Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is the USA going over the edge as we speak?

Categories
Academic Freedom
Agitprop
Control vs Anarchy
Defending our Civilization
Geo-strategic issues
Lessons of History
rhetoric
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
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
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."jerry
September 3, 2020
September
09
Sep
3
03
2020
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
September 3, 2020
September
09
Sep
3
03
2020
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
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.Mac McTavish
September 3, 2020
September
09
Sep
3
03
2020
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
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.ET
September 3, 2020
September
09
Sep
3
03
2020
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
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.daveS
September 3, 2020
September
09
Sep
3
03
2020
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
183 DaveS Your reply doesn't make any sense. You can not say you "do not have objections'' about something "you do not know'.Truthfreedom
September 3, 2020
September
09
Sep
3
03
2020
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
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.daveS
September 3, 2020
September
09
Sep
3
03
2020
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
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?
Truthfreedom
September 3, 2020
September
09
Sep
3
03
2020
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
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.daveS
September 3, 2020
September
09
Sep
3
03
2020
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
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.daveS
September 3, 2020
September
09
Sep
3
03
2020
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
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.) KFkairosfocus
September 3, 2020
September
09
Sep
3
03
2020
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
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.daveS
September 3, 2020
September
09
Sep
3
03
2020
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
September 3, 2020
September
09
Sep
3
03
2020
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
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.Truthfreedom
September 2, 2020
September
09
Sep
2
02
2020
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
DS, blood libel leads to bloodshed. KFkairosfocus
September 2, 2020
September
09
Sep
2
02
2020
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
KF, I just wasn't prepared for such a savage evisceration.daveS
September 2, 2020
September
09
Sep
2
02
2020
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
September 2, 2020
September
09
Sep
2
02
2020
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
Whoa. 😟daveS
September 2, 2020
September
09
Sep
2
02
2020
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
September 2, 2020
September
09
Sep
2
02
2020
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
TF, Are you an evo engaging in some very unsubtle trolling? Or perhaps playing around with GPT-3? :-)daveS
September 2, 2020
September
09
Sep
2
02
2020
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
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.john_a_designer
September 2, 2020
September
09
Sep
2
02
2020
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
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.daveS
September 2, 2020
September
09
Sep
2
02
2020
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
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?)Truthfreedom
September 2, 2020
September
09
Sep
2
02
2020
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT
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.Truthfreedom
September 2, 2020
September
09
Sep
2
02
2020
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT
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.Truthfreedom
September 2, 2020
September
09
Sep
2
02
2020
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT
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'.Truthfreedom
September 2, 2020
September
09
Sep
2
02
2020
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
September 2, 2020
September
09
Sep
2
02
2020
03:25 AM
3
03
25
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
September 2, 2020
September
09
Sep
2
02
2020
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT
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.kairosfocus
September 2, 2020
September
09
Sep
2
02
2020
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT
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. __________Truthfreedom
September 2, 2020
September
09
Sep
2
02
2020
01:21 AM
1
01
21
AM
PDT
1 24 25 26 27 28 32

Leave a Reply