police in Minneapolis, in desperation to contain rioting, showed a video of a man shooting himself while being chased by Police. All of this is part of the tumble. KF

  13. 13
    kairosfocus says:

    GCS, the turning point of tumbling into higher and higher kinetic conflict. The turning point of recovery while having to deal with lingering damage, 6 – 18 months. KF

  14. 14
    daveS says:

    KF,

    The turning point of recovery while having to deal with lingering damage, 6 – 18 months.

    Is this something approaching a falsifiable prediction? 🤔

    Anyway, Mike1962 is (largely) correct. Y’all need to ease up on the apocalyptic fantasies and observe what is happening in the real world.

  15. 15
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, 6 – 18 months. I predict, high likelihood Mr Trump will be returned as president leading to ramped up chaos. Lower likelihood but odds on his party will retain, perhaps increase Senate majority. Lower yet but still in favour, regain representatives. All of this because the other party has managed to turn him into a defender of civilisation and has effectively enabled red guardism and anti-civilisational agendas. The heightened chaos, highly likely, will include increased kinetics in the ongoing 4th gen civil war. Where, disproportionate impact of urban centres will be pivotal as has been true for every radical revolution since 1789. So, that most of the geography of the US is not seeing riots is expected but does not overturn the import of the chaos.(BTW, 1980 in Jamaica, had most of the chaos in very local areas, especially the shooting, but that permanently changed things for the much worse.) I do not think the US will disintegrate but will suffer serious damage and demoralisation with heightened permanent polarisation. 4GW by nature, often does not look like a war, a TV show or parliament debate may be important fields of conflict. Geostrategic consequences are likely, too, given adventurers on the global stage. KF

  16. 16
    daveS says:

    Screencapped 🙂

    I predict a narrow Biden win, and no net Republican pickup in the House or Senate. Plenty of shenanigans designed to undermine the election results, unfortunately. My confidence level is not that high, however, in view of the 2016 results.

  17. 17
    john_a_designer says:

    The main stream media is made up of overpaid self-righteous prima donnas who believe it is their life’s calling to lecture everyone else what to think and believe. I would be sort okay with that if they were being completely honest about it– that is, they would be up front and tell us, “That is just my opinion.” But you don’t hear that. What you get is their opinion under the pretense that it is objective journalism and news. Again, news is not opinion it is the objective unfiltered reporting of facts without an overarching narrative or agenda.

    The so called 24/7 cable news networks have completely blurred the distinction between accurate news reporting and opinion and analysis– something which traditional big city newspapers at least tried to avoid by relegating opinion to the editorial pages. Why should I trust some prima donnas opinion when their only claim to fame is the way they sound and look?

  18. 18
    Seversky says:

    I think, like WJM, that we are living in interesting times. I also think we are not going to avoid an apocalypse just by looking back. Although there are unquestionably lessons to be learned from the past, you can argue that our current problems have arisen because what we have done in the past did not work as well we hoped. Plus, we are facing problems now that we have never faced before that require inventive new approaches. That means we need leaders who are imaginative who offer a more hopeful and inclusive vision and see their role as doing whatever they can to benefit those they govern rather than themselves personally. Whether that can actually be achieved is another matter,

  19. 19
    Mac McTavish says:

    The Republican National Convention aired a video meant to paint the George Floyd protests and Black Lives Matter demonstrations as inherently violent, chaotic events, but included a scene from protests in Barcelona, Spain.

    https://news.yahoo.com/rnc-video-showing-violence-bidens-163937551.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=fb

    To decide who to vote for I just look to who has told fewer easily confirmed lies, who uses the least divisive rhetoric and who has a better record of not blaming others for their own mistakes. I would much prefer to make my decision based on an actual constructive platform but I don’t see one from either side.

  20. 20
    GCS says:

    KF @13

    You point out the problem of turning points. You can’t always recognize them at the time. Often the hardest work is still ahead, but there has been a change in momentum. The Kent State shootings were an example. Plenty of protests still to come but the attitude was different. When protestors discovered they could die opposing a war they didn’t want themselves (and others to die in) the reality sank in.

    General comment:

    I am sorry for the ones who died, but they would be the first to be purged if the radicals “won”. Hitler purging the Brown Shirts and Stalin’s purges are perfect examples. Progressive efforts did not help these marginalized, angry people and would give them no future. Again, knowing history is important.

  21. 21
    ET says:

    It looks like Mac is going to vote for Howie Hawkins or Jo Jorgensen. I am pretty sure that I will. Living in MA my vote for Trump won’t count, anyway.

    Biden is a joke. He is a career politician who has sold out to China. He doesn’t know anything about business. So he isn’t the answer. Better the devil you know…

  22. 22
    john_a_designer says:

    Biden is a joke… He doesn’t know anything about business.

    It’s worse than that. He doesn’t know where he is.

    Here is a view about Biden from “down under.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGb92EJe_f0

    Imagine that. They agree with me that Biden doesn’t know where he is.

  23. 23
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, in two months or so we shall see. In 100 years, three incumbents have been defeated. But that is not my base, it is that the progressives have gone full critical theory (with what that implies) and have managed to become outright anti-civilisational. A genie that is not going back in the bottle easily. KF

  24. 24
    kairosfocus says:

    MMT, that would be an error, but does not change the material facts or critical failure. In just a lawful state much less a functional democratic one, riot cannot be justified, period. The pushing of red guards (thus the implied backers) has been utterly unjustified simply as offence against order when there are ready means to make any case. Worse, massive theft by destruction, arson, looting and just a climate of chaos are ruinous. The demands being made such as to “defund” police and wholesale overturn the justice system are outright anticivilisational. The rationales put on the table willfully ignore the proper verdict of history once the Iron Curtain fell. Such and more mark an attempt to overthrow civilisation to institute yet another year zero utopia. Predictably, such are bloodily ruinous, tyrannical and those who advocate such are at minimum are utterly irresponsible; some, are outright misanthropes. But then, we are clearly seeing 4th gen war insurgency. That is a sign, a bad one. KF

  25. 25
    kairosfocus says:

    JaD & GCS, the cannon fodder of radical revolution are inherently expendable to those who use them as just that, food for the hungry cannon. Our refusal to learn from history dooms us to repeat its worst mistakes. KF

  26. 26
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, the Russians — with their ever so tragic history — have a saying. Dwell on the past, you lose an eye; forget the past, you lose both of your eyes. KF

  27. 27
    daveS says:

    KF,

    Perhaps four incumbents, even? It is unusual, but I sense that in this case, enough people have had it to make the change.

  28. 28
    mike1962 says:

    Kairofocus @6,

    Well, this ain’t or 1789 or 1815. Half the citizens in the USA are armed and very individualistic, nationalistic and Constitutionalistic, with a will to fight mobs, chaos and disorder, esp if their lives or property is threatened. People can organize at the drop of a hat with the Internet. In order for a real revolution to occur, the govt would have to attack the law-abiders instead of the agitators. Doubtful given that the National Guard, U.S. military, and local police agencies are loaded with patriots. So, meh, not too worried at this point. But diligence is always in order. Be alert and keep your powder dry.

  29. 29
    kairosfocus says:

    M62, if you think the backers of the red guards don’t have a wargame tested plan for that (I add, with experience in the Middle East and Eastern Europe over the past decade plus to back it . . . evidence of patterns points to the same strategic signature), think again. See, already the case of a gated community in St Louis — I add, the officers who confiscated weapons obviously needed for self defence in the face of not only implicit but explicit threats of a second attempt (seen the following week) and the DA staff who grossly over-charged them speak volumes on where law enforcement is, never mind patriots. The obvious stand down in the face of riots orders and compliance definitely speaks for itself. Also, attempts to organise on the Internet now routinely lead to censorship; in emergency, that would move up sharply to charges of attempted terrorism, backed by a narrative on nazis attempting overthrow of lawful government. The 4 am high kinetic bust with suitable cable tv crews on site live, we have already seen with Mr Roger Stone in FL. Never underestimate agit prop, street theatre and media trumpeting of narratives in a crisis, leading to hysteria and ever deeper polarisation. The locked in narratives against HCQ, the turn on a dime about masks and the ever escalating, ever changing narrative on why lockdowns, social distancing and “protest” exceptions are all needed speak volumes to an old hand live observer of in-progress 4G civil war like me. Use of a cell phone pretty much locates you realtime. Attempts to organise would more or less identify those involved as “nationalist” [= nazi] terrorists, as say would easily come from the Wisconsin case. Attempted self defence will become attempted murder, etc. And more. That said, your factors are part of why I expect in the end the outcomes I suggest. KF

  30. 30
    BobRyan says:

    We’ve already gone over the edge and find most states committing acts of rebellion against the United States. 18 U.S. Code §?2383. Rebellion or insurrection:

    Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

    Most states are in violation of the Supremacy Clause, which has no exceptions. No state, no governor, no person can violate any part of the US Constitution. The 10th Amendment reaffirms the Supremacy Clause when it makes it clear that anything not in the Constitution is left to the states and people of the states. They are violating the Commerce Clause by putting an undue burden on interstate commerce, which only the US Congress has the power to do. In essence, the states have usurped the power of Congress. There are violations of the 1st and 4th Amendments on a daily basis. Governors are actively encouraging violent actions by groups like BLM, which have targeted federal property through the use of violent and open rebellion. Much of the media has openly encouraged the rebellion to escalate.

  31. 31
    kairosfocus says:

    BR, points to ponder indeed, you are arguing that lawlessness is rife. KF

  32. 32
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, in the fourth case, Johnson, he withdrew. Johnson did not face an obvious coup by establishment deep state from before entering office multiplied by red guards and their backers pushing for year zero reset, mob rule culture form marxist revolution using anti civilisational critical theory and deconstructionism; thus, implying Maoist Cultural Revolution style reigns of terror like those that cost China a lost decade. The pivot is, defund/abolish the police, the law enforcement system, the nuclear family — all on the BLM platform. Things like that count and have turned the NY contractor in chief into a champion of our civilisation.* If you draw the 1940-45 Churchill parallel, the UK electorate removed Churchill after he won the war, in effect putting in a highly controversial figure by parliamentary maneuver . . . loss of confidence in the Norway debate on the adjournment (even though the formal vote was won!) and leaving him there until he did his job, then nope we want Attlee and Labour. The war for civilisation is not won, and on balance the electorate will accept a flawed but stalwart Launcelot, father of the pure knight Sir Galahad (who was born on the wrong side of the blanket) as C S Lewis pointed out. Yes, that points onward. KF

    PS: In my neck of the woods, to stand up for Western Civilisation, warts and all, and to acknowledge Christendom, are enough to put you beyond the pale. The polarising lens of slavery has made the climate among the certificated classes even more toxic in some ways. Things being said by the current VC of my alma mater, who is an historian, leave me shaking my head. Let’s just say that the reparations debate is utterly bitter and loaded with culture form marxist critical theory, deconstructionism agendas and tactics. Where, the claims for compensation being advanced cannot reasonably be met, and in the teeth of a feasible option on the table through UN and OECD, the 0.7% GNI initiative. BTW, your reparations debate needs to reckon with the significance of the Homestead act and the creation of Liberia, even as ours needs to reckon with the decision of Courts of Chancery regarding the Mico trust, the need to spend 3.8% of 1834 GDP to stabilise the UK financial system against likely impact of collapsing WI property value, averting famine, 100 years of anti slavery patrol actions (yes, IIRC it was 1915 when the W Africa antislavery patrols by the RN were ended), and much more.

  33. 33

    MMT demonstrates the very problem we are facing: votes based on words and media presentation, not on policy actions and results. To try to sift through which politician told the most lies or used the worst rhetoric in order to cast your vote is like buying a car because the least offensive car salesman tells you to – whether it fits your actual needs or not and regardless of the track record of that model.

    The reason I originally voted for Trump, even though I couldn’t stand the guy, was because he was the only candidate that offered what I thought were reasonable, good policies. Did I expect him to actually deliver on his policies? No. I didn’t even think he could get elected. I didn’t think he had a chance. But, I had to cast my vote based on at least the possibility of those policies being somewhat enacted.

    I don’t care if Trump is a xenophobic, racist misogynist in his heart; that’s between him and God. What I care about is (1) what are his policy goals and do I agree with him, (2) does he do what he says he’s going to do to any significant degree?

  34. 34

    As far as predicting the election, I think that’s an easy call. Trump won in 2016 against all odds without a record. Nobody knew what he would do. Relatively few people thought he would actually deliver on his campaign promises and policies. He was basically elected due to severe anti-establishment sentiment.

    This year, now that people know he meant what he said and will actually deliver, how many more will vote for him because their skepticism has been demonstrated unwarranted? How many doubters who didn’t vote in 2016 saw their taxes cut, their jobs come back, their pay and work options increase? How many more now see him as the only person standing between them and chaos?

    The only question in my mind whether or not the radical marxists can defraud the election results. Biden is an even worse candidate than Hillary, and Trump not only didn’t lose a single vote since 2016, he has gained millions, especially in the black and hispanic communities, the efforts of divisive propaganda notwithstanding. It should be an overwhelming landslide.

  35. 35
    ET says:

    Very true, William. “Anyone but Trump” is not a policy I want running the country.

  36. 36

    So, the question is: is 4 more years of Trump enough to save civilization? To which I’ll say that in the coming 4 years, to use Obama’s hot mic words, he’ll have more leeway. That’s when I expect to see the big name indictments for treason and sedition and the breakup of the tech oligarchies. Right now he has to play a delicate social game to get the vote of relatively low-information voters who don’t fully understand the propaganda warfare that is going on.

  37. 37
    Truthfreedom says:

    William J Murray

    So, the question is: is 4 more years of Trump enough to save civilization?

    “Civilization” (if we are speaking of the West) = Christian values.

    No Christian values = no West.

    That is why marxist parasites are so intent on destroying Christianity. Once you destroy the foundations, the whole building crumbles to dust.

    Marxists want power and they know that Christianity is an impediment.

  38. 38
    kairosfocus says:

    WJM, the issue is not so much Mr Trump as personality but the turning point of the current conflict in the geostrategic centre of gravity of our civilisation. My 6 – 18 months estimate is independent of who wins, it is the playout of kinetics now; and yes the lawfare counter offensive on the 2016 election is part of the picture, the recent guilty plea is telling. (BTW, to see what is happening in small towns and will provoke the coming backlash, see here.) KF

  39. 39
    daveS says:

    KF,

    The four I count in the last 100 years:

    Hoover, Ford, Carter, George H. W. Bush

  40. 40
    daveS says:

    WJM,

    That’s when I expect to see the big name indictments for treason and sedition …

    Would you care to name names?

    And could you tell us what your sources of information are?

  41. 41
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, okay, Hoover. KF

    PS: Start from Mr Clinesmith’s recent guilty plea and follow the threads from there. Consider what had to be going on to make that stick. On another line (likely at much higher level) ponder what the Epstein-Maxwell saga points to (and no way will I believe in a convenient suicide with even more convenient circumstances), given that infamous photo with Prince Andrew. Unravel the two and we may just be able to begin a clean-up.

  42. 42
    john_a_designer says:

    Winston Churchill once said,

    Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…

    Any kind of democratic society is intrinsically unstable and it’s only as good as its constituents. U.S, founding father John Adams understood this very well when he wrote, “Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either… [it] never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty.”

    https://uncommondescent.com/off-topic/democracies-fail-without-adult-supervision/#comment-668515

    Why is it that throughout history so many democracies have flamed out so quickly? Think of the French republic which replaced what was at the time one of the world’s oldest monarchies. What happened to it. Or, the Weimar republic in post WWI Germany… or, Yugoslavia… or, Czechoslovakia…

    How long has the U.S. existed? Is it culturally and ethnically diverse? How has it been able to survive different kinds of crises like the civil war? The great depression? The social unrest of the 1960’s? I wouldn’t say the prospects for U.S. survival are as dim as some here are suggesting but it is true that any form of democratic government requires constant vigilance. And indeed, it doesn’t take much to send it over the edge.

  43. 43
    kairosfocus says:

    JaD, I keep pointing to cultural buttresses, so freedom does not become suicide. Those buttresses in material part come from Christendom. KF

  44. 44
    ET says:

    Gerald Ford was never elected to the Presidency nor the Vice Presidency.

  45. 45
    kairosfocus says:

    ET, that’s a good point too. KF

  46. 46
    daveS says:

    KF,

    Are there any _specific_ individuals you expect to be indicted for treason and sedition?

    ET,

    True, however he was the incumbent in 1976.

  47. 47
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, I doubt treason would actually be tried, but there are many other crimes that will likely be on the table. Clinesmith is on evidence falsification material to lawfare against a candidate then duly elected president, contributory to intelligence service abuse, policing abuse, misleading courts and several years of needless chaos. The connexions are where the issues will come out. The human trafficking lolita side will probably take out some pretty serious names, likely in several countries. The prince is already looking set for serious consequences, even if it never comes to trial. How did his security detail ever allow him to be in such a situation? And a former US president never should have had a neck massage like that too, do these people listen to their security? KF

  48. 48
    ET says:

    Yes, Ford was the incumbent. But we, the people, didn’t put him there. We didn’t even out him in the position to be there. And, to be technical, LBJ was only a one term President.

  49. 49
    daveS says:

    KF,

    DS, I doubt treason would actually be tried …

    Well, it seems that WJM is in possession of some very explosive information, which for some reason, he is reluctant to divulge. 🙂

  50. 50
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, I note that after the 1861 – 65 civil war, treason trials were not held. KF

  51. 51
    daveS says:

    KF,

    The US Civil War will seem like nothing compared to what’s coming.

    #thegreatawakening #trusttheplan #WWG1WGA

  52. 52

    For legal definitions in the USA, one can go here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115

    I don’t have to divulge any “explosive,” secret or new information. All one needs to do is read the laws, have a basic knowledge of facts not in dispute, and see how these laws have been explicitly violated by many people by their own words and actions. These laws have been publicly, brazenly flouted for years, and every day more evidence is exposed in addition to that which is freely accessible.

    The only question is if Trump is willing to prosecute anyone for those things. I don’t know how Trump can more explicitly telegraph his position and intentions than by stating that Treason was committed and that those involved will be brought to justice.

    He says many times, “This can never be allowed to happen again.” There’s only one way to even remotely deter anyone from that course: prosecute and punish them to the full extent of the law. If that doesn’t happen, if they are convicted of or allowed to plead to lesser crimes, all you are doing is delaying for a very short time the inevitable.

  53. 53
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, the first Civil Was was a war in a peripheral country, now the ramping up 4GW is in the geostrategic centre of our civilisation. If things really explode, it could get horrific. The trigger is not going to be some fringe folk following an anonymous poster, Q, but the ongoing red guard insurgency and their backers. Red guard tactics have worked several times, starting with China in 1966. The parallels I already drew should give pause. As should what seems to be coming out of HR at Sandia labs. KF

  54. 54
    daveS says:

    WJM,

    Could you tell us who, _specifically_, you think will be indicted? Why are you being so coy?

  55. 55
    daveS says:

    KF,

    These “fringe folk” are being elected to federal office, you know.

    Even the highly-regarded lawyer Lin Wood, who is helping with Kyle Rittenhouse’s defense, appears to be a follower.

  56. 56
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, I could make observations on others in federal office. That is irrelevant. The issue is, we can see a clear signature of a red guards insurgency, implying backers. There is a track record of “success” of such, and there is a wider pattern of spiral to chaos — e.g. another man shot dead in Portland. The juggernaut’s pace is accelerating. KF

  57. 57
    daveS says:

    KF,

    Can you name these “backers” and support your position with hard evidence connecting them to the current unrest in Portland, say? I’d love to see some documentation of their “wargame tested plans” to subvert the military and police forces, along with the considerable number of armed civilians.

  58. 58
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, operations as you know pivot on logistics. In addition, consistent operational patterns point to training and coordination, not of the general mass but of a hard core. The obvious extension of stand down orders and the media sing off the same hymn sheet cover that has portrayed a narrative also don’t come from nowhere. On history, the original relevant Red Guards (bolshevik units from 1917 on don’t count) were used by Mao to claw back power after his great leap forward failed, costing many lives and leading to his restriction among the leadership. Similarly, there was backing in North Africa, the Levant and Eastern Europe recently. So, we can comfortably infer that common design signatures point to common designers from the same school of thought. The recent revelations on a government takedown in Austria may give a peek into the shadows, too. We can comfortably wait on the investigations to show specifics, but we know enough to know that things don’t happen by the magic of pulling rabbits out of non existent hats. So, John, Richard, Jane and Sue Doe warrants may be confidently issued. Wanted, trainers, field organisers and technical operatives. Wanted, sttaff, logistics, training and ideology organisers. Wanted, political fixers and bag men. Wanted, financiers who knew what they were funding. Wanted, power brokers using insurgency to create chaos and gain power. The next 6 – 18 months should help us draw connexions. KF

    PS: Try here (german) and here for a peek under the rug.

  59. 59
    daveS says:

    Hmmm, I suspect OJ will find the “real killers” before you or WJM actually name names. 🙂

  60. 60
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, we don’t have names just yet, just patterns. Apart from those undergoing investigation [up to and including, obviously a prince on one of several fronts], one who has pled guilty on another [with huge implications], the peek under the rug just linked on a third front etc. Once, chance, twice — coincidence, thrice — enemy action. KF

  61. 61
    mike1962 says:

    kairosfocus @29, though I think you’re wildly overstating the situation, and I agree with Dave @57, I don’t entirely disagree with your concerns esp in areas where law enforcement is controlled by commucrat city governments and police unions. What you describe is a problem limited by and large to commucrat controlled cities. I am a proponent of getting out of the cities for a lot of reasons including social disorder.

  62. 62
    kairosfocus says:

    M62, someone was “hit” in Portland last night. Shortly thereafter, a crowd was heard rejoicing on how a “nazi” was killed. The juggernaut is rolling. KF

  63. 63
    john_a_designer says:

    I don’t think there are really any deep dark conspiracies behind the current social unrest that is gripping some American cities. What I see instead are ruthless left wing politicians being supported by an agenda driven main stream media. Frankly these people don’t really care about so-called social justice. What does allowing an out of control mob looting, vandalizing and burning down minority owned businesses have to do with advancing cause of social justice?

    Very early on I said that locking down the American economy because of Covid-19 would cause social unrest. I think my prediction was spot on. What I didn’t predict was how cynically the left wing mayors and governors along with a complicit media would try to exploit the rioting for some kind of political advantage. But it appears that is starting to back fire on them.

    Obviously they thought that maybe the unrest could hurt Trump’s re-election chances. So those minority owned business? Cannon fodder in the on-going culture war which they know they can’t win by direct honest democratic means.

  64. 64
    Mac McTavish says:

    I’m afraid that I can’t buy into any global, or even national, conspiracy using red guard tactics to turn the country into a Marxist state. What I see are very legitimate, and largely peaceful, protests over the long history of police violence against black people. This has attracted a small number of instigators, as often happens during protests. What has made the issue worse is a president who fans the flames with is Twitter rants and divisive rhetoric.

    Unfortunately, it often takes protests and violence to attain any meaningful change. I wish that it didn’t, but history doesn’t lie.

  65. 65
    Seversky says:

    I agree entirely with Mac McTavish. Conspiracy theories about critical race theorists and cultural Marxism are not the solution to the deep and long-standing racial divisions in US society, they only distract from it. What to me is much more alarming is that we have a President who is not only clearly willing to exploit these divisions for his own political advantage but is also dropping heavy hints about rejecting the results of any election he does not win, refusing to leave the White House even if he loses and wants not just a second but a third term. This is a man who not only has effectively erased the old Republican Party and replaced it with the Trump Party but is also trying to remove any constitutional restraints on his exercise of political power with the ultimate purpose of becoming President-for-Life. He would like nothing more than to change the United States into a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Trump Organization. That is the sort of conspiracy we ignore at our peril.

  66. 66
    ET says:

    The Democrats have caused the division. Their hatred of Trump was apparent during his campaign when the sitting President used the FBI to investigate him. He has been constantly attacked from the leftwingnuts. When he stopped flights from China he was called racist. Months later he is chastised for not stopping them sooner. And not just from China, from all of Europe.

    Then he wanted to take control during the pandemic only to be attacked again for not understanding the Governors control their respective States. But when it all went bad they blamed him anyway.

    Total losers

  67. 67
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, go to the next thread over, read and weep. You should have done homework before spouting off dismissively about conspiracy theories. I think it is beyond reasonable dispute on history of 100 years, that Marxists see themselves as vanguards of socialist revolution and routinely undertake political,agit prop, subversive, insurgency and outright military operations to that end. If you thought the collapse of the Iron Curtain saw them off the stage, think again; indeed founders of BLM openly admit that they are marxist operators, on live tape. Just, things are a bit more sophisticated now, 4th Gen War tactics are in play. KF

  68. 68
    kairosfocus says:

    MMT et al, what you may imagine dismissively makes no difference to the operational signatures on the ground. Go read the basics as were laid out in previous threads, we are seeing a red guards insurgency, which implies backing and strategic direction. As for feckless pols playing with fire they don’t understand, Lenin had a contemptuous term about such, starting with their being useful. He also said the capitalists were so strategically short sighted they would sell him the rope to be used to stretch their necks. Have you lived through a marxist insurgency? I have, it failed but wreaked havoc. KF

  69. 69
    daveS says:

    KF,

    My grandparents grew up during the Great Depression, and it affected their entire lives (into the 2000’s). They never quite had a normal relationship with money; their frugality was pathological. That experience forever distorted their view of the world.

  70. 70
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, irrelevant. Marxism is a world conquest ideology, I am speaking from observation of its operating patterns. Which, I had sincerely hoped I would never have to think about again. Sadly, that is no longer so. And BTW, both Cubans and Chinese have been saying quite similar warnings. KF

  71. 71
    Mac McTavish says:

    KF

    Have you lived through a marxist insurgency? I have, it failed but wreaked havoc.

    No, but I did grow up gay in a country where this was a crime, in a country where acknowledging it would deny me many employment opportunities, in a country where my persecution was condoned. Where I was not free to openly love the person I loved. Where I couldn’t talk to my own priest about it because I was considered an abomination. Where I watched a close friend get stabbed by some queer-basher. My life has been tough, and sometimes violent, but it could have been worse. I could also be black, with the added challenges that would result from that.

    So, yes, I completely support Black Lives Matter. Those who oppose it are opposing a statement of fact.

  72. 72
    Truthfreedom says:

    70 Kairosfocus

    Irrelevant. Marxism is a world conquest ideology.

    Jihad.

  73. 73
    ET says:

    Hey Mac, do you practice karate?

    Also there are two different and confusing things here- yes, the lives of black people matter. Then there is the Marxist group and movement “black lives matter”. Semantics? I don’t think so. We have witnessed those involved in the BLM loot and burn minority owned businesses.

  74. 74
    vividbleau says:

    “Example of why we need to know real history. Organizations often used marginal, violent people to front their activity. “

    So true, unfortunately people think history starts on their birthdays. Just finished rereading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, very sobering. We are watching the brown shirts all over again. The defund and dismantling of the police force was one of the first things Hitler put in motion in 1933.
    Yes front groups use slogans that no one disagrees with to promote hidden agendas. Who disagrees with the slogan “ black lives matter”? Of course they do but BLM is a Marxist front group and could give one stinking piece of ………about black lives!!!

    Vivid

  75. 75
    mike1962 says:

    Mac McTavish is a (probably young) ignorant nincompoop.

    But Seversky going off the rails. Hahaha. Fun to watch. 😀 😀 😀 😀

  76. 76
    daveS says:

    Mac McT,

    I think it does make sense to be specific about which “Black Lives Matter” one supports. From the wiki page:

    The phrase “Black Lives Matter” can refer to a Twitter hashtag, a slogan, a social movement, a political action committee, or a loose confederation of groups advocating for racial justice.

    Probably many people support the larger social movement, but perhaps not every organization in the network of groups which receive many millions of dollars in funding. Not that there’s anything wrong with raising funds, but not all charitable groups are run equally well. Some even take money from George S*ros, who is considered to be worse that Hitler in some quarters.

  77. 77
    BobRyan says:

    Mac McTavish @ 71 says he supports Black Lives Matter, which should add when it’s convenient to the end. Black lives don’t matter to BLM, any more than Jews matter. They support BDL, which was founded by people who do not see Jews as human being and have no right to life. If black lives mattered, they would not ignore the black on black violence that costs more black lives than just about anything else. There is no mention of abortions slaughtering millions of black babies.

  78. 78
    kairosfocus says:

    Folks,

    There is an old saying about never missing the water until the well runs dry.

    There is an underlying taking for granted of many blessings of liberty that come from a stabilised, constitutionally democratic political order that respects and guards rights. Demands are to further claim rights (sometimes in ways that will undermine buttresses of said order, e.g. by demanding to be upheld in evils such as the mass slaughter of millions of our living posterity in the womb and much more under false colour of law and justice).

    Meanwhile, because we have been calculatedly robbed of the history of our civilisation, and because through said critical theory and deconstruction etc there has been assiduous effort to delegitimise what has been achieved, we are in danger of critically undermining cultural buttresses of liberty. In that regard, I have often pointed out that it is invention of printing, rise of vernacular Bibles and linked literacy, widespread printing of bills, newspapers, books, creation of coffeee shops as discussion centres and more that opened up political participation to a far wider public than hitherto possible. These set in motion the democratising and civil rights reforms that opened up modern constitutional democracy. Before, one’s options boiled down to autocracy, oligarchy or at most lawful oligarchy valuing justice. Anarchy or the state of nature is a chaotic repeller pole. Of course, there is a secondary, libertarian debate, arguing for a minimalist state, which too often forgets why say the 1778 US confederation failed within a decade.

    What is being trifled with by the academy and those who carry its notions far and wide, is the moral-cultural order that buttresses constitutional democracy and liberty with order. Democracy itself being highly unstable and prone to mobs, factions and marches of manipulated folly.

    As such erodes, the threat or reality of chaos — and defund the police etc are very much precisely along that line — opens up tumbling back into tyrannical oligarchy or autocracy. Which, BTW, is precisely what Marxist states have consistently been. The red guards roaming the streets,rioting, looting, burning, bullying, murdering and shouting loaded agenda driven slogans, the trumpeting media, the radicalised politicians and parties enabling such and more haven’t a clue as to the fire they are playing with. How could they, they have been calculatedly robbed of sound history. And BTW, Shirer’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, adjusted to understand that the national socialist german worker’s party meant the worker’s and socialist parts, will be helpful. So will be the Gulag Archipelago.

    As for certain slogans, there is a single, sharp corrective litmus test. Over the past 40+ years, we have been plagued by the single worst holocaust in history, the slaughter of 800+ millions of our living posterity in the womb under false colour of law. It proceeds today at about 800,000 additional victims per week. In the US, black children in the womb have been especially over-represented in it’s part of the toll, 60+ millions, and in Asia, girls — leading to large, unbalanced populations with a significant deficit of women (which directly leads to dangerous global threats). Any movement that claims to be protective of life but fails to address this, can safely be dismissed as manipulative and destructive.

    It can be taken as axiomatic that life is the first right; without life, there are no further rights. So, any movement that tries to delegitimise that all lives are precious and to be protected — “matter” is the cleverly loaded term — including by labelling such as racist or nazi, is illegitimate at the root. The rioting, mayhem, destruction of businesses representing lifetime efforts, savings and hopes, intimidation of other voices etc all speak to that. So, we may safely conclude that movements that act like Red Guards are red guards serving as somebody’s insurgents and unwitting cannon fodder. Where, it is manifest that in just a lawful state, much less a constitutionally democratic one, riot cannot be justified. And, relabelling sustained rioting as “mostly peaceful” “protest” reveals the enabling behaviour of the fundamentally destructive and subversive.

    BTW, maybe, people need to ponder critical analyses of the agendas of several movements associated with carrying out or enabling and trying to legitimise riot.

    Turning back to sounder foundations, I again put on the table:

    We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

    This argument I have championed for months is pivotal. It allows us to reset our thinking and start afresh, with sound discernment, including when rights claims that are popularised by various interests are unsound. Also, we can readily see that ideologies and underlying worldviews that imply that we are not free or are not morally governed, starting with our rationality itself, are fundamentally incoherent, self-refuting and necessarily false. Where, we see also, how understanding such built in law allows us to soundly address civil law including constitutions, instead of falling for nihilistic notions that sever law from core first principles of justice, substituting the rule making power of those with sufficient clout and cleverness to impose their will. Thus, too, we begin to understand why there are pushes to grab power by fundamentally illegitimate and manipulative means, as well as the likely consequences.

    We had better wake up, the juggernaut is rolling.

    KF

    PS: BLM and Antifa, of course, endorse a slate of progressivist demands. This includes delegitimisation of the nuclear family, all sorts of radical sexual agendas . . . directly tied to the ruin of the family . . . and much more.

  79. 79
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: I updated OP to include a model of political dynamics that explains how we so readily tumble into tyranny.

  80. 80
    kairosfocus says:

    Vivid, Horst Wessel. KF

  81. 81
    john_a_designer says:

    To our regular interlocutors:

    How am I obligated to accept a view of morality and human rights that is based on someone else’s made-up subjective opinion? The answer: I’m not. On the other hand, I certainly have a right to reject such nonsense. If your main premise in your argument is “this is my personal opinion,” or, “this is what I believe,” then you don’t really have an argument. Please stop trying fooling others and then fooling yourself. (Well, maybe it’s really the other way around.) It is a waste of everyone’s time.

    In other words, human rights are not something that were invented or made up by you. Try reading a little history sometime.

  82. 82
    Truthfreedom says:

    John_a_designer
    Please. Atheists ”know” via “darwinian processes” what is good for us. They have been blessed with un-ending knowledge of how “meat-robots” should be governed to “enjoy purposeless lives”.
    Now bow down or you will be negated “their” magic (“science”).
    Because only atheists can practice/ understand “science” due to their unlimited blessings (not to mention they have escaped the clutches of that pesky “evolution” thing).
    NOT a religion, of course 🙂 They do NOT want power.

  83. 83
    Seversky says:

    Vividbleau @ 74

    Yes front groups use slogans that no one disagrees with to promote hidden agendas. Who disagrees with the slogan “ black lives matter”? Of course they do but BLM is a Marxist front group and could give one stinking piece of ………about black lives!!!

    Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting for an unsavory collection of KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias and Christian nationalists. And we have a pretty good idea of the only people that lot and their idol care about. The only thing missing from the MAGA hat is the black swastika on a white ground.

  84. 84
    john_a_designer says:

    The real problem with the current SJW/BLM thinking, which dominates the secular progressive left, is that it based on a dishonest bait and switch tactic. You can’t just proclaim something to be unjust unless you are using an objective standard. But secular progressive SJW’s posits no such standard. At its roots it’s morally subjective and relativistic. Obviously a subjective standard cannot be an objective standard. The problem is that these people are motivated by power and passion not truth, reason and logic. They claim to be right because they believe they are right but, again, your subjective beliefs are not binding on me. Claims to the contrary this thinking is not progressive because it provides no way for us to measure progress.

    To paraphrase C.S. Lewis: Moral progress “means not just changing, but changing for the better.” Again, without some kind of objective standard whose view about morality, justice and human rights can we judge to be better?

  85. 85
    daveS says:

    KF,

    Any movement that claims to be protective of life but fails to address this, can safely be dismissed as manipulative and destructive.

    Suppose I start a program to provide tutoring to young students in a poor community, where those students happen to be largely black. Of course one of my aims would be to “protect life”, and if the program is successful, that would be a likely outcome. These students would perform better in school, which opens up more opportunities to them, thus increasing the chance that they will have a happy and prosperous life (as opposed to dying young due to violence, drugs, or even mundane things such as untreated hypertension, which afflicts minorities disproportionately).

    I don’t have to address abortion directly, and I probably would not want to, for a number of reasons. However, it’s possible that this program would actually result in fewer abortions in that community, in part because there would be fewer teen pregnancies.

    So, in pitching this program to parents, I would just assume it to be self-evident that tutoring is one factor that would tend to make their childrens’ lives better, regardless of their values or position on the legality of abortion. My goal would be to get as many students in the program as I can and help them with their school work.

    I don’t think such a program would be manipulative and destructive; rather, it would be a modest and pragmatic attempt to effect incremental change. Do you agree?

  86. 86
    daveS says:

    Seversky,

    Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting for an unsavory collection of KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias and Christian nationalists.

    I was trying to think of such an example, and that’s a good one. I will add that some of my MAGA friends are unironically very good people, but there are a lot of jerks in the mix.

  87. 87
    Truthfreedom says:

    DaveS

    some of my MAGA friends are unironically very good people

    “Good” according to what “standard”?
    What is a “good” person?

  88. 88
    Truthfreedom says:

    Maybe Seversky “knows” what “goodness” is (although he says he lives inside his head, he “senses” an “external world” that he can not fully “grasp”). He “has the map but not the territory” (which is incoherent).

  89. 89
    Truthfreedom says:

    Seversky

    The only thing missing from the MAGA hat is the black swastika on a white ground.

    Bwahahaha! Seversky the self-refuting- fallacious – appealling to emotions – meat-robot.
    What does “evolution” have to say about “nazis”?
    Have you talked to “her” lately?

  90. 90
    daveS says:

    TF,

    I believe he’s “good” according to the standards you adhere to. He’s a God-fearing man who is a shepherd in his church. He loves his neighbors and contributes to the community. He is faithful to his wife and has raised three healthy children and has several grandchildren who are thriving.

    Is there any point in me describing my understanding of what a “good” person is? I don’t believe that you will listen.

  91. 91
    ET says:

    seversky:

    Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting for an unsavory collection of KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias and Christian nationalists.

    ‘That is only your uneducated opinion. On the other hand it is a fact that BLM has Marxist roots

  92. 92
    Truthfreedom says:

    90 DaveS

    I believe he’s “good” according to the standards you adhere to.

    Thank you four your reply. There can only be one standard of goodness. Because if not, it is NOT a standard.
    What should we humans adhere to? Our own opinions? Science? (which is a human endeavor saddled with human follies and morally blind?)
    If there is no God, we are useless creatures and not even Hitler’s existence matters. Things just “are”. “Matter in motion”.

  93. 93
    vividbleau says:

    “The only thing missing from the MAGA hat is the black swastika on a white ground.”

    Sev lives in Alices wonderland where up is down and down is up. Sev it’s your tribe who employ the brown shirts , it’s your tribe that are pushing the Nazi program to dismantle the police. You seem a bit deranged I must say.

    Vivid

  94. 94
    vividbleau says:

    “I was trying to think of such an example, and that’s a good one”
    DaveS seems like you and Sev are neighbors.

    Vivid

  95. 95
    Truthfreedom says:

    We are broken watches. We need to find our Watchmaker (who is not blind , but omniscient) to help us being whole again.
    There is no other way. Or just keep reproducing in this “uncaring” Universe until the next “mass extinction”.

  96. 96
    Truthfreedom says:

    93 Vividbleau

    You (Seversky) seem a bit deranged I must say.

    He says he is “trapped inside his head” (he babbles about an “unknowable reality” “out there” – which is incoherent, because if he knows it is “out there”, then it is not “unknowable”).
    Too much Darwin is not a good thing.

  97. 97
    daveS says:

    TF,

    You’re welcome.

    There can only be one standard of goodness. Because if not, it is NOT a standard.

    I’m not sure there can be such a thing. What is _the_ standard for judging whether a person is wealthy?

    What should we humans adhere to? Our own opinions? Science? (which is a human endeavor saddled with human follies and morally blind?)

    People have been debating that for millennia, and I don’t have a ready answer. I simply believe we’re on our own here. If there is an answer, and we want to find it, it’s up to us.

    If there is no God, we are useless creatures and not even Hitler’s existence matters. Things just “are”. “Matter in motion”.

    Do you have an argument supporting this? It looks like a non-sequitur.

  98. 98
    Seversky says:

    John_a_designer @ 81

    How am I obligated to accept a view of morality and human rights that is based on someone else’s made-up subjective opinion?

    You aren’t. Any more then I’m obliged to accept someone else’s subjective view of morality even if they try to justify it by claiming it comes from their preferred deity.

    On the other hand, I certainly have a right to reject such nonsense. If your main premise in your argument is “this is my personal opinion,” or, “this is what I believe,” then you don’t really have an argument.

    On the other hand, if there’s no logical way to derive ‘ought’ from ‘is’ what else do you have but something subjective like the Golden Rule, the assumption that there are certain basic subjective preferences that we all have in common on which we can base some moral code by mutual agreement?

    In other words, human rights are not something that were invented or made up by you.

    Not by me personally but by other human beings not so different from you and I. What’s the matter? Don’t you think you’re up to the job?

  99. 99
    vividbleau says:

    DaveS
    .” I will add that some of my MAGA friends are unironically very good people, but there are a lot of jerks in the mix.”

    Curious why would you find that ironic? Is it because it does not fit your stereotype?
    How many of your MAGA friends are Klansman? How many are Nazis?.How many in the jerk group are Klansman? How many are Nazis?

    Vivid

  100. 100
    daveS says:

    Vivid,

    I don’t think it’s especially ironic, I just wanted to be clear I wasn’t using the term “good people” ironically, that is, to mean “not-good people”. I think this usage is becoming more common on the internet, but it must have backfired here. My bad.

    I don’t know any Klansmen or Nazis. I do know a few QAnon types and other extremists who are Trump fans, who have really lost the plot, IMHO. I would classify them as “jerks”.

  101. 101
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev:

    Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting for an unsavory collection of KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias and Christian nationalists.

    Blood libel, walk it back.

    KF

  102. 102
    Truthfreedom says:

    98 Seversky

    You aren’t. Any more then I’m obliged to accept someone else’s subjective view of morality even if they try to justify it by claiming it comes from their preferred deity.

    The unsurmountable problem you have is that your worldview: evolution + atheism is objectively (logically) self-defeating.
    Such a deadly combination (evolution + atheism) poses a defeater that invalidates sound logic.

    Courtesy of Mr. Alvin Plantinga. A universal alkali to counter-act Darwins’s acid.

    Atheists Can’t Trust Reason (Or Anything)
    https://wmbriggs.com/post/22122/

    No amount of crying or praying to your goddess “evolution” will help you.
    Atheism can only be accepted on an irrational basis.

    You and your pals, the “champions” of logic.

  103. 103
    kairosfocus says:

    JaD,

    We face the challenge of inescapable moral government and where it points:

    We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

    KF

  104. 104
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, if you claim to value life but refuse to address the ongoing worst holocaust in human history, that tells. Really, really tells. KF

  105. 105
    vividbleau says:

    Daves

    How many were Nazis or Klansman?

    Vivid

  106. 106
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, disappointing. Endorsing blood libel. And that there are bad or ill-mannered people in any movement of significant scale is a given of the human condition: finite, fallible, morally struggling, too often ill-willed. KF

  107. 107
    Truthfreedom says:

    DaveS
    I am very busy. I will answer your questions (but later).

  108. 108
    kairosfocus says:

    Vivid, just out of curiosity, when last was there a public gathering of the KKK, in which FBI agents etc were not 1/4 or more of the crowd? How many actual members are left? KF

  109. 109
    daveS says:

    Vivid,

    Please see my edit above. 0 Klansmen or Nazis.

  110. 110
    vividbleau says:

    “Vivid, just out of curiosity, when last was there a public gathering of the KKK, in which FBI agents etc were not 1/4 or more of the crowd? “

    Well the only one that comes to mind was at KKK Robert Byrds funeral where he was eulogized by the Clintons and Biden. 🙂

    Of course we shouldn’t be surprised since the Klan was founded by Dems so they do have an affinity for them. I suppose that’s why Richard Spencer has endorsed Biden.

    Vivid

  111. 111
    daveS says:

    KF & Vivid,

    In replying to Sev, I meant that his was a good example of a positive-sounding slogan, where I do not endorse the views or activities of all the followers. I don’t mean to imply that they are mostly Nazis etc. Just like BLM is a positive slogan, but I don’t approve of the actions of every adherent of the “organization”.

  112. 112
    vividbleau says:

    DaveS
    Thank you.

    Vivid

  113. 113
    Seversky says:

    DaveS @ 86

    I was trying to think of such an example, and that’s a good one. I will add that some of my MAGA friends are unironically very good people, but there are a lot of jerks in the mix.

    I’m sure there are.

    If I were to judge Christianity in the US by some of its public faces – the prosperity gospelers, the megachurch pastors, the Christian dominionists/nationalists, the Westboro Baptist church and, to a lesser extent, some of the more fundamantalist churches – I would come away with an impression of a faith that is venal, corrupt and morally-depraved.

    But I know that not all Christians are like that. They are genuine, decent people. In fact I know of one small church that owns no buildings or property, their ‘clergy’ depend entirely on their congregations for support and they try to live a life as close to that of Jesus and his disciples as possible. I don’t share their belief in God but I respect their attempt to live by what I consider to be the core principles of their faith rather than using it as a springboard to personal fame, wealth and power.

  114. 114
    daveS says:

    Vivid,

    You’re welcome. I should have been clearer.

  115. 115
    daveS says:

    KF,

    DS, if you claim to value life but refuse to address the ongoing worst holocaust in human history, that tells. Really, really tells. KF

    I believe in doing what’s possible, with what you have. In a tutoring program, I would stick to the subject matter being taught, and let the students and parents deal with the abortion issue on their own.

  116. 116
    Truthfreedom says:

    97 DaveS

    Truthfreedom: There can only be one standard of goodness. Because if not, it is NOT a standard.

    DaveS: I’m not sure there can be such a thing. What is _the_ standard for judging whether a person is wealthy?

    I am not sure I understand this.
    Are you saying that “wealth” = “goodness”?

  117. 117
    Truthfreedom says:

    Seversky

    Since you and all other darwinians are so fond of pareidolia , look, Tjguy has left an EXCELLENT comment for you in another thread:
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/one-secret-of-darwinian-just-so-stories-is-boundless-imagination/#comments (@15)

    When you teach other people how to be “good Christians”, how can you be sure that your “arguments” make any sense?

    Perhaps your conclusions are pre-determined by the chemical interactions in your evolved monkey brain so that both you and I believe what we believe because of the brain that evolution blessed us with. We evolved to think the way we do and we really can’t do anything about that. That’s a lovely thought to dwell on because it makes real knowledge and truth inaccessible. We interpret the data the way we do because of the monkey brain we inherited.

    And how can you be sure that your conclusions about pareidolia make any sense too?

    Thank you Tjguy!

  118. 118
  119. 119
    daveS says:

    TF,

    No, I’m suggesting that the qualities “good” and “wealthy” are similar in a way, though. Goodness and wealth occur in different forms and to different degrees in people. Therefore I don’t think it’s possible to give a rule which will determine precisely whether a person is good or not. I think this is more obviously true of wealth, so I am using that as an analogy.

  120. 120
    Truthfreedom says:

    119 DaveS

    No, I’m suggesting that the qualities “good” and “wealthy” are similar in a way, though.

    If you say “good” and “wealthy” are “similar in a way”, that means you are saying that both are true (part of this reality/ existence).
    Now I ask:
    – Where does that “goodness” reside and how can you know it?

  121. 121
    Truthfreedom says:

    Seversky

    I am in need of help. I want to be a “good” person (or meat-robot ) and your 5th commandment compels me “not to derive an ought from an is”.
    Whence should I derive my “oughts” then?
    Kindly write it down:
    __________

  122. 122
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev:

    I have already pointed to your blood libel:

    Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting [–> notice, accusation of hiding a core agenda] for an unsavory collection [–> notice utterly imbalanced characterisation by one who doubtless would agree with “mostly peaceful protests”] of KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias [–> = Nazi SA storm troopers] and Christian nationalists. [–> = Nazis]

    It is time to walk it back.

    Otherwise, we have every right to hold you responsible for incitement in aftermath of the murder of a man just standing there in Portland and a lot more besides.

    This is an example of the juggernaut rolling I have mentioned above.

    FYI, the national socialist german worker’s party [= nazi party] meant the worker’s party and the socialist. Stalin’s propagandistic labeling of everyone who disagreed with him as fascist, thus fascism is right wing, needs to be corrected; notice even the unlamented Berlin Wall was labelled an anti-fascist barrier by the E German Communists, a big clue then and now on the agit prop and the signatures in it.

    Fascism is statist, politically mesianistic, politics of a Nietzschean superman above law coming to rescue the aggrieved identity group in times of crisis through Roman style Dictatorship, using totalitarian statism, bringing existing institutions under ideological control through various arrangements backed up by the Gestapo or equivalent. As its history and core claims show, it is an ideology of the left, yet another revision to the marxist scheme.

    Fascism is idolatrous and antichrist, not Christian. Which has been pointed out on record, courageously, in the Barmen Declaration of 1934. the projection of Christofascism as a stigma against Christians needs to stop, likewise invidious lumping together with islam-IST extremists (where we have on the table just now a demonstration that even most Muslims are not in agreement, with a current peace treaty with direct involvement of Mr Trump’s JEWISH son in law).

    The proper stand of the Christian, Biblical faith on racism etc is directly shown in the following texts:

    Ac 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,3 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us

    Gal 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave7 nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

    Yes, Christians have too often struggled with racism and the like, such are heresies. And, the projection, Christian nationalists, invites stigmatising the Christian faith, indeed the murder of the man in Portland may well in key part trace to that.

    It is time to walk back.

    KF

  123. 123
    Truthfreedom says:

    Seversky is praying to his neurochemicals to make him write a witty (and not severely fallacy-ridden) reply.
    But, hey, Seversky IS his neurochemicals.
    How can neurochemicals ask for help to themselves?

    What a conundrum for “Seversky”…
    Maybe some atheist “poofery” will help him. Poof-poofity-poof.

  124. 124
    kairosfocus says:

    TF, you are right to point to the challenge of accounting for rational responsible freedom required to warrant knowledge claims and make moral choices on evolutionary materialistic a priori ideological scientism and fellow travellers. Reducing mind to GIGO driven computational substrates ends in absurd self-referential incoherence and self-falsification. The worldview issue is absolutely central to the cultural, civilisational disintegration and mounting kinetics of a long brewing 4G insurgency and civil war in the geostrategic centre of the civilisation, the USA. KF

    PS: I have already exposed the core fallacy in you cannot derive ought from is. OUGHT and IS do pose a key gap, only capable of being bridged in the root of reality. There is just one serious candidate to provide that bridge, a familiar figure: the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being. One, worthy of our loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. So, the is and ought are unified in necessary, reality root being, framework to any possible world being conceived or actualised. Ought comes from God as IS, which is what Hume et al tried to push off the table of serious discussion, with a lot of effect. But, fundamentally fallaciously, begging big questions. Further, we know our moral government is pervasive, starting with reason itself:

    We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

  125. 125
    Truthfreedom says:

    I smell a “Seversk-ian” fallacy coming along.
    It’ll include:
    -“Slavery”
    -“Deuteronomy”
    – An “objective” moral pronouncement (although moral truths “do not exist”)
    -A strawman wearing a hat
    And:
    The SOURCE of atheism’s “wisdom” (“nothingness?”, “neurochemicals?”, Pastor R. Dawkins?)

  126. 126
    Truthfreedom says:

    124 Kairosfocus

    The worldview issue is absolutely central to the cultural, civilisational disintegration and mounting kinetics of a long brewing 4G insurgency and civil war in the geostrategic centre of the civilisation, the USA. KF

    Of course. It could not be any other way. Science is the “apple” being offered to mankind (again). It won’t end nicely.

  127. 127
  128. 128
    ET says:

    LoL! @ seversky:

    Any more then I’m obliged to accept someone else’s subjective view of morality even if they try to justify it by claiming it comes from their preferred deity.

    It is very telling that most of what we have called objective morals are actual laws with actual consequences for breaking them. So go ahead- break them and see how obliged you are to go to Court and then to prison.

  129. 129
    daveS says:

    TF,

    Where does that “goodness” reside and how can you know it?

    I don’t know that goodness resides anywhere; it’s an abstract thing as far as I can tell.

    I can tell my friend is good through his actions; in short, he makes the world a better place to live in (that’s one definition of a “good person” which I believe virtually everyone would accept).

    My friend is a good person today because, over his lifetime, he has cultivated the habit of making the world a better place to live in (that’s my belief, anyway). I’m sure he gives credit to Jesus for helping to develop his character over the years.

    I assume this line of questions is leading somewhere? Perhaps you could fast-forward to the chase.

  130. 130
    Truthfreedom says:

    129 DaveS

    I don’t know that goodness resides anywhere.

    But you are speaking of it. Meaning it “exists”. Meaning that it has to be located somewhere.
    Where?

    I assume this line of questions is leading somewhere? Perhaps you could fast-forward to the chase.

    I can not, because I can not assume what you are thinking. I need to hear (read) it coming out of your mouth (typing fingers).

    It can’t be done any other way. I am not “trolling” or being obtuse on purpose. It is a step-by-step process.

  131. 131
    Mac McTavish says:

    TF

    I am in need of help.

    I think this is something we can all agree on.

  132. 132
    ET says:

    Mac- why are you a quote-mining loser?

  133. 133
    RHolt says:

    TF

    But you are speaking of it. Meaning it “exists”.

    That doesn’t make any sense to me. ‘We’ can talk about unicorns, vampires, werewolves, orcs, hobbits, and Sauron and according to the logic you are trying to apply these things ‘must’ exist. I think we can speak of many things that don’t exist, e.g., alien technology found on Mars.

    TF

    Meaning that it has to be located somewhere.
    Where?

    So where do unicorns and hobbits exist if your premise is to be taken at face value as being true?

    TF

    I can not, because I can not assume what you are thinking.

    DaveS isn’t asking you to assume you know what he is thinking. He is asking what you are thinking?

  134. 134
    Truthfreedom says:

    131 Mac Mc Tavish
    Ouch.

    Now please explain me why do I need “help”.
    Have I done something “wrong”?
    (This only concerns atheists/ materialists. Theism is not incoherent: it offers an immutable foundation for morality- big ‘G’).

    Now, Mac, answer the question.

  135. 135
    daveS says:

    TF,

    But you are speaking of it. Meaning it “exists”. Meaning that it has to be located somewhere.
    Where?

    I believe the number 17 exists, but it’s not located anywhere. Is it?

    Anyway, I don’t have an answer for how and “where” abstract entities exist. A while back I downloaded a lengthy reading list on that subject (compiled by Ted Sider) which I hope to chip away at in the years I have left, but I don’t expect to come to a final answer.

  136. 136
    Truthfreedom says:

    131

    Truthfreedom:
    But you are speaking of it. Meaning it “exists”. (To DavidS).

    RHolt : That doesn’t make any sense to me. ‘We’ can talk about unicorns, vampires, werewolves, orcs, hobbits, and Sauron and according to the logic you are trying to apply these things ‘must’ exist. I think we can speak of many things that don’t.

    Materialism proposes that everything that exists is material, being coded by our “neurochemicals”. If our “neurochemicals” code for “fairies”, then “faires” HAVE TO EXIST (because “neurochemicals” are real).
    But WE KNOW that “fairies” do not exist (outside our heads/ imagination).
    Materialism contradicts itself. According to materialism, “fairies” (“neurochemicals”) both exist and not-exist at the same time.
    Incoherence.

  137. 137
    jerry says:

    I believe the number 17 exists, but it’s not located anywhere. Is it?

    It’s a relationship. Does a cousin, mother, teacher etc exist? Examples of them do just as examples of 17 exist but they are applied to physical entities and they become 17, cousins etc only in a relationship to another entity or entities.

    These abstract relationships are very useful for existing in the real world if just for communication clarity or as explanations of interactions between entities.

  138. 138
    Truthfreedom says:

    135 DaveS

    I believe the number 17 exists, but it’s not located anywhere. Is it?

    If you are a materialist (are you?), you affirm that everything that exists is material (per definition). So you can not logically say that you believe in only material things WHILE at the same time, you also believe in no material things (“numbers”).
    Incoherence.

    If I say I am a “reddist” (“everything” is “red”).
    I can not say at the same time that “I am a blueist” (blue exists).
    Then I would be a “reddist”-“blueist”. (A DUALIST).

    Reality would be to me “dual”.

  139. 139
    daveS says:

    TF,

    I’m not a materialist. I believe abstract things, which do not have a location in space or time, do exist. As I said, I don’t know exactly how they exist, but I believe they are just as real as concrete things.

    Edit: IOW, I believe both material things, e.g., rocks, and nonmaterial things, e.g., numbers, exist.

    Edit 2: If it helps move things along, I believe there most likely are no gods. I can’t be certain, of course.

  140. 140
    jerry says:

    I can’t be certain, of course

    Thesis, an omniscient God would make sure there was no certainty.

    Why? If there were certainty one way or the other then life would be meaningless.

    I posted this concept a few years ago and Kf, proceeded to go through a long discussion of why there is a God. My response to his very good analysis is that it would sway no one or probably almost no one.

    I believe BA77 just posted a long list of why atheism is deficient. And I agree but again it will sway very few. Beliefs are based more on emotions rather than evidence and logic.

    Of course once you convince someone that atheism is nonsense that does not lead to any particular creator. Deism was once popular in the world and I assume there are still a fair number. There are still some pagans too. There are also believers in other types of gods besides the Judeo/Christian God, maybe even some Manichaeans.

  141. 141
    Truthfreedom says:

    139 DaveS

    I’m not a materialist. I believe abstract things, which do not have a location in space or time, do exist.

    “Darwinian evolution” is an abstract concept.
    So according to what you wrote, “darwinian evolution” “does not have a location in space or time”.

  142. 142
    daveS says:

    Yes, the abstract concept “Darwinian evolution” has no spacetime coordinates.

  143. 143
    Truthfreedom says:

    140 Jerry

    I believe BA77 just posted a long list of why atheism is deficient. And I agree but again it will sway very few. Beliefs are based more on emotions rather than evidence and logic.

    They can choose not to believe in God.
    But they can no longer play the “we are the rational ones” and deists/ theists “the stupid ones”.
    Because emotions =/= logic.

    Because as I always say, logic is a very demanding mistress . If you dismiss “her”, she will bite you “in the rear end”.

    Materialism has been betrayed by its own mistress.
    Logic dictates that materialism is A FALSE WORLDVIEW.

    We won.

  144. 144
    Truthfreedom says:

    142 DaveS

    Yes, the abstract concept “Darwinian evolution” has no spacetime coordinates.

    Then Darwin discovered something that is “beyond space and time”.

  145. 145
    daveS says:

    If by “beyond space and time”, you simply mean “not located in spacetime”, yes. Like how Edwin Hubble discovered Hubble’s Law.

  146. 146
    Mac McTavish says:

    KF

    It is time to walk it back.

    Otherwise, we have every right to hold you responsible for incitement in aftermath of the murder of a man just standing there in Portland and a lot more besides.

    KF, I think you have missed Sev’s point. You can’t lump all MAGA hat wearers in with the white-supremacists, neo-Nazis, etc who wear MAGA hats. Any more than you can lump all BLM protesters in with those that loot and burn.

  147. 147
    Truthfreedom says:

    It has been decades of bullying, prosecuting and killing (by the MILLIONS) theists/ deists by atheists/ marxists.
    Ridiculed because “we believe in fairy-tales”.
    Expelled from academia.
    Forced to accept “marriages” that do not exist and the also inexistent “right to kill your own defenseless children in the womb”.
    Being denigrated and told we are “useless”, nothing but “monkeys” and “bodily fluids”/ “neurochemicals”.

    Because atheism is “cool” (although IRRATIONAL). You convert to it willingly or unwillingly.

    The atheist jihad.

  148. 148
    Truthfreedom says:

    145 DaveS

    If by “beyond space and time”, you simply mean “not located in spacetime”,

    If something (“darwinian theory”) is “not located in space and time”;
    Where is it?

  149. 149
    daveS says:

    TF,

    I already said in #135 I don’t know the answer to that question, which I understand is vigorously debated by philosophers.

    Where do you think abstract concepts are “located”?

  150. 150
    kairosfocus says:

    MMT, on a weekend where someone was just murdered for the capital crime of wearing a patriot prayer hat, such accusation loaded invidious associations are exposed as blood libel. They need to be walked back. KF

  151. 151
    Truthfreedom says:

    139 DaveS

    I already said in #135 I don’t know the answer to that question, (where does the”darwinian theory/ abstract concept” reside) which I understand is vigorously debated by philosophers.

    Darwin’s brain= physical = located in space-time.
    “Darwinian theory” was inside Darwin’s head (“brain”). (He “discovered” it).
    But the theory was “inside” and “outside” his brain at the same time (theories are abstract/ not physical).
    Materialism + darwinian theory = incompatible.
    Darwinian theory implies dualism.

  152. 152
    daveS says:

    TF,

    If something is abstract, it can’t be inside one’s brain, can it?

    Edit: I don’t believe you have a sound argument here. Consider it from the point of view of someone who claims to be a physicalist.

  153. 153
    jerry says:

    If something is abstract, it can’t be inside one’s brain, can it?

    I believe some have argued that neuron connections would explain this. They can create exquisite colored dreams which give the appearance of being real. Any abstract concept probably resides in some neuron connections just as memories do or made up things found in dreams and stories.

    The story doesn’t exist on a piece of paper or sound wave but in our heads after reading it or hearing it.

  154. 154
    Mac McTavish says:

    KF

    MMT, on a weekend where someone was just murdered for the capital crime of wearing a patriot prayer hat, such accusation loaded invidious associations are exposed as blood libel.

    KF, you might want to rethink your over-the-top blusterings.

    Blood Libel: an accusation that Jewish people used the blood of Christians in religious rituals, especially in the preparation of Passover bread, that was perpetrated throughout the Middle Ages and (sporadically) until the early 20th century.

  155. 155
    ET says:

    Umm, Mac, given the context it is obvious kf was talking about a “false and maliciously perpetrated accusation”. Get out of the box, mac

  156. 156
    Seversky says:

    Kairosfocus @ 122

    I have already pointed to your blood libel:

    According to Wikipedia, as Mac McTavish has already pointed out, “blood libel”

    … is an antisemitic canard[3][4][5] which accuses Jews of murdering Christian children in order to use their blood as part of religious rituals.[1][2][6] Historically, these claims—alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration—have been a major theme of the persecution of Jews in Europe

    As far as I’m aware, we have not been discussing this medieval “fake news” story

    Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting [–> notice, accusation of hiding a core agenda] for an unsavory collection [–> notice utterly imbalanced characterisation by one who doubtless would agree with “mostly peaceful protests”] of KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias [–> = Nazi SA storm troopers] and Christian nationalists. [–> = Nazis]

    Apart from a very few token mild denunciations, the President of the United States is apparently quite comfortable with the support of these groups, which they appear to have interpreted not unnaturally as encouragement. He has also been dropping heavy hints about rejecting the outcome of the next election should he lose and wanting to be allowed to serve a third term. Where do you think that will end? Most recently, he has been making inflammatory accusations against the media which, given the volatility of some of his supporters, is both irresponsible and highly dangerous.

    It is time to walk it back.

    What exactly would you like me to walk back? Are you prepared to walk back your support for a man with alarmingly autocratic tendencies?

    Otherwise, we have every right to hold you responsible for incitement in aftermath of the murder of a man just standing there in Portland and a lot more besides.

    I have not incited anyone to violence but it is only going to get worse while we have a man who clearly sees inflaming the situation rather than trying to cool things down as a path to re-election. He is playing with fire but other people have paid and will pay with their lives.

    FYI, the national socialist german worker’s party [= nazi party] meant the worker’s party and the socialist.

    I am well aware that Nazi was the common abbreviation of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. I think we are both aware of how the Nazis rose to power in part by exacerbating and exploiting the very real fear of the German people of social, political and economic instability and potential collapse. My parents and those of their generation had to fight in a second world war against the gangster regime of the Third Reich which followed the Nazis successful exploitation of those conditions. The real lesson to be learned is not that the Nazis were a peculiarly German phenomenon but that if it happened there it could happen anywhere, including the US. I don’t think you want that any more than I do.

    Fascism is statist, politically mesianistic, politics of a Nietzschean superman above law coming to rescue the aggrieved identity group in times of crisis through Roman style Dictatorship, using totalitarian statism, bringing existing institutions under ideological control through various arrangements backed up by the Gestapo or equivalent. As its history and core claims show, it is an ideology of the left, yet another revision to the marxist scheme.

    It doesn’t really matter whether the various “isms” are to the right or left of the political spectrum. When the checks and balances of a democratic society are swept aside the way is open for whoever is prepared to be the most ruthless and violent in their pursuit of power to seize absolute control of the state. That is the real danger here.

  157. 157
    vividbleau says:

    Evidently Sev wants us to believe that Trump is the one inciting violence
    https://mobile.twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/1300290897922453504?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1300290897922453504%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fsamj-3930%2F2020%2F08%2F31%2Fmost-important-video-of-2020-every-time-a-democrat-blames-trump-for-the-violence-show-them-this-damning-video-of-themselves%2F

    That Trump will not accept election results when just the other day it was Nancy ( going to the hair salon, eating her 20$ a pint out of her 20,000 refrigerator) Pelosi, that told the politician Joe ( been in office 47 years, sponsor of the 1994 crime bill that disproportionately targeted minorities, eulogized a klansman, who did not want his children to be in a racial jungle) Biden ,not to accept the election results.

    Sev wants us all to live in the alternative universe.he inhabits that is totally disconnected from realty.

    Vivid

  158. 158
    Truthfreedom says:

    152 DaveS

    Edit: I don’t believe you have a sound argument here. Consider it from the point of view of someone who claims to be a physicalist.

    A “physicalist” can not even coherently explain that “darwinian evolution” is “true”.
    To a physicalist, “darwinian theory” is just another “neurophysiological state”.
    But “neurophysiological states” are neither “true” nor “false”. They are simply connections between neurons, difference potentials, rates of fire, and all the causal inputs and outputs.
    -A “neurophysiological state” is not a “truth” bearer.
    – How can a “difference potential” “know” if another “difference potential” is “true” or “false”???
    Truth does not exist for the physicalist.
    Therefore, physicalism is incoherent.

  159. 159
    Truthfreedom says:

    152 DaveS

    If something is abstract, it can’t be inside one’s brain, can it?

    Darwin (a “brain located in space-time”) discovered “darwinian evolution” (something that “is not located in space-time”). (According to you, post #145).
    So Darwin was part of a dual reality. One “concrete” (his “physical brain”) and one “abstract” (the “evolutive idea”).
    Accepting “darwinian theory” = accepting dualism.

    Answering your question: “ideas” are then not “located’ in brains.

  160. 160
    Truthfreedom says:

    157 Vividbleau

    Sev wants us all to live in the alternative universe he inhabits that is totally disconnected from realty.

    Seversky is descending Mt. Sinai, overburdened with his tables.
    Only one carving appears there, and it reads as follows:
    Thou shall not derive an ought from an is.
    And now Seversky teaches us:
    Whence to derive our “oughts” then.

    Seversky, kindly, write it down.
    1. __________

  161. 161
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry, the neuronal patterns, pulse repetition rates etc REPRESENT the abstracta, they don’t embody such. Meaningful (not merely functional) communication with understanding is itself an abstract thing, involving many layers of relationships. It is in our MINDS, not primarily in our heads. KF

    PS: Interesting how a worldviews issue emerges from a discussion on tumbling into deeper, even more destructive conflict.

  162. 162
    kairosfocus says:

    TF, I already pointed out how we can bridge the IS-OUGHT gap, which can only be in the root of reality on pain of ungrounded ought as Hume et al pointed out. What is being question-beggingly assumed (often implicitly) is that you cannot have IS-es that are inherently moral, when in fact that is precisely what we are by virtue of being significantly free . . . or else we cannot be rational. Once we recognise freedom, we see choice and it is natural to recognise wise/unwise, true/false, warranted/ unwarranted, good/bad etc. In that context we see that the mechanical and statistical laws governing inanimate matter are one thing, the guidance of choice to the good is wholly another. Plato long ago noted that the en-souled is the self-moved, not merely reflexive due to memory and feedback. Genuine initiative requires power of choice, thence he argued to the roots of reality in the supremely good soul. And that is precisely the answer, we were made to achieve the good, but goods of mind and freedom are moral so morally governed. Which ties back into government of the community starting with self-government. We have undermined the worldviews foundation of sound government and are beginning to pay the price. KF

  163. 163
    kairosfocus says:

    Vivid, the agit prop tactic of turnabout projection of accusations is notorious and invites using the mirror principle. It is those who betrayed the academy who led us into a worldviews and ideological morass, an utterly incoherent moral-cultural chaos. They hold institutional high ground, want to remake civilisation in their image (too often involving perversities starting with the holocaust of 800+ million of our living posterity in the womb), imagine that twisting things out of proper end is freedom rather than chaotic evil, pose Euthyphro and IS-OUGHT gap as though such discredit knowable moral law and duty, then appeal to the very first duties they deny to try to manipulate us to follow their lead in a march of folly. For all his many blatant faults, Mr Trump is an outsider and is brash enough to directly challenge the Emperor’s nakedness. Their BATNAs are being challenged, and they fear loss of licence to do as they please with us as the Overton window threatens to shift back. They have likely never truly learned or absorbed the lessons of failure of Athenian democracy and Roman Republic, much less many other cases and do not understand why moral-cultural buttresses are vital to sustainability of democratic freedom under justice. So, we see Red Guards being sponsored, enabled, mobilised and presented as heroes against fascist tyranny, excusing rioting, burning, looting, mob swarmings and beatings, now murders. Now they are shocked to find support eroding and try to cast blame on handy targets. What is really needed is to expose culture form marxism and its follies, then return to sounder worldview frames. Frames, they have demonised and caricatured through one sided narratives substituted for sound history and news; truth they have despised, now it comes back with teeth. So, expect heightened conflict and chaos. As I keep saying, six to eighteen months, a bit less now. KF

  164. 164
    Truthfreedom says:

    162 Kairosfocus

    TF, I already pointed out how we can bridge the IS-OUGHT gap, which can only be in the root of reality on pain of ungrounded ought as Hume et al pointed out. What is being question-beggingly assumed (often implicitly) is that you cannot have IS-es that are inherently moral, when in fact that is precisely what we are by virtue of being significantly free . . . or else we cannot be rational.

    If we are part of “nature” and “nature” is ”brutal”, then it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to be anything but “brutal”. “Mindless” “nature” can NOT give what “she” does not have (kindness, justice).

    If I were a BAV (brain.in.a.vat), I could not know that I am a brain in a vat.
    BAV means that you are “programmed” “to be cheated”, not to understand your real “nature” (BAV).
    Knowing the concept BAV means that I know exactly the true nature of existence.

    Knowing there is “goodness” (“morals”), I know I am a part of “nature” but that THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING ELSE.

    Big ‘G’.

  165. 165
    Truthfreedom says:

    162 Kairosfocus

    starting with self-government.

    Everything stems from this.

    “Love thy neighbour as thyself”.
    You can not love your neighbour if you hate yourself.
    And it is impossible to love yourself if you are degraded to the level of a useless monkey whose only redeeming value is being a good soil fertilizer.

    No matter what the atheist jihad says.
    Their worldview is OBJECTIVELY DEFICIENT, SELF-REFERENTIAL ABSURD and therefore, FALSE.

    Atheism CAN NOT bridge the IS-OUGHT gap, no matter how much they appeal to their stupid “goddess” “natural selection”.

    Logic dixit.

  166. 166
    Truthfreedom says:

    The cat is now inside the bag.
    Big ‘G’ is allowed to return from exile.
    That “foot” has been kicking the “door” since forever. (Lewontin).
    Because it is his friggin’ door.
    It is his friggin’ creation.

  167. 167
    Truthfreedom says:

    161 Kairosfocus

    PS: Interesting how a worldviews issue emerges from a discussion on tumbling into deeper, even more destructive conflict.

    It could not be any other way 🙂
    There’s a Master Plan to everything.
    And it is NOT “grounded” in “matter”.
    We Christians can offer a coherent (therefore TRUE) worldview.

    Materialism even undermines its flagship ship “science”. Because matter can NOT ground knowledge, and NO knowledge = NO science (how curious that ‘science’ comes from the latin scire = know).

    We CAN NOT PRACTICE SCIENCE WITHOUT SOMETHING THAT GUARANTEES THE RELIABILTY OF OUR COGNITIVE FACULTIES.
    And matter undergoing “darwinian processes” can not.

    Therefore: Big ‘G’. (Or can anyone offer a ‘better’ alternative?)

  168. 168
    daveS says:

    TF,

    I’ll begin with the last things you said:

    Accepting “darwinian theory” = accepting dualism.

    Whether this is true or not, of course I have already stated that I am a dualist in the sense that I believe there are two kinds of entities, abstract ones and concrete ones.

    Answering your question: “ideas” are then not “located’ in brains.

    If that’s an acceptable answer, why did you ask the question again in #148? I already indicated that ideas are not located in brains in #142.

    ****

    Backing up to #151, here’s your argument, where I’ve numbered your steps:

    1. Darwin’s brain= physical = located in space-time.

    2. “Darwinian theory” was inside Darwin’s head (“brain”). (He “discovered” it).

    3. But the theory was “inside” and “outside” his brain at the same time (theories are abstract/ not physical).

    4. Materialism + darwinian theory = incompatible.

    5. Darwinian theory implies dualism.

    I’ll paraphrase/rewrite the first few steps and add a few comments:

    1. Darwin’s brain was physical, and was located in spacetime. No problems here

    2. Darwin’s theory was inside Darwin’s brain (at some point in time). I guess a physicalist could say something like this. Presumably Darwin’s theory could have also been in other people’s brains, in books, and so forth after it was published as well.

    3. Theories are nonphysical, so Darwin’s theory could not have been in his brain. No one, physicalist or dualist, would say this, immediately after stating the opposite in #2.

    If you want to be taken seriously, you’re going to have to present an argument without a blatant contradiction in the first few lines.

  169. 169
    john_a_designer says:

    In a recent issue of National Review John McCormack notes that the 2020 Democratic National Convention quite surprisingly took a “muted approach to the issue of abortion.” This was a stark contrast with the 2012 and 2016 DNC’s which he describes as “pro-abortion extravaganzas.” He then goes on to discuss several reasons why he thinks 2020 was so different but it was the last reason he gives that I find is the most ironic.

    Amid the pandemic that has taken 170,000 American lives, a major theme of the convention was the dignity and worth of every human life. Vice-presidential nominee Kamala Harris spoke on Wednesday night about the Biden–Harris commitment to “a vision of our nation as a Beloved Community — where all are welcome, no matter what we look like, where we come from, or who we love. A country where we may not agree on every detail, but we are united by the fundamental belief that every human being is of infinite worth, deserving of compassion, dignity and respect.”

    Biden said in his acceptance speech that “as God’s children each of us have a purpose in our lives.” He spoke of the need for America to “finally live up to and make real the words written in the sacred documents that founded this nation that all men and women are created equal. Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/democratic-convention-downplays-abortion/

    Well, maybe it’s not really ironic, rather maybe it’s more like it is downright hypocritical. Unfortunately for some reason hypocrites are never able to see their own hypocrisy. Indeed they love to self-righteously proclaim their “wokeness.” But don’t dare criticize them for virtue signalling. They’ll get offended and they have a right to not be offended. Most of the rest of us don’t have that right but they do– well, at least they think the do.

  170. 170
    daveS says:

    TF,

    Are you an evo engaging in some very unsubtle trolling? Or perhaps playing around with GPT-3? 🙂

  171. 171
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, you tried a sidetrack, there is not just one blood libel out there and you know it; especially as specifics were given. Game over kiddo, you are now officially classified as a slanderous troll driven by utter, inexcusable bigotry. Credibility, nil. KF

  172. 172
    daveS says:

    Whoa. 😟

  173. 173
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, what conclusion do you expect, given what was done and the attempt to play rhetorical games when called on it? The defamation, the blood libel was meant. Duly noted. KF

  174. 174
    daveS says:

    KF,

    I just wasn’t prepared for such a savage evisceration.

  175. 175
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, blood libel leads to bloodshed. KF

  176. 176
    Truthfreedom says:

    168 DaveS
    The “contradiction” you mention is due to the mix/ conflation of the 2 different P.O.V.
    Each one has to be argued separately.

    It’s late. I will continue tomorrow.

  177. 177
    kairosfocus says:

    MMT (ATTN Seversky & DS):

    This is the focus of my objection and calling out, for cause:

    [Seversky, 83:] Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting [–> notice, accusation of hiding a core agenda] for an unsavory collection [–> notice utterly imbalanced characterisation by one who doubtless would agree with “mostly peaceful protests”] of KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias [–> = Nazi SA storm troopers] and Christian nationalists. [–> = Nazis]

    Do you see the key word, fronting and the utter want of responsible balance, coming mere days after someone was cold bloodedly murdered, mafia hit man style on the streets of Portland (there is no serious reason to even suggest self-defence)?

    A front group etc is short for false stalking horse front as maskirovka, i.e. the direct implication is that the advocates of the slogan are at best dupes used to provide cover for the following list, a list that makes several invidious associations that stigmatise and scapegoat. Such is clear blood libel (which does not just apply to events hundreds of years ago as was suggested in attempted red herrings).

    The resort to red herring tactics indicates that those trying such stunts know their assertions are indefensible. Which, they are. Blood libel leads to blood, as was shown by the Portland hit on the weekend past.

    I could go on to address the wider agit prop, deconstruct the civilisation tactics being used by culture form marxists, as can be shown in significant details. (Indeed, see my immediately following OP on so-called Critical Race Theory and a whistleblower at Sandia Labs; a context that instantly shows this is no marginal fringe, it is coming into a core US top secret facility through its HR department, so we can readily infer it is “everywhere.” Note, the slides I annotated are in fact well substantiated.) A link suffices.

    The point is, that critical race theory so called directly asserts and implies that:

    Critical race theory (CRT), the view that the law and legal institutions are inherently racist and that race itself, instead of being biologically grounded and natural, is a socially constructed concept that is used by white people to further their economic and political interests at the expense of people of colour. According to critical race theory (CRT), racial inequality emerges from the social, economic, and legal differences that white people create between “races” to maintain elite white interests in labour markets and politics, giving rise to poverty and criminality in many minority communities. The CRT movement officially organized itself in 1989, at the first annual Workshop on Critical Race Theory, though its intellectual origins go back much further, to the 1960s and ’70s.

    The launch of the CRT movement marked its separation from critical legal studies (CLS), an offshoot of critical theory that examined how the law and legal institutions function to perpetuate oppression and exploitation. [Enc Brit. Critical Theories/Studies are directly rooted in the Frankfurt School of Marxism (with others) and linked advocacy of revolution by long march through cultural institutions. Alinsky Community Organisers and Rules for Radicals are also connected.]

    That is no marginal fringe argument, it is at the heart of say the 1619 project etc and is an attempt to deconstruct and delegitimise our civilisation and its main worldview, ethical and theological tradition. This theory’s signature is also all over the various movements that are now operating red guards on the streets as already noted. If you don’t understand what red Guards are and do, here, again is Wikipedia speaking against known ideological interest, forced to do so by massive and horrific evidence:

    Red Guards (simplified Chinese: ???; traditional Chinese: ???; pinyin: Hóng Wèib?ng) was a mass student-led paramilitary social movement mobilized and guided by Chairman Mao Zedong in 1966 through 1967, during the first phase of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, which he had instituted.[1] According to a Red Guard leader, the movement’s aims were as follows:

    Chairman Mao has defined our future as an armed revolutionary youth organization…. So if Chairman Mao is our Red-Commander-in-Chief and we are his Red Guards, who can stop us? First we will make China Maoist from inside out and then we will help the working people of other countries make the world red…and then the whole universe.[2]

    Despite being met with resistance early on, the Red Guards received personal support from Mao, and the movement rapidly grew. The movement in Beijing culminated during the “Red August” of 1966, which later spread to other areas in mainland China.[3][4] Mao made use of the group as propaganda and to accomplish goals such as seizing power and destroying symbols of China’s pre-communist past (“Four Olds”), including ancient artifacts and gravesites of notable Chinese figures. Moreover, the government was very permissive of the Red Guards, and even allowed the Red Guards to inflict bodily harm on people viewed as dissidents . . . .

    In August 1966, the 11th Plenum of the CPC Central Committee had ratified the ‘Sixteen Articles’, a document that stated the aims of the Cultural Revolution and the role students would be asked to play in the movement. After the 18 August rally, the Cultural Revolution Group directed the Red Guards to attack the ‘Four Olds’ of Chinese society (i.e., old customs, old culture, old habits, and old ideas). For the rest of the year, Red Guards marched across China in a campaign to eradicate the ‘Four Olds’. Old books and art were destroyed, museums were ransacked, and streets were renamed with new revolutionary names, adorned with pictures and the sayings of Mao.[14] Many famous temples, shrines, and other heritage sites in Beijing were attacked.[15] [Of course, it also came to abuses of people and murder, with many being induced to suicide also. There are reports on how far it went in remote areas that shock the conscience beyond all bounds.]

    If that does not instantly remind you of what has been happening for past months, I will simply say there is none so blind as s/he who refuses to see.

    I should note too that nazism and fascism were ideologies of the left, totalitarian statist, nietzschean superman political messianism pivoting on the narrative of rescue of a key aggrieved identity group by a political saviour beyond ordinary law and morality; actually being a consciously reworked form of marxist thought after the failure of the hoped for international proletarian revolution in the context of the great war, similar to today’s culture form marxism and associated so called critical X-theories. (See link.)

    Notice the sort of accusations that are being made against our civilisation in general, and one of its greatest achievements, constitutional democratic self government of a key people with government seen as mandated to protect God-given, unalienable rights. it is not for nothing that the reply to the 2nd para of the US DoI is in effect to try to taint its authors and more broadly the emerging state they founded and framed. We have all rights of prudence to ask, what is being advocated by those who would overthrow the cultural buttresses of such democracy and use deconstructionist revisionism to try to taint and delegitimise it. The answer comes back, the sort of tyrannical ideologically driven oligarchy and mob rule that we see already being foreshadowed in the streets by today’s red guards.

    In that context, as responsible thread owner I have more than justification to call blood libel and demand walking back of demonstrably deadly false accusation.

    KF

  178. 178
    daveS says:

    KF,

    right-wing militias [–> = Nazi SA storm troopers]

    This is perilously close to “blood libel” itself. Some of these militia members are probably Nazis, but I doubt it’s a significant fraction. A lot of them are just boomers who like to run around in the woods with guns.

  179. 179
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, I am quoting Seversky, who put the assertion in a context:

    [Seversky, 83:] Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting [–> notice, accusation of hiding a core agenda] for an unsavory collection [–> notice utterly imbalanced characterisation by one who doubtless would agree with “mostly peaceful protests”] of KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias [–> = Nazi SA storm troopers] and Christian nationalists. [–> = Nazis]

    Notice, “fronting [–> notice, accusation of hiding a core agenda] for an unsavory collection [–> notice utterly imbalanced characterisation by one who doubtless would agree with “mostly peaceful protests”].” FRONTING, for AN UNSAVOURY COLLECTION. What is that list, “KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias [–> = Nazi SA storm troopers] and Christian nationalists. [–> = (let me expand, Christofascist) Nazis].” Where, recall, the standard assertion of the radical left from Stalin on, is that the fascists are “right wing,” and the “right wing” is fascist. That association, in the teeth of considerable evidence, is generally taken for granted by many likely most. (As a youngster in school that was standard. Learning what nazi really means gave me huge pause and further investigation led to a very different understanding.)

    KF

  180. 180
    daveS says:

    Yeah, but you’re implying that by “right-wing militias” Seversky means Nazis. Which is not evident from the text. It seems like you are exaggerating a tad.

  181. 181
    daveS says:

    Somewhat related, regarding miscommunication between our two tribes—I read a post yesterday I believe, concerning this statement Michelle Obama made during the DNC:

    If you think things cannot possibly get worse, trust me—they can, and they will, if we don’t make a change in this election…

    I can’t remember which thread it was in. The poster interpreted this statement as a threat of retaliation by the left if Trump wins the election. I understand it to mean that if Trump wins, he and his allies will make things worse. Who’s right? I think I am.

  182. 182
    Truthfreedom says:

    DaveS, from your post #168

    “Physicalist” P.O.V.

    Working assumption:
    1. Darwin’s brain was physical, and was located in spacetime. DaveS: no problems here.

    2. Darwin’s theory was inside Darwin’s brain (at some point in time). 
    DaveS: I guess a physicalist could say something like this.
    Me: a “physicalist” has
    to say this. Physical Darwin — physical head/skull — physical brain (inside his head).
    Again: this means (for the “physicalist”) that the “darwinian theory” was born (at some point in time), inside Darwin’s brain (brain being located inside his head).

    Up to this point, any objection?

  183. 183
    daveS says:

    TF,

    I don’t have any objections at this point, but that could be due to my ignorance of physicalism.

    Edit: I know it sounds weasely, but I just want to be clear I’m not claiming to be making a competent defense of physicalism.

  184. 184
    Truthfreedom says:

    183 DaveS
    Your reply doesn’t make any sense.
    You can not say you “do not have objections” about something “you do not know’.

  185. 185
    daveS says:

    Eh? I don’t know much about physicalism, so there could be problems with your statements in #182 that I am unaware of. But I can’t identify any at the moment.

  186. 186
    ET says:

    If Biden wins things will get much worse than they are now. The guy is a career politician with no idea how to run a business, let alone a country.

  187. 187
    Mac McTavish says:

    KF

    Do you see the key word, fronting and the utter want of responsible balance, coming mere days after someone was cold bloodedly murdered, mafia hit man style on the streets of Portland (there is no serious reason to even suggest self-defence)?

    It is a fact that some of the groups that Sev mentioned use Trump’s MAGA slogan and movement to justify their individual brands of hatred. You can’t condemn all Trump supporters because of the actions of a few of his supporters. Just as you can’t condemn all BLM supporters because of the actions of a small group that have latched onto that movement to justify their own unique brand of hatred.

    With respect, might I suggest that your reaction to Sev’s comment has more to do with your particular worldview and the biases entailed than it does with the actual meaning and intent of his comment.

  188. 188
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, ‘right wing + Militias” routinely means nazi or fascist in much of the discourse. Put it in company as given and with fronting, and you see my concern. As for things will get worse, ask yourself, who have been rioting, burning, looting, attacking cultural icons and proposing revolution in the streets for months now. In that context, which is of course downplayed or even dismissed by many major media houses hoping to dominate the narrative, the words you cited do take on sobering colour. Mix in things like election night vote count goes one way, thereafter highly questionable mail in balloting(as opposed to proper absentee voting with its checks and balances) will reverse the verdict and the like and some of the context becomes clear for my warning that over 6 – 18 months and counting down now, an in progress 4G civil war will reach strategic decision, and will wreak untold, incalculable havoc with serious geostrategic consequences. Looking on as a concerned neighbour, I can only plead that your troubles have global, potentially devastating implications. KF

  189. 189
    jerry says:

    A great comment from Scott Adams

    How do you tell someone (or some group) that their strategy for a better life has never worked for any human, and will never work for them either?

    Could certainly be applied to BLM and white supremacists. Aren’t both of the left. I could never understand the use of “right” to describe anything in current politics. “Left,” yes but not “right.”

  190. 190
    kairosfocus says:

    MMT,

    you are simply enabling blood libel. Unsurprising, on your track record at UD.

    Notice, the utter want of balance, the direct implication of false front for Nazism in direct and veiled form and more:

    [Seversky, 83:] Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting [–> notice, accusation of hiding a core agenda] for an unsavory collection [–> notice utterly imbalanced characterisation by one who doubtless would agree with “mostly peaceful protests”] of KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias [–> = Nazi SA storm troopers] and Christian nationalists. [–> = Christofascist Nazis]

    I put it to you that you have tried to soften what was done after the fact, with no accountability for the blood libel.

    That tells us all we need to know.

    KF

  191. 191
    daveS says:

    KF,

    So you think Michelle Obama was dog-whistling a threat then?

  192. 192
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, on physicalism, there is no stable mod point between, mind reduces to brain as GIGO limited inherently non-rational computational substrate and poof magic emergence which smuggles in elements of a contrary worldview . . . theism, pantheism or the like . . . to get around difficulties. On the first pole, self-referential incoherence emerges. On the second, physicalism is implicitly abandoned. KF

  193. 193
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, I think she is caught up in the polarisation of the moment and projects to the despised other, imagining that those she champions will be justifiably resisting nazis and enablers of nazis as well as those knowingly fronting for them. In short, the US is in material part now in a media distorted plato’s cave world of dangerously destructive shadow shows. Some call it the fog of war. Meanwhile she is actually enabling a situation where the juggernaut is already rolling. I shake my head and remember what I have already seen play out. KF

  194. 194
    daveS says:

    I’ll take that as “no” (or perhaps “no comment” on that specific question).

  195. 195
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, what I have implied is that the question is mal-formed. It cannot be simplistically answered. What is clear is the polarisation in such a situation will lead to dangerous projections that feed into the already accelerating kinetic aspect of the 4G war in progress. My view is, the aftermath of the election will be pivotal, and unfortunately is likely to be bloody as well as chaotic and economically destructive, possibly making shipwreck of the credibility of the US political system. Which can be disguised cf the early Roman Empire. On the scenario of a Trump election night win (with or without mail in vote chaos) many will have been led to believe a new Hitler has emerged as Chancellor, and current chaos would with high probability accelerate. Beyond a certain point, people are going to fight for their lives, homes, businesses and families regardless of narratives and some will reach the nothing left to lose level. The Red Guard rioting is approaching a threshold you don’t want to cross. KF

  196. 196
    daveS says:

    KF,

    If my question cannot be answered with a “yes” or “no”, I think that would mean that the statement “Michelle Obama was dog-whistling a threat [in the instance cited]” has no truth value.

    Or, if we unpack it a bit, the statement:

    Michelle Obama intended to send a coded message to her followers. The message was that if Trump wins in November, then the left will retaliate, making things worse than they presently are.

    has no truth value.

  197. 197
    Truthfreedom says:

    168 DaveS
    So you do not understand the meaning of “physical”?
    You wrote

    I am a dualist in the sense that I believe there are two kinds of entities, abstract ones and concrete ones.

    “Abstract” meaning?

  198. 198
    daveS says:

    TF,

    I think I understand what “physical” means fairly well. I’ll refer to a dictionary if I need clarification.

    An abstract entity is an entity that does not have spacetime coordinates. At least that’s how I understand the term.

  199. 199
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, let me give a key historical example. As Europe tumbled into the abyss in July to September 1914, almost every country saw itself as acting defensibly for itself or an ally or guaranteed buffer state. Including Germany; one reason why it spiralled so deeply out of control. Fog of war. At this point I believe many perceive the despised deplorables much in the terms Seversky used, and would see a defeat for their favoured party as catastrophic. Given the Red Guards already on the streets for months — cf again the direct parallels pointed out — and enabling behaviour of local officials, the exceeding danger is patent. It is that that I am speaking to, it does not at all need to be deliberate double speak to be dangerous. I mark the difference between making threats and acting in ways that are dangerously threatening, i.e. escalatory. KF

  200. 200
    Truthfreedom says:

    DaveS

    I’ll refer to a dictionary if I need clarification.

    I am not being snarky. Ok. Let’s imagine you want to gain knowledge about something and read the dictionary.
    Although this part may seem pretty obvious, it is very important for the argument:
    -I assume you accept the findings of the natural sciences and you consider your brain “physical” (locatable by spacetime coordinates).
    Am I right?

  201. 201
    daveS says:

    KF,

    I think your answer to my question would then be something like “not necessarily”; presumably you simply don’t know Ms Obama’s intentions well enough to answer “yes” or “no” confidently.

    TF,

    Yes, I believe my brain is physical.

  202. 202
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, I think a far more likely explanation is polarised, toxic fog of war; as opposed to the binary alternatives you suggest; political arms races and polarisation have spiralled up and someone had the bright idea to start playing with culture form marxism. Which is contributing to the speeding up of the juggernaut. I don’t like it but I smell trouble. KF

  203. 203
    Truthfreedom says:

    198 DaveS
    Last one before proceeding with the argument:

    An abstract entity is an entity that does not have spacetime coordinates. At least that’s how I understand the term.

    So it is rational to believe in “things” that are not located in space-time. (Things that are part of reality/ existence but not bounded by the spacetime constraints).
    – God for example? Fits the bill.
    – A “soul” would be “possible”?

  204. 204
    daveS says:

    Well, I don’t think it’s pants-on-head crazy to believe in such things. I do, anyway.

    Edit: I’ll say “yes”.

  205. 205
    Truthfreedom says:

    DaveS

    Well, I don’t think it’s pants-on-head crazy to believe in such things. I do, anyway.

    -Do you believe in “gods” and “souls”?

  206. 206
    Mac McTavish says:

    KF

    you are simply enabling blood libel. Unsurprising, on your track record at UD.

    Well, I don’t think that attitude is called for. I have always been civi to you, even when I disagree with you. As I do in this case.

    Sev used sarcasm, possibly more than necessary, to make a valid point. You can’t argue the fact that there are some very unsavory characters who put on the MAGA hat and think that this justifies their hateful action. Just as there are other very unsavory characters who wear the BLM shirts to justify their hateful action. The vast majority of Trump supporters are friendly, generous, law-abiding people, as are the vast majority of BLM supporters. You can’t discredit the views of a group of people because of the actions of a few.

  207. 207
    daveS says:

    TF,

    No, I don’t.

  208. 208
    Truthfreedom says:

    Mmm, my monkey brain missed the irony.
    So believing in “unlocated in spacetime numbers” is “rational” but believing in other “unlocated in spacetime things” is “pants-on-head crazy”.
    Sounds a bit strange.

    And you “are” a brain, the product of an “evolutionary process” that is usually classified as a “botched-job” (not my words), that for “neurochemical reasons” believes that being “rational” (close to truth), is something “good” (we should ‘aspire’ to ‘know truth’ and not be misled by non-sense).

    Am I right in what I wrote?

  209. 209
    daveS says:

    TF,

    So believing in “unlocated in spacetime numbers” is “rational” but believing in other “unlocated in spacetime things” is “pants-on-head crazy”.

    No, just because I don’t believe in something doesn’t mean I think it’s crazy to believe in that thing. People have told me that they have witnessed miraculous events; I have doubts, but if these experiences are genuine, then their belief in God is rational, IMO.

    The rest of the post mostly does not reflect my views. It is correct that I don’t think I came about through a process guided by a divine being.

  210. 210
    Truthfreedom says:

    The Argument

    You decided to inspect the dictionary (#200) using your eyes (entry point of information).

    1.Natural science tells us that light bounces off objects, passing through space, to enter the eye.
    2.Photons striking the retina are then converted into nerve impulses which pass through the optic nerve into the occipital lobe of the brain deep inside the brain.
    3. Occipital lobe of the brain: where visual experience takes place. ***

    The question is what exactly do we experience in vision: (1) the external object as it is at some distance from the eye, (2) the external object as it is presented to the end organ in the eye (retina), (3) changes in the end organ itself (retina), or (4) changes inside the brain (occipital lobe) which appear to terminate the visual sequence?

  211. 211
    daveS says:

    TF,

    I don’t know, maybe none of the above? Perhaps a quale (if that’s the right term)? My actual experience is that of seeing a printed page.

  212. 212
    kairosfocus says:

    MMT,

    Please remember what you lent support to:

    [Seversky, 83:] Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting [–> notice, accusation of hiding a core agenda] for an unsavory collection [–> notice utterly imbalanced characterisation by one who doubtless would agree with “mostly peaceful protests”] of KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias [–> = Nazi SA storm troopers] and Christian nationalists. [–> = Christofascist Nazis]. –> Let me add the rest of his comment to Vivid: >>And we have a pretty good idea of the only people that lot and their idol care about. The only thing missing from the MAGA hat is the black swastika on a white ground.>>

    (And no, the just cited and annotated is patently not sarcastic or satirical commentary to be lightly set aside. I know, i know, the media narratives can make such seem almost conventional wisdom if one is immersed in a suitable bubble environment, but it is actually a classic of agit prop accusations, invidious associations and pivoting on deadly misrepresentations of reality. Blanket labelling dozens of millions of people as FRONTING nazism and several things closely associated therewith in context like that is hateful bigotry and should be walked back. The KKK was founded by and long associated with the Democrat Party of the US, witness a former Grand Kleagle. One can be a Christian and a patriot of the US without being a Nazi or Christofascist, insofar as such has any legitimate meaning. Nazism, more correctly is a left wing ideology insofar as the R/L political spectrum has any coherence, and more.)

    Sorry to have to be direct, but enabling blood libel is anything but civil or a matter of opinion.

    This is part of what is setting off things so potentially horrible that it is hard to put such in words.

    Recall, Seversky spoke in terms of FRONTING, with not the slightest modicum of nuance or recognition of legitimately different views, much less, corrective facts. Oh, again: things such as what the national socialist german worker’s party ideology actually is, or the like.

    Some very serious rethinking is needed to drain out a lot of toxic polarisation that if left to itself, will predictably lead to blood.

    KF

  213. 213
    Seversky says:

    DaveS @ 185

    Physicalism

    Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical. The thesis is usually intended as a metaphysical thesis, parallel to the thesis attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Thales, that everything is water, or the idealism of the 18th Century philosopher Berkeley, that everything is mental. The general idea is that the nature of the actual world (i.e. the universe and everything in it) conforms to a certain condition, the condition of being physical. Of course, physicalists don’t deny that the world might contain many items that at first glance don’t seem physical — items of a biological, or psychological, or moral, or social nature. But they insist nevertheless that at the end of the day such items are either physical or supervene on the physical

    As to whether abstract entities such as religious beliefs or moral principles or numbers are physical, it is at least arguable that they only exist within the conscious mind that perceives them and the only conscious minds that we know of are closely correlated with physical brains. So closely correlated in fact that, when the physical brain is destroyed, the associated consciousness is lost for good. Since the brain is a physical entity occupying a specific location in space and time we can say that, to that extent, abstract entities are physical or at least supervene on the physical.

  214. 214
    Seversky says:

    Kairosfocus @ 177

    [Seversky, 83:] Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting [–> notice, accusation of hiding a core agenda] for an unsavory collection [–> notice utterly imbalanced characterisation by one who doubtless would agree with “mostly peaceful protests”] of KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias [–> = Nazi SA storm troopers] and Christian nationalists. [–> = Nazis]

    Do you see the key word, fronting and the utter want of responsible balance, coming mere days after someone was cold bloodedly murdered, mafia hit man style on the streets of Portland (there is no serious reason to even suggest self-defence)?

    Let me be quite clear that I regard the above as a misrepresentation of my views. I do not think that the KKK, neo-Nazis or right-wing militias all share the same beliefs and political agendas. I do not believe Christian nationalists are all neo-Nazis, for example.

    What I do believe is that such groups on the right – or the left – of the political spectrum pose a threat to democracy. That is because their views are exclusivist to varying degrees in that, if they were able, they would without compunction impose those views on the rest of us to the exclusion of all others.

    The MAGA movement is an umbrella for Trump supporters of all stripes under which these extreme right-wing groups have also found shelter. This is because, by failing to repudiate them unambiguously, Trump has indicated tacitly that their support is not unwelcome. To that extent, MAGA is a front for those groups

    A front group etc is short for false stalking horse front as maskirovka, i.e. the direct implication is that the advocates of the slogan are at best dupes used to provide cover for the following list, a list that makes several invidious associations that stigmatise and scapegoat.

    Which is how you have persistently stigmatized and scapegoated the BLM protesters by continual references to their being Red Guard stooges manipulated by some vast Marxist conspiracy.

    Such is clear blood libel (which does not just apply to events hundreds of years ago as was suggested in attempted red herrings).

    The definition of “blood libel” I quoted before is the original and most common usage, I would argue. That does not prevent anyone using it to mean something different if they choose but, if they want that meaning to be understood as the one intended, then it would be helpful if that was made clear from the beginning.

    If you mean that my argument that extreme right-wing groups are accepted under the MAGA umbrella is so defamatory as to constitute a “blood libel” then I can, by the same reasoning, argue that your pejorative references to the BLM movement being no more than Red Guard stooges of a Marxist conspiracy is also a “blood libel”. It works both ways.

    The resort to red herring tactics indicates that those trying such stunts know their assertions are indefensible. Which, they are. Blood libel leads to blood, as was shown by the Portland hit on the weekend past.

    There is no red herring. There is an explosive admixture of implacably hostile groups, some of whom are hotheaded and armed, which means, as we have seen with the Portland and Kenosha shootings, that those guns are going to be fired sooner or later if nothing is done to defuse the situation. If you want to know where this can lead, I suggest you look up the Tulsa massacre of 1932. No one in their right mind wants something like that to happen again.

    Notice the sort of accusations that are being made against our civilisation in general, and one of its greatest achievements, constitutional democratic self government of a key people with government seen as mandated to protect God-given, unalienable rights. it is not for nothing that the reply to the 2nd para of the US DoI is in effect to try to taint its authors and more broadly the emerging state they founded and framed.

    A constitutional democracy, more than any other form of government, depends on the trust of its citizens for its ultimate survival. If those citizens come to believe that administrations have become so corrupted so that they no longer act in the best interests of all people, if they come to believe that the legislature has become little more than a rubber stamp for the President’s personal wishes, if they come to believe that the bench has been packed with partisan judges so that those of a different persuasion can no longer expect justice to be administered fairly and impartially for all, then that democracy will – and perhaps should – eventually fall.

    If a culture can be honest, however, not just about its great achievements but also about its past failures and present shortcomings then I would argue that, for from being weakened or undermined, it is made much stronger and placed on a much firmer footing by those acknowledgements.

    We can recognize, for example, the noble aspirations of the Declaration of Independence while accepting that the personal behavior of some of those who drafted it fell short of those ideals.

    We can recognize the achievement of building a great continental power while not closing our eyes to the fact that it was done by dispossessing the original inhabitants by deception, fraud and violence that, on occasion, came close to genocide.

    We can recognize the development of the industries that made this country the foremost economic power in the world while recognizing that they were built on the exploited labor of the poor Chinese or Irish and that attempts by workers to organize for better pay and conditions were sometimes violently crushed by private gangs of thugs and even the National Guard.

    We can recognize the great service rendered to their country in World War II by Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur and George Patton while also noting that between the wars, they led a detachment of infantry and tanks that violently dispersed a large number of World War I veterans who had camped in Washington to demand bonus payments they had been promised.

    Finally, we can recognize that this country fought a bloody civil war in order to put an end to slavery while also recognizing that even those sacrifices have not put an end to racial discrimination that persists to this day.

    Yes, there are groups on both right and left who are trying to exploit these protests to further their various political agendas – sadly that was inevitable – but they do not in any way alter the fact that these protests are a culmination of longstanding and genuine grievances which, as a culture, we owe it to them to address.

  215. 215
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky,

    I will comment on points:

    >>I do not think that the KKK, neo-Nazis or right-wing militias all share the same beliefs and political agendas.>>

    1: Why then did you try to plaster with fronting, being in “an unsavory collection” — collected by what criteria, apart from constant allusions to Nazism and its implied racialist supremacism — and talk of how MAGA hats are just missing Nazi swastikas, with implication that red is a Nazi flag colour . . . which meant socialist BTW . . . so black swastika against white circle would recreate the Nazi flag?

    2: Let me remind, again, of exactly what you said which I object to, as extended to take in your onward remarks:

    [Seversky, 83:] Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting [–> notice, accusation of hiding a core agenda] for an unsavory collection [–> notice utterly imbalanced characterisation by one who doubtless would agree with “mostly peaceful protests”] of KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias [–> = Nazi SA storm troopers] and Christian nationalists. [–> = Christofascist Nazis]. –> Let me add the rest of his comment to Vivid: >>And we have a pretty good idea of the only people that lot and their idol care about. The only thing missing from the MAGA hat is the black swastika on a white ground.>>

    3: For cause I find that seriously out of line to the point of being blood libel, with specific intent to taint with nazism.

    >> I do not believe Christian nationalists are all neo-Nazis, for example.>>

    4: You chose “nationalists” rather than patriots, and used a key qualifier, ALL.

    5: Given context, it is fair comment to note that the first term in the name of the Nazi party is “National[ist]” so in context the tainting intent is manifest.

    6: In such a context, the distinction ALL becomes rhetorically artful, as a SINGLE exception breaks an All assertion. The implication is, that you imply or suggest the typical or a material proportion of are Nazis. Which is a gross slander to the point of being blood libel.

    7: Had you said that some Christians are influenced by racism or totalitarianism and nietzschean superman political messianism, which are heresies, that would be a different matter.

    8: What you instead said is that the slogan and position of a main party garnering 60 million votes at its last outing serves as a FRONT for “an unsavory collection”; one that should be represented by a version of the Nazi flag . . . which pivots on a BROKEN cross, a classic sign of antichristian heresy. (And yes, that is an implied aspect of its symbolism, cf Hiene’s famous prophetic text of warning.)

    9: Christian [–> by implication, White] NATIONALISTS are in the list, one framed by KKK, Neo-Nazis etc. Your implication is clear, as is the underlying bigotry.

    10: While doubtless Christians have struggled with racism and the like, as I already pointed out in 122, the explicit Christian, scriptural teaching could not be clearer:

    Ac 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,3 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us

    Gal 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave7 nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

    >>What I do believe is that such groups on the right – or the left – of the political spectrum pose a threat to democracy. That is because their views are exclusivist to varying degrees in that, if they were able, they would without compunction impose those views on the rest of us to the exclusion of all others. >>

    11: Clarification to include the left duly noted. That is, having been called on the matter, you latterly try for balancing.

    12: That noted, the implication of nazism clearly continues. In response I suggest to you that there is no credible objective evidence that any significant Republican faction is against the American republican framework of significantly democratic — We the people — character established 1776 – 1779.

    >>The MAGA movement is an umbrella for Trump supporters of all stripes under which these extreme right-wing groups have also found shelter.>>

    13: The shift from fronting language is telling. You cannot contend against what fronting means, so have retreated to a different position. Similarly, I find the insinuation of tacit endorsement of no merit, as Mr Trump is obviously a displaced democrat with quite “progressivist” views; hitherto widely celebrated in the media culture. (And recall, I am here giving Jack his jacket.)

    >>you have persistently stigmatized and scapegoated the BLM protesters by continual references to their being Red Guard stooges manipulated by some vast Marxist conspiracy.>>

    14: The turnabout attempt, you might want to reconsider on who were the most prominent advocates and practitioners of this tactic. As, it is a signature.

    15: Neatly left out, that BLM is explicitly marxist by confession of its founders — who by implication are Alinsky School community organisers (i.e. literally, trained, ideological, marxist/communist agitators) — and platform, with an emphasis on the cultural form. Further left out, that it endorses an across the board radical marxist position and has specifically sought to use critical race theory to advance it.

    16: Also neatly side stepped, the course of events this year and earlier which clearly show a Red Guards insurgency strategic pattern being pushed through operationally, where co-optation, subversion, front groups etc are a cluster of signature marxist tactics.

    17: To go with this, the narratives being pushed on several key incidents are agit-prop narratives in the teeth of fairly well established objective facts. The police genocide narrative is obvious, only slightly less so is that if you disagree with them, question, object or resist rioting, attacks on cultural icons across the board etc, you are a nazi who has forfeited rights now up to and including that to life.

    18: And, antifa is a similar pea from the same pod.

    >>The definition of “blood libel” I quoted before is the original and most common usage>>

    19: Blood libel has long since been extended to other materially parallel case. This fits that extension, for cause.

    >>If you mean that my argument that extreme right-wing groups are accepted under the MAGA umbrella is so defamatory as to constitute a “blood libel”>>

    20: That was not your argument, you are trying to reshape what you said to less unpalatable forms. You explicitly said: “Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting [–> notice, accusation of hiding a core agenda] for an unsavory collection . . . ” That and what follows is blood libel, and I explicitly pointed it out repeatedly above.

    >>I can, by the same reasoning, argue that your pejorative references to the BLM movement being no more than Red Guard stooges of a Marxist conspiracy is also a “blood libel”. It works both ways.>>

    21: A further resort to turnabout projection, telling as it shows it is habitual. It invites the mirror principle inference that one projects from “the abundance of the heart.”

    22: Libel falls before truth and before responsible analysis. I have shown, with significant evidence, the character of the current Red Guards insurgency, which does exploit and manipulate pain, history, perceptions and need for genuine reform. But once thresholds such as rioting under colour of protest, mayhem and murder, attempts to demand defunding/abolition of police and linked courts — including racially based reversal of verdicts across the board — are crossed, we are dealing with misanthropic anticivilisational radicalism of a type well known since 1789.

    >>There is an explosive admixture of implacably hostile groups,>>

    23: The operational signature of Marxist led Red Guard insurgency is clearly present and attempts to project elsewhere are immaterial to the clear, present danger that threatens to destabilise the electoral process and further accelerate 4G civil war. Which has been my fundamental warning for a considerable time, it is almost amusing that as — regrettably — what I warned of begins to unfold, that is studiously avoided, Wilson style.

    >>If those citizens come to believe that administrations have become so corrupted so that they no longer act in the best interests of all people, if they come to believe that the legislature has become little more than a rubber stamp for the President’s personal wishes, if they come to believe that the bench has been packed with partisan judges so that those of a different persuasion can no longer expect justice to be administered fairly and impartially for all, then that democracy will – and perhaps should – eventually fall.>>

    24: largely, turnabout projection, especially with insertion of legislature rubber stamping the Presidency, which has simply not been the case.

    >>If a culture can be honest, however, not just about its great achievements but also about its past failures and present shortcomings then I would argue that, for from being weakened or undermined, it is made much stronger and placed on a much firmer footing by those acknowledgements.>>

    25: That is very different from anticivilisational insurgencies and attempts to construct false critical theory narratives then impose by syllabus and by media. 1619 project, I call you by name. (And yes, I intend the parliamentary, disciplinary reference.)

    >> there are groups on both right and left who are trying to exploit these protests to further their various political agendas – sadly that was inevitable – but they do not in any way alter the fact that these protests are a culmination of longstanding and genuine grievances which, as a culture, we owe it to them to address.>>

    26: when protests are subverted into being the sea for the Maoist fish who transmute them into riotous insurgency a la Red Guards etc, then the priority shifts to first restoring order. Ongoing reformation is the opposite of Red Guard, anticivilisational insurgency and its implied power broker backers. After all, operations require planning, logistics, capacity building and funding, typically extending over at least several years.

    27: All of that is a side track from the central point: you went over the line, beyond the pale of civil discourse and have refused to acknowledge, apologise and walk back. Duly noted.

    KF

  216. 216
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Heine:

    Christianity — and that is its greatest merit — has somewhat mitigated that brutal German love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered [–> the Swastika, visually, is a twisted, broken cross . . do not overlook the obvious], the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame [–> an irrational battle- and blood- lust]. …

    The old stone gods will then rise from long ruins and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and Thor will leap to life with his giant hammer and smash the Gothic cathedrals. …

    Do not smile at my advice — the advice of a dreamer who warns you against Kantians, Fichteans, and philosophers of nature. Do not smile at the visionary who anticipates the same revolution in the realm of the visible as has taken place in the spiritual. Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder. German thunder … comes rolling somewhat slowly, but … its crash … will be unlike anything before in the history of the world.

    At that uproar the eagles of the air will drop dead [–> cf. air warfare, symbol of the USA], and lions in farthest Africa [–> the lion is a key symbol of Britain, cf. also the North African campaigns] will draw in their tails and slink away. … A play will be performed in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll. [Religion and Philosophy in Germany, 1831]

  217. 217
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: It seems that the assassin from Portland has been killed in a police shootout involving reportedly dozens of shots. One can take no pleasure in violent death. Given signs of a team based assassination, it is hoped that a thorough investigation will be undertaken. KF

  218. 218
    Truthfreedom says:

    211 DaveS

    I don’t know, maybe none of the above? Perhaps a quale (if that’s the right term)? My actual experience is that of seeing a printed page.

    But you = the brain that is doing the perceiving.
    So Mr. Brain 🙂 , I ask:
    How can you do your work (“seeing”) without knowing how the process you are carrying out works?

  219. 219
    Truthfreedom says:

    213 Seversky

    Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical.

    Physical meaning?
    1. __________

  220. 220
    Truthfreedom says:

    213 Seversky

    The thesis (physicalism) is usually intended as a metaphysical thesis.

    ATTENTION EVERYONE
    Metaphysics =/= natural science.

    *** Materialism/ physicalism is NOT natural science. ***
    This is the THE POINT OF DISPUTE: you materialists equate your philosophy to natural science to make materialism/ physicalism look as “legit” (therefore the “true” worldview; “it offers tangible results, you know” being your mantra) so you can spread your atheist gospel without resistance.

    You have been doing this (illegitimately) for DECADES.

    But you have been betrayed by your own mistress “logic”.

    And I am going to show it in this thread. 🙂

  221. 221
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky, for reference I have provided a F/N to OP with condemnation several years ago, by Mr Trump, of neo-nazis etc. Quote: “they should be condemned totally.” Where, despite much correction on record the false tainting accusation continues to be circulated, including in the past few days in the current election campaign. I point this out for record, without thereby generally endorsing the NY Contractor in Chief. I do recognise that sometimes a populist outsider is a useful corrective to the entrenched establishment, its self-selecting nomenklatura class interests and conventional wisdom. The obvious conclusion is that we are dealing with toxic disregard for truth and fairness, ruthlessly and recklessly proceeding with tainting to gain an advantage from sowing division, polarisation and hostility. That speaks volumes as to intent. KF

  222. 222
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky, if all that is is physical, how then does a knowing we exist to warrant such a claim as accurately referring to reality? For, conceptual reference is not a physical phenomenon, neither matter nor field etc. In short you simply illustrate that there is no stable middle between tumbling to inherently non rational GIGO limited computational substrates, or smuggling in key ideas from theism or the like without acknowledgement. Which implies an untenable worldview trying to dress itself up in a lab coat. Noting on the incidental discussion, where of course evolutionary matertialistic scientism — naturalism, so called — has in it no capability to bridge not only the reference gap or the freedom required to be rational gap but the is-ought gap that is faced by morally governed creatures. No wonder then we find the cynical nihilism that is part and parcel of the rolling juggernaut issue. KF

  223. 223
    daveS says:

    TF,

    How can you do your work (“seeing”) without knowing how the process you are carrying out works?

    I don’t know, but that’s typical of animals with vision, no? Dogs, fish, and bees all can see but I doubt they have any idea how it all works.

  224. 224
    daveS says:

    Seversky,

    It is conceivable that physicalism in true. I have seen lectures by Robert Sapolsky that cover some of the same issues you raised and find them persuasive. For the moment, I identify as a very naive dualist however.

  225. 225
    daveS says:

    TF,

    Would it be possible to lay out this ‘argument’ in a single post, so as to accelerate the pace a little? Presumably it should end with a conclusion rather than a question.

  226. 226
    Truthfreedom says:

    223 DaveS

    I don’t know, but that’s typical of animals with vision, no? Dogs, fish, and bees all can see but I doubt they have any idea how it all works.

    Logic dictates that if you are something (X), then you have that something’s characteristics.
    X = X

    If you are a brain, (and the brain “creates” consciousness), this means that:
    – you are matter and you are “conscious” of yourself (your own existence and characteristics)

    But: I have asked you (Mr. Brain) 🙂 about your workings (your “seeing” processes) and you say “I (Mr. Brain) 🙂 , do not know”.

    Therefore:
    You =/= brain. (No identity).

    The physicalist thesis fails.

    ***

    Animals have imagination (they can form images).
    Humans have imagination (they can form images ) + intellect (they “understand” they are “seeing”).

  227. 227
    daveS says:

    TF,

    Ok, let’s say you have refuted physicalism. Do you have an argument against my position?

  228. 228
    Truthfreedom says:

    225 DaveS

    Would it be possible to lay out this ‘argument’ in a single post, so as to accelerate the pace a little? Presumably it should end with a conclusion rather than a question.

    It is an exceedingly complex issue. I will do my best to be succint , but this ain’t a child’s question.

    Yes, there is a conclusion.
    So please be patient. 🙂

  229. 229
    daveS says:

    I will add that I don’t/didn’t claim I am identical with my brain. I do not know how to explain my experience of seeing a printed page solely in terms of my physical body. (Erm, there’s a lot that I cannot explain).

  230. 230
    Truthfreedom says:

    229 DaveS

    I will add that I don’t/didn’t claim I am identical with my brain.

    So, to clarify your position:
    -You believe that reality (existence) is comprised of:

    A. “physical stuff”: it can be located via spacetime coordinates
    and
    B. non-“physical stuff”: not locatable via spacetime coordinates
    Examples of *B* would be “numbers” and “goodness” – which are abstracts.
    But other aspects of reality that may fall under the category abstracts are “pants-on-the-head-crazy”, namely “God” and “souls”.
    *Although you have not offered a reason for this discrimination regarding the abstract category.

    ***
    And you know that a physical “brain” is part of “you”, but there is “more that you can not explain”.

    Then “DaveS” = “brain” (physical) + “something more”

    Am I right?
    So I can proceed with the argument.

  231. 231
    Truthfreedom says:

    223 Seversky

    From a physicalist P.
    O.V:
    Was “darwinian theory” (an abstract) inside Mr. Darwins’ head (brain)?
    Yes/ No

  232. 232
    Truthfreedom says:

    One appetizer (while I await DaveS’ and Seversky’s replies):

    “Scientific” materialists/ physicalists propose certain epistemological and ontological claims, allegedly in the name of natural science, that conflict with man’s common sense experience of the world.

    This thread will show :

    (1) that such claims are not based on sound natural science, but the assumed philosophy of materialism,
    (2) that the materialist/atomist worldview is fundamentally flawed, and
    (3) that “we” have a worldview that offers scientifically-compatible alternatives that align with reality.

  233. 233
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: “Scientific” materialists/ physicalists propose certain epistemological and ontological claims, allegedly in the name of natural science, that conflict with man’s common sense experience of the world.

    Is this a problem? I’m thinking of things like the fact that the earth is rotating about its axis and revolving about the sun and the solar system is travelling around the galactic core none of which is obvious to common sense. Perhaps you should be more specific.

  234. 234
    daveS says:

    TF,

    If you delete this part:

    But other aspects of reality that may fall under the category abstracts are “pants-on-the-head-crazy”, namely “God” and “souls”.

    (reread #209) the rest is ok.

  235. 235
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, insofar as the common sense view includes the principle of distinct identity and close corollaries, non contradiction and excluded middle, yes. For, the physicalist/naturalist view of the world either collapses into self-refuting evolutionary materialism (mind = brain as computational, GIGO-limited substrate thus a dynamic-stochastic entity not free enough to be rational) or else it is forced to smuggle in elements of other worldviews it would dismiss. KF

  236. 236
    Truthfreedom says:

    233 DaveS
    Thank you.
    Now, let’s examine your position (some parts are repeated for the sake of clarity).

    The Argument

    Chain of Events
    DaveS wants to read the dictionary (#200) to gain knowledge, using his eyes (entry point of information).

    1.Natural science tells us that light bounces off objects, passing through space, to enter the eye.
    2.Photons striking the retina are then converted into nerve impulses which pass through the optic nerve into the occipital lobe of the brain deep inside the brain.
    3. Occipital lobe of the brain: where visual experience takes place. ***

    The question is what exactly do we experience in vision: (1) the external object as it is at some distance from the eye, (2) the external object as it is presented to the end organ in the eye (retina), (3) changes in the end organ itself (retina), or (4) changes inside the brain (occipital lobe) which appear to terminate the visual sequence?
    ***

    Assuming that vision is a purely material process (DaveS’ P.O.V.), this causal chain of events necessarily implies that what we know, in the last analysis, is:
    – NOT the external object,
    but rather
    changes in the occipital lobe deep inside the brain

  237. 237
    Truthfreedom says:

    Seversky, I am coming for you and your “map” non-sense.

  238. 238
    daveS says:

    TF,

    I don’t claim that vision is a purely material process. As I said above, I don’t know how to explain the experience of seeing a printed page using only physics. You are reading my posts, aren’t you? 🙂

    I do agree with part of your post, in that my experience is not of the printed page itself. It’s triggered somehow by the light reflecting off the page. Like how a bat senses objects indirectly via sound waves bouncing off the object.

  239. 239
    Truthfreedom says:

    236 DaveS

    I don’t claim that vision is a purely material process. As I said above, I don’t know how to explain the experience of seeing a printed page using only physics.

    You mentioned some “abstract” ideas (“numbers” and “goodness”). Are you suggesting they are part of the chain of events I wrote?
    – and you said that “God is ok for others” (if miracles) but not “for you” personally and soul is a no-no.

  240. 240
    Truthfreedom says:

    And now the plot thickens. 🙂

  241. 241
    daveS says:

    TF,

    I’m not making any suggestions about how the experience of vision is actually produced. I’m saying I don’t know how to explain it purely in terms of physics.

    I stated that I think belief in God could be rational. The same is true of belief in souls.

    Edit: Here’s an idea. Instead of focusing on my position, just say “this argument refutes the following position: ________.” Then state the argument, and we all will hopefully learn something.

  242. 242
    Truthfreedom says:

    241 DaveS

    I’m saying I don’t know how to explain it purely in terms of physics.

    Because it can not be done. 🙂 Materialism is a failed philosophy.

    According to natural sciences’ dictum, the final step is number 4)
    (4) changes inside the brain (occipital lobe)

    And you can add nothing after this 4th step (you say you “don’t know”).

  243. 243
    Truthfreedom says:

    DaveS
    You complained because I was debunking the physicalist P.O.V. and not yours and now you complain because I am focusing on yours. 🙂

  244. 244
    daveS says:

    TF,

    I’m complaining because (apparently) you’re misreading my posts.

    I don’t know anything about how vision or the brain works, that is true. There’s not much point in asking me about it, is there? Perhaps you’re trying to refute the “standard materialist understanding of vision”?

    Anyway, please proceed. 🙂

  245. 245
    Seversky says:

    DaveS @ 224

    It is conceivable that physicalism in true. I have seen lectures by Robert Sapolsky that cover some of the same issues you raised and find them persuasive. For the moment, I identify as a very naive dualist however.

    That’s fine by me. I identify as a materialist/physicalist but I also recognize that there is so much that we don’t yet know so it’s silly getting into partisan fights over whose viewpoint is the most ‘right’ or ‘true’. We’ve only recently learned of the existence of neutrinos or the size of the observable Universe or black holes or, most recently, gravitational waves. How much more is there still to be discovered that could change our whole picture of reality still more radically? I believe that human society progresses not by limiting itself to the “truths” embodied in its various religious texts but by the simple admission of “I don’t know”.

  246. 246
    Truthfreedom says:

    Oh. And the “killing babies in the womb is ok” because “they are not humans until their brains are 3-5 months old” (the mistake of equating personhood with the brain), that monstrosity is over too.

    Humans are humans since the moment of conception. (With proof).

  247. 247
    Seversky says:

    Kairosfocus @ 215

    1: Why then did you try to plaster with fronting, being in “an unsavory collection” — collected by what criteria, apart from constant allusions to Nazism and its implied racialist supremacism — and talk of how MAGA hats are just missing Nazi swastikas, with implication that red is a Nazi flag colour . . . which meant socialist BTW . . . so black swastika against white circle would recreate the Nazi flag?

    It’s very simple. When I watch Trump’s rallies I see uncomfortable echoes of the Nazi rallies. The way he whips up anger amongst the crowd and then directs it towards the press. He hasn’t done so yet but is there any doubt that, if he asked them, those crowds would happily burn books or newspapers or anything else he pointed them towards. And, yes, I do remember the Bible-burning incidents. I think we both agree that this is an alarming dangerous situation which Trump is trying to foment outrage and manipulate to his own political advantage.

    3: For cause I find that seriously out of line to the point of being blood libel, with specific intent to taint with nazism.

    Then you will understand how outrageous – and I mean outrageous – I find your attempts to discredit and delegitimize the BLM protests – in face of the massive evidence of persistent racism in US society which has animated them – by stereotyping them as “Red Guard” puppets of some ruthless and powerful Marxist conspiracy.

    And before anyone complains, I regard racism as a human problem. The seeds of it at least are in every one of us and all the ‘races’ have been guilty of it to some extent and at various times throughout history. Until we all accept that we are not going to overcome it.

    4: You chose “nationalists” rather than patriots, and used a key qualifier, ALL.

    I wrote that “I do not believe Christian nationalists are all neo-Nazis”. And I don’t. However, for me, the difference between a “patriot” and a “nationalist” is that the nationalist believes “my country, right or wrong” whereas the patriot does not bring shame on his country by doing or condoning wrong just because it was done by that country.

    8: What you instead said is that the slogan and position of a main party garnering 60 million votes at its last outing serves as a FRONT for “an unsavory collection”; one that should be represented by a version of the Nazi flag . . . which pivots on a BROKEN cross, a classic sign of antichristian heresy. (And yes, that is an implied aspect of its symbolism, cf Hiene’s famous prophetic text of warning.)

    I will be much happier but, much more importantly, the faith will be much truer to its core principles when it speaks out in forthright condemnation of a man who is both immoral and amoral by its standards rather than have some of its leading figures fawn over him and blaspheme about him being favored or even chosen by their God.

    11: Clarification to include the left duly noted. That is, having been called on the matter, you latterly try for balancing.

    It isn’t simply a question of balance. Put very simply, if the need arose, would you be prepared to fight for Trump and all that he stands for or against him?

    12: That noted, the implication of nazism clearly continues. In response I suggest to you that there is no credible objective evidence that any significant Republican faction is against the American republican framework of significantly democratic — We the people — character established 1776 – 1779.

    I believe there is no longer a Republican Party in the traditional sense. There is a Trump party ruled by members his family and those trusted as loyal minions and stooges and the rest who make up a personality cult around him and believe that whatever Trump says goes. It is an abject betrayal of everything the Founding Fathers sought to create.

    13: The shift from fronting language is telling. You cannot contend against what fronting means, so have retreated to a different position. Similarly, I find the insinuation of tacit endorsement of no merit, as Mr Trump is obviously a displaced democrat with quite “progressivist” views; hitherto widely celebrated in the media culture.

    Trump is a dictator-in-waiting. As the head of private companies, not answerable to boards of directors or shareholders, that is what he has been for most of his working life. The only things that have restrained him as President so far are the constitutional checks and balances built into the US political structure. If he ever finds that those restraints can be bent or broken and brushed aside when those who should be upholding them give way to him then what is there to stop him? His base would almost certainly support his ambition to be President-for-life. Would you?

    15: Neatly left out, that BLM is explicitly marxist by confession of its founders — who by implication are Alinsky School community organisers (i.e. literally, trained, ideological, marxist/communist agitators) — and platform, with an emphasis on the cultural form. Further left out, that it endorses an across the board radical marxist position and has specifically sought to use critical race theory to advance it.

    Yes, the two founders are self-proclaimed Marxists but I doubt that the great majority of the protesters are. But even if they were, would Marxism have had any traction unless there was a deep reservoir of grievance for which society at large was providing no adequate redress? I remind you that the Revolutionary War of 1776 arose from just such a sense of unrecognized and unaddressed grievance. You would be foolish to make the same mistake as Lord North’s administration.

    16: Also neatly side stepped, the course of events this year and earlier which clearly show a Red Guards insurgency strategic pattern being pushed through operationally, where co-optation, subversion, front groups etc are a cluster of signature marxist tactics.

    A one-sided picture that both exaggerates the threat from the left and completely ignores that posed by extreme right groups who have been restrained so far mainly by the belief that they have ‘their guy’ in the White House. I remind you that extreme white right-wing groups have been responsible for more terrorist acts in the domestic US than the left or radical Islamic groups.

    19: Blood libel has long since been extended to other materially parallel case. This fits that extension, for cause.

    Has it? What “materially parallel cases” are there?

    22: Libel falls before truth and before responsible analysis. I have shown, with significant evidence, the character of the current Red Guards insurgency, which does exploit and manipulate pain, history, perceptions and need for genuine reform. But once thresholds such as rioting under colour of protest, mayhem and murder, attempts to demand defunding/abolition of police and linked courts — including racially based reversal of verdicts across the board — are crossed, we are dealing with misanthropic anticivilisational radicalism of a type well known since 1789.

    And I would argue that all of the above constitutes a libel against the BLM protests which are a culmination of literally centuries of discrimination and oppression. You defame them by accusing them of being “anticivilizational” yet what they are protesting against is a civilization which has failed to uphold the very principles by which it could be judged to be civilized.

    27: All of that is a side track from the central point: you went over the line, beyond the pale of civil discourse and have refused to acknowledge, apologise and walk back. Duly noted.

    I have always tried to remain within the bounds of civil discourse and I believe that, for the most part, I have. I can assure you I could be a lot less civil if I chose. But these are minor points compared to the political crisis we are facing in the US which I fear could get a lot worse if this President remains in power.

  248. 248
    kairosfocus says:

    U/D: with attacks on restaurants already routine, Red Guards have now been climbing up unto people’s homes. The degree of violence is steadily accelerating, and home invasions like this invite armed responses, which seem to be desired to trigger confrontations to feed the agit prop optics and stories. At this threshold, people are going to die in numbers. KF

    PS: When arrested for blocking highways, RG’s complained they were allowed to block roads. Highway patrol reply, this is not Seattle. Then, a signature term drops. They refer to themselves as “brigade[s],” the precise term used in Cuba and extended to my homeland 40 years ago, albeit in Spanish. Cuban-influenced training and organisation?

  249. 249
    BobRyan says:

    This is not something that just started within the last 2 to 3 generations, but goes back much further. They started to teach case precedence over the wording of the law a little over a century ago. That was the first strike that led us to where we are today. Case precedence has nothing to do with the law, but twists the wording into taking any meaning judges wish it to take.

  250. 250
    kairosfocus says:

    BR, actually, the Common law in key part grew out of cumulative precedents, but because of law of nature and biblical influences, was restrained. The key breakdown was the rise of legal positivism which is about 100 – 150 years ago, and it was of course influenced further by darwinist thought. The result was to destroy the restraints and allow cumulative steps of distortion with the premise that institutions, groups and individuals with enough clout made law by direct decree or rulings etc. Where law was redefined as product of such processes. Implication, might and manipulation make law, justice, right, rights, logic, warrant, knowledge, truth etc. Which is patent nihilism. KF

  251. 251
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Memo issued to reudiate critical race theory mainstreaming by HR in US Fed Govt https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/M-20-34.pdf KF

    PS: Those making the accusations in 83 etc, should note the closing paragraph of the memo (to be followed by more detailed regulations from OMB):

    The President, and his Administration, are fully committed to the fair and equal treatment of all individuals in the United States. The President has a proven track record of standing for those whose voice has long been ignored and who have failed to benefit from all our country has to offer, and he intends to continue to support all Americans, regardless of race, religion, or creed. The divisive, false, and demeaning propaganda of the critical race theory movement is contrary to all we stand for as Americans and should have no place in the Federal government.

  252. 252
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky,

    I see yet another round trying to defend the utterly indefensible in 83 above:

    [Seversky, 83:] Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting [–> notice, accusation of hiding a core agenda] for an unsavory collection [–> notice utterly imbalanced characterisation by one who doubtless would agree with “mostly peaceful protests”] of KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias [–> = Nazi SA storm troopers] and Christian nationalists. [–> = Christofascist Nazis]. –> Let me add the rest of his comment to Vivid: >>And we have a pretty good idea of the only people that lot and their idol care about. The only thing missing from the MAGA hat is the black swastika on a white ground.>>

    I suggest to you that you would have been better advised to walk back and apologise for such bigotry and projection. Instead, you have first tried evasions, turnabout projections and distractions, amounting to doubling down.

    That speaks volumes and not in your favour.

    Later, I will see if I should take time to further respond on points, bed calls. (Likely, I will respond to excerpts.)

    For now, you have unfortunately made yourself a poster child for the sort of toxic agit prop and indoctrination that have been at work, needlessly feeding into the rising kinetic spiral of 4G civil war. Where, the latest news on Red Guards brigades is they are trying to block interstate highways and have been photographed on roofs next to upstairs windows, in a context where assassination teams have gunned down at least one person on the streets, on a flimsy fig leaf of claimed self defence.

    Their own video contradicts the claim. (Likely, this was a “retaliation” for a much more plausible case of self defence where another swarm pursuing an armed youth who had been guarding looting targets and put out a fire set by rioters took serious casualties, the last being a gun arm hit just before lining up the youth’s head for fatal shots.)

    The juggernaut is sharply accelerating out of control.

    KF

  253. 253
    BobRyan says:

    kairosfocus @ 250

    Precedence did exist, but wasn’t taught in law schools. Teaching precedence ensured more judges could manipulate the law as they saw fit and shift the blame elsewhere. The result should have been to move towards an Amendment to the Constitution requiring federal judges to rule on the wording of the law and original intent. As is often the case, what should have happened and what did happen are two very different things.

  254. 254
    vividbleau says:

    Sev
    You do indeed live in a make believe world where up is down and down is up. We can call it Sevs fact free world.

    It’s very simple. When I watch Trump’s rallies I see uncomfortable echoes of the Nazi rallies”

    Yet in fact the Nazi behavior is being exhibited by Trumps opposition . I don’t recall the abhorrent behavior perpetrated on Trumpers going to their hotels or cars after the RNC Convention being done by Trumpers to the Dems after their convention. It is not the Trumpers that are going into restaurants or movie theaters to harass Democrat officials. I have not heard from Trumpers call for what Maxine Waters called for which was to incited people to accost Republicans wherever they’re might be. No Trumpers have tried to take out 17 members of the Democrat leadership on a baseball field. The modern day Nazi brown shirts with their own Hitler salute that they force people to do(Antifa BLM) are not Trumpers. The facts are clear the Nazis are here and they are not the Trump supporters.

    “The way he whips up anger amongst the crowd and then directs it towards the press. He hasn’t done so yet but is there any doubt that, if he asked them, those crowds would happily burn books or newspapers or anything else he pointed them towards.”

    Correct he hasn’t done so yet but there is no yet from your side, this is exactly what your side is doing now.

    “I will be much happier but, much more importantly, the faith will be much truer to its core principles when it speaks out in forthright condemnation of a man who is both immoral and amoral by its standards”

    You are in no position to lecture anyone about moral standards when you support policies that allow for killing an unborn baby literally within days of its birth and if the baby survives kill it anyway. Spare me you moral outrage.

    “I remind you that extreme white right-wing groups have been responsible for more terrorist acts in the domestic US than the left or radical Islamic groups.”

    Earth to Sev terrorists groups have been terrorizing Seattle and Portland for about 100 straight days! You are so unattached to reality it boggles the mind.

    “I believe there is no longer a Republican Party in the traditional sense. There is a Trump party ruled by members his family and those trusted as loyal minions and stooges “

    Like the Bushes, the Clintons, the Obamas? Sheesh

    ? “His base would almost certainly support his ambition to be President-for-life. Would you?”

    No his base would not support that since that would be unconstitutional. You really don’t have a clue do you.?You just make [SNIP] up. He would lose his base I can guarantee that and you would know that if you could ever get rid of your TDS.and get out of your fact free world and abandon the media stereotypes of Trump supporters.

    “But these are minor points compared to the political crisis we are facing in the US which I fear could get a lot worse if this President remains in power”

    The election is going to be a [SNIP] show. It will not be decided on election night, we may not know for months after all Hilary Clinton has told Biden under no circumstances do not concede if he is on the losing end. You are correct if Trump gets elected there will be violence because that’s in the DNA of leftists ideologs.

    If it is a fair election and Biden wins the vast majority of Trump supporters will accept the results and will not commit violence, the same cannot be said for the other side. Hell Stacey Abrams thinks she is the Governor of Georgia. The left will never accept Trump as a legitimate duly elected President. So your right if Trump is re-elected we haven’t seen anything yet from your Nazi goons, it’s going to get really ugly.

    Vivid

  255. 255
    kairosfocus says:

    Vivid, thanks for points, do note [SNIP] on language. KF

  256. 256
    kairosfocus says:

    BR, precedent has been built into law since forever, indeed in Exodus 18 (which set up a system of judgements), the lower judges were to follow Moses’ rulings. What is new is arrogation of law-making power through suppression of the validity of the built in moral law of justice. KF

  257. 257
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: a former intel analyst’s analysis of US election trends https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/intelligence-analyst-predicts-trump-victory-2020-ron-aledo/?trackingId=grC1NLNqa9kj4THe86eSRA%3D%3D — as backdrop. You tell us what is likely to drastically reverse over the next two months. Next, blend in the late mailed in “votes” switcheroo being projected https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/09/the-red-mirage-theory-provides-the-justification-for-democrat-mischief-post-election-day/ multiplied by the sort of agit prop hostility and bigotry leading to rising violence from Red Guard Brigadistas and their attack swarms . . . let’s use the correct, Cuban Spanish term . . . and consider where that leads over the next four to sixteen months now, given 4G war dynamics. Then, kindly scroll up to the OP and glance at my 2016 geostrategic situation summary, asking what consequences may flow from the current utter irresponsibility of far too many influencers in the USA. One thing is for sure, the Overton Window of political plausibility and associated circumstances c Dec 2021 will look a lot different from now. Get strapped in for a major political storm and wild — sadly, likely, bloody — ride. KF

  258. 258
    daveS says:

    KF,

    Do you think Trump would win if the election were held today? It looks to me like Biden would win decisively. I expect some tightening, but no dramatic shift.

  259. 259
    Truthfreedom says:

    ___
    (Continuing from my posts: #210, #236)

    The Argument
    According to natural sciences’ description of vision, the final stage of the visual process is:
    4) changes in the occipital lobe deep inside the brain.

    And now:
    The immanent logic of “scientific” materialism/ physicalism forces the logical conclusion: that what we actually know by empirical verification is:
    – NOT the external world at all,
    but
    – some sort of *presumed image or neural representation* of it inside our heads. (AND HERE IS WHERE MATERIALISM/ PHYSICALISM COLLAPSES.) R.I.P.

    Physicalist P.O.V:
    Occipital lobe (head) |External World
    (Forever trapped here) |(Inaccesible)

    Materialism+ science = epistemological idealism (which contradicts its starting point: “there is an external world that we can know”).

    How can the materialist escape this epistemological nightmare?.
    He can NOT, because any appeal to science to rescue him is just a vain attempt at using his senses to gain information from an external world that ends always inside his head.

    An endless cycle of vicious regress.

    Materialism’s death sentence:

    – The thesis: everything that exists is material (no “minds”) invalidates knowledge.
    – Materialism is the enemy of knowledge.
    – Materialism is a failed philosophy: it invalidates its own epistemical tool (its beloved science).

    ***

    And now, the “map” gimmick.

  260. 260
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: While we give time for Sev et al to respond to what is already on the table from Vivid etc, kindly note F/N2 above to OP on the anatomy of a Red Guard Brigadista hit a week ago, with what it points to. Do, tell us, have the major media been pulling in talking heads and analysing what say the above photo and associated vids show? Ask yourself why/why not and where that points, given principles and patterns of 4G war. KF

  261. 261
    ET says:

    seversky:
    ?

    I believe that human society progresses not by limiting itself to the “truths” embodied in its various religious texts but by the simple admission of “I don’t know”.

    Then you should be writing to all schools telling them to teach “we don’t know” instead of pushing the unscientific evolutionism on unsuspecting kids. Or are you a proud hypocrite?

  262. 262
    daveS says:

    TF,

    Isn’t it true that in your vision illustration, the changes inside the brain could depend the properties of the object being viewed? So different messages on the printed pages could result in different changes in the brain?

    Note: I’m guessing at how a materialist would respond to your argument. I don’t know the first thing about these putative changes in the brain.

  263. 263
    ET says:

    September 29th- First Presidential debate. On September 30th Joe Biden should be toast. 😎

  264. 264
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, in a highly polarised climate with obvious pressure to avoid appearing to be a deplorable, polls are unreliable as was seen four years past. Further, the precise point is that there are about sixty days to go, there have been no presidential debates as of yet, the first September smear has visibly flopped and the kinetics of the 4GW are rapidly accelerating, while the US Economy is clearly accelerating despite efforts to keep it in lockdown. The hit on the streets of Portland — cf. F/N2 to OP — is revelatory, for those willing to wake up and smell the gunpowder. Particularly note, the sophisticated ambush. For some reason, Mr Danielson was a high value target . . . and was fatally naive about his status. KF

  265. 265
    Truthfreedom says:

    DaveS

    It isn’t it true that in your vision illustration, the changes inside the brain depend the properties of the object being viewed?

    That’s the PROBLEM, DaveS.
    We can not know it, because if “we” =”only brains”, then we can NEVER escape our skull.

    Under materialism, it is a forever locked prison.

    That’s the gist of the argument that kills materialism once and for all. 🙂

  266. 266
    Truthfreedom says:

    And it is even worse:
    We can not even know that we have a “head” and a “brain”.

    Materialism literally destroys all knowledge gained by our science, which is the result of us using our senses to apprehend the external world.

  267. 267
    daveS says:

    TF,

    I’m suggesting this dependence provides a pathway for information about the object to reach our brain. The brain changes correlate with properties of the object. So indirectly, I do obtain information about the object.

    Let’s say my wife attends a performance of a community play. Maybe I can’t go, so she streams the play to me using her phone.

    My wife sees the actual play in person, but I only see a sequence of pixel arrays on my phone. Nevertheless, I will be able to describe features of the play at the conclusion—the plot outline, the protagonist, etc. In the end, I could truthfully say that I saw the play.

    Do you watch sports on television?

  268. 268
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Start-point to think about 4GW, note too from Wikipedia: >>Fourth-generation warfare (4GW) is conflict characterized by a blurring of the lines between war and politics, combatants and civilians.The term was first used in 1980 [–> just when my homeland was going through an ultimately failed 4GW insurgency connected to an Election, with several external interventions tied to de facto WW3, the Cold War] by a team of United States analysts, including paleoconservative William S. Lind, to describe warfare’s return to a decentralized form. In terms of generational modern warfare, the fourth generation signifies the nation states’ loss of their near-monopoly on combat forces, returning to modes of conflict common in pre-modern times. The simplest definition includes any war in which one of the major participants is not a state but rather a violent non-state actor. [–> which obviously includes state faction sponsored Red Guards brigades, agit prop, street chaos, media trumpeting of narratives, lawfare and the variable levels of kinetic engagements]>>. KF

  269. 269
    daveS says:

    KF,

    I’ll be curious to see whether you revise your views if Biden wins.

  270. 270
    Truthfreedom says:

    267 DaveS
    You are not understanding the argument.

    I’m suggesting this dependence provides a pathway for information about the object to reach our brain.

    How can you “know” you “have a brain”?
    If materialism is true, a brain never can escape its skull. It is been feeding a ONE way flux of incoming information.

    “Checking” information of X means you have
    Version A (of X)
    Version B (of X)
    Only then can you compare how much they overlap.

    Under materialism = only version A.
    Forever.
    And ever. 🙂

  271. 271
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Note, esp. from Lindh et al:

    In broad terms, fourth generation warfare seems likely to be widely dispersed and largely undefined; the distinction between war and peace will be blurred to the vanishing point. It will be nonlinear, possibly to the point of having no definable battlefields or fronts. The distinction between “civilian” and “military” may disappear. Actions will occur concurrently throughout all participants’ depth, including their society as a cultural, not just a physical, entity.

    Picking up the conceptual leap and paradigm shift involved, to begin to see and make sense of what is going on? As in, a key to victory is breaking the other side’s OODA loop. If we do not see and orient accurately in good time and decide and act soundly and decisively, our civilisation will go over the cliff. Notice, the operations already in progress target the centre of gravity of our civilisation.

  272. 272
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, if Biden wins, I will be surprised by that. However, that would just mean capture of the power centres by the radicals who will predictably ramp up their misanthropic behaviour. The resulting sharply escalated conflict will resolve itself in the time window in hand. KF

  273. 273
    Truthfreedom says:

    We are not ONLY our brains.
    So murdering babies in the womb because their brains (where according to materialism is where personhood resides) “are not mature enough” is a monstrosity.
    We are murdering humans (not “blobs” of cells).

  274. 274
    daveS says:

    TF,

    Let me use an example of a very young child crawling on the floor near a ball. Are you saying that the child, when seeing the ball for the first time, would have no way of associating the corresponding brain changes with a spherical object nearby?

    So the child is indeed receiving stimulus from the outside world through xir senses, but it would just be “random noise” to the child. The child’s brain could not assemble it into a coherent picture of the world.

  275. 275
    john_a_designer says:

    Here is something I wrote back in 2017, a few months after the last election, which is still relevant today.

    I think fascist is sometimes gets used too loosely to mean any kind of politically inspired street thuggery, bullying or repression of free speech etc.– but these thing are just as typical on the far left as they are on the far right. However, I still do think nationalism is important in distinguishing fascism from Marxist communism. The Marxism that is presently entrenched on U.S. university campuses is a cultural form of Marxism that comes to us via the Frankfurt school which expanded Marxist ideology from the oppressed working class to other oppressed classes– blacks, women, gays etc. (Thus the mantra: race, class, gender.) Ironically, as the last Presidential election demonstrated, at least in the U.S., the left and far left have pretty much written off the working class. For sure, American workers still want economic justice but I don’t think they see Marxism as the solution. Why? Because they want to own property and live comfortable lives. Historical economic Marxism is just too extreme.

    https://uncommondescent.com/free-speech/you-fascist-really-what-is-a-true-fascist/#comment-625353

    What are the roots of Race Critical Theory (RCT) and BLM? They’re clearly Marxist. The particular brand of cultural Marxism which is espoused by RCT and BLM divides the human race into two classes:

    (1)The Privileged (oppressors). (2)The Oppressed. Whites are in the privileged class. Blacks are in the oppressed class. In other words, if you are you are racist. That’s the fundamental premise of Black Lives Matter.

  276. 276
    Truthfreedom says:

    Materialism is a corrupted, failed philosophy from a superstitious era.
    It is a false worldview.
    Materialism can no longer use “science” as its validator/ walking stick.

    Materialism’s epistemological blunder is irretrievable.

  277. 277
    ET says:

    If Biden wins all republicans should become rioters and looters. Force the closure of all businesses and blame the democrats for what we did. See how they like it. 😛 (this comment was in jest)

  278. 278
    Truthfreedom says:

    DaveS
    The baby’s brain apprehends the concrete ball (object), but his brain does not apprehend the concept of “sphericity” (universal) (until later stages).

    The latter faculty is only possible using the intellect (intimately associated with the brain BUT not ONLY the brain).

  279. 279
    kairosfocus says:

    ET, I take the above as satire, or else it would be snipped. For those looking for cheap shot rhetorical turnabouts it is blatant that the vast majority of Republican voters would not resort to nor remotely enable such. KF

  280. 280
    ET says:

    Republicans have too much class to riot and loot. We are the business owners. So, yes, my comment was fully tongue-in-cheek.

    Should have added a smiley face to it.

  281. 281
    Truthfreedom says:

    Materialism, being a false, corrupt philosophy, hinders human progress.
    Human consciousness is not WHOLLY material. The brain is part of the process, BUT not the process.

    Materialism shall be discarded. A false worldview is leading us astray.

  282. 282
    daveS says:

    TF,

    Is there scientific evidence demonstrating that apprehending sphericity (at the human level) requires something beyond the brain?

    I would guess that workers in computer vision have researched the problem of detecting spheres/balls. It would be useful to have software that could track a tennis ball or basketball, for example.

  283. 283
    Truthfreedom says:

    Materialism’s epistemological blunder is the final nail in its coffin.

    Philosophical materialism is a belief , NOT A FACT BACKED UP BY SCIENCE.

    IF materialism were true, logic dictates that science (double access to the external world so we can cross-check the information being feed to us by OUR brains (=/= than we BEING our brains) would be impossible.

    The fact that we KNOW that science exists and offers results INVALIDATES the materialist thesis.

  284. 284
    daveS says:

    TF,

    I’m starting to get the idea that you don’t like materialism. 😛

  285. 285
    Truthfreedom says:

    DaveS, sorry, but you do not even begin to grasp what all this is about.

    Imagine the FIRST person who opened a human skull. This person opened a human skull and saw a brain inside.

    Fine?

  286. 286
    Truthfreedom says:

    I dislike false worldviews, of course. Once you get the argument, you will understand. 🙂

    We are not “bags of chemicals” (that is ONLY a part of us).

  287. 287
    daveS says:

    Could you elaborate? I don’t know what post #285 is supposed to convey.

  288. 288
    Truthfreedom says:

    It is where all this mess caused by the stupid materialist worldview begins.

    We have a man named Dr. Egnor. He lives in the past, and one day he decides to open a human skull to see what is inside.

    FIRST TIME EVER. VERY IMPORTANT.
    Can you imagine it?

  289. 289
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Observations of on the ground operations in “protests.” Put this with swarm-lynch mob tactics, hit teams and more. Ask yourself what went into what we see, for how long and why some folks are spending money and social capital like that right now. KF

  290. 290
    john_a_designer says:

    True or false?

    Black lives matter because all lives matter.

  291. 291
    ET says:

    False. Two reasons- 1) Black Lives Matter because black people get pulled over by the police for driving while black. Laws had to be made to mandate that black people be treated equally.

    2) All lives don’t matter.

  292. 292
    kairosfocus says:

    JAD, I would not even give them their phrasing. Life is the first right, without which there are no rights. Instantly, that points to the ongoing holocaust of our living posterity in the womb, the worst in human history. If an interlocutor will not recognise this, further discussion is futile, s/he is playing at logic with a swivel games. Thinking straight is the first step to sorting out this mess and I refuse to play at rhetoric games like the gostak distims the doshes. KF

  293. 293
    Truthfreedom says:

    287 DaveS

    Could you elaborate? I don’t know what post #285 is supposed to convey.

    Well, after being shown philosophical proof of the irretrievable epistemical failure of materialism, the materialist, being the intellectual dishonest creature he is, tries to salvage his dead materialist beast with what I call “the map” gimmick (meat-robot Seversky and his beloved Novella are two excellent examples).

    What is “the map” gimmick?
    – Well, once he understands that the combination materialism + science leads to collapse into subjective idealism, (we are forever trapped inside our skulls without any possibility of escaping it), he uses the mind he negates he has and tries the following tactic:

    One naturalist defense is the distinction made between map and territory, between belief and reality – a distinction proposed by Alfred Korzybski, who insists that “the map is not the territory” in a book that claims to introduce “non-Aristotelian systems.”1  Unfortunately for naturalism, the “map,” in this case, is its own invention, since the causal chain from external object to occipital lobe is a product of scientific materialism.
    Naturalisms’ Epistemological Nightmare

    At this point, the naturalist can only be considered either a pitiable fool or a liar that knows he has been exposed but relies on societal approval to keep the boat afloat some more time.

  294. 294
    john_a_designer says:

    I wasn’t talking about the organization, Black Lives Matter (cf. 290). I was talking about the idea that black lives matter. I can’t rationally disagree with the rhetorical claim that black lives matter. I don’t see how anyone living in a just, open and free democratic type society could disagree with that. That is because in that kind of society( in which I happen to live) all lives matter. If they don’t then you don’t really have a just, open and free democratic society.

    As the U.S. Declaration of Independence states unambiguously: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    So it is self-evidently true that “black lives matter because all lives matter.”

    However. That is not what the organization Black Lives Matter is all about.

    According to a very prescient study done back is 2016,

    Black Lives Matter presents an alternative view of the American story, rooted in Marxism and one that thrives on encouraging division. Many have criticized its avoidance of facts about bias in policing — facts that would directly counter the Black Lives Matter narrative. Nevertheless, it has captured the nation’s attention through its use of social-media and cameras but also by recruiting the young Americans who will ? ll the streets with their presence and engage the public’s interest with their fervor.

    If Black Lives Matter succeeds, it will have reengineered the minds of America to view our system, our history, and our future, through the lens of division and hate. In its dishonest weakening of public trust in the police of?cer, the representative of law and order and equality before the law, Black Lives Matter weakens the very foundations of our country.

    To counter this advance, marketers of freedom must understand why they are losing mindshare to the left’s Black Lives Matter ideology if they are to effectively counter their messages and rebuild demand for our principles.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/black-lives-matters-a-thing-of-the-left-anchored-on-a-cop-hate-strategy/

    In other words, Black Lives Matter is using some very deceptive rhetoric to undermine a society and culture founded on the principle that all lives matter.

    Already there have been people shouted down, cancelled and permanently silenced by BLM supporters for simply standing up and saying “all lives matter.”

    See the following. It’s very commentary from someplace down under (not Hell, Australia) about what is going on in the U.S.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSwVt1tZces

    Whoever this guy is, he is spot on.

  295. 295
    Truthfreedom says:

    Materialism (or how to pose a defeater to your own lunatic, un-scientific and enemy of knowledge worldview).

  296. 296
    john_a_designer says:

    I just learned about this incident a few minutes ago. Jessica Whitaker is the example of someone who was silenced permanently for just daring to say that “All lives matter.”

    “Jessica Whitaker was murdered in Indianapolis, Indiana after a standoff between two armed groups, one a group wearing Black Lives Matter shirts, and the other defending her. They were defending her after she told the Black Lives Matter group that “All Lives Matter”. The two groups apparently worked out the disagreement, only to have Jessica shot and killed after walking away. The investigation continues to verify these events, or find the Truth.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hSj9yRDMJs

    Why didn’t I find any coverage of this incident from the MSM? Why does it take a group of young blacks who don’t agree with BLM to report this news? And why isn’t the MSM media telling us anything about blacks who don’t support BLM? Where is the bias and bigotry again?

  297. 297
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky,

    enough time has passed, I clip from 247:

    >>When I watch Trump’s rallies I see uncomfortable echoes of the Nazi rallies. The way he whips up anger amongst the crowd and then directs it towards the press.>>

    1: Projection, in large part. Backed up by refusing to ask, who struck the first blow in the fight.

    2: If the US had a better balance in defamation law, much of the studied, persistent slander in its media would be stayed.

    3: As it is, a good slice of the media have been a conduit of bigotry, defamation, irresponsible accusation and just plain lying, which has damaged many, many people’s right to innocent reputation. So, a measure of anger in return is actually to be expected.

    4: To fix the problem, further slander by suggestion that Mr Trump et al are nazis is not going to help the matter. Instead it is time that adults in the room sponsored a truth and reconciliation commission and set about coming to terms with the harm done.

    5: The case of Mr Sandmann is only a harbinger to what will happen if the present course of habitual defamation continues.

    >>He hasn’t done so yet but is there any doubt that, if he asked them, those crowds would happily burn books or newspapers or anything else he pointed them towards. >>

    6: You cannot have it two ways, if you wish the freedom to protect burning the flag that has draped many a coffin as freedom of expression, or tearing down monuments and worse; burning newspapers or books as a mark of protest — with due explanation — is just as legitimately free expression.

    7: Of course, others looking on have a perfect right to draw their own conclusions on what is being burned, why. As I do, for cause, from the burning of Bibles and churches.

    >>Trump is trying to foment outrage and manipulate to his own political advantage>>

    8: Projection again, you really need to ponder the case of how the Poles attacked German radio stations, provoking German Counter-attacks in 1939. That is, we have a classic case on the sort of character who sets up he hit back first rhetoric.

    9: instead of fomenting causeless anger, it seems to me that a narcissistic political, celebrity, pundit and media elite have scorned and smeared many, many people for a long time and have imagined that those inferior deplorables and fundies should just suck it up in silence as their reputations, livelihoods and even lives are needlessly wrecked.

    10: That brings us back to, time for a truth and reconciliation commission.

    >>you will understand how outrageous – and I mean outrageous – I find your attempts to discredit and delegitimize the BLM protests – in face of the massive evidence of persistent racism in US society which has animated them – by stereotyping them as “Red Guard” puppets of some ruthless and powerful Marxist conspiracy.>>

    11: Your pretended outrage in the face of clear evidence fazes me not one whit. BLM is from its founders and platform a culture form, marxist 4GW insurgency front. It is using operational patterns that clearly come out of the Red Guards books, and it is using riots, looting, arson, intimidation, mayhem and verging on worse. So, for cause I hold that instead of being primarily a legitimate civil rights protest, it is a Marxist front operation that ruthlessly exploits the sufferings and pain of my people for ends that are frankly anticivilisational.

    12: As a capital case in point, defunding/abolishing lawful policing and courts etc is a Rubicon-crossing step. Yes, there is plenty of room to discuss and carry forward reasonable reform, but that is not what is being put on the table.

    13: Antifa is similar in telling ways and the hit-squad operation that has just been documented is a revelation on its true nature, cf F/N2 to OP.

    14: Those who have been enabling and hoping to ride on the chaos are also open to serious challenge.

    >>I regard racism as a human problem.>>

    15: That is precisely what BLM and by extension Antifa et al do not accept, as may be discerned from the now exposed tenets of that pseudoscience known as critical race theory . . . by its very name, yet another arm of the cultural marxist anticivilisational programme. I again cite Enc Brit as handy reference:

    Critical race theory (CRT), the view that the law and legal institutions are inherently racist and that race itself, instead of being biologically grounded and natural, is a socially constructed concept that is used by white people to further their economic and political interests at the expense of people of colour. According to critical race theory (CRT), racial inequality emerges from the social, economic, and legal differences that white people create between “races” to maintain elite white interests in labour markets and politics, giving rise to poverty and criminality in many minority communities. The CRT movement officially organized itself in 1989, at the first annual Workshop on Critical Race Theory, though its intellectual origins go back much further, to the 1960s and ’70s.

    The launch of the CRT movement marked its separation from critical legal studies (CLS), an offshoot of critical theory that examined how the law and legal institutions function to perpetuate oppression and exploitation.

    16: This is the intellectual muscle behind the push to abolish lawful policing.

    >> for me, the difference between a “patriot” and a “nationalist” is that the nationalist believes “my country, right or wrong” whereas the patriot does not bring shame on his country by doing or condoning wrong just because it was done by that country.>>

    17: Do you hear the many mean-spirited projections and false, prejudiced insinuations behind your words, once we bear in mind the exposure of that pseudoscience, critical race theory? Indeed, critical race theory is itself patently racist.

    >>the [Christian] faith will be much truer to its core principles when it speaks out in forthright condemnation of a man who is both immoral and amoral by its standards rather than have some of its leading figures fawn over him and blaspheme about him being favored or even chosen by their God>>

    18: The pagan king, Cyrus, is spoken of in Isa 45 as The Lord’s anointed, the scriptures teach that promotion comes from God, and Rom 13 (written with pervert in chief Nero on the throne and as part of a book that exposed his perversities as sinner in chief) call us to responsible respect and obedience to lawful authority. In so doing, it neither endorses Cyrus’ machinations and paganism nor Nero’s perversities and murders from the age of 14. Nor, does it imply that such will escape solemn accountability before the One to whom all authority belongs.

    18: With that balance in mind, I can freely note that significantly many Christians and Christian leaders have publicly and privately spoken to Mr Trump and others over the years regarding their sins, while maintaining due respect. Falsely accusing him of nazism and would be tyranny does not count. (Also, you were here when I had to pull back some remarks that were in a grey area for an organisation such as this, i.e. I by no means give or have given the current NY contractor in chief a blanket endorsement.)

    19: Doubtless, some Christians and Christian leaders have gone overboard in supporting him, which they should correct.

    20: That said, the extremism of what we are seeing has turned this most unlikely figure into a champion of civilisation in the face of outright misanthropes, anticivilisational zealots and people caught up in a patently destructive march of folly. Those caught up in a march over the cliff need to stop and at least try to turn back, though I fear it may now be too late, the cliff’s edge is clearly cracking underfoot even as the juggernaut accelerates further out of control. Utterly needlessly.

    >> Put very simply, if the need arose, would you be prepared to fight for Trump and all that he stands for or against him?>>

    21: I have never ever given blind allegiance to any politician. I will stand to preserve civilisation in the face of misanthropy, which is exactly why I am doing so now.

    >>There is a Trump party ruled by members his family and those trusted as loyal minions and stooges and the rest who make up a personality cult around him and believe that whatever Trump says goes. It is an abject betrayal of everything the Founding Fathers sought to create.>>

    22: Projection, kindly look soberly in the mirror.

    >>Trump is a dictator-in-waiting. >>

    23: Accusation based on demonisation rather than any significant sound evidence.

    >>His base would almost certainly support his ambition to be President-for-life. Would you?>>

    24: Further projection of nazism made up out of whole cloth, utter folly given that the base you so slander have long looked at successors once terms are up under the US Constitution.

    25: I am not nor do I desire to be a US citizen. You know or should readily know that I am a convinced supporter of constitutional democratic self government as one of the greatest achievements of civilisation.

    >>the two founders are self-proclaimed Marxists but I doubt that the great majority of the protesters are. >>

    26: The framework, fabric and animating pseudoscience are marxist and are exploiting the sufferings of my people to advance a civilisation-wrecking agenda. I know all too well who would pay the harshest price of both “success” and failure, my people.

    27: That you choose to continue shutting your eyes to the clear signature of Red Guard brigades at work is your problem, not mine. Duly noted.

    28: Also duly noted, you double down on blatantly false accusation despite protest and substantiated correction:

    [Seversky, 83:] Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting [–> notice, accusation of hiding a core agenda] for an unsavory collection [–> notice utterly imbalanced characterisation by one who doubtless would agree with “mostly peaceful protests”] of KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias [–> = Nazi SA storm troopers] and Christian nationalists. [–> = Christofascist Nazis]. –> Let me add the rest of his comment to Vivid: >>And we have a pretty good idea of the only people that lot and their idol care about. The only thing missing from the MAGA hat is the black swastika on a white ground.>>

    Duly noted.

    KF

  298. 298
    kairosfocus says:

    JAD, sad. And telling. Note FN2 to OP. KF

    PS: I note this looks to be at least coming on two months ago.

  299. 299
    Mac McTavish says:

    Sev

    I wrote that “I do not believe Christian nationalists are all neo-Nazis”. And I don’t. However, for me, the difference between a “patriot” and a “nationalist” is that the nationalist believes “my country, right or wrong” whereas the patriot does not bring shame on his country by doing or condoning wrong just because it was done by that country.

    You make a very good point. Trump keeps accusing people like Kaepernick and other sports figures who take a knee during the national anthem of being unpatriotic. Those who truly believe that this is the case must accept that the discrimination suffered by blacks is supported by the constitution.

    And then there is Trump’s recent edict to eliminate “ critical race theory“ from government training, referring to it as indoctrination. Now, let’s be honest here, he is talking about getting rid of “diversity in the work place” training, which used to be called “sensitivity training”. This sort of training will not eliminate all unacceptable behaviour in the work place. But what it is very good at is making us examined our own actions and behaviours from an informed perspective rather than an ignorant one.

  300. 300
    ET says:

    Mac:

    Trump keeps accusing people like Kaepernick and other sports figures who take a knee during the national anthem of being unpatriotic.

    Right. Taking a knee does nothing but divide. Make a stand. The pro athletes have the platform to be heard. Too bad they haven’t got a clue.

    Those who truly believe that this is the case must accept that the discrimination suffered by blacks is supported by the constitution.

    That doesn’t follow.

  301. 301
    vividbleau says:

    Mac
    “And then there is Trump’s recent edict to eliminate “ critical race theory“ from government training, referring to it as indoctrination. “

    Which it is.

    “Now, let’s be honest here, he is talking about getting rid of “diversity in the work place” training, which used to be called “sensitivity training”.”

    Do you know what diversity means in Critical Race and Social Justice theory? Do you know anything about Critical Race and Social,Justice theory? If you do then you are not being honest here ,if you don’t your talking about something you know nothing about. If it’s the latter you need to get”educated”

    Vivid

  302. 302
    vividbleau says:

    Mac

    Let me help you out here. This from a letter I sent to a few of my friends awhile back.

    “Critical theory is the theory of hegemonic culture which is defined as anyone who is white, male, heterosexual, cis gender, native born American, Christian , and other various qualifiers ( the top of the intersectionality ladder) OR identifies with that group regardless of their color. From this theory flows the idea of intersectionality ( those at the top of the ladder oppress those below) and group racist guilt. Critical Theory is more concerned with NARRATIVE rather than TRUTH, the facts don’t matter.

    The Critical Theory I am addressing is of The Frankfurt School of Marxist critics which includes György Lukács, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno and Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse for instance held to among other things that tolerance of views are repressive and he can be called the father of intolerance and the cancel culture.I am being specific here and giving names for a reason, so that you can do your own fact checking.These scholars left Germany in the 30s and after a stop in Switzerland landed in America and taught at Columbia.

    The big picture agenda of the Frankfurt School was to marry Marxian economic theory to Freudian psychoanalytic theory to explain the rise of fascism and put forth the reasons that the communist revolution was not taking place in Western democracies as Marx had predicted. Marx was a historical determinist. The Frankfurt School looked at systems of power in terms of how they exploited and oppressed the working class and more broadly the everyday citizen. One of the goals of the Frankfurt School was to address CULTURAL power. They decided that the reason the communist revolution had not yet been successful in the West is that something in Western culture must be preventing it. The goal of the Frankfurt School was to identify what those issues were and DISMANTLE them. You might stop for a moment and ask yourselves what is the basis of Western culture?
    Western culture is based on The Enlightenment and Judaeo Christian values and principles, the ultimate TARGET of Critical theory is the Judeo culture and It’s target also is aimed at classic liberalism.

    Sources:

    Wikipedia The Frankfurt School
    New Discourse Critical Theory
    The Gospel Coalition The Incompatibility of Critical Theory and Christianity
    Https//plato.stanford.edu./entries/critical-theory/
    Felluga, Dino Franco. Critical Theory:The Key Concepts (Routledge Key Guides). Taylor and Francis Kindle Edition
    Neil Shenvi Intro to Critical Theory
    The Gospel Coalition “Important Articles on Critical Theory”
    Voddie Bauchan You Tube “Cultural Marxism”

    I would like to now pivot to addressing Critical Race Theory, Critical Social Justice Theory, and White Complicity Theory.

    “Beware lest anyone take you captive through philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition according to the elemental spirits of the world not to Christ” Col 2:8

    Critical Race Theory:

    Critical Race Theory( CRT) is a sub theory of Critical Theory that questions the very foundation of the liberal order, including equality theory. For instance if you pay attention to words you will notice that proponents of CRT substitute the word “equity” for “equality” two entirely different meanings. CRT also questions legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law. CRT argues that the axis of America social life revolves around race and systemic power, racism permeates everything and must be uncovered using critical methods. Critical race theory explicitly endorses historical revisionism such as the 1619 project or eliminating historical monuments.

    CRT is openly and aggressively anti liberal. Liberal does not mean left wing. A liberal society aims to make sure that everybody is treated equally and works toward a society where barriers are removed that prevents that from happening. CRT views this as nothing more than the existing power structure maintaining its dominance (hegemony). CRT theorists reject color blindness as myths and illusions that allow white people to perpetrate their inherited privilege. CRT rejects Martin Luther King’s position that we should judge people on the content of their character not the color of their skin. CRT does not advocate color blindness but rather diversity narratives ,but not diversity of opinion , equity but not equality. In practice CRT holds that racism is subconscious in many cases.

    Sources:
    Https//plato.stanford.edu.entries/critical-theory/
    New Discourses Critical Race theory
    Cummings, Andre Douglas Pond “ A furious kinship: Critical Race Theory and the Hip Hop Nation
    Delgado, Richard and S,Jean “Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge Third Edition
    Payne, Hilrado. “The Role of of Critical Race Theory in Higher Education”
    Applebaum
    Thompson, Sherwood. “Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice
    DiAngelo and Sensoy “White Fragility”
    Voddie Bauchan You Tube “Cultural Marxism”

    Critical Social Justice Theory:

    “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means” Inigo Montoya “Princess Bride”

    From new discourse

    “Social Justice is the ultimate “Trojan Horse”term, where it seems to mean one thing , a good thing, as most people would understand it, which is a more fair and equal society but it actually means something else in Critical Social Justice Theory. That something else is very specific, and most people, if they knew what they were encountering ,would be unlikely to accept. The idea advertised by the phrase “social justice” doesn’t match the ideology and worldview bearing the seemingly identical name.

    This is because the phrase “social justice”, here intentionally left in the lowercase, means something that most people in society can get behind, more fairness, equality, egalitarianism, less bigotry ,discrimination, disenfranchisement and the like. There are very few people today who would say they don’t seek social justice. Any disagreements are about how to achieve it and what it would look like.This is because most people in the West are broadly liberal, in the philosophical and true meaning of the word, not how it is used in American politics.

    On the other hand , “Social Justice”, here intentionally capitalized , means something more specific, it means “Critical Social Justice”. That is, in fact, an ideology that very aggressively pursues the social, cultural ,institutional, and political installation and enforcement of a very specific and radical understanding of social justice as derived from various critical theories. As such they do not necessarily seek to achieve “social justice” in the broad sense, or in the sense that many would assume of the term. Instead they seek to empower and enforce their own particular worldview that revolves around one narrow and authoritative interpretation which is hegemony, result of the processes by which one dominant culture, which is currently the Judaeo Christian, maintains its dominant position. Let me put it this way. If your a classic liberal and embrace Enlightenment principles or if you embrace Judaeo Christian values the mob is coming after you.

    Critical Social Justice theory also does not advocate for equality which they see as an oppressive ideology. Instead it advocates for equity which I have mentioned means something different ie equal outcomes. Equal outcomes are what they mean by diversity as opposed to meritocracy.

    Nor does it tolerate diversity of opinion. The enforcement of the meta narrative uses what is termed “canceling “or “cancel culture” to enforce conformity of thought. Last week alone we have seen the canceling of movies, TV shows and approximately seven editors of major media organizations canceled.The editor of the New York Times had to step down for allowing an op ed piece that went against the predominant meta narrative. A college football coach had to apologize for wearing the wrong shirt. American history is being cancelled, monuments are being torn down. One apology is never enough. An this is just the tip of the iceberg and is escalating. You cannot replace a culture without erasing its history.

    Critical Social Justice Theory demands acknowledgement of white complicity as a first step, a necessary albeit not a sufficient step , as a requirement of challenging systemic racial oppression. This complicity arises from the nature of “white privilege”, which white people benefit from whether they want to or not.

    In other words based on ones color, without any evidence, one is accused of something based on the color of their skin, the opposite of MLKs position. I can think of nothing more racist than targeting an entire ethnic group with a collective crime regardless of the innocence or guilt of its individuals. Just last week Webster changed the classic historical definition to one more suitable to Critical Social Justice Theory which in a nut shell is that if you are white or “think white” you are a priori a racist because you are white or think white. For instance “thinking white”,whatever that is, creates an open season on any African American and opens them up to the most vile epithets, slurs and slanders because they are identifying with the current hegemonic culture. They are often portrayed as not being black or not being black enough. Thus you have racism without a racist.

    In short for the Critical Social Justice advocates the whole system is rotten to the core, it is “systemic” and we must dismantle the “systemic” dominant culture, which is the Judaeo Christian and classic liberal enlightenment culture.This is why a certain dominate player and strong advocate of Critical Race and Social Justice theory states on their web page statement of beliefs “we are dedicated to transgender rights and the disruption of the classic Western nuclear family”. From what book is the Western nuclear family derived ? Critical Social Justice Theory as distinguished from true social justice, wants cultural revolution not reform.

    Sources:

    Sensory, Ozlem, and Robert DiAngelo “Is everyone really equal?” An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education, first edition. Teachers College Press:New York, p.xviii
    Adams, M.,et al (2016). Teaching For Diversity and Social Justice. New York: Routledge. P.1
    Bell, L., (2013) Theoretical foundations. In M. Adams, W.J.Blumenfeld, C. Castaneda,,H.W Hackman, M.L,,Peters, and X. Zuniga. (EDS), Readings for diversity and social justice. New York: Routledge
    Lemisko, Lynn “Unpacking Presuppositions for Social Justice” “Un packing and Repacking Generative Concepts in Social Justice Studies” Todd A Horton and Lynn Lemisko Ed’s Sense Publishers , 2015
    Black Lives Matters Official Website “What we believe”
    New Discourses Critical Social Justice Theory
    The Gospel Coalition “ Social Justice, Critical Theory ,and Christianity : Are They Compatible
    Voddie Bauchan You Tube “Cultural Marxism”

    Vivid

  303. 303
    BobRyan says:

    Critical Race Theory is nothing more than eugenics rebranded.

  304. 304
    Truthfreedom says:

    Bob Ryan
    Marxists are very apt at rebranding everything.
    Child sacrifice for example rebranded as ‘abortion’.

  305. 305
    Truthfreedom says:

    Seversky
    It looks like you are evading me. 🙂

    You say: thou shall not derive an “ought” from an “is”.
    Whence should I derive my “oughts” then?
    Kindly, write it down.
    1. __________

    Was ” darwinian theory ” inside Mr. Darwin’s head/ skull ?
    Yes/ no
    Kindly, write it down.
    1. __________

    That “supervenience” thing looks to me more like “magic”.
    “Everything is physical except those things that are not physical but are created by the physical” (which violates causality/ logic).
    Do you believe in magic?
    Yes/ no
    Kindly, write it down.
    1. __________

    It seems like your materialist worldview is full of gaps. Like the fossil record.

  306. 306
    BobRyan says:

    Truthfreedom @ 304

    Women sacrifice their unborn to their false god of choice, Margaret Sanger.

  307. 307
    Truthfreedom says:

    Seversky

    If we are our brains, then:
    Seversky = brain
    Therefore, when visiting a brain doctor due to you experiencing pain, you could say;
    Hello brain that makes itself pass as a doctor (because doctors are brains too), I am brain in pain (instead of hello doctor my brain hurts).

    You a/ mats never get bored in your life. Like childs, with all your fantasies running wild.

  308. 308
    Truthfreedom says:

    BobRyan

    Women sacrifice their unborn to their false god of choice, Margaret Sanger.

    It’s even worse. Men and women sacrifice their children to Aphrodite . 🙁
    We have returned to paganism.

  309. 309
    kairosfocus says:

    Vivid, sobering. KF

  310. 310
    BobRyan says:

    Truthfreedom

    The false gods that have always been worshiped continue to be worshiped. The name may change over time, but the attributes do not.

  311. 311
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: It should by now be clear that what is at stake is civilisation with as a chief value, liberty with good order through the civil peace of justice. As a reminder, let us ponder what was put on the table before the whole world, July 4th, 1776:

    When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 – 21, 2:14 – 15], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . .

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions [Cf. Judges 11:27 and discussion in Locke], do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

    Yes, the men who put that on the table were flawed (are any of us perfect?) and made compromises that would lead to civil war just over eighty years later.

    That does not grant us licence to cancel them out and impose yet another predictably bloodily tyrannical year zero reset.

    The sound lessons of history were bought with blood and tears; those who neglect, dismiss or reject them doom themselves to pay in the same coin over and over again.

    It is time to put truth and reconciliation on the table, and to seek a prudent way forward. Just perhaps, that might reduce the terrible cost that it seems we have already doomed ourselves to pay.

    Perhaps, too, we will need to learn sobering lessons from this year of crushing shocks.

    KF

  312. 312
    kairosfocus says:

    Vivid,

    We are seeing a newspeak rewrite of meaning also, e.g. in the claimed contrast between equality by nature under God and “equity.” Let me go to Enc Brit:

    Samuel Clarke (1675–1729), the next major intuitionist, accepted More’s axiom of benevolence in slightly different words. He was also responsible for a “principle of equity,” which, though derived from the Golden Rule so widespread in ancient ethics, was formulated with a new precision: “Whatever I judge reasonable or unreasonable for another to do for me, that by the same judgment I declare reasonable or unreasonable that I in the like case should do for him.” As for the means by which these moral truths are known, Clarke accepted Cudworth’s and More’s analogy with truths of mathematics and added the idea that what human reason discerns is a certain “fitness or unfitness” about the relationship between circumstances and actions. The right action in a given set of circumstances is the fitting one; the wrong action is unfitting. This is something known intuitively and is self-evident . . .

    Pull back a bit, AmHD:

    eq·ui·ty (?k?w?-t?)
    n. pl. eq·ui·ties
    1. The state or quality of being just and fair.
    2. Something that is just and fair.
    3. Law
    a. Justice achieved not simply according to the strict letter of the law but in accordance with principles of substantial justice and the unique facts of the case.
    b. See court of equity. [–> In the UK, hist. Court of Chancery judged that the Lady Mico trust be used to support ex slaves in the WI, through establishing Mico Schools, in Jamaica a teacher’s college and in Antigua an Agricultural one]
    c. An equitable right or claim: an analysis of the equities and inequities brought about by the current trade bill.

    In short, equity, proper, is a meta-legal question of true fairness reflecting our built in moral government. The notion of forced equality of outcome — ajudicated by radicals already showing utter disregard for innocent reputation, property (reconceptualised as theft subject to forfeiture at will through the Marxian version of the outdated labour theory of value . . . thus to burning, wrecking or looting), liberty (notice, mobbing and false imprisonment by raging mobs), even life — is absurd on its face.

    All of this brings us back to the matter of antecedent first duties of reason:

    We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

    Such, we need to hammer home.

    KF

  313. 313
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: The big conversation we should be having instead is how to equip ordinary people and their children how to be technically and economically competitive in an ever increasingly digital age where artificially intelligent machines will be part and parcel of production of goods and services. This is an age where already driverless vehicles are on the roads; ponder the rise of a robotic transport sector. I am told of trading floors for markets being replaced by server farms using AI to invest in arbitrage with millisecond precision. Soon, engineers, doctors, nurses and technicians will work with software assistants. Same, for how the pandemic has forced digital distance education technologies to the fore. How do we prepare for such a world of intelligent information, communication and control technologies? KF

  314. 314
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: I have added to F/N2, the OP, a video link to an analysis of the team assassination of Mr Danielson. Note, that only amplifies what is demonstrated already in the photograph of the assassin drawing as he emerges from ambush where neither he nor his target could see one another, once he was instructed — likely by UHF radio — that his target was in the “kill” box. With the videographer across the road, notice, not fazed by witnessing murder and brushes off an onlooker pressing him to go to the police. I bet, the vid may be subtly edited to exclude incriminating evidence. This act of teamwork terrorism is pregnant with implications for what has been going on for years to develop capacity to do something that is more typically done by intelligence agency wet work teams or seriously organised terrorist groups. That also means, the backers are signalling civil authorities that they have sophisticated assassination capacity; a shot across the bows coming two months before an election . . . we can take out targets at will. This incident is causus belli for any serious counter intelligence agency that is not fatally penetrated and compromised itself. The next several weeks should be telling in that regard; if there is no rollup of core Red Guard activists, then things are really, really bad. The juggernaut is rolling faster and faster. KF

  315. 315
    Truthfreedom says:

    310 BobRyan

    The false gods that have always been worshiped continue to be worshiped. The name may change over time, but the attributes do not.

    Earth is nothing more than a spiritual battlefield.
    The play being played on stage is the old dichotomy evil vs. good.
    And on the stage, among the actors, The tree of knowledge keeps casting a long shadow.

    Atheism is nothing but unadultered pride. A sin born born of free will that ends up denying the same free will that fuels it.

    There’s nothing new under the sun.

  316. 316
    kairosfocus says:

    MMT:

    I see you at 299:

    then there is Trump’s recent edict to eliminate “ critical race theory“ from government training, referring to it as indoctrination. Now, let’s be honest here, he is talking about getting rid of “diversity in the work place” training, which used to be called “sensitivity training”. This sort of training will not eliminate all unacceptable behaviour in the work place. But what it is very good at is making us examined our own actions and behaviours from an informed perspective rather than an ignorant one.

    We already saw a whistleblower courageously expose what is really going on, at risk of his future employability.

    You were conspicuously absent from that thread.

    Your characterisation as cited is blatantly false, misinformed and misleading. And if earlier training was cut from the same cloth, it is also to be utterly condemned.

    Let’s clip the actual OMB memo repudiating indoctrination in critical race theory:

    It has come to the President’s attention that Executive Branch agencies have spent
    millions of taxpayer dollars to date “training” government workers to believe divisive, anti-
    American propaganda.

    For example, according to press reports, employees across the Executive Branch have
    been required to attend trainings where they are told that “virtually all White people contribute to
    racism” or where they are required to say that they “benefit from racism.” According to press
    reports, in some cases these training have further claimed that there is racism embedded in the
    belief that America is the land of opportunity or the belief that the most qualified person should
    receive a job.

    These types of “trainings” not only run counter to the fundamental beliefs for which our
    Nation has stood since its inception, but they also engender division and resentment within the
    Federal workforce. We can be proud that as an employer, the Federal government has
    employees of all races, ethnicities, and religions. We can be proud that Americans from all over
    the country seek to join our workforce and dedicate themselves to public service. We can be
    proud of our continued efforts to welcome all individuals who seek to serve their fellow
    Americans as Federal employees. However, we cannot accept our employees receiving training
    that seeks to undercut our core values as Americans and drive division within our workforce.

    The President has directed me to ensure that Federal agencies cease and desist from using
    taxpayer dollars to fund these divisive, un-American propaganda training sessions. Accordingly,
    to that end, the Office of Management and Budget will shortly issue more detailed guidance on
    implementing the President’s directive. In the meantime, all agencies are directed to begin to
    identify all contracts or other agency spending related to any training on “critical race theory/9
    “white privilege,” or any other training or propaganda effort that teaches or suggests either (1)
    that the United States is an inherently racist or evil country or (2) that any race or ethnicity is
    inherently racist or evil.
    In addition, all agencies should begin to identify all available avenues
    within the law to cancel any such contracts and/or to divert Federal dollars away from these un-
    American propaganda training sessions.

    In conclusion, it adds:

    The President, and his Administration, are fully committed to the fair and equal treatment
    of all individuals in the United States. The President has a proven track record of standing for
    those whose voice has long been ignored and who have failed to benefit from all our country has
    to offer, and he intends to continue to support all Americans, regardless of race, religion, or
    creed. The divisive, false, and demeaning propaganda of the critical race theory movement is
    contrary to all we stand for as Americans and should have no place in the Federal government.

    Consider yourself further exposed.

    KF

  317. 317
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: let’s pull back to a wider picture.

    Yes, what is going on is significant in itself and exposes ideological agendas and the sort of rhetorical and agit prop smear tactics design thinkers have long faced. Yes, we can see wanton recklessness and disregard for duty to truth, right reason etc. Yes, such exposure equips us to have an intuitive grasp for how ideological manipulation works and where it is liable to end up, disaster. But then more comes into the picture, we are seeing a battle for the heart of civilisation, dominant worldview, mainstream cultural narrative and linked institutional and policy agendas.

    At the heart of these things is precisely the sort of institutional subversion and imposition of atheistical, a priori evolutionary materialism that twenty years ago now Richard Lewontin inadvertently exposed.

    So, it is time to draw attention to a key fact that won Nobel prizes: in the heart of the living cell we find the answer to SETI.

    Namely, alphanumeric, 4-state element based digital code expressing algorithms with associated molecular nanotech execution machinery; as core aspects of the cell’s functionality. Code, string based alphanumeric code is language antecedent to cell based life. Algorithms are goal-directed, finite sequences of steps carrying out a function. To all but the hopelessly indoctrinated, we are here seeing the signature of intelligent design as basis for a world of biological creatures including ourselves.

    Backing it, there is a fine tuned cosmos set to a deeply isolated operating point that enables C-chem, aqueous medium, cell based life on terrestrial planets in galactic habitable zones.

    Even more tellingly, we find ourselves to be inescapably morally governed creatures, starting with the first duties of reason:

    We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

    The proud, ideologically atheistical post modern world is intellectually and increasingly morally bankrupt.

    It is high time for a reformation.

    KF

  318. 318
    Truthfreedom says:

    317 Kairosfocus

    The proud, ideologically atheistical post modern world is intellectually and increasingly morally bankrupt.

    And it is a disgusting place to be born into.
    Thank God there is a God. Atheism brings nothing to the picture. You can not legislate based on ‘natural selection’ and ‘random molecules’.

    Atheists leech off the immense Christian heritage they have received. Then they spit in its face as the prideful and disgusting creatures they are. Like a cancer that destroys its host and then realizes there is nowhere else for it to attach itself to.

    It is high time for a reformation.

    I believe we are witnessing the utter collapse of our civilization. Strategically planned and with spiritual help.

  319. 319
    Truthfreedom says:

    It is no coincidence that the marxist pest is so apt at manipulating language. A bunch of retarded H. sapiens could not have achieved such a mastery all by themselves.

    But those atheist evo-tards are nothing but insects trapped in a giant web of lies, a web whose owner is having great fun and many laughs at them.

    What I call the
    “Lewontinian
    door” will be toppled down. And when they realize who is the owner of the foot that has been kicking it, they will **** their pants. 🙂

    Those morons who are always complaining about injustice and suffering, lol. Oh boy, at least here, on this side of reality, you can have moments of relief. But there, on the other side, you won’t enjoy a single one.
    The crying and gnashing of teeth is going to be legendary.

  320. 320
    daveS says:

    Good stuff, TF. 😂

  321. 321
    kairosfocus says:

    TF, we too must be restrained in our dealings. Those we disagree with and may have to fight are also human beings made in God’s image; part of the tragedy we face, that we are too often forced to fight what boils down to a human civil war. In that light, it is time for reformation. I don’t think we can totally wreck civilisation (short of nuke war) but we can do a lot of damage. Right now, I think serious damage is unavoidable, but maybe we can contain it. KF

  322. 322
    john_a_designer says:

    Don’t worry folks Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman assures us that things are not as bad as we really think. This is what he posted on twitter last week:

    I went for a belated NYC run this morning, and am sorry to report that I saw very few black-clad anarchists. Also, the city is not yet in flames.

    10:39 AM · Sep 2, 2020

    That’s it. Krugman said it… that settles it. One observation from a world renowned economist and noted NYT columnist is all that it takes.

    Can anyone else see the logical fallacies in what Krugman is claiming? I can. But who am I?

    I have been wrong about one thing. I thought this type of thinking was limited to anonymous internet troll wannabe’s… I guess not.

    For a more in depth analysis see the following commentary:

    https://video.foxnews.com/v/6188171548001?playlist_id=4249245556001#sp=show-clips

  323. 323
    daveS says:

    Can anyone else see the logical fallacies in what Krugman is claiming? I can.

    What is Krugman claiming? I see a report of a single observation.

  324. 324
    john_a_designer says:

    Yeah you’re right Dave. He’s not really claiming anything. So what’s his point?

  325. 325
    daveS says:

    I don’t follow Krugman, but I’m guessing that he is using hyperbole to comment on the more extreme accounts of the state of NYC. He implies that (according to some reports), you can’t look anywhere in the city without seeing hordes of black-clad anarchists and buildings in flames, a clear exaggeration.

    It’s a mildly snarky tweet which is meant to convey more than its literal meaning. Krugman is obviously intelligent enough to recognize and avoid elementary logical fallacies.

  326. 326
    Mac McTavish says:

    KF

    The big conversation we should be having instead is how to equip ordinary people and their children how to be technically and economically competitive in an ever increasingly digital age where artificially intelligent machines will be part and parcel of production of goods and services.

    On this we completely agree. But if the availability of this education disproportionately favors non-blacks, as is the case today, BLM will never become redundant.

  327. 327
    Truthfreedom says:

    321 Kairosfocus

    Those we disagree with and may have to fight are also human beings made in God’s image;

    True. Although they degrade themselves and society by cheapening human life to the level of H. sapiens, meat-robots, bags of chemicals, whatever epithet among their general non-sense.

    Let’s be honest. All this mess stems from the existence of suffering, the so called: “problem of evil”, which tests our human nature like anything else.

    Lots of people are then tempted by–that-guy-who-reeks-of-sulphur-you-know-who-I-am-talking-about to reject God because God is evil/ an uncaring Father.

    And then they start to gain knowledge and believe that paradise exists, but here on Earth (which is impossible). But that is a big, fat lie. Look at all the marxist utopias and their results: gulags, torture, poverty, rivers of blood and piles of corpses = death.

    So, by rejecting God, the amount of suffering is not only not reduced, but increased tenfold.

    Suffering is the key to understand what kind of play is being played on this stage (Earth).

  328. 328
    Mac McTavish says:

    KF@316, unless I have missed something, which I admit is quite possible, what appears to be missing from Trump’s edict are clear examples of the types of training he is referring to. I work for the feds and as is the case with most federal employees, I have received ridiculous amounts of training. The only thing that comes remotely close to what is being claimed are the various diversity in the workplace courses, of which I have taken several.

    Do they talk about prejudice and racism? Absolutely. As they do misogyny, homophobia and other mindsets that lead to inappropriate behavior in the workplace.

    Do they talk about systemic racism? Absolutely. Because it still exists in many areas of our lives.

    We all have prejudices. They are born of ignorance. What these courses try to do is provide the information necessary to reduce our ignorance. How can this be a bad thing?

    Maybe if you could provide a link to some of the training material that Trump is so opposed to we could discuss it.

  329. 329
    jerry says:

    Does having a negative attitude towards Trump make one more susceptible to death by C19?

    We have found a negative and significant correlation at the 0.01 (bilateral) level between D.Trump’s net approval and the case fatality rate, (? = ?0,57 ; P = 0,000035), in particular,
    the higher D.Trump’s net approval is, the lower the case fatality rate

    https://uncommondescent.com/medicine/the-frontline-doctors-put-some-plausible-mechanisms-for-hydroxychloroquine-on-the-table/#comment-711601

  330. 330
    ET says:

    If schooling and the parents cannot alleviate the ignorance with respect to racism, I doubt any government training will help. Maybe people should be asked questions before being hired- given a test with racial overtones, for example.

  331. 331
    Mac McTavish says:

    ET

    If schooling and the parents cannot alleviate the ignorance with respect to racism, I doubt any government training will help.

    I am sure you are correct with the true racist, but they aren’t really the problem. In most employment situations, except where the employer is also a “true believer”, these people get identified and weeded our pretty quickly. It is the subtle prejudices that cause the real damage. And I am talking about the prejudices that people who consider themselves to be non-racist often have.

    Maybe people should be asked questions before being hired- given a test with racial overtones, for example.

    I guess this might be possible, and it might work for a true racist, but I don’t know if it would identify people who have prejudices due merely to ignorance.

  332. 332
    kairosfocus says:

    MMT, I linked a specific case with a specific whistleblower [who speaks at length in very familiar terms], perhaps you need to start from nuke weapons lab, Sandia . . . and what that implies about how widespread this is. In coming days, we will doubtless hear and see a lot more. KF

  333. 333
    kairosfocus says:

    ET, I am pretty sure that SERIOUS background tests and checks are given before one can get in the door at Sandia. All the way back to childhood. Psychological instabilities tied to racism etc, for cause, would not come in the door. I recommend that people listen to Mr Petersen; which seems the correct spelling. KF

  334. 334
    john_a_designer says:

    Dave @ 325,

    It’s a mildly snarky tweet.

    No Dave, it is smug condescension.

  335. 335
    daveS says:

    There is an element of that. He’s saying to the alarmists, “c’mon, get real!”.

  336. 336
    Seversky says:

    Kairosfocus @ 250

    BR, actually, the Common law in key part grew out of cumulative precedents, but because of law of nature and biblical influences, was restrained. The key breakdown was the rise of legal positivism which is about 100 – 150 years ago, and it was of course influenced further by darwinist thought. The result was to destroy the restraints and allow cumulative steps of distortion with the premise that institutions, groups and individuals with enough clout made law by direct decree or rulings etc. Where law was redefined as product of such processes. Implication, might and manipulation make law, justice, right, rights, logic, warrant, knowledge, truth etc. Which is patent nihilism. KF

    The laws which regulate human society are written by human beings using human languages which are inevitably subject to interpretation, however carefully they are drafted, unless you ascribe to them the infallibility claimed for religious texts.

    For example, on its face “Thou shalt not kill” seems unambiguous but does it mean we should not kill any living thing? Does it mean we should not kill to defend ourselves or others who are in danger of being unlawfully killed? Does it mean we should not kill in defense of our country?

    If laws are open to interpretation then, like it or not, somebody has to decide which interpretation should apply in a given case. In a democratic society that role is assigned to the courts. It is not necessarily judicial activism if the court reaches a verdict with which you disagree. If a law is so poorly drafted that it is capable of conflicting interpretations that cannot be resolved by the courts then it falls to the legislature to make whatever changes it decides are required.

  337. 337
    ET says:

    You shall not murder. Self defense isn’t murder.

  338. 338
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky,

    As an illustration, start with this, that the received consensus c 50 BC was “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary.”

    Framing in more detail:

    We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

    From this base in the built in law of our morally governed nature a whole systematisation of law can be developed, indeed that thinking is behind the US DoI 1776 and Constitution, 1787 – 9.

    Yes, we can play all sorts of games with law, similar to many disciplines. That is why legal drafting is a serious professional grade study.

    That said, legislatures, courts, etc do not have arbitrary power to decree as they would, that is nihilism.

    KF

  339. 339
    Seversky says:

    Kairosfocus @ 252

    I suggest to you that you would have been better advised to walk back and apologise for such bigotry and projection. Instead, you have first tried evasions, turnabout projections and distractions, amounting to doubling down.

    I did qualify what I wrote. Now, will you walk back your support for the Alinskyite strategy that is clearly intended to discredit the BLM movement as the agent of a Marxist conspiracy intended to overthrow Western civilization in face of the undeniable, systemic and endemic racism that has infested US society – although not just US society – for centuries?

  340. 340
    john_a_designer says:

    Dave @ 335,

    And as The New York Times reported recently: “It has been nearly a quarter century since New York City experienced as much gun violence in the month of June as it has seen this year.” (On Sunday, there were at least nine killings in the city.)

    An additional 11 cities provide year-to-date murder data. Murder is up 21.8 percent in all 36 cities with 2020 data through at least May, with 29 of those cities seeing an increase this year relative to last year.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/upshot/murders-rising-crime-coronavirus.html

    Nothing to get alarmed about?

  341. 341
    Mac McTavish says:

    KF@332, I watched it until he said that anecdotal evidence is garbage. So I took him at his word at stopped watching this anecdotal evidence.

    But seriously I agree that this training, if accurately presented, is a little extreme. Is it dangerous, polarizing and divisive? I guess that depends on the context it is presented in.

    As I have said, I have undergone several courses on diversity in the workplace and they have all been enlightening.

  342. 342
    Seversky says:

    Vividbleau @ 254

    Yet in fact the Nazi behavior is being exhibited by Trumps opposition . I don’t recall the abhorrent behavior perpetrated on Trumpers going to their hotels or cars after the RNC Convention being done by Trumpers to the Dems after their convention. It is not the Trumpers that are going into restaurants or movie theaters to harass Democrat officials. I have not heard from Trumpers call for what Maxine Waters called for which was to incited people to accost Republicans wherever they’re might be. No Trumpers have tried to take out 17 members of the Democrat leadership on a baseball field. The modern day Nazi brown shirts with their own Hitler salute that they force people to do(Antifa BLM) are not Trumpers. The facts are clear the Nazis are here and they are not the Trump supporters.

    The only thing restraining the more extreme Trump supporters is that he is currently in power. If that were to change then this could become a lot more common:

    ‘No Blame?’ ABC News finds 54 cases invoking ‘Trump’ in connection with violence, threats, alleged assaults
    President Donald Trump has repeatedly distanced himself from acts of violence in communities across America, dismissing critics who point to his rhetoric as a potential source of inspiration or comfort for anyone acting on even long-held beliefs of bigotry and hate.

    “I think my rhetoric brings people together,” he said last year, four days after a 21-year-old allegedly posted an anti-immigrant screed online and then allegedly opened fire at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, killing 22 and injuring dozens of others.

    But a nationwide review conducted by ABC News has identified at least 54 criminal cases where Trump was invoked in direct connection with violent acts, threats of violence or allegations of assault.

    After a Latino gas station attendant in Gainesville, Florida, was suddenly punched in the head by a white man, the victim could be heard on surveillance camera recounting the attacker’s own words: “He said, ‘This is for Trump.'” Charges were filed but the victim stopped pursuing them.

    When police questioned a Washington state man about his threats to kill a local Syrian-born man, the suspect told police he wanted the victim to “get out of my country,” adding, “That’s why I like Trump.”

    Reviewing police reports and court records, ABC News found that in at least 12 cases perpetrators hailed Trump in the midst or immediate aftermath of physically assaulting innocent victims. In another 18 cases, perpetrators cheered or defended Trump while taunting or threatening others. And in another 10 cases, Trump and his rhetoric were cited in court to explain a defendant’s violent or threatening behavior.

    There is little doubt that Trump is regarded as an inspiration to extreme nationalist and racist groups.

    You are in no position to lecture anyone about moral standards when you support policies that allow for killing an unborn baby literally within days of its birth and if the baby survives kill it anyway. Spare me you moral outrage.

    I have made it clear previously that I believe the individual’s right to life should cover the entire lifespan of that individual. That said, there are two individuals with rights that should be considered, both the mother and the child. I would allow abortions on medical grounds, for example, where the mother’s life is at risk, but the presumption should be of the right to life in all cases.

    But I will accept no lessons on morality from Christians while the Old Testament presents as praiseworthy behavior accounts of slavery, sexism, racism, rape and genocide.

    Earth to Sev terrorists groups have been terrorizing Seattle and Portland for about 100 straight days! You are so unattached to reality it boggles the mind.

    Earth to VB, minority groups in the US have been subject to the most savage racism for hundreds of years rather than just 100 days. For example ,

    According to the Tuskegee Institute, 4,743 people were lynched between 1882 and 1968 in the United States, including 3,446 African Americans and 1,297 whites. More than 73 percent of lynchings in the post–Civil War period occurred in the Southern states.[10] According to the Equal Justice Initiative, 4,084 African Americans were lynched between 1877 and 1950 in the South.[11]

    “His base would almost certainly support his ambition to be President-for-life. Would you?”

    No his base would not support that since that would be unconstitutional. You really don’t have a clue do you.?You just make [SNIP] up.

    You think so?

    Trump says maybe U.S. will have a president for life someday

    Politics Mar 4, 2018 9:58 AM EDT

    WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump says he thinks it’s great that China’s president now holds that office for life and muses that maybe the U.S. will do the same someday.

    Trump’s remarks were met with laughter and applause during a luncheon for Republican donors Saturday at his South Florida estate. CNN said it obtained a recording of the remarks.

    If it is a fair election and Biden wins the vast majority of Trump supporters will accept the results and will not commit violence,…

    Sure they will. But if they do, will Trump? And if the extreme elements among his supporters are threatening or committing violent acts now, what do you think they will do if he loses?

  343. 343
    Mac McTavish says:

    ET

    You shall not murder. Self defense isn’t murder.

    But whether the level of force used to defend yourself is justified is open to interpretation. If I am being slapped by someone half my size, shooting him might be considered murder (or, more likely, manslaughter). But what about killing someone to defend your property?

  344. 344
    Truthfreedom says:

    Seversky 340

    But I will accept no lessons on morality from Christians…

    Lol! Then go pray Allah, because your materialist cult is dead.

    Only theism can ground morality. And among theism, Christianism is King.
    Your fallacies regarding The Old Testament are laughable.

    A child having a tantrum.

  345. 345
    Seversky says:

    John_a_designer @ 290

    True or false?

    Black lives matter because all lives matter.

    True.

  346. 346
    Truthfreedom says:

    Seversky
    You never had “the map”. Your materialist amoral fantasy has collapsed into idealism.
    Materialism shall be buried as the superstition that has hindered The West for decades.

    It’s just a “matter” of time. 🙂
    Bye bye.

  347. 347
    Seversky says:

    Kairosfocus @ 316

    It has come to the President’s attention that Executive Branch agencies have spent millions of taxpayer dollars to date “training” government workers to believe divisive, anti-American propaganda.

    For example, according to press reports…

    “According to press reports…”?

    How about a Federal agency like the OMB requesting copies of the Sandia training materials to discover if they are as Petersen alleges? How about them reviewing those of other agencies before concluding that they represent “…divisive, anti-American propaganda…” or “…divisive, anti-American propaganda…”

    Trump, apparently cares nothing about due process. Do you?

  348. 348
    Truthfreedom says:

    Kairosfocus, I am adding The Argument That Buries Materialism here (your post):
    Thoughts On The Soul
    And how hylemorphism is the only viable option (matter+spirit).

    Aristotle is back.

    My pleasure. 🙂

  349. 349
    Seversky says:

    Kairosfocus @ 317

    At the heart of these things is precisely the sort of institutional subversion and imposition of atheistical, a priori evolutionary materialism that twenty years ago now Richard Lewontin inadvertently exposed.

    Would you say that atheism is the prevalent belief around the world today or is it those of the world’s various faiths? Who bears responsibility then of the perceived ills of society?

    To all but the hopelessly indoctrinated, we are here seeing the signature of intelligent design as basis for a world of biological creatures including ourselves.

    If true, shouldn’t you be raising these social ills with the designer who made them possible in the first place?

    The proud, ideologically atheistical post modern world is intellectually and increasingly morally bankrupt.

    Except the world is not predominantly atheist so, if there is moral bankruptcy, the blame rests elsewhere?

    It is high time for a reformation.

    I agree.

  350. 350
    ET says:

    People need to comply. If the police tell you to stop, you have to stop. If they tell you to drop the knife, you have to drop the knife. If they tell you to drop the gun you have to drop the gun.

    This where I don’t understand the George Floyd case. They had him in handcuffs. He was complying, by all accounts. He should have been secured, in a police car. THAT is the training they need. Handcuffs, secured, questioning of the suspect and any witnesses.

  351. 351
    Truthfreedom says:

    No more teaching children in the schools that “their lives are purposeless” disguising the failed philosophy of materialism as “science”.

    The lab-coat trick is OVER.

  352. 352
    Truthfreedom says:

    Seversky (et al )
    Go, and from now on sin no more (philosophically speaking).

  353. 353
    daveS says:

    JAD,

    Of course it’s alarming. But an alarmist is someone who becomes alarmed to an irrational degree. For example, in talking about the US “going over the edge”, western civilization collapsing, etc.

  354. 354
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, first, kindly read the F/N2 to OP to see what is already going on, then think again. Notice, we have cheering assassination on record. And no, you have not taken back your slander. We duly note and draw our own conclusions. As for Sandia you obviously have not watched what was put on the table. As for press reports, just wait, OMB is a serious organisation. KF

  355. 355
    vividbleau says:

    Sev

    ‘The only thing restraining the more extreme Trump supporters is that he is currently in power. If that were to change then this could become a lot more common:‘

    My point still stands.
    Yet in fact the Nazi behavior is being exhibited by Trumps opposition .

    “There is little doubt that Trump is regarded as an inspiration to extreme nationalist and racist groups’

    My point still stands
    Yet in fact the Nazi behavior is being exhibited by Trumps opposition .

    “But I will accept no lessons on morality from Christians’

    Yet you were the one that was giving the morality lesson not me, just another example of the fact free, upside down world, alternative universe you inhabit.

    “Earth to VB, minority groups in the US have been subject to the most savage racism for hundreds of years rather than just 100 days.’

    Total distraction, this was not your claim, you were referring to the PRESENT, this is what you said
    “I remind you that extreme white right-wing groups have been responsible for more terrorist acts in the domestic US than the left or radical Islamic groups.”

    “Sure they will.’

    Yes that’s what i said and thanks for agreeing.

    “But if they do, will Trump? ‘

    Doesn’t matter he will be removed and if it’s a free fair election I will vociferously support his removal. Do you think Biden will concede after all he is being told that under no circumstances should he concede.

    “And if the extreme elements among his supporters are threatening or committing violent acts now, “

    The ones COMMITTING the overwhelming amount of violence NOW is coming from your side.

    “what do you think they will do if he loses?”

    What do you think your side will do if he wins? All hell is going to break loose that’s what.

    Vivid

  356. 356
    Truthfreedom says:

    DaveS

    Of course it’s alarming. But an alarmist is someone who becomes alarmed to an irrational degree.

    For example in talking about the Universe being “purposeless” without having a shred of proof and trying to make a corrupt philosophy being passed as “science” (science can NOT determine such things).
    But power is alluring and the Academia a comfy place to sit your buttocks while you are fed and praised.

  357. 357
    kairosfocus says:

    Vivid, actually, the juggernaut is already picking up speed and things will go crazy regardless of the outcome of the US election at this stage, given Red Guard brigadistas freely at work up to hit teams of unprecedented level. (Cf. F/N2, OP above.) A win under influence of rioting etc will invite a sense of open season on “nazis,” a clear loss will lead to rage out of control against the projected totalitarian threat of “nazis,” a near run will directly go to chaos and lawfare with media manipulation and polarisation. The US political system, regrettably, has now been successfully significantly destabilised. The past two weeks passed a threshold, especially revelation of hit teams two months out from an election, a whole new level of destructive capability. KF

  358. 358
    vividbleau says:

    KF 357
    Agree with you 100%

    Vivid

  359. 359
    daveS says:

    TF,

    I like to imagine your posts being read by James Earl Jones.

  360. 360
    Truthfreedom says:

    DaveS
    # 129 I know where “goodness” is. 🙂 The one you recognize in your friend and we both know exists.

  361. 361
    Truthfreedom says:

    DaveS
    That guy Earl Jones I do not know who he is. 🙂 But my intellect, being in-formed by my brain (because I AM NOT only my brain, neither are you) can grasp the meaning of “reading” (an abstract ) and of irony. 🙂

  362. 362
    vividbleau says:

    Sev

    “How about a Federal agency like the OMB requesting copies of the Sandia training materials to discover if they are as Petersen alleges? How about them reviewing those of other agencies before concluding that they represent “…divisive, anti-American propaganda…” or “…divisive, anti-American propaganda…”

    I know you live in a fact free world but this is an actual class example from the real world.

    https://twitter.com/dpsztur/status/1302768273344401408?s=21

    Vivid

  363. 363
    kairosfocus says:

    Vivid, I watched the clip. Dear God in Heaven, have mercy on us sinners and fools, rescue us from the dragon’s teeth we are sowing. In Christ’s name, AMEN. KF

    –> I believe white people are born into not being human . . . will always be racist etc etc.

  364. 364
    Truthfreedom says:

    353 DaveS

    Of course it’s alarming. But an alarmist is someone who becomes alarmed to an irrational degree. For example, in talking about the US “going over the edge”, western civilization collapsing, etc.

    Of course Western Civilization has morally “collapsed”. We have legislated as a “right” the murdering of millions of innocent human beings at their most vulnerable stage in life (inside their mother’s wombs).

    Based on the false philosophical materialist premise (NOT science) that “humanness” “resides in the brain”.
    Which I (and Dr. Bonnette) and others have shown is FALSE.

    Yes. A fatal blunder.

    That SHALL be corrected.

    We are humans SINCE the moment of conception.

  365. 365
    Truthfreedom says:

    364 Kairosfocus

    > I believe white people are born into not being human . . . will always be racist etc etc.

    Same old same old. Marxists at work. Not different from their tactic of pitting men against women (“all men are potential rapists and women batterers and killers just for the sake of being born males”).

    God help us because as I mentioned above, there is more than flesh being involved in this ongoing battle.

  366. 366
    Truthfreedom says:

    Kairosfocus
    Always in Christ. 🙂

    The Way, the Truth and the Life.

  367. 367
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N3 to OP: “NAZI” lives don’t matter . . . where this is headed if we don’t stop the juggernaut now. KF

  368. 368
    Truthfreedom says:

    367 Kairosfocus

    F/N3 to OP: “NAZI” lives don’t matter . . . where this is headed if we don’t stop the juggernaut now.

    Blood.

  369. 369
    kairosfocus says:

    TF, absent a miraculous pullback, that is where this is further headed, blood has already been spilled and the Red Guards have revealed a team assassination capability two months before an election. KF

  370. 370
    Truthfreedom says:

    ___
    ATTENTION EVERYONE
    Metaphysics =/= natural science.
    *** Materialism/ physicalism is NOT natural science. ***

    This is the THE POINT OF DISPUTE: you materialists have been equating for decades your philosophy to natural science to make materialism/ physicalism look as “legit” (therefore the “true” worldview; “it offers tangible results, you know” being your mantra) so you could spread your atheist gospel without resistance.

    You have been perpetrating this SCAM for DECADES.

    But you have been betrayed by your own mistress, “logic”.

    And that’s what I have shown in this thread. As I promised. 🙂

    Aristotle (and the soul) are back

  371. 371
    Truthfreedom says:

    Kairosfocus,
    Miracles are God’s part and parcel. 🙂
    So let’s humble ourselves and pray.
    This the old tale of humanity’s rebellious nature.

    People: speaking of blood and seeing/ touching/ smelling it are very different things.

    You have been warned. The road ahead is paved with suffering.

  372. 372
    daveS says:

    KF, Vivid, JAD, anyone else,

    Do you believe that implicit bias (against a particular race, for example) is itself a type of racism?

  373. 373
    ET says:

    Yes, daves. Implicit bias against a particular race, is racism.

  374. 374
    Mac McTavish says:

    I would argue that we don’t necessarily have an implicit bias against a certain race, but that we have an implicit bias in favour of what we are familiar with.

    For example , from the perspective of whatever race you are, what would make you more nervous, seeing three young adult white men wearing hoodies approaching you, or seeing three young adult black men wearing hoodies approaching you? I think if you are white, and being honest with yourself, the answer would be the latter.

  375. 375
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, really, now. Filters not connected to relevant criteria of merit will be unjustifiable discrimination. That is irrelevant to the open, materially false and demonising theses of Critical Race Theory, which is itself highly racist. But we are beyond that point, we are dealing with assassination teams in action, with what that implies. KF

  376. 376
    kairosfocus says:

    MMT, it depends on context. I had an experience once, scarcely 1/4 mile from my home (in my homeland) in a main financial district, of cutting across a parking lot behind two young men on a Saturday morning. I was about 10 feet behind. I then overheard, ‘im just cut a gal throat, ah nuh nutten. My threat assessment shot up and I quietly walked along until I could cut through a gap in a wall and go into a gas station. I never ever cut across that short cut again. But all of this is frankly distractive at this point, on the table now are assassination teams two months ahead of an election with all that that signifies. KF

  377. 377
    daveS says:

    KF,

    I was just curious, due to different definitions of “racism”, etc. It seems we all agree the answer is “yes”.

  378. 378
    Truthfreedom says:

    DaveS, anyone else
    Do you believe that implicit bias (against a particular stage of development, for example being below X weeks old) is itself a type of ageism?

    So you deserve to die? And the w-omb is now the t-omb?

  379. 379
    daveS says:

    TF,

    Perhaps, I’m not sure. You would doubtless call me an ageist because I don’t believe a human life one minute after conception should have exactly the same legal protections as a human life one week before the due date (or the mother).

  380. 380
    Mac McTavish says:

    KF

    But all of this is frankly distractive at this point, on the table now are assassination teams two months ahead of an election with all that that signifies.

    You are assuming the existence of centrally organized assassination teams based on your bias rather than real evidence. But, let’s assume that there are centrally organized assassination teams in play. You have concluded that they are being controlled by a Marxist bent philosophy. However, if I wanted to get the general public in an uproar against the left, I would have these assassins target people wearing MAGA hats, all lives matter, or blue lives matter clothing.

  381. 381
    Truthfreedom says:

    DaveS
    Then yes, you are an ageist. 🙁
    Why is being a “racist” “bad” and being an “ageist” not? Is being pulled off the road worse than being murdered?

    Sensory neural activity is located inside the brain. But, the only way to infer from that fact that all knowledge is located inside the brain is by illicitly adding the assumption that sense knowledge is a purely material phenomenon, which can be spatially located. Such an assumption does not come from natural science, but from the philosophy of materialism.

    And materialism/atheism has been proven false/ incoherent (it collapses into subjective idealism, WITHOUT any possibility of recovery).

    Materialism ’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back).

    Materialism can not explain what is being human. It’s the 21th Century and the “advanced” West is drowning in superstition.

  382. 382
    kairosfocus says:

    MMT, I assume nothing. Look in the pic and you see a team in action, down to videographer if you add in the vid. It takes a lot to put such in place (and a pretty well known lot over years, this is sign points to signified), that’s a capability seen with intelligence agencies and established terrorism networks, not even the Mafia. Many Russian hits — the notorious mafia state — are not as effectively done technically. Such teams are not casually deployed, so I infer Danielson is somehow a high value target, for an unknown reason. Your dismissiveness simply reflects your denial of reality right before your eyes, as is expected. KF

  383. 383
    Truthfreedom says:

    Cultures practicing child sacrifice:
    Aztec, Inca, Maya, the “advanced West” (s. XX-XXI, influenced by the “materialist superstition”).

    What a sad legacy. 🙁

  384. 384
    ET says:

    Mac:

    I think if you are white, and being honest with yourself, the answer would be the latter.

    I just read a book on being an anti-racist. The author was a black male and he said he would also choose the latter- meaning is was also terrified of black men wearing hoodies. That is until he realized that is how he was programmed

  385. 385
    Mac McTavish says:

    KF

    Look in the pic and you see a team in action, down to videographer if you add in the vid.

    As far as I know there were two vids. One from a known Facebook blogger and one from a surveillance camera. In an age where everyone and their dog carries a phone, it would be surprising if it weren’t captured on a video. I have seen enough of the protest videos to be struck by the number of people with their phones up.

    I think it is pretty obvious that the shooter was planning to target some right wing protester but by all accounts the person targeted was random. To make the jump from what is known to claim that it was a centrally planned and coordinated assassination is just pure fantasy as wild as the craziest things that Alex Jones has said.

  386. 386
    Truthfreedom says:

    Which Philosophy Understands Human Nature and Is Compatible With Natural Science?
    (Obviously it is not the materialist/ physicalist fiasco).

    Sense experience of extramentally-given objects simply cannot be located at all, even though it is associated with neural patterns located inside the brain.

  387. 387
    Truthfreedom says:


    Hylemorphism explains where was Darwin’s idea of “evolution by means of natural selection”.

    Materialism, you can not. Sorry for your catastrophic failure. Well, not sorry at all. You can not explain neither the human sensory experience nor what’s the purpose of this existence. That’s why intelligent people find you so repellent. You are repellent to the immaterial human intellect.

  388. 388
    kairosfocus says:

    MMT, A normal person witnessing murder will react, and video avoidance of identifying features is telling; as is unresponsiveness to the true bystander-witness. Further, this was coordinated with a choreographed flow of operations from setup and lying in wait to spreading a narrative, implying both rehearsal and coordination; likely by radio. No, you don’t do this for a nonentity, my best guess would be there is an intelligence connexion for the target. But then, by now we expect denial, obfuscation and willful obtuseness. KF

  389. 389
    vividbleau says:

    DaveS
    “Do you believe that implicit bias (against a particular race, for example) is itself a type of racism?“

    No

    Implicit bias in Critical Social Justice terms means unconscious bias. If it’s unconscious you don’t even know it’s there. If you don’t know it’s there then how do you know it’s there?

    Vivid

  390. 390
    Truthfreedom says:

    389 Vividbleau

    Implicit bias in Critical Social Justice terms means unconscious bias. If it’s unconscious you don’t even know it’s there. If you don’t know it’s there then how do you know it’s there?

    Because those pests have Messiah complex.
    The marxist pestilence even plagiarizes The Doctrine of Original Sin.
    You are born at fault just well… because you are born with “sinful” genes.
    But do not worry, because they are our saviors, who will cleanse humanity of its fault. So one day we all will enjoy paradise on Earth. They will CRISPR the hell out of our genes to get there.

  391. 391
    Truthfreedom says:

    DaveS,

    Someone had to use his eyes to view the brain of a cadaver and draw the pictures of a brain found in Gray’s Anatomy.

    The Argument presented in this thread crumbles materialism to dust. Because the chain of events that has been presented shows that: if materialism were true, the first person to gain that knowledge (about the brain), COULD NOT have gained it, because he would have also been “a brain” (instead of a person), permanently locked in a skull, without the possibility of escaping it, never, ever, ever (unless you want to argue that brains escape their skulls, which would be quite nuts).

  392. 392
    Truthfreedom says:

    Can you imagine it? A brain taking a walk out of its skull? 🙂
    That would be the nuttier non-sense ever uttered by a materialist, and those people are very apt at spewing non-sense.

    Because with a false worldview, you will never get to TRUTH.

  393. 393
    Seversky says:

    Mac McTavish @ 385

    I think it is pretty obvious that the shooter was planning to target some right wing protester but by all accounts the person targeted was random. To make the jump from what is known to claim that it was a centrally planned and coordinated assassination is just pure fantasy as wild as the craziest things that Alex Jones has said.

    The victim was found to be armed with a Glock pistol and three spare magazines so it looks like both sides were out looking for trouble. The Antifans ambushed the Patriot Prayer members and killed one, the police later killed the shooter. What was gained by this spilling of blood? Nothing that I can see.

    If this was some sort of assassination squad op it was pretty poorly planned and executed. They did it where they could be caught on cell phone and surveillance camera video. One of them was interviewed about it after then went back to his residence where the police caught up with him.

    As far as possible, assassination squads try to do their killings where they are unlikely to be observed and they have an exfil plan in place to get them out of the area as soon as possible. They certainly don’t go back to where they were staying.

    As you say, Red Guards brigades assassination squads is Alex Jones-style conspiracy theorizing.

  394. 394
    Truthfreedom says:

    Mark my words: materialism is OVER.
    So much for that “materialist science” being touted by Seversky, who did not even notice he is an idealist, as was Bishop Berkeley. Lool.

    God always wins. 🙂

  395. 395
    Seversky says:

    Vividbleau @ 362

    I know you live in a fact free world but this is an actual class example from the real world.

    https://twitter.com/dpsztur/status/1302768273344401408?s=21

    What’s that supposed to prove?

    What’s the provenance? What’s the context? Where was it shot?

    Ashleigh Shackleford comes up as a contributor to HuffPo

    Ashleigh Shackelford is a queer, nonbinary Black fat femme writer, cultural producer, and artist. She has been a contributing writer at Wear Your Voice Magazine and For Harriet. As a fat hood feminist, Ashleigh is committed to centering ratchet politics, body acceptance, accessibility, and anti-respectability within her work as a creator, producer, and speaker. You can reach her at: AshleighShackelford.com

    So we have an unsourced video featuring someone who is also described as a social influencer posted by someone with a track record as an agent provocateur? And this is supposed to be evidence for Trump’s wild claims? Talk about “fact free world”!

  396. 396
    Truthfreedom says:

    Game over, kiddo.

  397. 397
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky, you are talking about an ambush murder based on setting up, spotting, signalling, lying in wait, stalking and shooting from close range, videotaped and with a canned narrative to discredit the victim — notice the further interview of the murderer by Vice. Where, the photo in F/N2 above shows the lying in wait and signalling of when the target had entered the stalk-kill box, with the shooter apparently drawing even as he moved to stalk; BTW, there is no one murderer here, all including the videographer are implicated. [U/D: In response to an onward comment, I amend to make it clear: ” . . . implicated in highly suspicious conduct.”] Your reaction tells us again all we need to know about your attitude to the right to life. As in, F/N3 above. Credibility zero confirmed. KF

  398. 398
    Truthfreedom says:

    De Anima.
    Make Way. Aristotle
    is shaking his chiton. 🙂 The man has travelled a loong way to come to our rescue, because we were drowning in the materialist superstition and general non-sense associated to that failed, superstitious, forever tainted philosophy.

    “Aristotle pointed out that universals are another issue entirely. Knowledge of universals like good and evil — the kind of knowledge on which free will is based — is mediated by intellect and will. Intellect and will entail knowledge of concepts, not particular things.

    How can a concept be instantiated in matter? Well, it can’t. Concepts (universals) are not particulars. Therefore concepts cannot be instantiated as a particular in brain tissue or as a particular in any material substrate, such as a brain state.

    Simply put: brain states are particulars, and concepts are universals, so a concept cannot be a particular brain state.”
    Dr. Michael Egnor
    Aristotle on the Immateriality of Intellect and Will

    And, on the danger of trying to get away from the Source of all Wisdom and Knowledge (God):

    That we take (took) free-will deniers seriously is a pitiful commentary on our gullibility and the poverty of our intellectual culture.

    Aristotle on the Immateriality of Intellect and Will

    Verse: (Bornagain77, this one is for you) 🙂

    “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, but lose his soul?” -Mark 8:36”

    We can not “loose” our soul physically speaking, because it is not extended in space. It is not a hat, or a keyring, or a pen. But we can “loose” it in a far different and much more dangerous way.

    MatSpirit: you have not a “material” spirit, because, by definition, it is impossible. Res cogitans. You are an embodied soul. And so are we all human beings.

    Take care of such a precious gift.

  399. 399
    vividbleau says:

    Sev

    “So we have an unsourced video “

    Nope

    https://www.netrootsnation.org/nn_events/nn-17/diversity-is-for-white-people-strategies-for-organizing-against-white-supremacist-violence/

    You see Netroots Nation in the background. Gotta love the “PayPal” on the bottom.

    “What’s that supposed to prove?“

    This is Critical Race and Critical Social Justice Theory in 5 words. “All White People are Racists“ The board on the left is also a correct summation of CRT/CSJ. That you don’t know anything about Critical Theory doesn’t surprise me since you live in a fact free world. I suspect you agree with CRT\CSJ theory.

    “And this is supposed to be evidence for Trump’s wild claims?“

    What wild claims? This is Critical Race Theory and Critical Social Justice Theory In a nutshell, your ignorance about the subject matter Is not Trumps fault.

    “Talk about “fact free world”!”

    Indeed. Why do keep digging your own grave Sev?

    Vivid

  400. 400
    Mac McTavish says:

    KF

    A normal person witnessing murder will react, and video avoidance of identifying features is telling;

    The name of the person who took the video was made public and he cooperated with the police. Any suggestion that he was in on the attack is libellous and, frankly, reprehensible.

    Further, this was coordinated with a choreographed flow of operations from setup and lying in wait to spreading a narrative, implying both rehearsal and coordination; likely by radio.

    This is pure speculation. I have seen the same images as you have and it looks more like some crazy waiting for anyone who obviously has a different world view than he does. And he picks someone who is wearing clothing that clearly identifies him as the “enemy”.

    No, you don’t do this for a nonentity, my best guess would be there is an intelligence connexion for the target.

    Except you have absolutely zero evidence supporting this conspiracy theory.

    But then, by now we expect denial, obfuscation and willful obtuseness.

    From the person who is clearly jumping to conclusions that support his narrative rather that basing them on the evidence.

  401. 401
    john_a_designer says:

    Just because one rejects Critical Race Theory doesn’t make him or her racist. Personally I wholeheartedly agree that we need to continue to improve race relations in the U.S. but you can’t do that by starting with the position that there has been no progress on civil rights in the last 50 years or shaming all whites of being consciously and unconsciously racist. But that is what Critical Race Theory doctrine is. I remember back in the 1960’s (yes I was around back then) someone coined the term “reverse racism.” I’m not sure what that originally meant back then but it perfectly describes CRT in the present.

    As Vivid has just pointed out, typically are regular interlocutors are ignorant of what they are arguing about. That’s been more than evident with this so-called debate around CRT.

    For those who are too lazy to do the research because it requires some reading, here is a brief video description of CRT which hits all the key points:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQSkNO-MXsg

    The big problem with CRT? IT IS RACIST!

  402. 402
    kairosfocus says:

    MMT, I spoke to the reaction he made at the time. As he would be a suspected party to events given suspicious taping behaviour of suppressing identity of the stalking parties he was taping in the lead up to the assassination would indeed force him to cooperate with police. His suspicious behaviour before the fact, non reaction on witnessing murder and unresponsiveness to an onlooker still add up suspiciously; per right of fair comment.

    He may exculpate himself in the end or turn state evidence but he is to be seen as part of a context and construction of a false narrative.

    As for your attempt to dismiss the direct evidence of lying in wait with a blocking wall then coming out at a coordinated time [with signs of signalling in a linked video with annotations], multiplied by other coordinated events tells us all we need to further know about your patterns given what has happened already. Let me add, after forfeiture of weapons on earlier arrest, the shooter bought a 0.380 pistol for apparently $100 and 1/4 lb of marijuana, the weapon that seems to have been used; the purchase already being a felony.

    I note on the two involved vehicles, as just one point — the jeep and the other car that runs up from around the corner almost instantly, cartoonishly, with “medics” etc rushing out who are pushed away by the victim’s companion as he realises something is suspicious . . . there could easily have been a second victim; these vehicles box in the scene and swarm it with personnel who would be “of interest.” Then of course there is a credible signal that the police are arriving. I only mention, too, policing up of spent cartridge[s] after the shooter flees; it seems they missed one.

    We of course have spreading of a false narrative on circumstances, claiming self-defence.

    The pattern here is that we see a team assassination, which points to a level of organisation and capability that give pause. Indeed, it is leading security people on the “deplorables” side of the ramping up civil war to re-evaluate the balance of kinetic forces at work. Which, may be a part of the intent.

    In the wider context, reference to “brigade[s]” in regard to highway blocking incident points to Cuba as a likely source of technical support to Red Guards in the US, perhaps through Venezuela as a relatively easy place to do discreet training. 40 years ago, that sort of thing was most definitely going on. For sure, brigade is a characteristic word for teams and groups including paramilitary ones deriving from that influence; something I know directly from having witnessed a 4G civil war 40 years ago.

    And BTW, there is a direct parallel to this incident, do a web search on “Gold Street Massacre,” 1980. BTW, I add, one of my check up searches reminded me of attacks on police stations; the Gold Street Massacre marked the introduction of a shocking new level, M-16 automatic rifles used on full auto; a reservist officer I spoke with at the time indicated “riding up” i.e. the hit squad were not fully expert in handling full automatic fire, in his view his Platoon, with SLRs and perhaps Sterling SMGs, would have been more deadly. However, shock waves spread over the whole country with M-16 mystique and talk of 500 yard deadly range.

    At this point, for cause, I give your opinions and assertions (such as, “conspiracy theory”) little credibility, no I will not disbelieve my “lyin’ eyes.” KF

    PS: In response to MMT, to make it crystal clear, I updated above, [U/D: In response to an onward comment, I amend to make it clear: ” . . . implicated in highly suspicious conduct.” Frankly, even the dwelling on painted boarding up of shops strikes me as odd, inadvertently signalling behaviour.]

  403. 403
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: Kindly see 5:26 here, on Brigadistas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GbOcq4GwHA The programme as a whole will be instructive. One of the first acts of the new Seaga administration was to send Amb Estrada packing and the Cuban Embassy was closed. Some years later, a Cuban embassy staff neighbour on the street of close family, was reported to have been killed in Grenada during the invasion there. Viewers of the video should note that, ten years later the then still USSR, under Gorbachov’s Glasnost, sent a delegation of apology to Jamaica for their part in what happened. Of course, at the time, much was lost in the fog and concealing smoke of war. Let us remember that in war, truth is an early casualty, one that has to be fought for.

  404. 404
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: To get a picture of the global war, let me clip on a point of speculation or debate that some at least of the M16’s that cropped up in 1980, were ex-Vietnam, likely by way of Cuba:

    https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/vietnam-covertly-supplied-weapons-to-revolutionaries-algeria-and-latin-america

    >>Reports that the Vietnamese communist regime in Hanoi was providing weapons, ammunition, and other support to leftist insurgencies around the world have circulated for many years, but while the Vietnamese government and the Vietnamese Communist Party openly provided verbal support to such insurgencies in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America, the Vietnamese have never admitted to actually providing weapons and equipment to these revolutionary movements. During the 1980s the U.S. Government accused Vietnam of supplying U.S.-made M-16 rifles that Vietnam had captured when South Vietnam fell in 1975 to the leftist insurgents fighting to overthrow the pro-American government of El Salvador. In 1986 General Pinochet’s Chilean government announced that it had captured large caches of weapons and ammunition, including 3,000 M-16 rifles that had been originally shipped to the South Vietnamese Army, and accused the Vietnamese of supplying these weapons to the Chilean insurgents. While the serial numbers of many of the M-16s captured from El Salvadoran insurgents could be traced back to pre-1975 U.S. weapons shipments to the South Vietnamese army, there was never any definitive proof that it was the communist government of Vietnam, and not unscrupulous private individuals or arms dealers, that had provided the weapons to the El Salvadoran guerrillas and other Latin American insurgents.[1]

    In 2008 a Vietnamese website devoted to serving Vietnamese army veterans posted excerpts from an official internal Vietnamese army history that provides documentary evidence that the Vietnamese armed forces had in fact shipped captured American-made weapons to Latin American insurgents, apparently through the Cubans, during the late 1970s and early 1980s. The documents also reveal that in 1958 the Vietnamese, in apparent cooperation with Poland and the Soviet Union, covertly provided a large quantity of captured French submachine guns to Algerian rebels fighting for independence against French colonial rule.>>

    –> The page continues, discussing a purge of relevant documents, then cites in translation.

    –> This can be taken as providing warrant on balance of probabilities that weapons recovered from paramilitaries in Jamaica in key cases likely did come from Vietnam by the suggested routes (Note, some years ago a case with IIRC North Korean Missiles.)

    –> Further, this shifts the degree of weighting to be given to evidence of similar involvement elsewhere or on other subjects (such as reports of Cubans being involved in intelligence operations in VN, etc), and on that weighting, use of a translation of “brigadistas” by activists in the US points to the presumption of Cuban technical support, directly or indirectly, e.g. through activists and training sites in Venezuela or the like.

    –> In turn, this makes evidence and interpretations pointing to assassination teams and activities more plausible than otherwise. The known pattern of ruthlessness of the Castro regime since 1958/9 and its export of revolution (e.g. Guevara’s capture in Bolivia) creates a further support to plausibility.

  405. 405
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: letter further documenting CRT “training” https://www.scribd.com/document/475073517/Letter-to-Seattle-Mayor-Durkan-8-31-2020 where this documents indoctrination in a college https://www.scribd.com/document/468733048/Macalester Here can be found a collection of training materials from Seattle https://christopherrufo.com/seattle-office-of-civil-rights-training-on-internalized-racial-superiority-for-white-people/ 4GW, of course, is waged on many battlefronts and “spaces” simultaneously, most of them so subtle that they will not be perceived as part of an actual war. The point of war, of course, is to bend an opponent to your will by any and all effective means, with the kinetic space being just one. In the end, the victor dictates the terms of surrender and often of subjugation and spoils-taking. KF

  406. 406
    Truthfreedom says:

    Seversky, Chuckdarwin et al.
    You can keep your “materialism”, but then you’ll have to ditch your beloved “natural science”. Because science is serving you some papers. The findings of science, coupled with logic, tell the world that:
    -” materialism” simply does not exist if you want to keep being part of the scientific community.

    Because knowledge comes from God.
    God and the soul are back.

    Lewontin, open the door. 🙂

  407. 407
    Truthfreedom says:

    Philosophies have consequences.
    800+ million humans murdered in the womb because “their brains” had not reached “stage X” of “maturity”. By a group of savages playing the “rationalist” card.

    But being human is much more than the physical (“brain”) part.

    Materialism’s legacy is one of blood (Iet’s add the 100+ million victims “outside the womb” murdered by the communist insanity).

    Just because a group of fools do not want to acknowledge the existence of God.

    Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back).

  408. 408
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Let me follow up on various rhetorical attack-points since 338, just for record:

    Sev, 339: >>will you walk back your support for the Alinskyite strategy that is clearly intended to discredit the BLM movement as the agent of a Marxist conspiracy>>

    1: this is classic turnabout projection that refuses to face clear, decisive evidence that Red Guards are on the streets, carrying out riotous insurgency and that from founding to platform to operational patterns and platform demands, we are dealing with culture form marxism working through critical theory, deconstructionism and red guard tactics (with implication of backers).

    >> intended to overthrow Western civilization in face of the undeniable, systemic and endemic racism that has infested US society – although not just US society – for centuries?>>

    2: The very terms being used are documentation of the point, they come from so-called critical race theory, a pseudoscientific ideology that frames what we are confronting. Kindly see the cluster of documents just above and the summary from Enc Brit, yet again:

    Critical race theory (CRT), the view that the law and legal institutions are inherently racist and that race itself, instead of being biologically grounded and natural, is a socially constructed concept that is used by white people to further their economic and political interests at the expense of people of colour. According to critical race theory (CRT), racial inequality emerges from the social, economic, and legal differences that white people create between “races” to maintain elite white interests in labour markets and politics, giving rise to poverty and criminality in many minority communities. The CRT movement officially organized itself in 1989, at the first annual Workshop on Critical Race Theory, though its intellectual origins go back much further, to the 1960s and ’70s.

    The launch of the CRT movement marked its separation from critical legal studies (CLS), an offshoot of critical theory that examined how the law and legal institutions function to perpetuate oppression and exploitation.

    3: Further to this (witness the 1619 pseudo history, indoctrination under false colour of education project) there is clear intent to attack the cultural fabric and framework of our common civilisation, to deconstruct, cancel, set to year zero and rebuild in a culture form marxist framework.

    4: Here, tainting irredeemably with race prejudice and linked oppression is used to brand with a scarlet, stigmatising R. Of course, racism has long been a besetting sin of Western Civ (along with essentially all others). I suggest, that by way of balancing corrective that drains the suppurating hate, Bernard Lewis’ counsel given in the context of addressing Muslim rage, in 1990, is well worth heeding, coming from a Jewish scholar doubtless all too familiar with antisemitism but who patently identifies with our civilisation instead of festering in hate:

    . . . The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty — not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race. In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst. The treatment of women in the Western world, and more generally in Christendom, has always been unequal and often oppressive, but even at its worst it was rather better than the rule of polygamy and concubinage that has otherwise been the almost universal lot of womankind on this planet . . . .

    In having practiced sexism, racism, and imperialism, the West was merely following the common practice of mankind through the millennia of recorded history. Where it is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy these historic diseases. And that is surely a matter for congratulation, not condemnation. We do not hold Western medical science in general, or Dr. Parkinson and Dr. Alzheimer in particular, responsible for the diseases they diagnosed and to which they gave their names.

    Sev, 342: >>The only thing restraining the more extreme Trump supporters is that he is currently in power . . . . [cites] ‘No Blame?’ ABC News finds 54 cases invoking ‘Trump’ in connection with violence, threats, alleged assaults President Donald Trump has repeatedly distanced himself from acts of violence in communities across America, dismissing critics who point to his rhetoric as a potential source of inspiration or comfort for anyone acting on even long-held beliefs of bigotry and hate.””>>

    5: I would take this turnabout projection more seriously if we did not see a background pattern of enabling of coming on four months of rioting and worse.

    6: I point out again, that I do not endorse or even like much of Mr Trump’s behaviour, but must recognise that we face a situation where a clear radical power grab motivated by a demonstrably totalitarian ideology confronts us. Like Churchill on Stalin, I say if the devil declared war on Hitler, I would find a few favourable things to say on that infernal fallen angel.

    >>There is little doubt that Trump is regarded as an inspiration to extreme nationalist and racist groups>>

    7: Which are a tiny fringe which he has clearly, repeatedly repudiated as I noted on record, starting with what appears in F/N1 OP above. Your unresponsiveness reflects the fallacy of the closed, hostile mind using projection as defence mechanism.

    >>I will accept no lessons on morality from Christians while the Old Testament presents as praiseworthy behavior accounts of slavery, sexism, racism, rape and genocide.>>

    8: The usual evil bible rhetoric, answered in ever so many places by so many distinguished voices; I only add a 101 intro here. The resort to such inadvertently exposes hostility to our civilisation as it is manifest that the JudaeoChristian ethics pivoting on neighbour love shapes that civilisation, for all its flaws.

    9: Your real problem why you want to shut out, censor, suppress and shut up the Christian voice, is that evolutionary materialistic scientism simply has no root-level worldview resources capable of bridging the IS-OUGHT gap, so you try to deconstruct and disqualify through dubious rhetoric backed by patent bile. For shame!

    MMT, 343: >>But whether the level of force used to defend yourself is justified is open to interpretation.>>

    10: There is abundant law on self defence, where it should be noted that for cause hands and feet are potentially lethal, that the conventional radius for lethal threat of one using a knife is 21 feet (which also gives a lethal radius for hands and feet), that swarms, attacks from behind, verbal threats, acts such as surrounding etc all count.

    >> If I am being slapped by someone half my size, shooting him might be considered murder (or, more likely, manslaughter).>>

    11: Strawman. Where Antifa often fronts its swarm attacks with small women precisely to create a turnabout projection in propaganda as well as to trigger that moment of fatal hesitation in face of lethal threat. Note, a frozen water bottle is equivalent to a brick or club on impact and a skateboard is a war hammer and narrow edge club rolled into one, both reflecting 4GW calculations. Since it is an obvious case, Mr Rittenhouse has an excellent case for self defence and an arguable one for legal carrying of a weapon, in a context where he had been rendering first aid to rioters using his orange back pack’s contents. He was first swarmed when he tried to p[ut out a deliberately set dumpster fire. In the second case he was pursued for a long distance asnd in his last shot stopped a fatal headshot only a fraction of a second before the trigger was pulled by a man declaring regret he did not empty a magazine into him.

    >>But what about killing someone to defend your property?>>

    12: Note, again, lethal threat radius, likewise “your money or your life” is a threat to both and one who sets out to destroy your livelihood or home is threatening your life by that act. He who would rob me of daily bread would rob me of life. This also obviously extends to a personal or work vehicle and valuable tools of one’s trade . . . which cannot be taken in bankruptcy precisely out of concern that one threatens livelihood, health and life of man, wife and family.

    13: The but it’s insured fallacy fails. For, often — and especially in a hardship time like this pandemic — there will be insurance problems. Likewise, the rioting, looting and arson of an area blights it, destroying investment climate and impoverishing its people. Often for generations — implicit robbing of daily bread again.

    14: Speaking of, arson is next to murder as people are often trapped in fires, bombings etc. Felony murder is a real issue.

    15: Underlying is the marxist, twisted form of the outdated economic theory, the labour theory of value. In this form, the only valuable labour is effectively working class manual labour producing physical products so savings, investment and capital (and associated valuable services and ideas) constitute accumulated theft, liable to seizure or destruction by the vanguard of the proletariat or other designated oppressed group.

    16: There it is again, the Marxism lurks just beneath the surface.

    Sev, 347: >>How about a Federal agency like the OMB requesting copies of the Sandia training materials to discover if they are as Petersen alleges? How about them reviewing those of other agencies before concluding that they represent “…divisive, anti-American propaganda…” or “…divisive, anti-American propaganda…”>>

    17: Just scroll up to 405, as I said, documentation will likely be forthcoming.

    18: Besides, sound journalism (as is so in the relevant case) is a first, rough draft of history. And indeed, as the whistleblower thread documents in supplementary materials, the NY Post article that seems to primarily be what is alluded to contains clips of such documents.

    >>Trump, apparently cares nothing about due process. Do you?>>

    19: Animosity-laced projection and personalities, rapidly shattered by the predictable course of events.

    Sev, 349: >>Would you say that atheism is the prevalent belief around the world today or is it those of the world’s various faiths? Who bears responsibility then of the perceived ills of society?>>

    20: This comes after a century in which atheistical regimes were directly responsible for the killing of 100+ million victims and subjected the world to 40 years of de facto world war 3, with major blame for the rise of the single worst holocaust in history, the slaughter of 800+ million unborn children which continues at 800,000 per week.

    21: In that context, domibnation of key institutions and undermining of first duties of responsible reason is not to be overlooked. I again draw attention:

    We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

    Time is up for now, to be continued . . .

    KF

  409. 409
    Truthfreedom says:

    408 Kairosfocus

    they come from so-called critical race theory, a pseudoscientific ideology

    Anything marxist is pseudo-scientific garbage.

  410. 410
    Truthfreedom says:

    247 Seversky

    And before anyone complains, I regard racism as a human problem. The seeds of it at least are in every one of us and all the ‘races’ have been guilty of it to some extent and at various times throughout history.

    It’s called Original Sin, Seversky. People far more intelligent than you and your “molecular cult” have understood it for centuries.
    Yes. We are oriented towards goodness but fragile and prone to temptation. What’s your point?

    Until we all accept that we are not going to overcome it.

    And what’s the solution? Acceptance of your faults to overcome them requires intellect and free will, the ones your bizarre materialist doctrine said (in the past, because it is dead due to its irretrievable collapse into subjective idealism ) “did not exist”.

    Immateriality = intellect and free will = not subject to change and corruption (the opposite of matter) = eternity.

    Oh. Big ‘G’. Of course. God. And the Christian one is awesome.

  411. 411
    Truthfreedom says:

    Did I mention that materialism is dead?

  412. 412
    daveS says:

    TF,

    Why is being a “racist” “bad” and being an “ageist” not? Is being pulled off the road worse than being murdered?

    I don’t believe a human life one minute after conception is a “person” as you and I are. My understanding is that it isn’t conscious or aware of the outside world, cannot experience emotions, feel pain, or form memories.

    So if my wife were at a very early stage of a pregnancy that was endangering her life, I would want that pregnancy to be terminated, as horrible as that experience would be.

  413. 413
    john_a_designer says:

    A key premise behind Critical Race Theory is that blacks are oppressed because of their race and whites are privileged.

    Here are a couple of quotes which proves that is what the proponents of CRT really think and believe.

    “Privilege exists when one group has something of value that is denied to others simply because of the groups they belong to, rather than because of anything they’ve done or failed to do. Access to privilege doesn’t determine one’s outcomes, but it is definitely an asset that makes it more likely that whatever talent, ability, and aspirations a person with privilege has will result in something positive for them.” ~Peggy McIntosh

    “White Privilege is the other side of racism. Unless we name it, we are in danger of wallowing in guilt or moral outrage with no idea of how to move beyond them. It is often easier to deplore racism and its effects than to take responsibility for the privileges some of us receive as a result of it… once we understand how white privilege operates, we can begin addressing it on an individual and institutional basis.” ~Paula Rothenberg

    Here are some examples of what they mean:

    Examples of Privilege

    Being able to…

    *assume that most of the people you or your children study in history classes and textbooks will be of the same race, gender, or sexual orientation as you are

    *assume that your failures will not be attributed to your race, or your gender

    *not have to think about your race, or your gender, or your sexual orientation, or disabilities, on a daily basis…

    https://www.whiteprivilegeconference.com/what-is-white-privilege

    Vilifying or demonizing any human beings because of the color of their skin is racist. Not only is such a view counterproductive it is flagrantly hypocritical. Once again the only path forward is to recognize that all lives matter.

  414. 414
    daveS says:

    Vivid,

    Implicit bias in Critical Social Justice terms means unconscious bias. If it’s unconscious you don’t even know it’s there. If you don’t know it’s there then how do you know it’s there?

    Of course you wouldn’t; you might never realize it. But that unconscious bias could be harming others, preventing them from reaching their full potential, and so forth.

    I have taken simple online tests for various sorts of implicit bias and I scored at the “average” level. Even though I was striving to do better than average (as we all would do), it was still detectable.

    I don’t think that means I’m a bad person. I didn’t want or choose to grow up to be racist or sexist, but it’s there, and I have to work to minimize its effect on others.

  415. 415
    asauber says:

    “I have taken simple online tests”

    DaveS,

    How do these tests evaluate the unconscious bias? How do they know you are giving answers that accurately reflect the unconscious? Certainly you don’t go into a trance when you take them. Do you?

    That Kool-Aid must taste awfully good, huh.

    Andrew

  416. 416
    daveS says:

    asauber,

    It is true that there is controversy about what these tests actually measure. The test I took is called an Implicit Association Test, to be clear. It is supposed to identify your implicit biases indirectly. And no, you don’t have to take it while in a trance.

    You can read for yourself here.

  417. 417
    Truthfreedom says:

    412 DaveS

    So if my wife were at a very early stage of a pregnancy that was endangering her life, I would want that pregnancy to be terminated, as horrible as that experience would be.

    Well, although you are not aware of it, you are practicing hylemorphism.
    Our intellects grasp certain “forms” or categories (most people, except the most deranged savages, sorry for being blunt) can understand that a being of a certain size inside a woman’s womb with arms, legs, and a head and a heart = human being.

    But what’s the problem? Our intellects are very limited and prone to error. Up to the “scientific revolution” theism was the dominant worldview. But humans, being the imperfect creatures we are, got greedy, and decided to take God (“mind”) out of the picture. What was understood as immaterial (“soul”) and which could not be weighed/ measured/ categorized using numbers, got catalogued as “non-existent”.

    But this is the horrible philosophical mistake that has brought us here: not having size, weight, color and NOT existing are NOT the same thing!!!

    You know you exist, and your wife, and your love for her, and as you mentioned earlier, numbers and “goodness” exist too.

    This mistake (materialism) has distorted the meaning of “reality”, and what was known as the “soul” was then translocated to a physical substrate = (“brain”). A horrible category mistake!!!

    But it has been proved that materialism is false and has failed, it is absurd, therefore this “brain” = “soul” equation is BLATANTLY ridiculous.

    The problem: people are terrified of “theism”, because they have been told that “it’s incompatible with science” (another blatantly manipulative atheist lie!!!) Theism guarantees science by grounding our rationality to help us overcome our “defective” brains and encourages us to use our God given faculties.

    There is a worldview compatible with science that restores human dignity (no more “purposeless monkeys”) and grounds our morals:

    Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back).

  418. 418
    asauber says:

    “I don’t believe a human life one minute after conception is a “person” as you and I are.”

    DaveS,

    But you do recognize that it’s the early stage of a human being? Of every human being? I just want to make sure you understand what you are saying.

    Andrew

  419. 419
    ET says:

    Science says that life starts @ conception. And with the successful mating of two humans, that newly started life will also be human.

  420. 420
    JVL says:

    DaveS: I don’t believe a human life one minute after conception is a “person” as you and I are. My understanding is that it isn’t conscious or aware of the outside world, cannot experience emotions, feel pain, or form memories.

    Additionally somewhere around a quarter to a third of conceptions spontaneously abort with no intervention. Who’s responsible for killing those human beings?

  421. 421
    Truthfreedom says:

    – Materialism is no longer viable.
    – Idealism was the consensus of the Victorian Era

    Idealism says reality doesn’t exist per se as something outside our thoughts, or perhaps outside the thought of some superior being, perhaps God, perhaps a powerful (computerized, these days) demon.
    There Are Only Two Errors: Idealism and Materialism


    Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back).

  422. 422
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, the eventual death rate — 100%. When it happens does not change what is formed at conception, a distinct new human being. KF

  423. 423
    Truthfreedom says:

    420 JVL

    Who’s responsible for killing those human beings?

    Duh? You can not kill an eternal soul. You can only destroy its physical substrate.
    And re-create it if you wish (and are God, of course).

    The West has become blind to those things that have no weight/ size. But “goodness” and “evil” and “suffering” are absolutely real.

  424. 424
    Truthfreedom says:

    If materialism were true (note the conditional form), Darwin could not have gained knowledge about evolution (per the argument above).
    Because he would not have been “material” (remember the collapse “materialism” + “science” = subjective idealism). THIS IS THE R.I.P MOMENT FOR MATERIALISM.

    But there is a worldview that:
    – preserves science
    – guarantees rational faculties
    – restores human dignity and value
    – is true to the world

    Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back).

  425. 425
    daveS says:

    asauber,

    Yes, that’s correct.

  426. 426
    Truthfreedom says:

    Materialism is a SCAM.

  427. 427
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Additionally somewhere around a quarter to a third of conceptions spontaneously abort with no intervention.

    Which should tell us that life is very precious. Yet it doesn’t.

    Who’s responsible for killing those human beings?

    The blind watchmaker.

  428. 428
    john_a_designer says:

    Dave @ 412 wrote,

    I don’t believe a human life one minute after conception is a “person” as you and I are.

    Who is Dave to define “personhood” for everyone else? How are his beliefs and opinions binding on everyone else?

  429. 429
    Truthfreedom says:

    427 ET

    The blind watchmaker.

    Poor blind oldie is out of business. There is evolution of life forms, whose mechanisms are subject to review/ correction, but what is going to give Dawkins some headaches is to know that God is back into the picture. (“Mind”).

    “Materialism” + “science” = irrretrievable collapse of the former into subjective idealism.

    If Mr. Dawkins wants to save his beloved “science”, then he has to open the “Lewontinian” door.

    Or keep being an un-scientific materialist, out of the circle of rational human beings.

    Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back).

    The tide is turning.

  430. 430
    vividbleau says:

    DaveS
    “Of course you wouldn’t; you might never realize it. But that unconscious bias could be harming others, preventing them from reaching their full potential, and so forth.”

    You have yet to provide evidence that I have unconscious bias! You assume that I do or that you do or that others do but have no way to rigorously demonstrate it. You said it yourself

    “It is true that there is controversy about what these tests actually measure.”

    “ Who knows “is not a good model.

    Behavior harms others not some ghost in the machine. Point out racist behavior and I will condemn it but I am not into the mind reading business.

    Vivid

  431. 431
    daveS says:

    JAD,

    You’re welcome to correct me, of course. I’m not claiming the authority to define “personhood” myself; it was just the best word I could think of.

  432. 432
    vividbleau says:

    DaveS

    “It is true that there is controversy about what these tests actually measure. The test I took is called an Implicit Association Test, to be clear. It is supposed to identify your implicit biases indirectly”

    Maybe things have changed since this article was written about IAT. the paper is quite long so I have copied a summary below.

    https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-tool-isnt-up-to-the-job.html

    “So it’s an open question, at least: The scientific truth is that we don’t know exactly how big a role implicit bias plays in reinforcing the racial hierarchy, relative to countless other factors. We do know that after almost 20 years and millions of dollars’ worth of IAT research, the test has a markedly unimpressive track record relative to the attention and acclaim it has garnered. Leading IAT researchers haven’t produced interventions that can reduce racism or blunt its impact. They haven’t told a clear, credible story of how implicit bias, as measured by the IAT, affects the real world. They have flip-flopped on important, baseline questions about what their test is or isn’t measuring. And because the IAT and the study of implicit bias have become so tightly coupled, the test’s weaknesses have caused collateral damage to public and academic understanding of the broader concept itself. As Mitchell and Tetlock argue in their book chapter, it is “difficult to find a psychological construct that is so popular yet so misunderstood and lacking in theoretical and practical payoff” as implicit bias. They make a strong case that this is in large part due to problems with the IAT.”

    Vivid

  433. 433
    john_a_designer says:

    You’re missing the point Dave. I am simply asking how your, or anyone else’s, moral beliefs are binding on me? I am not necessarily focusing on just abortion. I am thinking about moral obligation in general.

    In other words, if there is no such thing as moral truth– that is, there is no such thing as moral facts which are really right or wrong for everyone– what are we left with? Just moral beliefs or opinions. But how or why am I obligated to accept your moral beliefs or opinions? Are your moral beliefs and opinions morally binding on me? Logically no, but this where the pretence of moral obligation enters in. For example, suppose a BLM activist were to argue, “You have to listen to me because I have THE RIGHT to demonstrate and protest because I feel oppressed but I don’t have to listen to you because if you don’t agree with me you are an oppressor.” How do you reason with that kind of thinking?

    Believing something, even if you believe it very strongly is not a logical argument. Deductive arguments need to begin with premises that are either self-evidently true, provably true or probably true. Just starting with your opinions and beliefs gets you nowhere. To claim it does it being presumptive and/or arrogant.

  434. 434
    daveS says:

    JAD,

    I don’t deny that there is an underlying moral truth here. I’ve taken a shot at describing what that moral truth is above. If I’m wrong, please correct me.

  435. 435
    daveS says:

    Vivid,

    If implicit bias simply doesn’t exist, then my question is meaningless and can be ignored.

    I think it does exist because when I look back on my life, I see that at times I unknowingly* (at the time) have behaved unfairly toward others. It sometimes takes me a suprisingly long time to realize these things. I now believe that some of those actions were racist, sexist, etc.

    Even though implicit bias (assuming it exists) is unconscious, I believe we can sometimes become conscious of it at a later date, and then consider whether it is racism or not.

    *This is aside from all those situations where I knowingly acted in a biased manner.

  436. 436
    vividbleau says:

    DaveS
    “I think it does exist because when I look back on my life, I see that at times I unknowingly* (at the time) have behaved unfairly toward others.”

    No you did nothing “unknowingly” You knowingly treated someone unfairly based on incomplete information ( knowledge) that was not available to you at the time. When you became more knowledgeable you recognized you were wrong and changed your behavior. There was absolutely no unconscious anything going on, you were aware ( conscious) at all times.

    At what point were you unconscious in these circumstances?

    Vivid

  437. 437
    daveS says:

    Vivid,

    Certainly I was conscious in all these occasions. 🙂

    You knowingly treated someone unfairly based on incomplete information ( knowledge) that was available to you at the time.

    I didn’t “knowingly treat someone unfairly” because in the moment, I thought I was being fair. Or at least I wasn’t aware of any unfairness. My control panel had all solid green lights. There weren’t any amber or red lights warning “you’re being a racist or sexist”.

    Back to the conscious/unconscious thing: Maybe I’m strange, but I believe much of my interaction with others is automatic/instinctive/”unconscious”. I thought everyone was like that. If I’m conversing with someone, my brain isn’t fast enough to logically plan out sentences ahead of time—I know roughly where I’m going, but I rely on instinct to get me there.

  438. 438

    Is everyone ready for the coup that is scheduled for November-December? Shall we organize a watch party?

  439. 439
    daveS says:

    JAD,

    PS to above: Perhaps this is a better way to “frame” my posts above. I propose that it is self-evidently true that it’s moral to terminate a very early pregnancy if it presents a significant threat to the mother’s life. (Yeah, “very early” and “significant” should be specified at some point).

    Thoughts?

  440. 440
    vividbleau says:

    WJM
    We are already being conditioned. Hilary” no conceding under any circumstance “ was not some off the cuff remark just as we are being conditioned to submit to the Govt because of Covid.

    If Biden is ahead on election night he is in no danger of losing because of mail in ballots. If Trump is ahead every battleground state will be contested, it will be all out war. We are far past any kind of peaceful transition of power., it’s going to be very very ugly.

    Unless Trump or Biden wins in a landslide on election night we are going to see blood in the streets.

    Vivid

  441. 441
    vividbleau says:

    DaveS
    “I didn’t “knowingly treat someone unfairly” because in the moment, I thought I was being fair. Or at least I wasn’t aware of any unfairness. My control panel had all solid green lights. There weren’t any amber or red lights warning “you’re being a racist or sexist”.

    Yep that’s what I said. You knew what you were doing you did not know it was wrong.

    Vivid

  442. 442
    vividbleau says:

    DaveS
    What else do you agree with as it relates to Critical Race Theory besides implicit bias?

    Vivid

  443. 443
    daveS says:

    Vivid,

    I haven’t studied CRT, so I couldn’t say.

  444. 444
    Mac McTavish says:

    JaD

    You’re missing the point Dave. I am simply asking how your, or anyone else’s, moral beliefs are binding on me?

    I’ve always thought the objective vs subjective morality debate was a waste of time. If I believe that morality is subjective, how do I make these morals binding on those who believe that they are objective? Especially where they differ. And if I believe that morality is objective, how do I make these morals binding on those who believe they are subjective. In the long run, it either comes down to those who have the most convincing argument, or to those with the most power.

  445. 445
    mike1962 says:

    Communists are showing their colors.
    Weirdos, who don’t understand human nature.
    Haha.
    Hahahaha.

  446. 446
    mike1962 says:

    Mac McTavish: I’ve always thought the objective vs subjective morality debate was a waste of time.

    Maybe because you have no idea what’s going on, on planet earth. Okay, fair enough.

    Haha

    Hahaha.

    Hold on to your knickers, it’s going to get interesting.

  447. 447
    vividbleau says:

    DaveS
    “I haven’t studied CRT, so I couldn’t say.”

    Assume for the sake of argument that what I wrote in 302 is an accurate description of Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory and Critical Social Justice Theory . Assume that the you tube video I posted on 362 All White People are Racists and that because of implicit bias white people can never be non racist no matter what they do because of their color. For sake of argument what do you agree with?

    Vivid

  448. 448
    daveS says:

    Vivid,

    I don’t think it would be fair to do that. I would want to take the time to read primary sources and really get to know the material. Not that I think you’re unreliable.

  449. 449
    vividbleau says:

    DaveS
    “I don’t think it would be fair to do that. I would want to take the time to read primary sources and really get to know the material. Not that I think you’re unreliable.”

    I’m not asking for you to base anything on my reliability I’m asking you for the sake of argument, it’s hypothetical. Surely it would be fair to engage in a hypothetical, you are not agreeing that my characterization is true. Nothing unfair about that. Besides you have already put forth the CRT/CSJ espousing implicit bias yet now claiming you have to read primary sources before you can comment.

    What more of a primary source do want there is also a video from Netroots Nation.

    Vivid

  450. 450
    daveS says:

    Vivid,

    Since we touched on the issue, I don’t agree that it’s impossible for a white person to be non-racist. I think it’s very difficult to achieve that in the USA, but not impossible. I’m not interested in entertaining further hypotheticals or delving more deeply into CRT at the moment.

    Edit: I don’t mean to be curt, it’s just that I have minimal interest in CRT.

  451. 451
    mike1962 says:

    CRT is non-scientific B.S.
    (P.S. I’m only 1/2 white)

  452. 452
    mike1962 says:

    For the smart kids reading, get a mentor (of your own race if it matters to you), and learn how successful people become successful. And then do what they do.

  453. 453
    vividbleau says:

    DaveS
    “Edit: I don’t mean to be curt, it’s just that I have minimal interest in CRT.”

    Got it and I will respect your choice.
    I just want to end with this. I know you to be a very polite and respectful poster. I have a lot of respect for you. Take this I in the spirit it is being offered. It is people like you that need to start taking MAXIMUM interest in CRT\CSJ. If you value the classic liberal enlightenment values and discourse you cannot be an idle bystander because CRT/CSJ is coming after you and your liberal enlightenment values as well.

    Vivid

  454. 454
    john_a_designer says:

    Dave @ 439,

    Personally proposing that something is self-evidently true doesn’t make it so. It’s just another way for you to state your personal beliefs and opinions.

    Morality is useless and meaningless unless it is about interpersonal moral obligation.

    That leads to the following argument:

    I have no obligation (epistemically or morally) to accept baseless or ungrounded personal (subjective) opinions as true.

    On the other hand, interpersonal morality requires real binding moral obligation (what we ought or ought not to do.)

    Therefore, it is impossible to base any kind of interpersonal morality on ungrounded personal opinions.

    In other words, to state the argument very succinctly morality is about (based on) obligation not on personal subjective opinion.

    Someone’s subjective beliefs and opinions carry no such moral obligation. If he claims they do he is contradicting himself. Of course, I suppose he has a right to believe whatever foolish nonsense he wishes to believe (as long as it doesn’t cause harm to anyone else) but there is no obligation for me or anyone else to take him seriously.

    Secondly, if his “morality” is completely subjective then he is the one who sets the moral standards for himself. His moral standards don’t apply to anyone else. How could they?

    Finally, to have any type of meaningful discussion about morality, it has to be honest. Honesty requires an objective standard– doesn’t it. But by whose standard? Yours, mine or somebody else’s? Unless there is a non-arbitrary or objective standard of honesty any discussion or debate about morality and ethics is totally meaningless. Why should I trust anyone unless I know he/she is being completely honest? But how can I know that they are being honest unless there is an objective standard of honesty?

    Mindless pretense and posturing about morality has nothing to do with morality. It’s totally useless nonsense.

  455. 455
    Truthfreedom says:

    451 Mike1962

    Communists are showing their colors.
    Weirdos, who don’t understand human nature.

    The problem is that they know human nature to an astonishing level of perfection. They know how to manipulate and brainwash the ignorant masses with their pseudo-scientific bull until they confess their Original Sin. It is a sick, twisted form of priesthood that is trying to give people a sense of religion (but without God). How pathetic has our society become.

  456. 456
    Truthfreedom says:

    451 Mike1962

    CRT is non-scientific B.S.
    (P.S. I’m only 1/2 white)

    Anything marxist is crap.

  457. 457
    daveS says:

    Thanks, Vivid.

  458. 458
    daveS says:

    JAD,

    I’m asking you, is the proposition I stated a self-evident truth? I’m talking about objective truths here, not subjective opinions.

  459. 459
    Truthfreedom says:

    437 DaveS

    I’m conversing with someone, my brain

    Are you “your” brain or not? On other posts you said: NOT.
    If not, what else is missing in this equation?

  460. 460
    daveS says:

    TF,

    Sorry, I should have said “mind”. I don’t believe my mind is identical with my brain.

  461. 461
    Truthfreedom says:

    460 DaveS

    Sorry, I should have said “mind”. I don’t believe my mind is identical with my brain.

    So you:
    – “own” a mind (you wrote “my”)
    – “own” a brain (you wrote “my”)
    Is there a 3rd element here then? The “owner” of those things above (mind + brain)? 🙂

  462. 462
    mike1962 says:

    Truthfreedom @455

    They are smart sociopaths. They can do a lot of damage. But they lack what the rest of us know.

    Never forget that.

  463. 463
    vividbleau says:

    WJM

    Here is one scenario as reported by the NYT and why IMO Hilary told Biden that under no circumstances should he concede.

    “But conveniently, a group of former top government officials called the Transition Integrity Project actually gamed four possible scenarios, including one that doesn’t look that different from 2016: a big popular win for Mr. Biden, and a narrow electoral defeat, presumably reached after weeks of counting the votes in Pennsylvania. For their war game, they cast John Podesta, who was Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, in the role of Mr. Biden. They expected him, when the votes came in, to concede, just as Mrs. Clinton had.

    But Mr. Podesta, playing Mr. Biden, shocked the organizers by saying he felt his party wouldn’t let him concede. Alleging voter suppression, he persuaded the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan to send pro-Biden electors to the Electoral College.

    In that scenario, California, Oregon, and Washington then threatened to secede from the United States if Mr. Trump took office as planned. The House named Mr. Biden president; the Senate and White House stuck with Mr. Trump. At that point in the scenario, the nation stopped looking to the media for cues, and waited to see what the military would do.

    Ben Smith is the media columnist. He joined The Times in 2020 after eight years as founding editor in chief of BuzzFeed News. Before that, he covered politics for Politico, The New York Daily News, The New York Observer and The New York Sun. Email: ben.smith@nytimes.com @benyt

    Vivid

  464. 464
    BobRyan says:

    The pursuit of socialism has failed every time it has been tried. It always creates a thugocracy where might makes right. Human suffering is the result. For those who believe it can work, ask the Venezuelans how socialism is working out for them. Socialists claim to care about suffering, but always turn a blind eye.

    What have the wealthy of San Francisco, including Nancy Pelosi, done to alleviate the suffering of the homeless problems in San Francisco? Too many homeless and not enough facilities means human waste ends up on the street and washes into the bay. Raw sewage is getting into the ocean, which is not environmentally sound. Not once has Nancy Pelosi or any wealthy socialist every built anything with their own money. Not a single shelter and not a single bathroom.

  465. 465
    kairosfocus says:

    WJM,

    the juggernaut is already rolling and the kinetic aspect of the 4G civil war steadily rises.

    I find it charmingly naive that the evidence the assassination in Portland exposes — team based hit capability of the Red Guards — is being denied by many. Assassination, of course, was a major part of the course of events in say Lebanon, and the 9/11 attack began with assassination of a Northern Alliance leader in Afghanistan.

    We are now a couple of months into the decisive window . . . which we can nod to a certain cult out there and call the storm . . . which will play out over the next four to sixteen months.

    (St Luke riffed off Plato’s Ship of State through his experience with St Paul in Oct-Nov AD 59, nigh on 2,000 years ago. A real case of a storm. The basic tension of somewhat democratic polities is that absent strong cultural buttresses and an informed, sober minded, morally strong public spirited public, the manipulated, money games driven mob takes over, leading to marches of ruinous folly.)

    I expect Mr Trump will win the election, I expect an avalanche of unregulated dubious mail in ballots (as opposed to properly vetted and authentic absentee ballots) and demands to count every vote, there will be lawfare and street chaos, with a much nastier tone than hitherto; after all “nazi” lives DON’T matter; c.f. F/N3 to OP above.

    The US body politic is hell bent on doing itself grave hurt.

    In the end the peasant, populist deplorables MAGA uprising will win over the culture-form marxist indoctrinated urban Red Guards and their backers. Some of that is going to involve serious shooting and street violence. Hopefully, we will not reach the sort of dystopian, sci fi apocalyptic state envisioned in a survivalist genre (also cf. essay here with segmentation analysis here), or states like what happened in Lebanon, Syria, the Balkans or the Ukraine. I think not, at most, an urban centre or two may learn the hard way what happens when the police are absent, the lights go out, water stops flowing, highways are effectively blocked and the truckers stop coming.

    At basic level, urban centres depend on the hinterlands on the scale of weeks to months, not the reverse.

    Also, rule 6.5 x 1000 applies. Just as an example, the low kick, 1,000+ yard range 6.5 mm Creedmoor rifle creates a reach for snipers that simply cannot be policed, at least on a widespread basis. Starting at about US$ 1,500.

    After that, I think there will be prolonged pockets and outbursts of chaos, and there will be a badly damaged political system.

    The media, the academics, the pundits, the political classes and education administrators are spending their moral capital in ways that will bankrupt them in terms of intellectual credit, respect as sincerely truthful, morally respectable etc.

    This means, we face an Acts 27 situation — the US is geostrategic centre of gravity of our civilisation — and better leadership will come from the counter culture. However, the world will face geostrategic consequences that will be unhappy.

    A humbled, hurt, damaged US will have to take its needless, march of folly shipwreck losses and move forward on a very different basis, beyond the window.

    KF

  466. 466
    kairosfocus says:

    DS,

    sadly, we are now in a full orbed Ac 27 storm (and note the date on that blog post).

    We may not be interested in 4 GW insurgency and its use by culture form marxist ideologues dominating academy, education, media etc, but such is interested in us. The Red Guards are here, already not only running riot in 48 of the 50 most populous cities and more, but invading suburban neighbourhoods. They have climbed up to people’s upstairs windows. They now routinely use skateboards as war hammers, shine retina destroying lasers into people’s eyes, toss molotov cocktails and increasingly have firearms. There are now, manifestly, assassination teams.

    4GW insurgency crouches at the door.

    KF

  467. 467
    Truthfreedom says:

    465 Kairosfocus

    A humbled, hurt, damaged US will have to take its needless, march of folly shipwreck losses and move forward on a very different basis, beyond the window.

    The dominant worldview (academia that feeds schools, Universities and the media), “materialism” (atheism) is FALSE.

    This existence (reality) is comprised of:
    – material aspects (characterized by size, weight, color, etc…)
    – immaterial aspects (they EXIST but can not be weighted/ sized/ mathematically characterized): love, truth, beauty… etc ( abstract )

    The dominant worldview is FALSE and until we dismantle it, the problems will not disappear.
    The “brain” is a part of the person, but not the WHOLE person (the soul exists).

    Materialism is a superstition NOT backed up by science.

    Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back).

  468. 468
    Truthfreedom says:

    Materialism’s epistemological blunder is irretrievable.
    Materialism’s epistemological status = z.e.r.o.
    You can no longer be a “philosophical materialist” and say that “science” is on your side.

    Materialism is OVER.

  469. 469
    kairosfocus says:

    MMT, when I get time I will do further point by point. I put it to you that walking with a hit team, conveniently suppressing their identities, having a weird side talk to oneself on painted up riot protection boarding up, then taking in the hit with little immediate reaction and the unresponsiveness to a genuine onlooker who is obviously shocked and reaching out instinctively to the police, speaks for itself. The behaviour is suspicious to the point of being a person of interest for investigation, in the current legally advised waffle-speak used by police. Not that I now expect you to acknowledge the force of any of this or the relevance of the annotated vid linked from the OP, or a lot of other things. Been there before, noticed how not even a public apology by the USSR shifted the views of the ideologically locked in. KF

  470. 470
    Truthfreedom says:

    The “Illusion Mongers”

    Materialism Subverts Itself

    The materialist uses qualia and abstraction to get to materialism and then turns around and claims that qualia and abstraction do not exist.

  471. 471

    “Since we touched on the issue, I don’t agree that it’s impossible for a white person to be non-racist. I think it’s very difficult to achieve that in the USA, but not impossible. ” = flat out racist perspective.

  472. 472

    Any perspective that connotes generalized character traits onto people because of the color of their skin is 100%s racist.

  473. 473

    The single largest defining difference between the attempted marxist cultural revolution going on here and that which has succeeded in other countries is that they failed to disarm the population beforehand. Right now, the population is armed to the teeth.

    The election of Trump interrupted their plan for continuing a slow-motion takeover. They have to do it right now. Four more years of Trump dismantling their power structure is unacceptable to them. The smarter play after 2016 would have been to fall back to a longer-term strategy even if it meant losing some ground.

    Which makes me think that waiting until 2016 to run Trump and implement the counter-strategy was due to sophisticated game-planning that probably dates back to the immediate post-Reagan era. Unfortunately, the only way to wake up most people is to let the wolves howl and scratch at their door. And, perhaps the only way to get the marxists to overplay their hand was for them to have the goal in hand and then snatch it away from them at the last second. Get them to abandon the long game due to their own personal narcissism and sense of entitlement.

    Trump is perfect for the job, because he can trash-talk with the best of them. In sports, that’s how you get into the head of your opponents, put them off their game and get them to make mistakes.

    It must be SO infuriating to throw everything you can at the guy, and it have absolutely no effect.

  474. 474
    Truthfreedom says:

    473 William J Murray

    It must be SO infuriating to throw everything you can at the guy, and it have absolutely no effect.

    Marxists deserve 1000 thousand “Trumps”.

  475. 475
    john_a_designer says:

    Dave, it took me 15 seconds to find this:

    An ectopic pregnancy is one that occurs outside the womb, usually in one of the fallopian tubes. Because the fetus cannot survive and the mom could suffer life-threatening internal bleeding, ectopic pregnancies, which may account for as many as one in 40 pregnancies, are terminated at the earliest sign.

    You can’t do your own homework?

    I would argue that under those specific circumstances terminating the pregnancy is morally the right thing to do. In other words, I would argue that it’s pretty self-evident. But maybe there are pro-life people who would disagree with me.

  476. 476
    daveS says:

    JAD,

    You can’t do your own homework?

    Huh? What brought that on?

    That [ectopic pregnancy] is one scenario I had in mind when I typed up my earlier post. It doesn’t answer my question, however, which concerns whether termination in such a case is moral.

    Now like you, I believe it is moral. But I don’t know how to argue that it’s self-evident that it’s moral. How would that go? I guess I could work backwards and try to abstract some general principles from the situation (for example, the rights of the mother supersede those of a barely developed embryo) and claim that they are self-evident. Then I could assemble a deductive argument. Does that get me anywhere though?

  477. 477
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, none of that tortured logic is needed, simple self defence obtains. Albeit, rather unusual circumstances. KF

  478. 478
    john_a_designer says:

    The “fetus cannot survive and the mom could suffer life-threatening internal bleeding.” In other words, the moral thing to do in that case is to save the life of the mother. If that is not self-evident I don’t know what is.

  479. 479
    john_a_designer says:

    I think the whole problem of what’s going on in not only the U.S. but western society and culture in general centers on the idea of human rights. To understand the problem we need to focus on two basic questions: (1) What are human rights and (2) from where do they originate?

    What are human rights? I would argue very simply that human rights are universal moral obligations. That is every human being living anywhere at any time in history has certain fundamental rights.

    From where do they originate? It seems to me that in our current cultural milieu there are two competing possibilities being considered: (A) Human rights are human inventions; or (B) human rights have some kind of transcendent cause or grounding.

    The problem is that modern secular progressive society which presently dominates American culture is that it wants, on one hand, to co-opt the long standing traditional assumption that human rights are universal moral obligations that transcend space, time and culture but, on the other, assert they are human inventions. But if they are human inventions how can they be in any way transcendent and morally binding? Unfortunately the modern secular thinkers don’t seem to be able to grasp the moral dilemma and logical contradictions in their thinking. But maybe they don’t really want to. The long standing traditional idea of human rights, after all, is a very powerful idea that can be used to, artfully if not deceptively, frame some very persuasive rhetorical arguments– that is the arguments that sound so good and seem so logical, whether they really are or not.

  480. 480
    daveS says:

    JAD,

    FTR, in very rare cases, both mother and child survive an ectopic pregnancy.

    But I suspect if I used the criterion “If that is not self-evident I don’t know what is”, you would shoot it down. How do I tell the difference between a genuine self-evident truth and mere opinion?

  481. 481
    Truthfreedom says:

    DaveS
    The “brain” problem still is on the table. 🙂
    We “people”:
    – “have brains”
    and
    – “have minds”
    Who/ what is the “owner” of those 2 things above?

  482. 482
    Mac McTavish says:

    DaveS480, my sister had an ectopic pregnancy and had it aborted. That was the best decision she ever made. She now has three beautiful kids.

  483. 483
    Seversky says:

    DaveS @ 480

    But I suspect if I used the criterion “If that is not self-evident I don’t know what is”, you would shoot it down. How do I tell the difference between a genuine self-evident truth and mere opinion?

    I would argue that, except perhaps within formal systems like logic or mathematics, there are no such things as “self-evident truths” in the sense that there are no observations would be accepted as true for any observer, regardless of any contextual information, beyond the existence of an observation.

    I could look at an automobile in a parking-lot and could claim that it was self-evidently a 2004 model Chevrolet Impala sedan because that is what I see. But if I showed the same car to an alien who knew nothing about terrestrial motor vehicles and didn’t perceive colors in the same way as human beings then it would not be self-evident at all.

    Claims of self-evidence are more a rhetorical device where a claim is asserted to be true without any need to provide evidence for that claim.

  484. 484
    Seversky says:

    DaveS @ 412

    I don’t believe a human life one minute after conception is a “person” as you and I are. My understanding is that it isn’t conscious or aware of the outside world, cannot experience emotions, feel pain, or form memories.

    Allowing that the concept of personhood is somewhat vague, I would also argue that it is irrelevant. The only right I would grant to an unborn human being at the earliest stage of development we can detect is the right to life. Nothing else is required.

    A right, in one sense, is a guarantee of entitlement. The right to free expression, for example, is a guarantee granted by society that any member of that society shall be allowed to express their thoughts at any time and in any way they choose. An individual may observe a vow of silence for ten years, for example, but still be free to say whatever he or she wants when the vow expires. A universal human right is not a use-it-or-lose-it deal.

    The right to life on this understanding is a guarantee that the life of the unborn shall be preserved until such time as the individual is able to take full control of their affairs and decide what they want to do with their life.

    Moreover, it is something we as a society decide for ourselves. The fact that some other being or civilization might have the power to destroy us whenever they chose does not confer on them any authority to decide what rights we are to be accorded. If you allow that then you are allowing that might makes right.

  485. 485
    Seversky says:

    John_a_designer @ 433

    You’re missing the point Dave. I am simply asking how your, or anyone else’s, moral beliefs are binding on me? I am not necessarily focusing on just abortion. I am thinking about moral obligation in general.

    Do you regard yourself as “bound” by any moral obligations and, if so, on what grounds?

    For example, suppose a BLM activist were to argue, “You have to listen to me because I have THE RIGHT to demonstrate and protest because I feel oppressed but I don’t have to listen to you because if you don’t agree with me you are an oppressor.” How do you reason with that kind of thinking?

    I would counter that the BLM activist has the right to protest but there is no requirement for me to listen to them if I don’t choose to, any more than the BLM activist has to listen to me if they don’t want to.

    Believing something, even if you believe it very strongly is not a logical argument. Deductive arguments need to begin with premises that are either self-evidently true, provably true or probably true. Just starting with your opinions and beliefs gets you nowhere. To claim it does it being presumptive and/or arrogant.

    If there is no way to derive “ought” from “is”, if there is no way to ground a logical argument concerning moral claims in what we observe of the natural world, then where else can we start except with our beliefs and opinions?

  486. 486
    john_a_designer says:

    Here is a non-hypothetical hypothetical:

    Two democratic societies A and B with virtually the same constitutional form of government have arrived at two distinctly different positions about race. Society A has laws opposing racism which it considers to be evil. Society B not only doesn’t have any laws against racism, it denies certain races full constitutional rights– freedom of speech, the right to vote, own property or travel etc. Not only that this is the overwhelming consensus of its citizens who do enjoy constitutional rights.

    Which society is morally better? If you are a moral relativist you would have to say neither. If morality and human rights are merely the result of consensus then one’s society’s view of morality cannot be better than another’s.

  487. 487
    BobRyan says:

    There is either absolute morality that applies to all, or there is no morality. The first requires human exceptionalism and the latter requires humans to be nothing more than animals.

  488. 488
    Truthfreedom says:

    482 Mac Mc Tavish

    DaveS480, my sister had an ectopic pregnancy and had it aborted. That was the best decision she ever made.

    Well, the “illusion of a decision” under (metaphysical) ”materialism” (NEVER to be mistaken for science, in fact, if materialism were true, gaining knowledge wouldn’t be possible).

    She now has three beautiful kids.

    Three “meat-robots” according to the materialist superstition (again, this has to do with metaphysical materialism, not science). That are not even beautiful, because “beauty” is also an “illusion” under metaphysical ”materialism”.
    Which shows that metaphysical ”materialism” is the doctrine of the intellectually comatose/ dead.

    And that is why the West is now a laughing stock.

    Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back).

  489. 489
    kairosfocus says:

    WJM, 473:

    The single largest defining difference between the attempted marxist cultural revolution going on here and that which has succeeded in other countries is that they failed to disarm the population beforehand. Right now, the population is armed to the teeth.

    The election of Trump interrupted their plan for continuing a slow-motion takeover. They have to do it right now. Four more years of Trump dismantling their power structure is unacceptable to them. The smarter play after 2016 would have been to fall back to a longer-term strategy even if it meant losing some ground.

    Which makes me think that waiting until 2016 to run Trump and implement the counter-strategy was due to sophisticated game-planning that probably dates back to the immediate post-Reagan era. Unfortunately, the only way to wake up most people is to let the wolves howl and scratch at their door. And, perhaps the only way to get the marxists to overplay their hand was for them to have the goal in hand and then snatch it away from them at the last second. Get them to abandon the long game due to their own personal narcissism and sense of entitlement.

    An interesting read of the strategic course of events, moves, counter-moves.

    In any case, we are in the storm, now and it is beyond generalship (though the nightmare of “the strategic corporal” pulling a stupid stunt like abuses at Abu Ghraib gaol and triggering a massive media pounce must haunt key authorities . . . though I must say that Mr Sandmann in particular gives us good reason to see the metal of at least some rising youth).

    We are in the hands of operational actors, and this election is an audit on whether the people of the urban centres will defend our civilisation. It is beyond the idiosyncracies or flaws of a New York contractor in chief now. I think the urban centres will on average vote for chaos, likely not realising that that is the implication; the issue will be, how much so.

    In the next 4 – 16 months those urban centres will take a hard lesson in just how much they rely on the hinterlands and on hinterland culture. I have no doubt on ultimate outcome but frankly fear that shattering damage will be done. With soberging global geostrategic consequences.

    But in the end, pain is a very effective teacher.

    KF

  490. 490
    kairosfocus says:

    TF, all true, though of course the comfortable are not inclined to hear shattering critique . . . until pain walks in the door as teacher, exposing the clever manipulators. And, the storm is here, a doozy. KF

  491. 491
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev. 485:

    Any number of times your attention has been drawn to the following, which you inadvertently illustrate even as you habitually revert to the fallacy of Wilsonian studious evasion:

    We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

    You may not be interested in the first duties of reason, their inescapability thus self-evidence and worldview import, but these things are interested in you.

    And the moreso as the storm mounts up with nearly unprecedented fury.

    And our God rides on the wings of the storm . . .

    Those who have stirred up a chaos storm, would be well advised to fear.

    KF

  492. 492
    Truthfreedom says:

    Philosophies Come and GO

    “In 1887 almost every philosopher in the English-speaking countries was an idealist. A hundred years later in the same countries, almost all philosophers have forgotten this fact; and when, as occasionally happens, they are reminded of it, they find it almost impossible to believe. But it ought never to be forgotten. For it shows what the opinions, even the virtually unanimous opinions, of philosophers are worth, when they conflict with common sense”. David Stove (circa 1987)

    “Materialists”, your philosophy is garbage that belongs into the dustbin of History.
    You have been fooled and sold an unsinkable vessel that will be kissing the bottom of the ocean before you realize it.
    A very cold and uncomfortable place to end your days.

    Aristotle (and the soul) are back.

  493. 493
    Truthfreedom says:

    489 Kairosfocus

    But in the end, pain is a very effective teacher.

    Suffering: The un-escapable feature of human existence on this “existential stage” (Earth).
    We Christians have been warned and given the solution.

    And falling prey of the “materialist” superstition is not going to help humanity escape reality.

    God or nothing. 🙂

  494. 494
    daveS says:

    KF,

    But in the end, pain is a very effective teacher.

    MUAhahahaha….

    🙂

  495. 495
    john_a_designer says:

    My post @ 478,

    The “fetus cannot survive and the mom could suffer life-threatening internal bleeding.” In other words, the moral thing to do in that case is to save the life of the mother. If that is not self-evident I don’t know what is.

    Dave @ 480,

    But I suspect if I used the criterion “If that is not self-evident I don’t know what is”, you would shoot it down. How do I tell the difference between a genuine self-evident truth and mere opinion?

    If human life has no real value then I suppose it’s not self-evidently true for you. However, if we accept that as a society that’s the end of any form of democratic, “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” self-government. Your moral blindness is your problem Dave.

    By the way, if there is no such thing as self-evident human rights then the “pro-choice” (pro-abortion) side doesn’t have an argument either.

  496. 496
    daveS says:

    JAD,

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but I almost posted earlier predicting this sort of progression:

    Believing something, even if you believe it very strongly is not a logical argument. Deductive arguments need to begin with premises that are either self-evidently true, provably true or probably true. Just starting with your opinions and beliefs gets you nowhere. To claim it does it being presumptive and/or arrogant.

    In other words, I would argue that it’s pretty self-evident.

    If that is not self-evident I don’t know what is.

    If human life has no real value then I suppose it’s not self-evidently true for you. However, if we accept that as a society that’s the end of any form of democratic, “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” self-government. Your moral blindness is your problem Dave.

    In the end, there’s something wrong with me.

  497. 497
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, one thing that haunts me is that the collapse of the W Roman empire led to what a thousand years to claw ourselves back up to a comparable level. A lesson.. Another is the sorry record of the various totalitarians of the past century. KF

  498. 498
    Truthfreedom says:

    DaveS 496

    In the end, there’s something wrong with me.

    And yet, “you” do not know what that “you” is.
    Although you are halfway there. You know part of that “you” is:
    – a “physical brain”
    – and “something abstract but not-locatable”.

    Materialism got (I am using the past tense due to its failure) part of the picture right.
    Now hylemorphism recovers what materialism ditched to draw a complete picture of human nature and reality.

    Poor Aristotle has travelled a long journey. 🙂
    Aristotle (and the soul) are back.

  499. 499
    asauber says:

    “In the end, there’s something wrong with me.”

    DaveS,

    I think you’ve made a breakthrough. We all have to address this problem with ourselves. It not too late for you to discover that Science or Scientism or Mathematics or Current Political Fads do not provide a solution. You have to start thinking outside all the lies you’ve been told.

    Andrew

  500. 500
    john_a_designer says:

    As human beings we are all morally fallible. That’s not an opinion. It’s the self-evident truth– the honest Truth.

  501. 501
    john_a_designer says:

    Here is an argument I have presented before at UD which I think is worth repeating here for some context.

    Only if an eternally existing transcendent moral standard exists is there any basis for universal human rights.

    Metaphysically atheistic naturalism/ materialism does not accept the existence of an eternally existing transcendent moral standard.

    Therefore, atheistic naturalism/ materialism does not have a basis for universal human rights.

    Please notice what I am not arguing:

    *(1.) That atheists do not believe in human rights. Many do and do so sincerely if not very strongly. But strongly held beliefs and opinions are not the same as moral obligations. (How am I or anyone obligated to your personal opinions?) Human rights are moral obligations. Atheistic naturalism/materialism has no logical basis for human rights.

    *(2.) That atheists do not have human rights. They do. Again the argument is that they have no BASIS for human rights or any kind of objective moral standard.

    *(3.) That Christian theism is the only possible basis for universal human rights. Rather the argument is that the standard needs to be an eternally existing transcendent one. Platonic philosophy, for example, at least appears to provide such a standard. Are there others? Apparently so. However, I do believe that Judeo-Christian moral teaching provides a better grounding than Platonic philosophy or any other world view.

    Obviously any kind of antirealist or moral subjectivist view is not only a very poor basis but it is a completely untenable basis for morality, civil law or fundamental human rights– nor does it provide any kind of starting point for creating a broad societal consensus which is absolutely necessary for functioning democratic society. It’s basically self-righteous narcissism or outright moral nihilism. In other words, moral subjectivism is a totally irrational basis for interpersonal morality or universal human rights.

  502. 502
    Seversky says:

    Kairosfocus @ 497

    DS, one thing that haunts me is that the collapse of the W Roman empire led to what a thousand years to claw ourselves back up to a comparable level. A lesson.. Another is the sorry record of the various totalitarians of the past century. KF

    If they haunt you then so should this:

    In case it’s still unclear,

    400 years ago white men enslaved black people. And sold them. And treated them as less than human. For 250 years. While white men built the country and created its laws and its systems of government. While 10, 15 generations of white families got to grow and flourish and make choices that could make their lives better.

    And then 150 years ago white men “freed” black people from slavery. But then angry white men created laws that made it impossible for them to vote. Or to own land. Or to have the same rights as white people. And even erected monuments glorifying people who actively had fought to keep them enslaved. All while another 5, 10 generations of white families got to grow and accumulate wealth and gain land and get an education.

    And then 60 years ago white people made it “legal” for black people to vote, and to be “free” from discrimination. But angry white people still fought to keep schools segregated. And closed off neighborhoods to white people only. And made it harder for black people to get bank loans, or get quality education or health care, or to (gasp) marry a white person. All while another 2-3 generations of white families got to grow and pass their wealth down to their children and their children’s children.

    And then we entered an age where we had the technology to make PUBLIC the things that were already happening in private– the beatings, the stop and frisk laws, the unequal distribution of justice, the police brutality (in the south, police began as slave patrols designed to catch runaway slaves). And only now, after 400+ years and 20+ generations of a white head start, are we STARTING to truly have a dialogue about what it means to be black.

    White privilege doesn’t mean you haven’t suffered or fought or worked hard. It doesn’t mean white people are responsible for the sins of our ancestors. It doesn’t mean you can’t be proud of who you are.

    It DOES mean that we need to acknowledge that the system our ancestors created is built FOR white people.

    It DOES mean that Black people are at a disadvantage because of the color of their skin, and

    It DOES mean that we owe it to our neighbors– of all colors– to acknowledge that and work to make our world more equitable.

    BLACK LIVES MATTER. #blm

    This is what the protests are about, not “cultural Marxism”, not “Red Guards brigades”, not “assassination squads”. Do you deny this?

  503. 503
    Truthfreedom says:

    502 Seversky
    Acording to Seversky, “Black Lives Matter”. How curious, coming from a “person” ( meat-robot according to himself) that subscribes to an outdated cult (“materialism”) that could not be more opposed to knowledge because leads to subjective idealism/ total skepticism and can not ground morals because, of course, stupid “molecules” in motion can ground nil and then steals morals from the theist while laughing at him.

    10 Reasons Why Atheists Are Delusional
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/11-reasons-why-atheists-are-delusional/

  504. 504
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky,

    400 years ago white men enslaved black people. And sold them. And treated them as less than human. For 250 years.

    REALLY, you full well know that my race is black, that I am a convinced constitutional democrat and that I have openly stated that the following challenge to the establishment is in effect my political credo:

    When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 – 21, 2:14 – 15], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . .

    Your condescending tone and rhetorical, loaded suggestion that I am unconcerned about racism, slavery, colonialism and other ills UNLESS I sign up to the rhetoric of a culture form marxist pressure group currently fielding Red Guard rioters in an insurgency to overthrow advances such as lawful policing and courts — doubtless to replace with the equivalent of friendly local Committees for the Defence of the Revolution and People’s Courts — demonstrating utter disregard for basic rights of all human beings through what is happening in the streets as it seeks to impose its political will are simply unacceptable. The policy platform, roots and present behaviour of the BLM movement expose what it is, even as the behaviour of orthodox marxist leninists exposed what they were never mind splendid rhetoric on capitalist oppression. FYI, I lived through a 4GW insurgency connected to an election, driven by Marxist strategists (10 years later, Mr Gorbachev sent a delegation of public apology), and for 40 years have had to live with destructive consequences in my homeland. I paid in blood and tears for what I know.

    You should apologise and withdraw such a comment, but predictably you will not. Even more predictably you will try to double down if you can get away with it, or slink away if you can’t. Credibility zero confirmed, yet again.

    I simply point out instead the far sounder counsel of Bernard Lewis (who is Jewish), on the sins of the West:

    . . . The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty — not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race. In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst. The treatment of women in the Western world, and more generally in Christendom, has always been unequal and often oppressive, but even at its worst it was rather better than the rule of polygamy and concubinage that has otherwise been the almost universal lot of womankind on this planet . . . .

    In having practiced sexism, racism, and imperialism, the West was merely following the common practice of mankind through the millennia of recorded history. Where it is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy these historic diseases. And that is surely a matter for congratulation, not condemnation. We do not hold Western medical science in general, or Dr. Parkinson and Dr. Alzheimer in particular, responsible for the diseases they diagnosed and to which they gave their names.

    For shame!

    KF

  505. 505
    Truthfreedom says:

    Oh wait. According to the self-defeating, sinking ship of “materialism”, qualia are “illusions” too, so we can not even be sure of what is “black” or what is “white”, because, in fact, only “molecules” exist, so we are all “hallucinating”.

    A “theory of knowledge” according to
    which “racism” exists, but “racists” (people), do not.

    10 Reasons Why Atheists Are Delusional
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/11-reasons-why-atheists-are-delusional/

  506. 506
    john_a_designer says:

    Again, as I have asked before: From the standpoint of moral subjectivism, where by definition morals and ethics must be arbitrary, what basis do we have for universal human rights? Would a country like the US even be possible without a concept of universal human rights? Even though our concept of human rights at the founding of our country was very imperfect (slavery, mistreatment of native people, unequal rights for women) there is absolutely no basis for such universal rights from a moral subjectivist point of view.

    While not infallible the morality of western civilization is based on Judeo-Christian thought. There is no historical evidence that a society based on moral relativism can endure for very long. To suggest that moral subjectivist view would be an improvement over a moral objectivist view is completely irrational. Any kind of moral progress requires moral standards– indeed, it requires an overarching or transcendent standard. Moral subjectivism which is an utterly arbitrary approach is the rejection of all standards.

  507. 507
    daveS says:

    JAD,

    Are there moral subjectivists who believe that literally anything goes? That there are no universal principles which imply that human societies should not engage in oppression of women, genocide, slavery, etc.?

    I don’t believe we were endowed by a creator with our rights, but I do believe that there are very good reasons not to engage in these practices. For example, if a society condones slavery, then everyone ultimately ends up worse off, and as we see, those corrosive effects can last a long time after slavery is eliminated.

    These principles which say slavery and so forth should not be allowed are based on economics, psychology, mathematics, etc., so they are transcendent in a way.

  508. 508
    mike1962 says:

    The pedos are coming out, folks. Watch.

  509. 509
    Mac McTavish says:

    Mike

    The pedos are coming out, folks. Watch.

    WTF?

  510. 510
    kairosfocus says:

    Probably a reference to a horrible Netflix movie that somebody should have realised is at minimum desensitisation through outrageous sexualised behaviour of pre-teen girls. That it made it through production says something chilling.

  511. 511
    Mac McTavish says:

    KF

    Probably a reference to a horrible Netflix movie that somebody should have realised is at minimum desensitisation through outrageous sexualised behaviour of pre-teen girls. That it made it through production says something chilling.

    Did I miss something? What are you talking about?

  512. 512
    Mac McTavish says:

    TF

    Well, the “illusion of a decision” under (metaphysical) ”materialism” (NEVER to be mistaken for science, in fact, if materialism were true, gaining knowledge wouldn’t be possible).

    My sister was torn up by her ectopic pregnancy and you respond with this nonsense? Are you always this reprehensible?

  513. 513
    kairosfocus says:

    MMT, yes. I took a moment to look at the promo clip to clarify what was going on, only to shut it off real quick. If I caught some sicko inducing a young 11 yo girl to behave like that on camera, I would be calling the cops. After knocking the camera to the ground and yelling to the child to leave, pronto. I am not going to link, it is in news and on Twitter but it is bad, grooming bad. I think Turkey sensibly banned it. KF

    PS: You are showing that the consequences of evolutionary materialistic scientism are un-livable.

  514. 514
    john_a_designer says:

    Here are some questions from another thread which Seversky has never answered.

    Seversky:

    I don’t approve of censorship.

    So? How are your beliefs or opinions binding on anyone else? What about the people who approve of censorship like the powers that be at Google and Twitter? They’re not bothered by anyone else’s so-called rights. They have the power to censor anyone they want for any reason they wish. That’s all that they need. It’s an example of the ancient principle of might makes right. (A question to anyone, didn’t Plato use that phrase in one of his dialogues?)

    Seversky:

    It is far better to have contentious arguments, views or opinions out there in the open where they can be examined by anyone. If they are right then we learn something new and if they are wrong then we still learn something by discovering how they are wrong.

    Where are you getting your standard of right, wrong or better from? Whose standard is it? Your standard? So any so called consensus is really just the result of the way you are able manipulate– perhaps by vilifying and demonizing– someone else’s opposing opinion because there is no overarching real standard of right or wrong. That sounds pretty disingenuous to me.

    https://uncommondescent.com/medicine/the-frontline-doctors-put-some-plausible-mechanisms-for-hydroxychloroquine-on-the-table/#comment-710096

  515. 515
    Truthfreedom says:

    514 John_a_designer

    Where are you getting your standard of right, wrong or better from?

    From the theist obviously because under the failed “materialist” paradigm, “morality” doesn’t even exist.
    Meaning that the materialist/ atheist is a copycat.

    So any so called consensus is really just the result of the way you are able manipulate– perhaps by vilifying and demonizing– someone else’s opposing opinion

    You have just described marxism “to a tee”. (That pseudo-scientific garbage of CRT for example).
    And under the failed “materialist” paradigm, you do not “reason” with people. You “program them” via mechanically-transmitted air-waves/ noises.

    “Materialism” = kindergarten , absurd philosophy.

    But there’s a worldview that:
    – is compatible with science
    – understands human nature
    – restores humans dignity
    – can ground morality

    Aristotle (and the soul) are back.

  516. 516
    Truthfreedom says:

    ___

    “Materialism is in fact one of the last superstitions and one of the final myths that we have created”.
    Dr. Edward Feser.
    The Last Superstition

  517. 517
    kairosfocus says:

    A sampler on the Red Guards mentality on campus: https://twitter.com/KaitMarieox/status/1304186984320184322 (Pardon, language warning, I find a coarsening of manners that is part of the problem, too.)

    I note, an example of the concerns in reactive tweets: >>Gumisie @TajemniczyDo . . . A very non-PC (in conservative circles) question: is everything ok when the police officer (0:15 and on) blames the intended target of the Leftist mob for the “dangerous situation”?>>

    Some very serious soul searching is in order.

  518. 518
    Mac McTavish says:

    KF

    PS: You are showing that the consequences of evolutionary materialistic scientism are un-livable.

    I don’t know where this is coming from. All I have done is disagree with your Red Guard theory.

  519. 519
    kairosfocus says:

    MMT, look on your last exchange with TF etc. KF

    PS: Maybe you imagine that comparisons to red guards are my conspiracy theory imagination. I cannot force open a closed mind but I can point to relevant facts and arguments already in play: July 28 to you https://uncommondescent.com/wp-admin/comment.php?action=editcomment&c=708386 , To DP https://uncommondescent.com/control-and-anarchy/after-100-years-and-100-million-needless-graves-dinesh-dsousa-on-the-c21-revival-of-socialism/#comment-708427 then on Arab Spring https://uncommondescent.com/control-and-anarchy/after-100-years-and-100-million-needless-graves-dinesh-dsousa-on-the-c21-revival-of-socialism/#comment-708504 esp the Egypt case, with on colour revolutions here https://uncommondescent.com/control-and-anarchy/after-100-years-and-100-million-needless-graves-dinesh-dsousa-on-the-c21-revival-of-socialism/#comment-708595 . Notice, the Red Guards of 1966 on here https://uncommondescent.com/control-and-anarchy/after-100-years-and-100-million-needless-graves-dinesh-dsousa-on-the-c21-revival-of-socialism/#comment-709274 — it’s not want of evidence of direct parallels but for want of willingness to heed it on your part; things are now moving to the predictable, the election was rigged, ground being laid now. Given the announced, even boasted of insurgency and its marxist roots, our duty is to prudence in the face of credible threat, not to try to prove to closed minds. Threat duly noted, implications of defund/abolish police, coming on three months of riot, arson, mayhem, attacks on cultural icons, media chorus agitprop on don’t believe yer lyin eyes and more duly noted. The 4GW insurgency is steadily ramping up in intensity and will be resolved in 6 – 16 months now; some urban areas are going to learn the hard way just how much they depend on the hinterlands they so blatantly disregard and disdain. Unfortunately, the damage will linger for much longer than that and geostrategic consequences are liable to be bad, watch Taiwan, Korea, Philipines ME as usual and elsewhere. the sheer irresponsibility of what is going on is appalling.

  520. 520
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: McFaul and the E Europe style colour revolutions “playbook.” This documents an operational pattern, associated with a deep state actor:

    The years since 2000 have seen a surprising new wave of democratic breakthroughs in the postcommunist countries of Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine. This article compares and contrasts these three cases, naming seven common factors which made the breakthroughs in these countries possible:
    1) a semi-autocratic rather than fully autocratic regime;
    2) an unpopular incumbent;
    3) a united and organized opposition;
    4) an ability quickly to drive home the point that voting results were falsified,
    5) enough independent media to inform citizens about the falsified vote,
    6) a political opposition capable of mobilizing tens of thousands or more demonstrators to protest electoral fraud, and
    7) divisions among the regime’s coercive forces.

    That’s circa 2005. The basic techniques have been in circulation for a long time (and were in fact used to target George W Bush too.)

    Now, inject a little Alinsky-style cynical nihilism, a 1619 critical race theory cultural marxist indoctrination project with deconstructionism used to reconstruct and stigmatise history of the US and constitutional democracy as inherently oppressive esp to minorities. Multiply by a huge deep state hoax to construct the target as a Russian puppet and traitor (with heavy doses of lawfare and illegal espionage feeding a drumbeat of lockstep media slander).Exponentiate by a reckless, ill-founded, abusive highly faction-driven impeachment process. Mix in some Red Guards rioting, burning, looting, committing mayhem, attacking civilisation icons, demanding to abolish police and courts (doubtless to replace with committees for defence of the revolution and volkish courts) being painted as legitimate protests . . . note, 48 out of the top 50 population cities. Toss in attempts to discredit a key constitutional check, the electoral college. Slander the target and his supporters as racist nazis wanting to install a fascist dictatorship. Take advantage of an oh so conveniently timed pandemic and panic to demand uncontrollable mail-in votes highly amenable to fraud and general chaos.

    Then, look at where we are today.

    If this does not give you pause, you haven’t been paying attention.

    I suspect most of the deep state actors and their enablers don’t want things to go to full bore cultural revolution, purge and terror, but once the genie is out of the bottle it is very hard to put it back in again.

    Life and death lie in the power of the tongue and those who love it will eat of its fruit for good or ill.

    The juggernaut is rolling.

    KF

    PS: Add to the toxic mix, the so-called transition integrity project, an obvious deep state, uniparty operation that builds on the above. To decode its significance, apply the mirror-projection turnabout accusation principle that from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks and the finger points accusingly:

    >>In June 2020 the Transition Integrity Project (TIP) convened a bipartisan group of over 100 current and former senior government and campaign leaders and other experts in a series of 2020 election crisis sce-nario planning exercises.>>

    1: This is operational planning based on war games by deep state operatives, so it will by the mirror principle tell us a lot about how they think, operate and intend to act.

    >> The results of all four table-top exercises were alarming.>>

    2: Projected to the target but telling about themselves, their backers and those caught up in the operations already in progress

    >>We assess with a high degree of likelihood>>

    3: Your credibility is on trial, and by the mirror principle we will infer on prudence.

    >> that November’s elections will be marked by a chaotic legal and political landscape. >>

    4: They intend to create an atmosphere of chaos to push the election their way, by delegitimising it if it somehow does not go their way, again . . . even worse than after November 2016.

    5: Street chaos, mail in dubious vote claims, street theatre amplified through media mouthpieces into a drumroll and crescendo will accompany lawfare efforts to break an election that does not go where they want.

    6: And if it DOES somehow go their way, the same attitudes will be there and they will be emboldened by their “win,” so they intend to take repressive antiliberty measures targetting those they have already stigmatised. We have already seen a foreshadowing with the Gen Flynn case and others like it, the Kavanaugh USSC nomination and more.

    7: Only, they will feel much less restricted.

    >>We also assess that the President Trump is likely to contest the result by both legal and extra-legal means, in an attempt to hold onto power.>>

    8: So, we are facing an intent to seize power by lawfare and lawless means.

    9: Ask, is there any good warrant to infer that their target would not surrender office if defeated on any responsible basis? Do we not have good reason for concern on the push to uncontrolled mail in votes and the like? Did we not see some disturbing signs in 2000 with the hanging chads election?

    >>Recent events, including the President’s own unwillingness to commit to abiding by the results of the election,>>

    10: A major twisting of the facts, and more than counter-weighted by the advice to Mr Biden not to concede.

    >> the Attorney General’s embrace of the President’s groundless electoral fraud claims,>>

    11: There is an history of significant fraud and evidence that in 1960 fraud decided the election. Resistance to simple commonly used anti-fraud methods such as identification and the rise of an open to abuse mail in votes push show just the opposite.

    >> and the unprecedented deployment of federal agents to put down leftwing protests,>>

    12: Troops have repeatedly been used to suppress riots, which are what has been on the ground for months. This deceitful characterisation confirms that we need to apply the mirror principle in prudence to the TIP.

    >> underscore the extreme lengths to which President Trump may be willing to go in order to stay in office. >>

    13: This points, rather, to the extreme measures that are in play to seize power. Which is telling.

    14: The weasel word, may, implies that they have not one iota of solid reason to conclude treason or a long train of usurpations pointing to despotism on the part of their target. Such an implication must never be put on the table without very strong proof indeed. Contrast the US DoI 1776 with its long bill of particulars and surrounding circumstances a full year after fighting had broken out.

    15: That shows the recklessness, irresponsibility and nihilistic intent at work.

    Where are the adults in the room? Is Mr Kissinger incapacitated?

  521. 521
    Truthfreedom says:

    512 Mac Mc Tavish

    My sister was torn up by her ectopic pregnancy and you respond with this nonsense? Are you always this reprehensible?

    It’s the cult of atheistic materialism with its inherent amorality what is reprehensible.
    Look at what a prominent atheist/ evolutionist has to say about what happened to your sister:

    In a Universe (or multiverse*) of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.
    Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

    Pitiless indifference.

    Under Theism, your sister is a human being (not a “bunch of electrons”, not a “selfish” gene), undergoing a traumatic event.

  522. 522
    Truthfreedom says:

    520 Kairosfocus

    but once the genie is out of the bottle it is very hard to put it back in again.

    Some people are so ignorant of the evil that lurks inside the human heart…
    It’s astonishing.
    Once the genie is out and they realize that he ain’t gonna grant them good wishes, all their smiles are going to freeze.

  523. 523
    Seversky says:

    Kairosfocus/517

    A sampler on the Red Guards mentality on campus: https://twitter.com/KaitMarieox/status/1304186984320184322 (Pardon, language warning, I find a coarsening of manners that is part of the problem, too.)

    Kaitlin Bennett

    Kaitlin Marie Bennett (born October 15, 1995) is an American gun rights activist and conservative social media personality.[1][2][3][4] Bennett received media attention in 2018 for open-carrying an AR-10 rifle at Kent State University after graduating.[5]

    She and her husband run Liberty Hangout, which describes itself as a libertarian media outlet.[6] She has contributed to conspiracy theorist website InfoWars.[3]

  524. 524
    Truthfreedom says:

    523 Seversky

    Bennett received media attention in 2018 for open-carrying an AR-10 rifle at Kent State University after graduating.

    According to your outdated atheist/ evo superstition, carrying guns has to be the result of a very ancient “adaptive strategy” that helped Mr. and Mrs. Monkey gain some “reproductive advantage”.
    Aren’t you suggesting anything related to morality are you? The morality you have to steal from the Theist because your religion has this exact amount: z.e.r.o.

  525. 525
  526. 526
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky, whatever she is does not excuse the sort of riot in the video. Has that registered yet, that in any reasonably functional lawful state, riot is never justified? Is that hard to recognise? KF

  527. 527
    kairosfocus says:

    TF, whatever point was there to be made was made, there is no reason to keep on like that. KF

  528. 528
    Mac McTavish says:

    KF

    MMT, look on your last exchange with TF etc. KF

    PS: Maybe you imagine that comparisons to red guards are my conspiracy theory imagination. I cannot force open a closed mind but I can point to relevant facts and arguments already in play

    KF, I have noticed a disturbing trend in your discourse. You tend to blame your inability to convince someone of your interpretation of events on the close mindedness of the other person. Has it ever occurred to you that it may be your interpretation that is flawed?

  529. 529
    john_a_designer says:

    During Nuremberg trials after WWII where many of the Nazi leaders were tried and convicted of war crimes some of the allied prosecutors alluded to a law above the law. Is there such a thing? If there isn’t was it just to convict some Nazi leaders for just following orders that at the time (1933-1945) were based on German law?

  530. 530
    kairosfocus says:

    MMT,

    has it crossed your mind that on long experience, for cause I have drawn the conclusion that s/he who has made a crooked yardstick a ‘standard” for straight, accurate and upright will find that what is genuinely so will never match the standard of particular crookedness? In extreme cases, even including a plumb line, which is naturally straight and upright?

    Therefore, when I see something like, say, Lewontin’s a priori materialism, I content myself with exposing it. Where, there are many other ideological lockouts that — from the days of my observation and interactions with dyed in the wool marxists in my uni — will only be changed in the face of collapse. Where, recent and current developments are demonstrating that such will lie low then repackage and try to rise from ashes like the mythical phoenix.

    Let’s take you up on the heart of life. In the cell we find alphanumeric, 4-state digital, algorithmic code with associated molecular nanotech execution machinery. Something Crick realised by March 19, 1953 when he wrote to his son Michael. What is the only plausible, actually observed cause of complex language, algorithms and co-ordinated execution machinery? Design, and yet an ideological lockout is used to block that obvious possibility.

    Similarly, just to try to persuade onlookers, you are forced to appeal to first duties to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, fairness etc.

    Such are inescapable, self-evidently and naturally true, and actually govern reasoning. Where, to argue that such is not the case or is delusional is self-defeating. Only a world rooted in the inherently good and utterly wise can ground such. But, I am prepared to bet that you will stoutly resist the inference that such is indeed the massively manifest root of reality. Which becomes material as it deranges the government of your reasoning.

    In that context, for six weeks you have refused to acknowledge the obvious, direct parallels between what has been going on in the geostrategic centre of gravity of our civilisation and the patterns of sponsored Red Guard insurgency. Today, I reminded participants and onlookers on what has been on the table on that. We know that culture form marxist ideologues are at work from their own mouths. The operations on the street come right out of the relevant patterns. Further, today, I laid out the playbook and the wargaming plotting among the American deep state, where months ago members of same shadowy establishment literally came out in published articles in leading newspapers. The connexions and links to events in Eastern and central Europe (esp. the shattering of a government in Austria by libellous hoax driven scandal) point to particular financiers as involved; implying funding of at least dozens of billions, with the further leverage over government budgets and media empires old and new. Yet further, a team assassination two months before an election points to a sobering level of capability, with connections pointing to likely conduits for capacity building: brigadistas. Such is further backed by my having lived through a Marxist insurgency based 4G civil war, which allows me to recognise things that others lacking such or the substantially equivalent won’t. I have already noted Gorbachev’s apology for the USSR’s part in that disaster which has haunted my homeland for 40 years. And yes, many are in denial to this day, or have been inadvertently or even willfully misled.

    I have no expectation that you will be willing to acknowledge such.

    But, I have every intent to lay out on record, so that those willing to hear have the opportunity. And, I am comfortable that no empirically founded knowledge claims can have warrant beyond moral certainty. The abstract possibility of error is of no effect absent good warrant to recognise high enough likelihood to undermine what is on the table.

    Which you simply don’t have, you are on the whole indulging selectively hyperskeptical dismissals.

    At this point with geostrategic, existential threats on the table, prudence dictates taking the threats seriously in good time so the OODA loop is not compromised. And that shall be my policy. For cause.

    KF

  531. 531
    Seversky says:

    John_a_designer/486

    Two democratic societies A and B with virtually the same constitutional form of government have arrived at two distinctly different positions about race. Society A has laws opposing racism which it considers to be evil. Society B not only doesn’t have any laws against racism, it denies certain races full constitutional rights– freedom of speech, the right to vote, own property or travel etc. Not only that this is the overwhelming consensus of its citizens who do enjoy constitutional rights.

    Which society is morally better? If you are a moral relativist you would have to say neither. If morality and human rights are merely the result of consensus then one’s society’s view of morality cannot be better than another’s.

    How do we determine what is “morally better”? What are the functions of moral codes and charters of human rights?

    In my view, their function to regulate the behavior of human beings towards one another in society. The purpose is to preserve and uphold the needs and interests that all human beings have in common. They are, in effect, both the embodiment and expansion of the Golden Rule which is the only basis required.

    From this perspective, Society A is the “morally better” as protections against racial discrimination apply to all its members, whereas Society B denies some of its members those protections.

  532. 532
    Seversky says:

    BobRyan/487

    There is either absolute morality that applies to all, or there is no morality.

    Which is more “moral”, a morality imposed on a population by force from outside or a morality which a population freely acknowledges and agrees to be bound by?

  533. 533
    Seversky says:

    Kairosfocus/491

    You may not be interested in the first duties of reason, their inescapability thus self-evidence and worldview import, but these things are interested in you.

    I recognize the survival advantages of reason to us as individuals and a species.

    And the moreso as the storm mounts up with nearly unprecedented fury.

    And our God rides on the wings of the storm . . .

    Those who have stirred up a chaos storm, would be well advised to fear.

    But I don’t believe such apocalyptic visions are reasonable.

  534. 534
    Seversky says:

    John_a_designer/500

    As human beings we are all morally fallible. That’s not an opinion. It’s the self-evident truth– the honest Truth.

    I agree. We are all fallible, which means I regard any claims to possession of some Absolute Truth as suspect.

  535. 535
    Seversky says:

    John_a_designer/501

    Only if an eternally existing transcendent moral standard exists is there any basis for universal human rights.

    I would like to see an expansion of this argument as I don’t see that one necessarily follows from the other.

    Metaphysically atheistic naturalism/ materialism does not accept the existence of an eternally existing transcendent moral standard.

    Those positions do not necessarily exclude the possibility of an “eternally existing transcendent moral standard” but they regard the concept as problematic.

    Therefore, atheistic naturalism/ materialism does not have a basis for universal human rights.

    Those positions are about the nature of what ‘is’. If the is/ought gap is unbridgeable then they cannot provide a basis for any moral code or set of human rights.

  536. 536
    BobRyan says:

    Seversky

    If morality is not absolute, then it is nothing more than an illusion. The Imperial Japanese Army believed they were acting in a moral manner that was suited to them. The Soviets believed they were acting in a moral manner when they committed similar atrocities making their way to Berlin. Even after taking their portion of Berlin, the atrocities did not come to an end. The rape of Nanking was called a war crime, but the rape of Berlin was largely ignored. How could the Japanese Army be guilty of a crime based on morality?

  537. 537
    Seversky says:

    Kairosfocus/504

    REALLY, you full well know that my race is black, that I am a convinced constitutional democrat and that I have openly stated that the following challenge to the establishment is in effect my political credo:

    Yes, I do. Which is why I am puzzled why you appear to deny that a proclaimed constitutional democracy has failed to live up to its ideals, practiced sustained, violent and murderous discrimination against a substantial minority of its population which has, once again, been driven to lawful and largely peaceful protests against such abuses.

    You cannot be unaware that it was the failure of a lawful government to acknowledge and address the legitimate grievances of the colonial minority that led both to the declaration you just quoted and the riotous protests that culminated in the Revolutionary War.

    I have the impression that your direct experience of a failed Marxist insurgency had a traumatic effect on you. I suspect it has led you to prefer the narrative of the BLM movement as a façade for another Marxist insurgency rather than it being a genuine grassroots protest by the aggrieved against the failure of the majority of their society, as I said before, to acknowledge and take steps to address their long-standing and legitimate grievances.

    That the founders of the formal BLM movement are Marxists does not of itself take anything away from the legitimacy of that movement. I would argue that people only turn to such ideologies when they find their own society is blind to their needs and deaf to their protests against ill-treatment. And isn’t the best way to undermine any insurgency to listen to the oppressed to whom the insurgency has the greatest appeal and do whatever is necessary to unburden them?.

  538. 538
    Seversky says:

    John_a_designer/514

    blockquote>I don’t approve of censorship.

    So? How are your beliefs or opinions binding on anyone else?
    I don’t hold that my opinions are binding on anyone else but that doesn’t prevent me from expressing them.

    What about the people who approve of censorship like the powers that be at Google and Twitter? They’re not bothered by anyone else’s so-called rights.

    As I said, I don’t approve of censorship in principle although I can conceive of certain cases where it might be necessary. I would also assume that Google and Twitter would justify their censorship on the grounds of protecting the rights of others which could be a legitimate reason, depending on circumstances.

    Where are you getting your standard of right, wrong or better from? Whose standard is it? Your standard?

    I would say that the Golden Rule is the basis of my standards and that Mill’s On Liberty is my preferred source of a reasoned defense of such standards.

    So any so called consensus is really just the result of the way you are able manipulate– perhaps by vilifying and demonizing– someone else’s opposing opinion because there is no overarching real standard of right or wrong.

    Or I could be the victim of such manipulation, vilification and demonization. It works both ways. There are only two solutions that I can see. Either everyone gets together and works through all the differences, all the manipulation and vilification until they can come to some kind of consensus or someone with the power tells the rest “it’s my way or the highway”, in other words, might makes right. And the biggest example of the latter, of course, is God.

  539. 539
    Seversky says:

    Kairosfocus/526

    Seversky, whatever she is does not excuse the sort of riot in the video. Has that registered yet, that in any reasonably functional lawful state, riot is never justified? Is that hard to recognise? KF

    Openly carrying an AR-10 on a university campus in light of all the school shootings was not just a wee bit insensitive?

    Don’t you think, given her history, she was just went there trying to stir up some trouble because it would make good video?

    It wasn’t exactly a riot as far as I can see. There were noisy protests and her security got into a brawl with some of the protesters.

    Riots are never justified? What about what happened before the DoI and the Revolutionary War?

  540. 540
    Seversky says:

    BobRyan/536

    If morality is not absolute, then it is nothing more than an illusion.

    I don’t believe here is any such thing a an absolute morality nor is there any need for one. All that is required is a morality that protects the needs and interests of human beings and applies to all equally.

    The Imperial Japanese Army believed they were acting in a moral manner that was suited to them. The Soviets believed they were acting in a moral manner when they committed similar atrocities making their way to Berlin. Even after taking their portion of Berlin, the atrocities did not come to an end. The rape of Nanking was called a war crime, but the rape of Berlin was largely ignored. How could the Japanese Army be guilty of a crime based on morality?

    Do you think that the victims of the Imperial Japanese Army or the Red Army or the German Army felt that they were acting morally? I rather doubt it.

  541. 541
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky, on evolutionary materialism, intellectual or cognitive function is reduced to blindly mechanical and/or stochastic computation on a substrate “programmed” by similarly blind forces, and is GIGO constrained. This cannot have the freedom to be rational or responsible. Knowledge collapses and reason collapses. It is itself a product of the mind and collapses itself. This is not novel, Churchland etc warned long since as did Haldane. KF

  542. 542
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky, you are again being distractive and refuse to see that riot is simply unjustified. This is, riot to suppress a view that contradicts indoctrination, in the context of a university, which exposes its intellectual bankruptcy and dereliction of duty.Where, youi try to equate defending the target of riot with getting into a brawl, telling. KF

  543. 543
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky, you try to double down on going beyond the pale. I stand by my response as already given, for cause. It is clear that you are locked into enabling behaviour. I will not allow my history and pain to allow my people to be robbed of one of the great advances of our civilisation; robbery that rests on a pseudoscientific ideology that distorts, denigrates, demonises and disrespects basic rights, showing itself profoundly misanthropic. Which is precisely what would lead to disaster yet again were the Red Guard insurgents and their backers to prevail. The track record of radical revolutions since 1789 is uniformly disastrous. KF

  544. 544
    BobRyan says:

    Seversky @ 540

    I’m guessing you haven’t studied much about what happened. Japan, Germany, Soviets, Italians, and every other thugocracy (might makes right) all believed they were morally justified in everything they did. It is only through absolute morality can anything be called wrong.

  545. 545
    BobRyan says:

    Every time socialism has been tried, it has failed. Might makes right is how socialists govern once they take power. Venezuela was the wealthiest nation in South America, but that was before the socialists came to power. Venezuela has become another failed state that can’t even power most of the country. It’s currently the longest running blackout the world has ever known. Venezuelans are starving and most likely cannibals due to a lack of any other food. Socialism spreads misery every time it is tried. Those in power fatten themselves at the expense of everyone they control.

  546. 546
    kairosfocus says:

    BR, worse, the repeated failure and the record of mass killing are on public record, readily accessible. The fallacy of state ownership and central planning was exposed in the 1920’s. So any reasonably educated person promoting or enabling such today has no excuse. Where, given the sustained misanthropic, lawless behaviour on the part of red guards, no sensible person will buy the lie that they want Scandinavian type social welfarism (which is possible because somebody else is doing the heavy lifting globally . . . what happens if that goes away?). KF

    PS, every modern state of any scale is a social welfare state.

  547. 547
    john_a_designer says:

    True or false?
    It is immoral for you to force your “personal” moral views or group think on someone else.

  548. 548
    Truthfreedom says:

    # 540
    Fallacy hunting with Seversky:

    I don’t believe here is any such thing as an absolute morality nor is there any need for one.

    What you “believe” and what is true do not that have to be the same thing.

    All that is required is a morality that protects the needs and interests of human beings and applies to all equally.

    You are contradicting yourself (again) because you are stating the need for a Universal (applies to “all equally”) moral code for humans. (After saying it is not needed).

  549. 549
    Truthfreedom says:

    Oh, and “morality” does not apply to meat-robots (which is how your outdated evo/ materialist cult describes human beings). It’s only applied to moral agents (with free will).

    Aristotle (and the soul) are back.

  550. 550
    kairosfocus says:

    TF, dead right.

    JAD, we need to go back to underlying first duties of a creature free enough to be rational (and so capable of warranting knowledge claims).

    KF

  551. 551
    john_a_designer says:

    Kf,
    It’s a question for our atheist interlocutors.
    Here it is again.

    True or false?

    It is immoral for you to force your “personal” moral views or group think on someone else.

  552. 552
    Seversky says:

    John_a_designer/547

    True or false?
    It is immoral for you to force your “personal” moral views or group think on someone else.

    True

    Now, three questions for our theistic interlocutors:

    1) How did God arrive at His moral prescriptions?

    2) Is it immoral for God to force His moral views on others?

    3) Are God’s moral prescriptions binding on Him?

  553. 553
    john_a_designer says:

    Here is something Seversky said over a year and a half ago which I think is relevant here:

    I believe that the overwhelming majority of ordinary, decent people, if honestly presented with the best information available will choose a moral solution. This is why I believe consensus morality is the only alternative to some sort of imposed command morality, whether theological or ideological. The problem in democracies is that politicians are rarely honest about their real intentions and treat good information as a rare and precious commodity not to be lightly handed out to just anyone. The problem is, how do we prevent the people we choose to run things for us from being corrupted by the power we hand them?

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/severskey-is-honest/#comment-672632

    That sounds nice and well meaning, however, how do we arrive at any kind of consensus without some kind of interpersonal standard which we can use to judge whose moral beliefs or opinions have merit and whose do not? If all moral beliefs and opinions are equal, which they must be according moral subjectivism and relativism, then such a standard does not exist and all talk of so-called consensus is illusory.

  554. 554
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky,

    well do you know that the Hume guillotine and the far older so-called Euthyphro dilemma have decisively failed. Why, then, do you keep trying to resurrect them as though they would justify, somehow, that absurd nihilistic will to power that would impose might and manipulation to create a sad “progressivist” evolutionary materialistic metanarrative that is patently self-refuting?

    I suggest, you start with rationality, where Epictetus long since highlighted the antecedent, inescapable force and so also self-evident truth of core logic (pivoting of course on distinct identity and its close corollaries, non-contradiction and excluded middle):

    DISCOURSES
    CHAPTER XXV

    How is logic necessary?
    When someone in [Epictetus’] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not?

    That already shows that we can rightly recognise the antecedent characteristics of true first principles that we do not invent but may discover and must acknowledge to make any progress. Oh, how that chafes the nihilistic spirit! But, such is patently absurd.

    Now, let us observe how — though you have persistently side stepped in true Wilsonian fallacious fashion — you are first to appeal to governing first duties of reason, just to try to be persuasive. That is, you are forced to borrow from what you would overthrow and dismiss, likely imagining that such is naked imposition by those Christofascist would be tyrants. Instead, we can all see for ourselves regarding how:

    We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

    So, the roots of reality and of moral government are coeval. Rooted, in one who is a necessary, maximally great being, worthy of our loyalty and of our responsible reasonable service that does the good that accords with our evident nature. So, your loaded questions collapse. As the like have collapsed over and over again:

    >>1) How did God arrive at His moral prescriptions?>>

    a: Arrive at suggests arbitrary invention or origin, things that could be different at will.

    b: Instead, moral government and its first duties are inescapable and so self-evidently true concomitants of the liberty required to be genuinely rational. If rational then free; if free, subject to said first duties which are part of the fabric of a reality in which rational beings are possible.

    >>2) Is it immoral for God to force His moral views on others?>>

    c: Loaded, with the arrogance that regards moral government rooted in first duties as tyranny; what folly.

    d: God is inherently good, utterly wise, root of our being, maximally great, his precepts will be a microcosm of that character and it is folly to dismiss them as though they were arbitrary tyranny.

    >>3) Are God’s moral prescriptions binding on Him?>>

    e: An imagined gotcha that fails to distinguish necessary being maximally great utterly wise inherently good root of reality and our status as contingent creatures.

    KF

  555. 555
    Mac McTavish says:

    Sev

    Yes, I do. Which is why I am puzzled why you appear to deny that a proclaimed constitutional democracy has failed to live up to its ideals, practiced sustained, violent and murderous discrimination against a substantial minority of its population which has, once again, been driven to lawful and largely peaceful protests against such abuses.

    Being a gay white man, I grew up in a time when being open about my sexuality just courted bullying and assault. I started my career in a time where if my sexuality were made public I would lose my job. I lived as a young adult in a time where expressing my sexuality with another consenting adult could result in criminal charges. Over the last couple decades I had to fight for the right to marry the person I love while others argued that it would lead to beastiality.

    So when I see people be pulled over because they are black, or be treated more violently by police because they are black, I don’t look for Marxist conspiracies amongst the people who protest against these discriminations. I see people who’s morality is higher than those who oppose them.

  556. 556
    kairosfocus says:

    MMT & Seversky, perhaps, you have failed to note the excerpt from Ac 19 in the OP, on a case in point on rioting and why it is unjustified. There are any number of ways to publish, petition, protest, organise for reform or even seek public office without resorting to lawlessness. For, lawless behaviour is a direct threat to the civil peace and to the general order of justice. Where also, I have repeatedly drawn attention to inescapable thus self-evident first duties of reason, which frame moral government and natural law, leading to a foundation for responsible lawful freedom and reform as necessary. Notice, particularly that the claim to a right implies moral duties on the part of others so that one may only justly claim a right by being demonstrably in the right; justice being the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Lawless demands backed by riotous mobs are a direct assault on the civil peace. As touching on historic issues, I have already pointed to Bernard Lewis’ counsel on the sins and blessings of our civilisation. That is enough for the reasonable person; but it is manifest that we are not dealing with reason as a juggernaut of 4G Red Guard insurgency driven civil war accelerates dangerously. Those who have set such in motion or continue to enable it bear a heavy responsibility for predictable consequences. KF

  557. 557
    BobRyan says:

    Socialists and anarchists both use violence to reach their communistic goals. Every incidence of violence, from shootings to riots, ends up with fingers being pointed at those not responsible. They ignore the failures of the past and unknown dead to reach their shared utopia. Communism is the idea of everyone working towards the same end with equal ownership in everything. Anarchists believe they can reach it by destroying governments, which is why they wanted to start WWI. Socialists believe the strong hand of government will lead to communism, which has never resulted in lessening of the stranglehold of government.

  558. 558
    Truthfreedom says:

    Materialism: The “Philosophy” Without Philosophers

    “Atomism maintains that nothing really exists above atomic level (whatever ultimate physical particles these “atoms” may really be). That means that no macroscopic, substantially-unified things exist – not cockroaches, not kangaroos, not horses, and not human beings (including Dr. Dawkins). There may be amazingly-complex chemical bonding found in dynamic functional unities based on DNA rules (organisms), but none of it constitutes a substantial unity — a real being distinct from other things: just countless infinitesimal particles doing a cosmic dance with different sets of temporary partners”.
    Dr. Dennis Bonnette

    A failed philosophy can only offer lame results.

    Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back).

  559. 559
    Truthfreedom says:

    555 Mac Mc Tavish

    Over the last couple decades I had to fight for the right to marry the person I love while others argued that it would lead to beastiality.

    Why is bestiality exempted? Why are people attracted to animals lesser beings who should be denied their wishes?

  560. 560
    Mac McTavish says:

    KF

    MMT & Seversky, perhaps, you have failed to note the excerpt from Ac 19 in the OP, on a case in point on rioting and why it is unjustified.

    I don’t think that anyone had suggested that rioting is justified. However, it is often inevitable when there are systemic and persistent inequities. Without fundamentally addressing the inequities, forcefully policing the riots is only a temporary reprieve.

  561. 561
    john_a_designer says:

    Unfortunately, many of our interlocutors have a very distorted if not cartoonish view of what most of us who advocate objective morality are arguing. Many of us here, including me, are not starting with the Bible we’re starting with natural law. The main quote we use when we quote from the Bible is Paul’s teaching in Roman’s 2:14 &15 where he argues “when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them…” In other words, Paul is saying that all humans have access to natural law through their hearts and conscience. Whether or not it’s written down somewhere, there is a morally binding (or “objective”) natural law. Peter Kreeft gives a very clear and concise explanation of what natural law is in the following linked article:

    What is natural law and why is it important?

    Moral laws are based on human nature. That is, what we ought to do is based on what we are. “Thou shalt not kill,” for instance, is based on the real value of human life and the need to preserve it. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” is based on the real value of marriage and family, the value of mutual self-giving love, and children’s need for trust and stability. The natural law is also naturally known, by natural human reason and experience. We don’t need religious faith or supernatural divine revelation to know that we’re morally obligated to choose good and avoid evil or to know what “good” and “evil” mean… Speaking of pagans [or gentiles,] St. Paul says that “they show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness” (Rom 2:15).

    The term “natural law” is sometimes misunderstood.