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
Sev, we start with your definition. Nope, you described an agnosticism claim. Atheists, properly, imply that they know enough to reject the reality of God. Where, as God is clearly a serious candidate necessary being root of reality, if God is possible, he exists in at least one possible world. However, by core characteristics, NB's are framework to any world existing so if God is possible he is actual and in all worlds including ours. So, the atheistical claim is that God is impossible of being. Post Plantinga and the free will/morally governed (so, rational) creature defence, there is no even remotely plausible atheistical argument to the impossibility of God. The confident manner claims above collapse. KF PS: This has strong relevance to our considerations as evolutionary materioalistic scientism and fellow traveller ideologies are pivotal to the undermining of the key buttresses of constitutional democracy. When I get back to you and DS, I will speak more to such.kairosfocus
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
. Here is yours in particular Sev..Upright BiPed
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
seversky- atheists are obviously incapable of assessing the evidence.ET
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
Atheism is the position of disbelief in a deity on the grounds of insufficient evidence. Which specific fallacy is being committed in such a case?Seversky
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
Dave @ 837,
Imagine that you lose you faith and decide that there are probably no gods.
Not possible. Atheism is based on a logical fallacy.john_a_designer
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
TF, I don't know enough about the issue to be a subscriber to either one.daveS
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
842
Neither of us is a materialist, so let’s set that issue aside, ok?
Well, I am an hylemorphist (Aristotle), (Dr. Dennis Bonnette), (Ed Feser). And I am almost sure you are not an hylemorphist. You say you are neither a materialist. The only other options (worldviews) are: - Idealism (Bernardo Kastrup) - Cartesian dualism Which one do you suscribe to?Truthfreedom
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
TF, Yes, I'm assuming that the truth (of whatever matter is under consideration) exists and that I am equipped to understand it to some extent. Neither of us is a materialist, so let's set that issue aside, ok?daveS
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
839 DaveS
As a fallible human, I do my best to ascertain what the truth is.
That means two things: - First: to ascertain something, that something ("truth") has to exist. - Second: you need to have the appropriate tools to understand it. Evolutionism/ materialism prohibits the second. We are slaves to neural patterns/ neural firings, trapped inside skulls, that are the result of physical laws. What does that have to do with "truth" and "reason"?Truthfreedom
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
daves:
This view of goodness as something that cannot exist without a god is alien to me, I must admit.
Why? Without God, goodness is whatever you want it to be.
Imagine that you lose you faith and decide that there are probably no gods.
Umm, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist.
Here’s a specific example: As a newly minted atheist (and eventually as an old atheist), you would likely still prefer that your grandchildren grow up in a society in which murder is punished rather than condoned.
And there is still God. All atheists are riding on the coattails of religions.ET
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
TF, Obviously I don't think my beliefs create reality. As a fallible human, I do my best to ascertain what the truth is.daveS
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
837 DaveS
Imagine that you lose you faith and decide that there are probably no gods.
The problem with that line of thought is that our beliefs do not create reality. You believing that God does not exist and it becoming true are not the same. Atheists mistake: - I can live without believing in God With - My beliefs are which creates reality (because I say there's no God and I do not die as a punishment, then it becomes true) People do not create God. It's the other way around.Truthfreedom
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
JAD, Regarding the Sartre passage:
There can no longer be any good a priori, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. It is nowhere written that “the good” exists, that one must be honest or must not lie, since we are now upon the plane where there are only men.
This view of goodness as something that cannot exist without a god is alien to me, I must admit. Imagine that you lose you faith and decide that there are probably no gods. I suspect that although your worldview had changed, your understanding of how to organize a healthy society would not be much different. Here's a specific example: As a newly minted atheist (and eventually as an old atheist), you would likely still prefer that your grandchildren grow up in a society in which murder is punished rather than condoned. Is that correct? And what do you make of this preference? Is it rational?daveS
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
[SNIP! No need to feed the trolls] And I said the Trinity was contrived. Sir Isaac Newton said it before I did.ET
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
F/N: On garbage cans: https://bizfluent.com/facts-7741400-garbage-can-model-approach.html >> You may not like having your business decisions compared to dumpster diving, but that's the implication of the garbage can model. As described by researchers Cohen, March and Olsen in 1972, organizations toss all their problems and possible solutions into a metaphorical trash can. When they need to solve a problem, they grope around in the can and pull out a solution virtually at random. TL;DR (Too Long; Didn't Read) The garbage can model says most organizational decisions are irrational. How Organizations Make Decisions A century ago, decision-making models assumed that managers made policy choices and solved problems rationally. Faced with a challenge, they gathered all relevant facts, evaluated them carefully and selected the solution that met the best interests of the firm. In real life, that often isn't possible. Managers may not have all the information, the time to make a decision or see clearly which organizational choice is best. Alternative theories assume that managers make decisions irrationally. For example, the incremental model says managers make whichever decision requires the least possible effort, even if it's not the best solution. The Cohen, March and Olsen garbage can model allows for managers making more effort than that. However, it still assumes that they're making irrational decisions. The Garbage Can Model Explained In Cohen, March and Olsen's view, decision makers often operate in an irrational environment with a lot of uncertainty. As a result, they make decisions without following the rational approach of gathering facts and weighing the evidence thoughtfully. Garbage can decision making doesn't go looking for the perfect solution. Instead, it mixes and matches the elements the organization has already piled into the can: Choices looking for problems Issues and feelings looking for decisions to affect Solutions looking for issues they can resolve Decision-makers looking for something to do The original 1972 theory concentrated on academic institutions. Later writers expanded it to decision making in business. For a garbage can theory example, consider an entrepreneur who is launching his third or fourth startup. When he runs into a problem, his first thought might be to draw on experience: reach into the garbage can for one of the solutions he's used in similar situations before. Is the Model True? The creators of the garbage can model weren't recommending this approach as a way to make decisions. Instead, they claimed this was how decision making usually worked. Problem solving in this model is an anarchic mess where managers simply seize the first solution they dredge out of the trash [--> I modify: that seems good to them and fits their agendas -- but what if they are using crooked yardsticks as standards of straight, upright, accurate? Where we know we have a Lincolnian, sheep's tail is called a leg and expected to work as one problem]. Because that solution worked once, it might fix things again, but that isn't a slam dunk . . . >> Sounds horrifically familiar? It should. Next stop on track, sand bars off the North African Coast. KFkairosfocus
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
825 Mac McTavish
And Let me remind you that blacks were classified as less intelligent and more aggressive than “whites”.
An according to you, because people agreed, it was "true". Not according to me.Truthfreedom
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT
Here is a quote from Jean Paul Sartre’s 1946 lecture on existentialism where he discusses the “possibility” of morality without God.
The existentialist… finds it extremely embarrassing that God does not exist, for there disappears with Him all possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven. There can no longer be any good a priori, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. It is nowhere written that “the good” exists, that one must be honest or must not lie, since we are now upon the plane where there are only men.
I find myself agreeing with Sartre on a number of points, not because I am an atheist but because I think Sartre is courageous enough to be intellectually honest about the implications of an atheistic world view. Let me quote myself [AGAIN]. This is something I have said, going back years, several different times on several different threads:
I try to avoid getting involved in discussions or debates with any of our regular interlocutors because I don’t believe they are being intellectually or ethically honest. The logic here is really very basic and straightforward: If there are no true interpersonal moral standards or obligations how can we trust anything anyone says or asserts? I don’t think that we can. To have an honest discussion or debate you need some kind of interpersonal, or “transcendent,” standard of truth and honesty– even if it’s a traditional or some kind of “conventional” standard. Why would I trust somebody else’s subjective standard for honesty and truth when he starts out by arguing there is no standard of truth or honesty?
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-do-atheists-deny-objective-morality/#comment-648525 In other words, telling the truth and being honest only makes sense if there is an objective standard of truth and honesty. That’s a self-evident truth, therefore, any viable system of morality must be based on the fact that there really is moral truth. I think commenters on my (the ID) side waste too much time enabling bad behavior. BTW that includes the counter-trolling some of our so-called ID’ist "friends" engage in. Sometimes I wonder, whose side are they really on? Bad behavior on either side is very disruptive.john_a_designer
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT
822 DaveS
Could you be suffering from MDS? Also perhaps DDS? ?
I suffer aversion to non-sense and kindergarten thinking. :)Truthfreedom
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT
827 Kairosfocus
Okay, please, both of you, leave this thread.
Well said, sir. Don't kowtow to materialist non-sense. :)Truthfreedom
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT
U-Haul a riot: https://uncommondescent.com/ud-newswatch-highlights/u-haul-a-riot-where-lawless-oligarchy-is-the-natural-state-order/kairosfocus
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT
Seversky, >>Police will not “snitch” on their colleagues so, in a few cases, there is reason to believe that they have got away with murder, as well as lesser offenses. Look at the case of Frank Serpico, for example. In such cases, there seems to be no other solution than to dismantle the offending department and rebuild from scratch. Unless you have a better idea.>> 1: Yes, local reform including refoundation can be necessary (along with whistleblower protection or even a protective witness programme for turning supergrass), though as just noted that is precisely NOT what TBP as part of the Alinsky Community Organiser ecosystem of front groups has put on the table by fomenting riot in the face of clear self-defence. Notice, targetting of POL(ICE) for abolition, that is absolutely general as the further details given also show. The false accusations on criminalising race and poverty are utterly revealing. 2: We are dealing with cultural revolution and red guards as cannon fodder, on the McFaul Model as adapted and with Egypt, the wider Arab Spring and several colour revolutions as templates. Likely, at strategic level, some of the same actors are at work. >> in the case of a total breakdown in civil order, the cities will suffer first but it will soon spread out into the countryside.>> 3: See the disintegration of the Balkans and Lebanon, also Syria. Guess where the food is grown. >>It takes an expert shot to fully exploit the capability of the round and they are few and far between>> 4: The AK47 was a game changer, and so is the Creedmoor. It has proved capability to turn ordinary people into sniper-level shooters with a shockingly small amount of orientation and practice, because of manageable recoil blended with the characteristics of the round and quite available rifles. Stalking skills etc are needed, but hunters are commonplace as are veterans. 5: This threatens to turn the minuteman myth into reality. (No, the Kentucky Rifle did not win the American Revolution.) >>people forget the lessons of history.>> 6: More accurately, we were mistaught, including not soundly taught at all. Journalism is supposed to deliver a first, rough draft of history but it is patent that journalism instead is now largely agit prop. As for commentary . . . >>Democracy is being undermined in the US by a President and his cronies whose only concern is to continue their hold on power. They care of nothing and no one else except insofar as they can be exploited to that end.>> 7: Demonstrably false. The sort of undermining on the table is longstanding and in the main comes from the conventional left. For all the foibles, flaws and needless NY Contractor abrasiveness, there is no good reason to infer that Mr Trump is a would-be dictator. >>his open campaign to undermine confidence in the integrity of the electoral process>> 8: it is manifest that the sort of mail in ballots (not conventional absentee voting with checks) being promoted is chaotic and rife with opportunities for massive fraud. That such is being promoted and objecting to patent danger is twisted like this is telling. 9: One of the most chilling points I saw was some alleged expert saying material fraud has not been possible in the US for 60 - 70 years. 70 years takes in the racial lockout schemes in the South, and in 1960 it is clear that an election was decided by rotten voting in Chicago and Texas. So, I take it as confirmed to be very concerned. 10: I also monitored the hanging chad recount tactics of 2000 which were stopped for cause by the Supreme Court. 11: My conclusion is, the US is overconfident in the integrity of its election system and will need a full Supreme Court in place for midnight November 3rd. 12: Where, Ms Ginsberg should have been counselled to retire five years ago. Bad decisions have consequences. In this case, a march of folly (assuming the peasant uprising by ballot in 2016 was not going to be effective) holds out hope for those who would otherwise become victims of the worst, ongoing, holocaust in history; the slaughter of living posterity in the womb under false colour of law. 13: Then, we can go to reforming law from the ground up, the real major reform needed. Starting with first duties of reason and built in law of responsible freedom. >>I see alarming echoes of the very early days of Nazism. >> 14: Blood libel. The above on U-Haul a riot shows just how toxic it is. >>you and other are so fixated on Marxist insurgencies that you are blind to this more serious danger.>> 15: FYI, my first political opinion, literally taken at mother's knee, was anti-fascism. Has it dawned on you that why I dismiss conventional wisdom and agit prop talking points is precisely because I have done decades of homework including borrowing and reading my Uni Library's volumes on the Trials at Nuremberg? 16: Mr Trump is precisely not a Nietzschean superman political messiah seen as coming in a day of unprecedented danger as a figure beyond law who rescues a critical mass victim group and imposes a totalitarian statist solution with himself as embodiment of the state: everything in the state (including the churches [cf Barmen Declaration 1934], cartels, unions, youth bodies etc), nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. There is no desire to overturn the market system through cartelising under zampolit control, with nominal owners reduced to pensioners of the state. There is no Professor Junkers hounded to death by a former employee now state secretary for aviation. Mr Trump has sought to pull back from geostrategic commitments -- sometimes, too much; i.e. his instincts are likely to be that peculiarly American blunder, isolationist. And much more. Lazy, ignorant namecalling is manifest by its ignorance of key realities of fascism. 17: He is a political entrepreneur who has taken up the cause of the marginalised people of the hinterland and like Reagan before him a displaced Democrat. I think in a rather inarticulate way, he champions what Churchill -- who was also widely despised and seen as a polarising figure with a discrediting track record -- termed Christian Civilisation. >>you and other are so fixated on Marxist insurgencies>> 18: I am not fixated, I am responding to those who are ignorantly playing with ideological fire on clear evidence. By rights, Marxism should have had a stake through its heart 30 years past. It has been coddled in the academy, media, law and an ecosystem of Alinsky agit prop groups and is being used to push a cultural, colour revolution on the McFaul model. See the newer OP on that. >>Do you want to see that here? Do you think that is our “manifest destiny”?>> 19: I predict, the attempt will fail but will do a lot of damage within the US while opening opportunities for circling geostrategic vultures. >>we have become so inured to this man saying outrageous things that would never have been tolerated from any previous president, regardless of party.>> 20: Instead, the whole US political climate has become outrageous. Let me use the OB term: Garbage can organisational climate or culture. See Plato's Ship of State. >>Human rights are whatever entitlements and privileges and freedoms a democratic society choose to grant to all of its members>> 21: That is a key blunder, cultural relativism. The point of a core, built-in right is that it is unalienable and coeval with being human, endowed by the Creator is the 1776 phrasing. 22: Where, a sheep's tail cannot become a leg regardless of who decrees, rules or votes. We have a principle of identity problem. >>There should be no right to impose that view on the rest of us>> 23: But radical activists who access power, institutional domination and media power as well as ability to warp the judiciary over the long term may freely impose their tail is a leg blunder? Think again at this level, principle of identity that X is itself i/l/o its particular characteristics that distinguish it from what is not x. KFkairosfocus
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
Seversky, I respond on points, first noting from the other thread on the highly relevant nature of The Bail Project; which seems to be supported financially by surprising people, who I can only believe are in the main naive about what is going on:
It looks like The Bail Project (where the Truck renter-driver worked) has an interesting focus: "advance racial equity, with a focus on criminal justice and policing reform." What context of "reform"? Well, TBP says, "paying bail for those in jail is an 'act of resistance against a system that criminalizes race and poverty' . . . " which is a slanderous accusation against law and law enforcement that provides dubious rationale for demanding to "abolish" same. Such also readily explains the open season, no limits mentality. The backdrop is obvious, Critical X-Theories and underlying culture form, Frankfurt School marxism. In this context, on a phone call we hear a response to the Abolish the Pol(ice) message, she says: "What does it matter what I posted on a sign?" That's direct self-identification as creator of the relevant sign, within a loaded context. It also tells us much about the misanthropic, anti-civilisational cultural revolution agenda at work. The alternative to lawful police, border control and courts is ideology driven committees for defence of the revolution led by "area leaders" [= dons], volks courts and state secret police. Something is very wrong.
It is fair and cogent comment that this is utterly misanthropic, slanderous and anti-civilisational. There is no law in the USA or any other responsible jurisdiction that "criminalizes RACE," such is a veiled blood libel that implies the US is a Nazi state. Which did effectively criminalise or more correctly outlaw being Jewish. Such is toxic extremism of the worst sort. And defamation is NOT protected free speech. Freedom under law is not an excuse to defame and stir hate. Indeed, we have every right here to use the mirror principle to infer what is in those who act like that and their likely behaviour should they gain power. Resort to riot in the direct context of demanding to turn law into open season on police speaks volumes. Where, too, we must note from the signs coming out of the truck, that it is not merely LOCAL policing in particular places, the ICE, a federal border control agency and part of the Homeland security system, is specifically targetted by the "clever" use of red braces around "ICE" in Police. The implication is direct and obvious, general abolition of lawful policing, border control and linked courts is what is being demanded. Demanded by riot. The likely alternative, on telling history, is quite plain and utterly misanthropic: committees for defence of the revolution (thus, warlordism as we saw in the CHOP enclave), volks courts (in my homeland, in a notorious locale, such courts and nearby grisly graveyard were found when at length the police and army had to take under siege and assault backed by US Marines over the horizon [I suspect a 1/2 battery of 105's was brought ashore]), secret state police. No sane person would go there, but that is where lawless ideological oligarchy [the self-appointed vanguards of the future] go, to try to impose their hoped for utopia by force of terror. Those are the matches being played with. I doubt the lady in the black shorts realises this, but again we have been robbed of sound history of our civilisation -- and of having that history of our civilisation properly framed and taught from the river valleys forward. (And no, Social Studies is no substitute.) Okay, next on the points. KFkairosfocus
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT
MMT & JVL: You have come here, not I have gone there. FYI, explicitly, commenting is a privilege on good behaviour here at UD, for cause as a place where highly contentious issues have to be addressed. Part of that good behaviour is being reasonably responsive to the focal matter, especially when asked to do so. You, MMT in particular have persistently tried to drag this thread off track in pursuit of a hobby horse pivoting on behaviour that for cause is widely understood to be perverse, repulsive and insanitary. You have been warned, you have ignored. When I took a further corrective step, you have now decided to dodge a material issue by attacking the man. This is a familiar pattern. A trollish one. And indeed this latest resort is yet another toxic distractor. You, JVL, have decided to pile on, as though there is a right to be distractive, obsessive on such matters. Okay, please, both of you, leave this thread. G'day. KF, thread ownerkairosfocus
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
02:47 AM
2
02
47
AM
PDT
Mac McTavish: Sorry. I have been gavelled. I have no desire to engage in a discussion with someone who can delete my responses and who responds to a comment by saying that I have been “corrected”. It is obvious that the only version of Christianity that you will accept is the one that denies me and my partner the benefits (and obligations) that you feel we shouldn’t have. I am old enough to remember the same bigoted arguments being used to legally deny interracial couples, or interfaith couples, from being married. Frankly, I have no desire to discuss the issue with someone who is so close-minded. Hear, hear! It's particularly galling because many participants here will vilify and 'carrect' those who they think are anti-ID but will NOT 'carrect' those who are pro-ID not matter how much their views differ from run-of-the-mill Christianity.. A while ago ET said something about the Christian Trinity being a load of horse-hockey and almost no one even noticed.JVL
September 28, 2020
September
09
Sep
28
28
2020
01:46 AM
1
01
46
AM
PDT
TF
Mac McTavish Let me remind you that homosexuality was classified as a mental illness until 1973.
And Let me remind you that blacks were classified as less intelligent and more aggressive than “whites”.Mac McTavish
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
KF
MMT & Seversky, could you kindly explain to me where in the Nicene Creed or elsewhere the Christian faith’s leaders set out to create. enact and impose the law of identity.
Sorry. I have been gavelled. I have no desire to engage in a discussion with someone who can delete my responses and who responds to a comment by saying that I have been “corrected”. It is obvious that the only version of Christianity that you will accept is the one that denies me and my partner the benefits (and obligations) that you feel we shouldn’t have. I am old enough to remember the same bigoted arguments being used to legally deny interracial couples, or interfaith couples, from being married. Frankly, I have no desire to discuss the issue with someone who is so close-minded.Mac McTavish
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
MMT & Seversky, could you kindly explain to me where in the Nicene Creed or elsewhere the Christian faith's leaders set out to create. enact and impose the law of identity. I can show where it is acknowledged or taken as a self-evident given as any responsible person will acknowledge: "1 Cor 14: 7 If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? 8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?" The only slightly veiled anti-Christian bigotry that surfaces above under cover of a twisted form of the US Establishment Clause,* is a further reflection of just how debased thinking is now. KF PS: The principle is that there is to be no federal church of the US, that being left to states (9 of which had such churches in 1787), in a republican version of the Augsburg-Westphalia settlements. Further, the Congress was forbidden to encroach by legislation. By a fortiori reasoning, how much more the federal judiciary, likewise the obvious established anti-church of atheism is every inch as much a violation as would be a decree that say the Southern Baptist Church is the Church of the US as the Church of England is in the UK. The contribution to the present ruinous polarisation caused by that de facto establishment is an inadvertent testimony to the wisdom of the framers and the unwisdom of recent decades.kairosfocus
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT
TF, Could you be suffering from MDS? Also perhaps DDS? :-)daveS
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
820 Kairosfocus
Marxism’s record speaks for itself, ruinously.
Marxism is jihad.
A general problem tied to marxist critical theories.
Even the name is horrid an non-sensical. As was its lousy founder, that disgusting Marx with his nitty beard. "Critical Theory". What a garbage.Truthfreedom
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
Seversky, we have dots to connect showing a radical insurgency seeking among other things to destroy lawful policing, border enforcement and linked courts. That is enough to utterly discredit those who enable and entertain same, especially when joined to persistent lawless, riotous conduct. Further to this, we are not dealing with a local but a general problem tied to marxist critical theories and radical initiatives. Marxism's record speaks for itself, ruinously. Perhaps, more later. KF PS: The 6.5 mm Creedmoor is not only quite accurate and long ranged (with subsonic transition well beyond 1,000 yd) but far more manageable on recoil than other typical cartridges with readily affordable rifles capable of exploiting its capability (not Walmart wonders, obviously), hence how it is a game changer. My point was and is that this takes sniping potential to a new level, if civil conflict goes to a much higher kinetic level.kairosfocus
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 32

Leave a Reply