Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is the USA going over the edge as we speak?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

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.

F/N4: U-Haul a Riot, Sept 2020

Comments
US Rep Devin Nunes on the lawfare in the US Congress and linked agit-prop.kairosfocus
October 4, 2020
October
10
Oct
4
04
2020
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT
Ah, states. I get it.daveS
October 2, 2020
October
10
Oct
2
02
2020
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
Start with two three notorious eurasian powers (and the junior wannabe next door to Japan) -- see the diagram in the OP. One has the Arabs running so scared they are rushing to sign treaties with Israel.kairosfocus
October 2, 2020
October
10
Oct
2
02
2020
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
KF, "geostrategic vultures"---I wonder who they could be? 🤔daveS
October 2, 2020
October
10
Oct
2
02
2020
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
BR, sobering words that should be pondered whether or not one will agree in the end. The power to tax and to regulate is most definitely the power to destroy. KFkairosfocus
October 2, 2020
October
10
Oct
2
02
2020
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT
Rather than complain about those who use the laws to pay as little in taxes as possible, which would be everyone who files taxes, how about complain about members of Congress who write the laws. Congress could simplify the laws in a matter of hours, but the lobbyists who help to fund their campaigns wants the complexity in place. Major corporations want increases on their businesses in both the form of taxation and regulation. They have an army of accountants at their disposal and a large consumer base. The small and medium businesses who may be competitors one day do not have the luxury. A major corporation can increase the cost by a penny, but the smaller businesses have no means to do so. Why destroy competition in a free market when the government can do it for you.BobRyan
October 2, 2020
October
10
Oct
2
02
2020
01:21 AM
1
01
21
AM
PDT
DS, this, too is part of what we need to collectively think through. Economies and improvements across time are extraordinarily sensitive to tiny numbers of gifted, pioneering, innovative, inventive individuals who can readily become targets for envy, selfish ambition, outright hate. Where, there is a consistent, group-think tainted tendency of powerful elites to imagine they have cornered the market on policy wisdom, knowledge, understanding, wisdom in general, ability to guide and be the vanguard of the future. The delusion of centralised economic planning comes from that, and repeated failure seems unable to break the stranglehold on an economy. We need to understand the value of freedom, and the significance of three I's: valuable ideas, capable implementers/innovators, canny investors willing to back with venture capital. (This is not the same as predatory buy in, loot, pull out.) A lot of sustainable competitive advantage lies in subtle, creative teamwork and a culture that sustains such. In turn, that points back to moral government and the duties of reason, thus too sound governance and government. That's a big part of my concern, the USA is looting its social capital and that is going to be very hard to rebuild as the ongoing 4G civil war first peaks (now, next three to fifteen months) then tapers off. Making needless shipwreck is not sound policy, and frankly what we are seeing now took decades of determined takeover of key institutions and promotion of the ruinous ideology behind Critical X-Theories. The operational patterns took at least the better part of a decade to put in place. The ecosystem of front groups much longer. In short, you have faced a decades long agenda and it will take a generation for partial recovery. Some big things will be permanently lost. Respect for the academy, education, sciences, the media and the administrative elite classes will be part of that. I shudder to think about the circling geostrategic vultures. There are already straws in the wind regarding operations in my region, and of course Africa is a big resource pool and target parallel to E Europe and Siberia over the past century. That points to long term, needless turbulence on the global scale. Where, in 4GW, non state shadowy networks can be at least as dangerous as states. The patterns point to a long term global push for power to shape the future driven by a delusion of superior wisdom. The further haunting thought is, some of the lurking geostrategic vultures may well have been sponsoring long term agent of influence operations and subversion of key institutions in a grand form of what was done with trade unions last century. There are always agendas in history, some open some less so. Power may well be the most addictive and insanity inducing drug of all. KFkairosfocus
October 2, 2020
October
10
Oct
2
02
2020
12:10 AM
12
12
10
AM
PDT
KF,
This is not a simple matter...
No, it isn't. In my case, I am no entrepreneur, so I might choose to forgo deduction rather than take it and try to create some value some other way with the proceeds. OTOH, our taxes are very simple and my wife takes care of the whole thing, so it's out of my hands.daveS
October 1, 2020
October
10
Oct
1
01
2020
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
TF,
You’re not advancing any worldview. Period.
That's also true. I'm content to debate certain very focused questions, mostly for my own edification.daveS
October 1, 2020
October
10
Oct
1
01
2020
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
DS, way back, I learned from my profs a saying: tax evasion is a crime, tax avoidance is legitimate. I find however a creeping tendency to make the toxic suggestion that the latter is tantamount to the former. Perhaps we need to recognise that entrepreneurship and investment are high risk, difficult to consistently deliver, valuable services that directly contribute to the long term good. Where, those that succeed have to cover losses made by those who fail. That is an often invisible cost that tends to be overlooked. As my wife's cousin -- a highly successful businesswoman -- says, if you don't take a risk you cannot make a profit. In context Correia points out that provisions are made to encourage behaviour the government wishes to promote, e.g. philanthropic/charitable donations, investments in strategic areas, depreciation. Those investments are obviously considered a contribution to the future. It has been almost a mantra that the primary moral obligation of a corporation is to (within the law) provide maximum across-time profitability to those taking the risk of ownership. Recall, all other obligations to pay come first before share holders. I can see a point on being prudent in avoiding tax evasion but I think the Tax Accountants would for cause be seen as not serving their clients if they needlessly left significant sums on the table. If you want to invest in the country directly, Government, State and Municipal bonds exist for that purpose. On interest in the future, I think policies that reduce rates towards growth maximising levels or have very good reasons for not doing so (a war to fight) would be sounder policy than tax receipt maximisation; I argue Laffer is only half right. Statistics suggest 15 - 25% GDP as that band, likely towards the lower end. France IIRC is over 50%. Do not overlook Government crowding out of private sector investment and the von Mises type analysis on the valuation challenge faced by the would be central planner. Then there are policy distortions leading to malinvestment, false dawn booms where activity temporarily goes beyond the sustainable production possibilities frontier and collapses when the dragon whose tail was being tickled wakes up in a foul mood. This is not a simple matter and angry baying over dirty tax havens is not 1/10 of the truth. KFkairosfocus
October 1, 2020
October
10
Oct
1
01
2020
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
923 DaveS
I”m not advancing a comprehensive worldview.
You're not advancing any worldview. Period. :)Truthfreedom
October 1, 2020
October
10
Oct
1
01
2020
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
as long as those tax laws are there, the rich guys would be utter fools not to take advantage of them.
I wonder if we feel the same about the non-rich people who "take advantage" of welfare laws. People who permit and even laud tax cheating lose the ability to complain that the federal budget can't support additional or re-allocated funds to support education or sensible green initiatives.LarTanner
October 1, 2020
October
10
Oct
1
01
2020
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
KF,
But in the meantime, as long as those tax laws are there, the rich guys would be utter fools not to take advantage of them.
I question this. You aren't required to take every deduction possible. Paying a bit extra could actually be a wise move, if you are concerned about your children's futures.
a raven who sits on his shoulder. The raven also has an eye patch and an accounting degree.
I guess those corvids really are smart ...daveS
October 1, 2020
October
10
Oct
1
01
2020
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
TF, according to Sci Fi writer Larry Correia, best selling author of the Monster Hunter series:
One thing that’s really unfair about our tax system is that it is rigged in favor of people who have more resources. Government meddling makes it more costly to conduct business. The more complicated the regulatory burden, the more smaller companies can’t compete. Make the laws complicated enough and the only companies that stay in business are the ones who can afford to pay for twenty guys like me. (my last regular accounting job paid extremely well, and nearly everything I did was jump through government mandated hoops, filling out government mandated paperwork which nobody in the government would probably ever read) Trump has those resources. I bet he’s got a room full of accountants, and their leader is probably a grizzled old CPA with an eye patch and a raven who sits on his shoulder. The raven also has an eye patch and an accounting degree. This man has wrestled bears, and he’s going to take advantage of every tax break in the US Code for his client, and do so gleefully, knowing that many of those laws were signed by Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. . . . . the IRS has sent their most fearsome auditor against him. This man sold his soul to the devil, and then fined the devil for failing to list that soul as a depreciable asset. When he shows up to audit your company, he appears a flash of fire and brimstone, as a Finnish death metal band plays his theme song. He is an auditor bereft of mercy, compassion, or pity, and beneath his leathery wings serve a legion of IRS goblins, who will crawl into every nook and cranny of the Trump Corporation’s P&L looking for errors, and if a mouse so much as [dropped] a turd large enough to unbalance that ledger, there will be hell to pay. Is it unfair that rich guys can employ Gandalf level CPAs and take advantage of more complicated tax laws, while regular people use TurboTax? Yep. But in the meantime, as long as those tax laws are there, the rich guys would be utter fools not to take advantage of them.
Who knows? KF PS: I hate how coarse language has become. KFkairosfocus
October 1, 2020
October
10
Oct
1
01
2020
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
Seversky, 899: >>We start from what we find in our immediate vicinity and work outwards.>> 1: You begin as we all do with the fact of rational, self-aware, conscience guided consciousness, which includes moral government of reasoning itself, i/l/o first duties of reason. 2: as you are inclined to pass by in silence, I remind again, as it is absolutely pivotal:
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.
>>We find ourselves as ordered beings>> 3: To do so we are first self-aware, conscious, conscienc e guided, rational. Otherwise all reduces to grand delusion. As Alex Rosenberg inadvertently let the cat out of the bag:
Alex Rosenberg as he begins Ch 9 of his The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: >> FOR SOLID EVOLUTIONARY REASONS, WE’VE BEEN tricked into looking at life from the inside. [--> So, just how did self-aware, intentional consciousness arise on such materialism? Something from nothing through poof magic words like "emergence" won't do.] Without scientism, we look at life from the inside, from the first-person POV (OMG, you don’t know what a POV is?—a “point of view”). The first person is the subject, the audience, the viewer of subjective experience, the self in the mind. Scientism shows that the first-person POV is an illusion. [–> grand delusion is let loose in utter self referential incoherence] Even after scientism convinces us, we’ll continue to stick with the first person. But at least we’ll know that it’s another illusion of introspection and we’ll stop taking it seriously. We’ll give up all the answers to the persistent questions about free will, the self, the soul, and the meaning of life that the illusion generates [–> bye bye to responsible, rational freedom on these presuppositions]. The physical facts fix all the facts. [--> asserts materialism, leading to . . . ] The mind is the brain. It has to be physical and it can’t be anything else, since thinking, feeling, and perceiving are physical process—in particular, input/output processes—going on in the brain. We [–> at this point, what "we," apart from "we delusions"?] can be sure of a great deal about how the brain works because the physical facts fix all the facts about the brain. The fact that the mind is the brain guarantees that there is no free will. It rules out any purposes or designs organizing our actions or our lives [–> thus rational thought and responsible freedom]. It excludes the very possibility of enduring persons, selves, or souls that exist after death or for that matter while we live.>>
>> in an ordered world.>> 4: Actually, in a world where we find that every cell in our body has in it complex alphanumeric, algorithmic code, pointing to language and purpose coeval with cell based life. Further, that life, is experienced in a cosmos that sits at a fine tuned, deeply isolated operating point conducive to c-chem, aqueous medium, cell based life. >>Our chances of survival are improved if we have an understanding of how that world works as we will be able to identify threats and predict how to avoid them.>> 5: Empirical reliability of explanatory constructs is wholly distinct from truth. This is one of the hard lessons of scietnific revolutions. So, we have the pessimistic induction as witness that our scientific explanations are at best provisional. They are unable to even rise to moral certainty. >> Developing languages>> 6: The living cell is proof language far predated us. We diod not invent language, and we have no reason to imagine that we invented our linguistic capability with all the FSCO/I it requires, or that it spontaneously emerged through blind chance and mechanical necessity. >>we can use to model and explain the causal relationships of the objective world>> 7: Again, explanation and modelling are not good grounds to infer truth. >> led us to logic. >> 8: Logic, as to substance, starting with distinct identity, is a necessary framework entity for reality. Logic is not a human invention. Nor did it emerge from the sciences, that is a myth. >>Reason is a powerful tool for survival. That is ultimately why we have it.>> 9: An evasion of the challenge that evolutionary materialism faces to account for reasoning. Dynamic-stochastic processes on a GIGO limited computational substrate have no capability to exert rational freedom. The self referential incoherence will not be so easily brushed aside. >>Since there is something, there must always have been something . At this time we have no knowledge of what that might have been.>> 10: In short, you disagree with what has been shown on the force of the logic of being, so you dismiss it. telling. >> If you want to postulate it to be a god, I cannot deny the possibility but neither do I believe it.>> 11: Again, you duck. the issue is we need a reality root sufficient to account for worlds and to account for a world in which we have responsible, rational, significantly free, morally governed creatures. that is an objective question, not a matter of personal opinion or belief. You try to insert subjectivism to evade the logic of being regarding a serious candidate eternal, independent -- necessary -- and reality-root being. 12: Instead of being able to propose a different serious candidate, you exert hyperskeptical dismissal, so we have a right to infer your implicit concession on the point. >>If something has always existed then there is no requirement for an explanation of how it began. This universe, however, seems to begun at some point and that does require an explanation but that need not be the necessary being you posit.>> 13: the eternal and independent is necessary being so it has no beginning, the issue is candidates, as our observed world is credibly contingent, with beginning suggested at less than 14 BYA. 14: You have misrepresented what I pointed out. I noted that a reality root must be causally adequate to explain worlds. Where as this world has in it morally governed creatures, that root musrt also be able to ground such moral government starting with first duties of reason. 15: It is patent you have no other serious candidate, than what has been put but are opposed to that status on the merits. We are entitled to draw our own conclusions on the matter. >>I see the current civil unrest as being rooted in a significant part of the US population who believe that their interests are largely being ignored by the powers-that-be and that those powers are now in the hands of a man who is showing alarming signs of playing only about his base. >> 16: there is clear evidence that you again duck, of a McFaul playbook, colour revolution insurgency in progress, tied to red guards seen on the streets, and further directly parallel to events in say Egypt. >>I think this man would trigger a civil war if he believed it would get him re-elected or continue his hold on power.>> 17: Defamatory projection. (Cf. here.) KFkairosfocus
October 1, 2020
October
10
Oct
1
01
2020
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
Oh, and don't forget that according to the materialist, crows can count. So if your math teacher gets sick, you can swap him for a nice corvid. With its lab-coat and its glasses even. There's no difference. :)Truthfreedom
October 1, 2020
October
10
Oct
1
01
2020
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
TF, I"m not advancing a comprehensive worldview. I do occasionally advance positions on specific issues (e.g., "demons do not exist", "abstract entities do exist").daveS
October 1, 2020
October
10
Oct
1
01
2020
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
920 ET
There are plenty of artifacts in which we don’t know the how. Yet we can still glean information to help us understand the artifact. We could never understand Stonehenge by looking at it as a natural formation.
Another insurmountable problem for the naturalist/ materialist. According to their worldview, human and animal nature are exactly the same ("heaps of molecules"). Therefore, Stonehenge and a beaver dam are exactly the same, both the result of interchangeable biological functions. For the naturalist, human design doesn't exist. There's no difference between the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) and a bee hive. These people are crazy.Truthfreedom
October 1, 2020
October
10
Oct
1
01
2020
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
896 DaveS
That’s fine, I’m not angry. I just am not that interested in materialism/idealism/hylemorphism.
But your worldview has to have a name/ share certain characteristics. Advancing an undefined one makes no sense.Truthfreedom
October 1, 2020
October
10
Oct
1
01
2020
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
seversky:
You accuse naturalistic science of being unable to explain the “how” of all these things but all you can offer as an alternative is a “who” – an intelligent designer or deity, which is not the same sort of explanation.
That just proves that you are ignorant of investigations. Saying that something was the result of an intelligent agency tells a skilled investigator quite a bit. For one it determines the path the investigation will take. We no longer consider blind and mindless processes. We have an intelligent agency to contend with. With that there is intent and purpose. There are plenty of artifacts in which we don't know the how. Yet we can still glean information to help us understand the artifact. We could never understand Stonehenge by looking at it as a natural formation.ET
October 1, 2020
October
10
Oct
1
01
2020
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
For JAD: The above is largely subjective opinion, which doesn't settle anything. KF might respond, explaining how my opinion is wrong. :-)daveS
October 1, 2020
October
10
Oct
1
01
2020
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
KF, To me, the notion of "first duties of reason" sounds kind of like "first duties to eat vegetables". Of course if you don't exercise reason and eat vegetables, we know from experience that the quality of your life will be reduced (by the standards of most humans). Therefore, if you want to have a halfway decent life, it's in your best interest to exercise reason and eat vegetables. The same holds at the societal level. But the universe (or some divine being) is not imposing a "duty" to eat vegetables on me, as far as I can tell. The same goes for exercising reason.daveS
October 1, 2020
October
10
Oct
1
01
2020
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
Kf @ 911,
JAD [attn Seversky], you have pointed to comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power. These avert question-begging or defaulting. Where, it is massively evident that evolutionary materialistic scientism cannot credibly account for where it must stand just to argue: a rational, responsibly free individual.
Well, there are many more reasons why a naturalistic account is inadequate. One of them is human nature. Atheistic naturalism/materialism is blatantly dehumanizing because it cannot give a good or adequate explanation for human nature. For example, human beings are somehow uniquely hardwired cognitively in three distinct ways:
*1. We are hardwired to seek and discern the truth. For example, we have what appears to be an intrinsic or innate ability to accurately use logic and reason. *2. We are hardwired to seek purpose and meaning, including ultimate purpose and meaning. *3. We are hardwired as moral beings. Only human beings can discern good and bad, good or evil, ought and ought not.
Is this all the result of some mindless, undirected and random evolutionary process? Or, is there something else? Another explanation? I think that there is evidence that there is and the evidence is human nature itself. What about human nature is the evidence? I’ve just listed it for you. See 1 through 3 above.john_a_designer
October 1, 2020
October
10
Oct
1
01
2020
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT
915 Kairosfocus
with 500 witnesses who could not be broken in the face of dungeon, fire, sword and worse.
Far far worse. And these atheist fools say that religion is "comforting". People who bruise when thay are hit with a feather and who spend their whole lives complaining about 'injustice' and 'suffering' while hitting their keyboards. Hehehe. :)
Euthyphro is dead, as is Hume’s Is-OUGHT gap guillotine.
As is "philosophical" materialism. Good riddance. Aristotle (and the soul) are back. Materialism Can Not Account for Reality
The explosion of research into quantum physics has blown up the materialist worldview. For instance, if all that exists is matter and energy, scientists have a problem. Because matter and energy somehow cause gravitational effects (exactly how, no one knows), we have observed that there is not enough mass/energy in the universe to account for all the gravity. In fact, known matter and energy only make up about 4% of the universe. The nature of the remaining 96% is unknown: it’s called Dark Matter. It must be there, according to materialism, but it cannot be observed or tested. It’s assumed to be there by faith. https://seerssee.com/failure-materialism/?amp
The faith of the materialist is heart-warming. Truly heart-warming. Truthfreedom
October 1, 2020
October
10
Oct
1
01
2020
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT
TF, the issue is of course that this has always been a strawman argument. No one seriously argued that one derives ought from is. Instead, it was always the case that theists saw the inherently good and utterly wise as root of reality so that is and ought are bridged and inextricably fused at the root of all that is. And indeed, that fusion then directly comes out in our vaunted rationality. For even self-confessed atheists such as Seversky cannot avoid appealing to our first duties of reason, to truth, to first principles of right reason, to prudence etc, even to fairness and justice so also to sound conscience and neighbour. On pain of disintegration of their own rationality they must provide a root of reality adequate to account for creation AND for morally governed significantly free (but I repeat myself), rational creatures; us. Or else, their whole scheme collapses in self-referential absurdity. Too often the IS-OUGHT gap argument is trotted out as a thinly veiled distraction from the failure of evolutionary materialistic scientism to bridge is and ought in the world root. DV, more later today. KF PS: They often try to prop up the bruised reed with a second weak stick, the Euthyphro dilemma, so called. But this only exposes ignorance on logic of being and reality root. Did they not read Paul's devastating, subtle opening words in Ac 17? I clip:
Ac 17:23 For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 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, 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 . . . for “In him we live and move and have our being."
Yes, on the single most important point of knowledge -- root of reality, the Athenian elites . . . proud guardians and champions of our civilisation's intellectual traditions . . . had been forced (for centuries since Cleanthes' visit) to build and maintain monuments to their ignorance. So, clearly the Greek "gods" they also put up monuments to were known not to be the root of reality. Accordingly, the Euthyphro dilemma, so called, is misdirected when the attempt is made to target it at the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being. One, worthy of our loyalty, gratitude and reasonable responsible service through doing the good that accords with our evident, morally governed nature. This last of course points to the roots of law and just government, the inextricable tie between law and principles of true justice which duly balances rights, freedoms and responsibilities. So, is and ought are coeval and come from our common root, the God in whom we live, move and have our being. The one who sustains all things by his powerful word (aka laws of nature). The one who created all things which are for his glory, including thrones, principalities and powers. They too were made by him and for him. They too will face a day of accountability by the man ordained, of which offer of proof has been given to all men by his prophesied, fulfilled resurrection from the dead, with 500 witnesses who could not be broken in the face of dungeon, fire, sword and worse. Euthyphro is dead, as is Hume's Is-OUGHT gap guillotine.kairosfocus
October 1, 2020
October
10
Oct
1
01
2020
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT
909 Seversky
You cannot logically derive “ought’ from “is”.
Says who? The meat-robot? Hahaha. Your fallacies are laughable. Any mediocre teenager would chuckle. :)Truthfreedom
October 1, 2020
October
10
Oct
1
01
2020
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT
909 Seversky
You accuse naturalistic science of being unable to explain the “how” of all these things.
No, we accuse philosophical naturalism/ materialism of illegitimately using science to paint your worldview as legit, the "only one that's true and the only one that is rational." Science does not need philosophical materialism at all. Your worldview has failed (and failed miserably). The sooner you get over it, the better. Time to move on. Naturalism's Epistemological Nightmare
"Empirical verification presupposes epistemological realism—meaning that through sensation we know directly the exterior physical world around us. Natural science proclaims that it discovers the nature of the real physical cosmos, external to our brains or subjective selves. Yet, when we trace the optics and physiology of the sense of sight, we find ourselves entrapped in epistemological idealism -- meaning that we do not know external reality, but rather merely some change within our brains that we hope to be an accurate representation of the external world." Dr. Dennis Bonnette https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/
Truthfreedom
October 1, 2020
October
10
Oct
1
01
2020
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT
F/N: Before I return to root of reality, logic of being, worldview and cultural/policy agenda issues point by point, I need to put them in context. Consider then, the following civilisation agenda equations:
1: WORLDVIEW + POLICY/CULTURAL AGENDA = IDEOLOGY 2: IDEOLOGY + POWER/STRONG INFLUENCE = REGIME 3: REGIME (AKA, BALANCE OF POWER-FACTIONS . . . AKA ESTABLISHMENT, AKA DEEP STATE) + DECISION-MAKING INFLUENCES = BUSINESS AS USUAL (BAU) 4: BAU + INSISTENT VOYAGE OF SINFUL FOLLY = SHIPWRECK
These expressions of course draw out the harsh lessons of Ac 27 and indeed Plato's Ship of State parable. (Recall, the latter is so influential that our word Government comes from the Steersman/Sailing Master, Kubernetes, via Latin, with K -> G.) We are manifestly at stage 3 moving to stage 4 in the chain of equations. RED FLAG! Now, to see just how relevant the challenge of manipulation of the public is, ponder how little we have heard of this parable and Luke's real-world case study. What happened to our schooling in history and civics? What about informal education through the media and news/views coverage? We have been dumbed down through being cut off from hard won bitterly expensive lessons of history that would break the word-woven narrative-spells of today's manipulators. A common view, for example, is that history is victory propaganda and cannot be trusted until our friendly local Critical X-Theory revisionists have reshaped it. Hence we come to deceitful agit prop pushed into our schools, such as the NYT-backed 1619 push. And as for the premise that sound news should be a rough, first draft of [sound] history, that is buried under a tidal wave of agit prop. Itself, a sobering warning. Accordingly, let me put on the table:
THE LESSONS OF (SOUND) HISTORY PRINCIPLE: The lessons of sound history were bought with blood and tears; those who neglect, reject, dismiss, ignore or willfully distort them doom themselves to pay in the same coin over and over again.
This of course readily explains why history echoes itself horrifically, over and over again to the point of farce. As I have noted, we are in the storm, and on our line of drift, the sand bars of Syrtis lie ahead. KF PS: As a reminder, note how the McFaul playbook on colour revolutions using red guard cannon fodder -- yes, the insistence on dismissing that by certain objectors is itself a sign -- casts itself i/l/o lessons of history. I annotate, to show the twisted operational principles at work:
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 [–> or perception]; 2) an unpopular incumbent [–> alt., media manipulation to demonise and stir critical mass of hostility]; 3) a united and organized opposition [–> so, shadowy, orchestrating networks]; 4) an ability quickly to drive home the point that voting results were falsified [–> i.e. media narrative domination, which can be just as easily used to slander a scapegoat], 5) enough independent media to inform citizens about the falsified vote [–> too often, this may be the orchestrated media], 6) a political opposition capable of mobilizing tens of thousands or more demonstrators to protest electoral fraud [–> or, red guards as cannon fodder], and 7) divisions among the regime’s coercive forces [–> what of, nests of the connected embedded in state, policing and law-making arms]. [See: Transitions from Post Communism, Journal of Democracy Volume 16, Number 3 July 2005]
For direct reference note the smoking gun appendix to the OP on U-Haul a riot, or go to the expansion here. Ask yourself why the ever so clever talking heads are not connecting these dots and why there is a gaslighting pretence that the red guards organisations are not real. (BTW in my homeland it took decades to hear admission that there was a civil war 40 - 45 years ago, 4GW is studiously low kinetic, unless it spills out of control as in the Balkans and Syria-Iraq.) PPS: Notice, too, the Egypt Template, as excerpted from a Harvard paper:
In Egypt, protests and strikes began on January 25, 2011 (National Police Day) and lasted for 18 days, bringing together various opposition groups representing a wide cross section of Egyptian society including secularists, feminists, Islamists, anti-capitalists, and many others. Notably, while the January 25 protests were initiated by a group of opposition activists, the Egyptian Arab Spring did not have a centralized leadership and no single element of the opposition was in control. [–> a more balanced view than others out there but do not take as gospel] . . . . In 2010, a young man named Khaled Said was beaten to death by two police officers after being dragged out of a cybercafé in in Alexandria.
[–> notice, police in a state that was oligarchic, not democratic; observe too the clear demand of the red guard cannon fodder, to abolish the police on a claimed demonstration of systemic racism and genocidal intent in the teeth of evidence, now being backed away from by the good cops even as the bad cops make it plain that that is a soften the blow woo the muddled middle voters move in a polarised base election year. It remains the case that the replacement for lawful police etc will be committees for defence of the revolution led by area leaders . . . cf CHOP just this summer, volks courts delivering kangaroo verdicts and secret state police knocking on the doors at 4 am. But of course, those dots will not be connected as the critical race theorists spin on their misanthropic narrative against lawful policing. FYI, reform is not defunding/abolition and the enabling of such an agenda is a danger to civilisation red flag.]
Photographs of his disfigured body were shared online. Wael Ghoneim, an Egyptian Google Executive living in Dubai—who would go on to become a prominent Arab Spring youth activist—created a Facebook group called “We Are All Khaled Said,” [–> powerful, connected person] which quickly drew membership in the hundreds of thousands. [–> web amplification, note, plausibility of key narrative does not pivot on substantial truth or fairness, just it appeals to popular feeling and tendencies] . . . . The Facebook page and other social media sites became public forums for the remembrance of Said and for discourse around what he died for. These issues became fundamental to the outbreak of protests in the coming year . . . Small-scale, local demonstrations took place protesting Said’s death, but it was on Ghoneim’s Facebook page that the announcement for the January 25 protests—held on January 25, National Police Day—was first publicized . . . . Chanting “The People Want to Bring Down Regime” (al-shaab yurid isqat al-nizam), a broad spectrum of protestors, from labor and youth activists to feminists and individual members of the Muslim Brotherhood (there without sanction from the organization), sought political change in the wake of decades of corruption, police brutality, media censorship, unemployment, inflation, and other problems. [–> notice the coalition taking to the streets] The protest took various forms, from the occupation of downtown Cairo’s Tahrir Square [–> notice, the mass rape of an American journalist here] , to labor strikes, acts of civil disobedience, clashes with armed forces, and others. Violence between protestors and the police resulted in 846 deaths and several thousand injuries. President Hosni Mubarak—in office since 1981—was deposed on February 11, 2011, [–> 4GW overthrow] after which the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) dissolved the Egyptian Parliament, suspended the constitution, and dissolved the nation’s “emergency laws.” Protestor deaths formed the basis of allegations against Mubarak, for which he was sentenced to life in prison in June, 2012, but was released in August 2013 under the post-coup military government.
--> The storm and line of drift to shipwreck at Syrtis are already in progress, what will we do?kairosfocus
October 1, 2020
October
10
Oct
1
01
2020
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT
JAD [attn Seversky], you have pointed to comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power. These avert question-begging or defaulting. Where, it is massively evident that evolutionary materialistic scientism cannot credibly account for where it must stand just to argue: a rational, responsibly free individual. Further to this, it cannot account for the way first duties of reason govern the entirety of our rational life even as it is forced to resort to same in order to argue. I note above how Seversky implicitly assumes duties to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, neighbour, thus fairness and justice etc, even as he cannot ground any of this in his admitted worldview. However, he is obviously oblivious to what that fatal crack in his scheme of the world is telling him. He may imagine he is a champion of reason but only manages to show the futility of his schemes of thought. Imagine, he appeals to rights, justice, the evils of real and imagined oppression etc, even as he is seemingly unaware that he cannot provide adequate ground in his atheistical scheme and is forced into radical redefinitions of subjectivism and/or relativism that simply open the door to the sort of nihilism let loose we are seeing in the current, rising storm. Sandbars of Syrtis ahead on the current track, a drastic course change back to a safer harbour is indicated but is being resisted by a proud elite who imagine their failed progressivism is the path to the future. KFkairosfocus
October 1, 2020
October
10
Oct
1
01
2020
12:05 AM
12
12
05
AM
PDT
The Waning of Materialism: How the Revival of Aristotle's Philosophy is Reshaping the Intellectual Landscape
The intellectual history of the Western world over the last 2500 years has been a battlefield of ideas, with the consensus swinging back and forth between the two poles of materialism and the various versions of Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy. We are in the midst of the waning of the latest phase of materialism, with a new Aristotelian philosophy on the upswing across the English-speaking world. Materialism has failed four crucial tests: - accounting for the qualitative aspect of human consciousness, - the intentionality or contentfulness of thought, - the teleology of natural systems, - and the moral responsibility of human agency. This intellectual shift presages political and cultural transformation. Robert C. Koons The Waning of Materialism
Materialism is the last superstition.Truthfreedom
September 30, 2020
September
09
Sep
30
30
2020
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
1 2 3 32

Leave a Reply