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
Folks, I am again gavelling exchanges on whether the tail of a sheep has what a leg requires to be a leg. There have been exchanges on that topic entertained at UD, in the form of trying to redefine marriage under colour of law. All they show is that we have lost awareness of the principle of identity and that legal thought has become en-darkened and utterly absurd. This thread, instead, is about the rising tide of disintegration of the USA through civil conflict, which state however we like or don't like it, is the geostrategic pivot of our civilisation. KFkairosfocus
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus/800
1: The context is, a call to ABOLISH lawful Police, border control and linked courts, as was attached to OP and as is discussed in the onward thread. The implication is, not reforms but replacement, in context ideological entities such as committees for defence of the revolution, volks courts and secret state police.
Yes, there have been calls by some for abolition of the police in response to some egregious examples of police misconduct. There are some departments that seem to operate something like an "omerta" code of silence such that it is almost impossible to prosecute wrongdoers. 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. As I wrote before, I believe the better approach is to invest more money in better pay, higher standards of recruitment and much higher standards of training. I think that, given the wide range of sometimes intractable problems we ask the police to handle, they are woefully undertrained. It is not fair on us or them to put them on the streets when they are not fully prepared.
3: In chaotic situations, cities will have supply lines disrupted, with disastrous consequences. Normal market links will be irrelevant.
Yes, in the case of a total breakdown in civil order, the cities will suffer first but it will soon spread out into the countryside.
4: The 6.5 mm is very different, scarily different in ways relevant to provoking armed conflict with the hinterlands. Admiral Yamamoto’s warning takes on new life.
The 6.5 mm Creedmoor has been proven to be ballistically superior to other sniping rounds for long-range accuracy but it is not some scary "wonder-weapon". It's just an incremental improvement and my caveats still apply. It takes an expert shot to fully exploit the capability of the round and they are few and far between There are also ways to defeat snipers now such as counter-sniping, gunshot detection systems and simple smokescreens.
5: So, why is there playing with marxist fire?
For the same reasons we have neo-Nazi groups still around, people forget the lessons of history.
6: Democracies require cultural buttresses that are being undermined.
I agree
7: Nope, that’s a piece of paper. First loyalty starts with the root of moral government. In that context, justice leads to small-c constitutional arrangements, and to lawful community and institutions. That is what is being undermined.
The Bible is pieces of paper. What matters is what's written on the paper. 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. I look at Trump's rallies, the cult of the individual he has created around himself, the hints he is dropping about refusing to accept the results of the election, his open campaign to undermine confidence in the integrity of the electoral process, his administration's to bend the departments of states and scientific institutions to his political will and his unapologetically divisive rhetoric and I see alarming echoes of the very early days of Nazism. What also concerns me is that you and other are so fixated on Marxist insurgencies that you are blind to this more serious danger.
8: You leave off, ideologies, agendas and narratives that undermine buttresses of sustainable freedom with just order.
I am aware of other ideologies and agendas. I just don't think they are as great a threat as someone who has already got his hands on the levers of power and is showing increasing signs of not wanting to let go.
9: Over the past 100 years, political messianism has consistently come from the utopians of socialism, marxism and their kissing cousins fascism and national socialism. Indeed, Dear Leader comes from a Communist monarchy where the dynastic founder is now eternal president.
Do you want to see that here? Do you think that is our "manifest destiny"?
11: In context, there has been a slanderous attempt to label Mr Trump as a Hitler analogue (most recently by Mr Biden who used the Dr Goebbels variant). This is an outrage.
What is alarming is that we have become so inured to this man saying outrageous things that would never have been tolerated from any previous president, regardless of party. He has been allowed to drag down the standards of political discourse with relatively little resistance.
12: Part of the misunderstanding. There never is a RIGHT to marry as no-one owes you the duty of becoming a spouse.
Human rights are whatever entitlements and privileges and freedoms a democratic society choose to grant to all of its members, regardless of race or creed, by virtue of their being human. If a society decrees that marriage shall be for homosexual as well as heterosexual couples then that will be their right. In a free and democratic society a particular religion may restrict marriage to heterosexual couples but only for members of that faith . There should be no right to impose that view on the rest of us.Seversky
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
TF, Well, you have plenty of personality, bless your heart :-)daveS
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
814 DaveS
It seems all you can do is make bald assertions.
As? I know that people don't like to hear what is not mainstream. Because having personality is hard, DaveS. The masses don't want people who think for themselves. They tend to crush them.Truthfreedom
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
Mac McTavish Let me remind you that homosexuality was classified as a mental illness until 1973. Were not you the guy of the 'consensus'? Ah. But there are "consensus" and "consensus". And we know how these things do work, don't we? Those who go against the tide are always ridiculed and left behind. Nihil novum sub sole. :)Truthfreedom
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT
TF, It seems all you can do is make bald assertions.daveS
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
811 Mac McTavish
Facts to the contrary.
Nope. People trying to dress up a lie as truth. It may convince naive people, but not me even in a million years. Sorry.Truthfreedom
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
804 Mac McTavish
Then your complaint is with multiple polls on the subject, not me.
So if "polls" say Mr. Trump is the "most handsome man in the whole world", then Mr. Trump "is the most handsome man in the whole world". Hahaha. The West is now a massive kindergarten. It's so sad. Lots of technology but massive ignorance.Truthfreedom
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
Sev
Christianity can decide what is an acceptable form of marriage for Christians but it does not have any right to impose that on the rest of us.
Christianity cannot even decide what is acceptable for all Christians. We were married in a Christian church. Several Christian and Jewish denominations accept and officiate over SSM. TF
Nope. There is no such thing as same-sex “marriage”.
Facts to the contrary.Mac McTavish
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
807 Seversky
We can observe that a sheep’s tail is not a fifth leg.
Duh duh. Your ridiculous materialist superstition can't account for forms, just "matter in motion". Therefore, according to it, there are neither "legs" nor "tails". In fact, there are not even "humans". And that's why intelligent people know materialism is not meant to be taken seriously. A superstition for the decadent and almost illiterate West. Aristotle (and the soul) are back. Truthfreedom
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
807 Seversky
Is/ought.
The insurmountable gap your ridiculous and obsolete materialist superstition can not bridge, so you have to steal a "plank" from the theist. Which is very pathetic.Truthfreedom
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
801 DaveS
I’ve asked many times what the rationale is for denying the lesbian couple that lives 3 doors down from me the option of getting married.
It's very easy: Marriage= man + woman. But you know it and you don't care. Marxists know how to brainwash people to a tee. It's astonishing. Maybe it's true that humans are robots after all. With no reasoning capabilities. Being cool is so cool, ain't it?Truthfreedom
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus/798
PS: Marriage isn’t like creating a business partnership or even organising bits and pieces of government machinery.
I would say that it is, in the sense of being a partnership that is sanctioned by society and formalized in law.
Let me say it this way, law as passed by states does not invent marriage, no more than it can invent justice or the built in moral government principles and duties that govern responsible reason, we can only acknowledge such things.
People were forming couples or partnerships in order to raise families for long before recorded history and did so without the sanction of Christianity or any other known religion. We wouldn't be here if that were not the case. Over time such relationships probably became formalized by contemporary societies into what we now would call marriages. Marriage was not created by law but neither was it created by any faith. Christianity can decide what is an acceptable form of marriage for Christians but it does not have any right to impose that on the rest of us.
That is part of our problem, trying to get people to pretend that a sheep’s tail is a fifth leg does not confer the nature of being a leg.
Is/ought. We can observe that a sheep's tail is not a fifth leg. That is about the nature of what "is". There is nothing in nature that dictates the nature of marriage in human society. The argument over the nature of marriage is about "ought". It cannot be resolved by appealing to Nature.Seversky
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
799 Mac McTavish
At present SSM is a marriage, regardless of your beliefs.
Nope. There is no such thing as same-sex "marriage". As there are no square circles. 2+2 is NOT =5 even if you legislate it and force people to recite it. The left is at odds with reality. And that's why the West is a barrage of laughs and a decadent society.Truthfreedom
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
Polls- LoL! Polls had Hillary Clinton winning the last election. They had Dewey as President before that. Polls are only as good as the honesty of the people taking them. And if marriage is whatever we say then that means humans should be able to marry another species, if they so choose. Polygamy and child marriages should also be OK.
Get back to me when governments, the courts and the majority of people support any of these.
It is a logical extension. So I understand why that would confuse you. The "arguments" against those are the same arguments against same sex marriages. The arguments for those are also the same arguments for same-sex marriages.
Until then, I will put this down as the fear-mongering slipper-slope fallacy that it is.
As I just demonstrated, it isn't a "fear-mongering slipper-slope fallacy". However, I would love to hear your arguments that it is. Do you have any or is that the best you can do?
Is your marriage meaningless because I am married?
Non-sequitur. Try again. But yes, marriage, in general, is less meaningful with the inclusion of unnatural pairings.ET
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
ET
September 27, 2020 at 10:25 am I doubt that the vast majority of people support same sex marriage.
Then your complaint is with multiple polls on the subject, not me.
A June 2020 Gallup poll found that 67% of Americans supported same sex marriage, while 31% were against, matching their May 2018 record high. A June 2019 CBS News poll found that 67% of Americans supported same-sex marriage, while 28% were against.[15] A June 2019 IPSOS/Reuters poll found that 58% of Americans supported same-sex marriage, while 28% were against.[16] A May 2019 Pew Research Center poll found 61% of Americans supported same-sex marriage while 31% were against.[17] A May 2019 Gallup poll found that 63% of Americans supported same sex marriage, with 36% opposing it. While this is a drop when compared to 2018, same sex marriage approval still remains stable. [18]
And if marriage is whatever we say then that means humans should be able to marry another species, if they so choose. Polygamy and child marriages should also be OK.
Get back to me when governments, the courts and the majority of people support any of these. Until then, I will put this down as the fear-mongering slipper-slope fallacy that it is.
Heck we can make it so that the institution of marriage is absolutely meaningless. It isn’t that far away, now.
Is your marriage meaningless because I am married? If so, might I suggest marriage counselling.Mac McTavish
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
daves:
Which is odd because I don’t recall any sort of penis inspection when I was at the courthouse.
That was done when you were born, duh.ET
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
I doubt that the vast majority of people support same sex marriage. And if marriage is whatever we say then that means humans should be able to marry another species, if they so choose. Polygamy and child marriages should also be OK. Heck we can make it so that the institution of marriage is absolutely meaningless. It isn't that far away, now.ET
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
Mac McT, Yes, I think the horse has left the barn on this one. I've asked many times what the rationale is for denying the lesbian couple that lives 3 doors down from me the option of getting married. The response usually involves mention of reproduction and complementary genitalia. Which is odd because I don't recall any sort of penis inspection when I was at the courthouse. I didn't even have to show ID. I guess that the underlying principle is that the couple must plausibly have (or have had) the ability to procreate at some point, perhaps before the hysterectomy, the encounter with an IED in Iraq, or the onset of menopause.daveS
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
Seversky, Let's pick up some points: >>the police and courts are not perceived as acting in the best interests of all?>> 1: The context is, a call to ABOLISH lawful Police, border control and linked courts, as was attached to OP and as is discussed in the onward thread. The implication is, not reforms but replacement, in context ideological entities such as committees for defence of the revolution, volks courts and secret state police. 2: We take due note of the misanthropic agendas you are rhetorically enabling. >> cities depend on the “hinterlands” for supplies of food and other resources. Just as the “hinterlands” depend on the cities to provide a market for the resources they produce.>> 3: In chaotic situations, cities will have supply lines disrupted, with disastrous consequences. Normal market links will be irrelevant. >> Finding people who can shoot them accurately at the ranges they’re capable of is a much harder proposition.>> 4: The 6.5 mm is very different, scarily different in ways relevant to provoking armed conflict with the hinterlands. Admiral Yamamoto's warning takes on new life. >> they would fall under the control of a “thugocracy” as they have on previous occasions.>> 5: So, why is there playing with marxist fire? >>even though far from perfect, we have a workable model in the United States. The problem is that, like any form of government, it requires the will of the people to sustain it.>> 6: Democracies require cultural buttresses that are being undermined. >> In other words, people have to understand that their first loyalty and duty is to the Constitution and the welfare of all the governed,>> 7: Nope, that's a piece of paper. First loyalty starts with the root of moral government. In that context, justice leads to small-c constitutional arrangements, and to lawful community and institutions. That is what is being undermined. >>not some “Dear Leader”.>> 8: You leave off, ideologies, agendas and narratives that undermine buttresses of sustainable freedom with just order. 9: Over the past 100 years, political messianism has consistently come from the utopians of socialism, marxism and their kissing cousins fascism and national socialism. Indeed, Dear Leader comes from a Communist monarchy where the dynastic founder is now eternal president. >>Where a situation develops in which those in power judge their first loyalty is to one man or woman over all other considerations then democracy will fall. >> 10: You again leave off, ideologies, agendas and narratives that undermine buttresses of sustainable freedom with just order. 11: In context, there has been a slanderous attempt to label Mr Trump as a Hitler analogue (most recently by Mr Biden who used the Dr Goebbels variant). This is an outrage. >>the right to marry>> 12: Part of the misunderstanding. There never is a RIGHT to marry as no-one owes you the duty of becoming a spouse. Instead there is a freedom to marry through mutual agreement of a man and a woman, within several reasonable restrictions. Where, as I already noted, there is a gross confusion on the nature of marriage and its relationship to what civil law can do. The rhetoric of rights is being used to abuse and to strawman caricature and accuse. >>Marriage is a cultural convention concerning the social recognition of a partnership between two people. >> 13: see how you smuggled in the notion of being a social invention? 14: No, marriage -- the reality not the term we use -- is antecedent to any state and code of law, being built into the naturally evident order of the two sexes and their complementary roles in reproduction and the generation-length challenge of child nurture. The principle of identity problem is pivotal. 15: A similar problem attaches to deumanising of our living posterity in the womb, allowing the worst holocaust in history under colour of law and rights. 800+ million in 40-odd years, now mounting up at 800,000 more per week. 16: Posterity, for cause, will cry out in pain at the foot of the cliff we are heading over, and call us an accursed, willfully blind en-darkened generation. KFkairosfocus
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
Marriage is what the people, the government and the courts say it is. At present SSM is a marriage, regardless of your beliefs. Trump May succeed in stacking the courts and changing this at the court level, but given that the vast majority of people support same sex marriage, I expect that most people will defy the court if they lean in this direction.Mac McTavish
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
Seversky, you jump from one thread to the next here. Have a look here: https://uncommondescent.com/ud-newswatch-highlights/u-haul-a-riot-where-lawless-oligarchy-is-the-natural-state-order/#comment-713169 KF PS: Marriage isn't like creating a business partnership or even organising bits and pieces of government machinery. Let me say it this way, law as passed by states does not invent marriage, no more than it can invent justice or the built in moral government principles and duties that govern responsible reason, we can only acknowledge such things . . . or in en-darkened understanding, refuse to do so to our own folly and eventual ruin. That is part of our problem, trying to get people to pretend that a sheep's tail is a fifth leg does not confer the nature of being a leg. That is, we have principle of identity troubles here at root. Whatever may be solemnly enacted under colour of law we cannot make pi equal 22/7 or any similar rational number. The first step out of our confusion is to understand why A is A and not ~A, so that world W = {A|~A}. Until law in our time gets that straight, it will only be a source of mischief and needless confusion leading to chaos.kairosfocus
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus/792
And, what do you think defunding/abolishing lawful police, undermining courts etc implies?
That the police and courts are not perceived as acting in the best interests of all?
Do you think urban centres can sustain themselves on their own resources or sustain themselves without logistics and utilities coming from the hinterlands in peasant uprising, or can sustain conquest and collectivising of same etc?
No, cities depend on the "hinterlands" for supplies of food and other resources. Just as the "hinterlands" depend on the cities to provide a market for the resources they produce. They are mutually dependent.
With a 6.5 mm Creedmoor behind every distant rock on a hill? [Tank commanders and crews have to get out of their machines eventually.]
You can produce sniper rifles in 6.5 mm Creedmoor, .338 Lapua or .50 BMG relatively easy. Finding people who can shoot them accurately at the ranges they're capable of is a much harder proposition. Smoke screens can defeat telescopic sights and there are now anti-sniper detection systems which can detect their locations with reasonable accuracy.
Do you think this time around Marxism would do any better than the dozens of times it has come to power over the past 100 years? Get real.
No, I don't. I think that, most probably, they would fall under the control of a "thugocracy" as they have on previous occasions.
As for geostrategic consequences, do you really believe a world in which the circling vultures — drug gang warlords or the like writ large — run things their way will be a better one on the whole
Not by my understanding of "better", no.
We need to wake up and re-think from first principles of moral government, with particular attention to first duties of responsible reason.
I think, even though far from perfect, we have a workable model in the United States. The problem is that, like any form of government, it requires the will of the people to sustain it. In other words, people have to understand that their first loyalty and duty is to the Constitution and the welfare of all the governed,not some "Dear Leader". Where a situation develops in which those in power judge their first loyalty is to one man or woman over all other considerations then democracy will fall.
PPS: Those wanting to play games with marriage and family would be well advised to ponder here, as a start. Conjugal marriage and the lifelong heterosexual bonded couple with their children are part of the fabric of built-in natural law
How does granting homosexual couples the right to marry impair in any way the rights of heterosexual couples to marry? Homosexuals are not demanding that only they should have the right to marry. Which is exactly what so-called Christians are insisting on.
Arbitrary attempted redefinition in the face of reality has consequences, near and remote.) We trifle with it at civilisational peril, not least by injecting destructive precedents regarding law-making and law enforcing power, undermining key buttresses of liberty.
Human beings are predominantly heterosexual so that is what most partnerships will be. But a significant number of people are not heterosexual. That is what "is". There is nothing in the nature of humanity that says that homosexuals are any worse or any better than heterosexuals. Marriage is a cultural convention concerning the social recognition of a partnership between two people. A religion may decide what partnerships it approves between its congregants but it should have no authority over those who are not members of that faith. It comes under separation of church and state.Seversky
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
[SNIP -- persistently off topic after gavelling a second time. KF]Mac McTavish
September 25, 2020
September
09
Sep
25
25
2020
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
F/N4 added to OP, U-Haul a riot, connecting dots.kairosfocus
September 25, 2020
September
09
Sep
25
25
2020
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
F/N: The Louisville riots reveal a logistical trail: 1: unloading riot shields https://twitter.com/BGOnTheScene/status/1308829353120280576 >>Brendan Gutenschwager @BGOnTheScene · Sep 23 Unloading the riot shields from the Uhaul>> 2: Abolish the Police banners from said U-Haul: https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1308837281852260359 >>Jack Posobiec Flag of United States @JackPosobiec · Sep 23 Anarchists pulling Antifa signs and shields out of a pre-parked UHaul truck in Louisville>> --> Abolish the police is misanthropic and anti-civilisational, such is not spontaneous when signs are coming out of a pre-positioned truck. 3: Who (per leaks it seems) credibly rented the truck: https://twitter.com/LeftyCrypto/status/1308858825492099072?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw >>intelwave Evergreen tree @inteldotwav UHAUL RENTED OUT BY [SNIP] FOUNDER OF THE BAIL PROJECT IN LOUISVILLE KENTUCKY [snip] | The Bail Project bailproject.org 3:34 PM · Sep 23, 2020·Twitter Web App>> 4: Supportive documentation here The Bail Project connects to an unsurprising cluster of backers. Given the evident media-trumpeted distortion of facts regarding the latest case where a Grand Jury did not do what the mob wants, for cause, we need to do some pretty serious thinking on sobering dangers of mob rule. On balance we see demands of the mob, organisation and backing of riots tying to political pressure groups, their executive staff and funders/backers. This points to the wider pattern raised by the McFaul primer and pattern of red guard insurgencies with their backers. KFkairosfocus
September 25, 2020
September
09
Sep
25
25
2020
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
F/N: It seems some of the recent media trumpeted agit prop and lawfare is beginning to unravel, tellingly:
Ari Fleischer @AriFleischer · 7h To investigate if Trump colluded w Russia, the FBI relied on info, paid for by the Clinton campaign, based on a source suspected by the FBI of being a Russian agent. The FBI then hid from the FISA court who paid for the info and the fact the source might be a foreign agent. Quote Tweet Charles @CharlesPHerring · 8h BREAKING: Fusion GPS, funded by the DNC & Clinton campaign, was colluding (primary sub-source) w/ a suspected Russian agent to overthrow the victor of the 2016 election. Durham brought info to Barr. US Atty Durham's criminal investigation is ongoing. See: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/AG%20Letter%20to%20Chairman%20Graham%209.24.2020.pdf
AG Barr to Sen Graham, per the last linked:
For months, the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) have been declassifying and providing documents to the Judiciary Committee related to the Inspector General’s report, “Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Cross?re Hurricane Investigation." In connection with your Committee’s investigation of these matters and ongoing hearings, you have been asking us to accelerate this process and to provide any additional information relating to the reliability of the work of Christopher Steele and the so-called “Steele dossier,” as long as its release would not compromise U.S. Attorney John Durham’s ongoing criminal investigation. A footnote in the Inspector Genera1’s report contains information, which up till now has been classified and redacted, bearing on the reliability of the Steele dossier. The FBI has declassified the relevant portion of that footnote, number 334, which states that “[t]he Primary Sub-source was the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation from 2009 to 201 1 that assessed his/her documented contacts with suspected Russian intelligence officers.” Further, at my request, the FBI has prepared a declassified summary of certain information from the counterintelligence investigation of the Primary Sub-source, which I am now providing to the Committee. I have consulted with Mr. Durham, who originally brought this information to my attention in the course of his investigation, and he has informed me that disclosure of the information will not interfere with his criminal investigation . . .
This is an exposure of how in key part the present climate of polarised hysteria was stirred up. KF PS: Ms Powell submits further information. It is likely that the Flynn case will prove the breakthrough point that unravels the whole fiasco. See commentary here.kairosfocus
September 25, 2020
September
09
Sep
25
25
2020
01:29 AM
1
01
29
AM
PDT
MMT, We will not again go off on a toxic distractor from the focus set by the OP. You have already been sufficiently corrected on your perception of discrimination and by implication your evident utter lack of awareness of seriously destructive agit prop and lawfare targetting of people by homosexualist activists in recent years. That said, what you have managed to do is to highlight the fundamental hostility to foundational institutions patently vital to the future of civilisation. The obvious conclusion is that what is unsustainable will not endure beyond going over the cliff. Civilisations have collapsed and there is no good reason to assume ours is immune, in particular in the geostrategic centre of our civilisation, the buttresses that enable constitutional democracy are being undermined, pointing to collapse into drastically less free forms of state. I would not be so confident as you seem to be that those championing your agendas will be in charge of the outcome of the already in progress with ramping up kinetic element 4G civil war with red guards cannon fodder running riot; predictably, a lawless domineering oligarchy is the natural state of polities -- depressed urban areas under effective domination of feuding drug gang warlords are only one obvious example. (And, what do you think defunding/abolishing lawful police, undermining courts etc implies? Do you think urban centres can sustain themselves on their own resources or sustain themselves without logistics and utilities coming from the hinterlands in peasant uprising, or can sustain conquest and collectivising of same etc? With a 6.5 mm Creedmoor behind every distant rock on a hill? [Tank commanders and crews have to get out of their machines eventually.] Do you think this time around Marxism would do any better than the dozens of times it has come to power over the past 100 years? Get real.) As for geostrategic consequences, do you really believe a world in which the circling vultures -- drug gang warlords or the like writ large -- run things their way will be a better one on the whole? We need to wake up and re-think from first principles of moral government, with particular attention to first duties of responsible reason. KF PS: First principles of moral government under built-in law . . . something you have studiously side stepped time and again (with telling implications):
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.
PPS: Those wanting to play games with marriage and family would be well advised to ponder here, as a start. Conjugal marriage and the lifelong heterosexual bonded couple with their children are part of the fabric of built-in natural law.(Cf. here on involved principle of identity, excluded middle and non contradiction informed by the axiomatic insight that truth accurately describes reality. The first move of facing reality is to recognise that A is itself, A i/l/o core characteristics that mark it out from not-A, so the world in this regard partitions W ={A|~A}, with all that flows from it. As just linked: " . . . The first question is about identity and difference. This is the material legal matter of properly recognizing and identifying what exists and distinguishing between marriages and auto clubs, between schools and banks, between friendships and multinational corporations." Arbitrary attempted redefinition in the face of reality has consequences, near and remote.) We trifle with it at civilisational peril, not least by injecting destructive precedents regarding law-making and law enforcing power, undermining key buttresses of liberty. There are reasons why Nero's attempted innovations failed.kairosfocus
September 25, 2020
September
09
Sep
25
25
2020
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT
Mac McTavish According to a Newsweek article, there are 71 countries where it is illegal to be a homosexual. Indonesia canes homosexuals to death. Other countries use stoning. What you won't find are many democracies on the list. Perhaps you should ask yourself why no one talks about the barbarism that continues to happen in far too many places in the world. Learn a thing or two about just how different each country is and open your eyes to what is happening, rather than what you perceive to be happening. https://www.newsweek.com/73-countries-where-its-illegal-be-gay-1385974BobRyan
September 25, 2020
September
09
Sep
25
25
2020
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT
“When me and my partner stay in hotels, we long since have stopped checking in at the counter together. There have been too many times where we have been told that there are no vacancies.” Maybe there are no vacancies. It’s hard for me to imagine that they would not want gay partners. They are a highly sought after demographic. As a group they are affluent, very successful, respectful, responsible and I I would add “wholesome “ I’m speaking specifically of gays that have committed relationships. I would love to have them as my neighbor. Often times I have walked in to a hotel without a reservation and the hotel is booked. That’s why it’s best to get a reservation. “If part of this “war on family” means that I no longer have to fear being fired or denied services available to everyone else just because I happen to be gay, I welcome it.” You do realize that if your fired based on your sexual orientation you could sue on the basis of discrimination. Vividvividbleau
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7 32

Leave a Reply