The problem of agit prop street theatre (U/D: UC Berkeley riot footage)

PPPS: This comment at Geller should also be pondered, for the very troubling issues now on the table: http://pamelageller.com/2017/04/berkeley-cops-sit-patrol-car-watch-trump-supporters-attacked.html/#comment-3262634095 >> Steve • a day ago This needs to be ratcheted up with private security who have law enforcement backgrounds hired to protect the protesters bringing it into the realm of anti-protesters attacking cops. This should be designated by congress as a felony and a hate crime. The leaders of such groups of anti-protesters should face further penalties. When the regular cops stand down the city or town plus the police department needs to be sued by class action for dereliction of duty. Furthermore, such city or town should be subject to federal funding being withheld the same as with sanctuary cities. The protesters are being deprived of their constitutional rights of peaceful assembly granted by the first amendment. Furthermore, their taxes pay for services such as rights to use public property and police protection. Perhaps the next step if this continues will be firemen standing down while people's homes and cars are burned. The police and their authorities are in effect aiding and abetting insurrectionist activities within their jurisdictions that threaten every level of government. It is urgent for the people to take legal action but it is also urgent for the federal government to get involved to bring such "nazi-fying" towns, cities and states into compliance with the constitution or else enact martial law. The shadow government must be defeated and the time is now. If there are any class action suits support them.>> KF kairosfocus

PPS: A comment in the thread at Geller's source at minimum sounds interesting. A complaint: >> HoldTheLine1 Tom Menino • 4 days ago The Democrats are using tactics they learned "back in the good old days." The Democrat formed the KKK, then handcuffed honest LEOs and recruited dishonest ones. The Democrats now have new thugs trained - this time in black hoods - and are using selective policing to "help them along." Democrats never change - they just claim to.>> Response of interest: http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-berkeley-cops-sit-patrol-car-trump-supporters-attacked/#comment-3258595737 >> ironbee HoldTheLine1 • 4 days ago “I’ve been watching all day people get beat up pretty bad and I haven’t seen you guys around much,”When the officer responds“Okay, and?” The next question should be. "What is your name and badge number". "Then ask if he has taken the oath office and to repeat it for you. He probably wont know it so hand him a copy and have him read it out loud since his has nothing better to do..."Next ask him if he knows what a A writ of quo warranto is. He'll say no. Then tell him he sure the hell will know about it soon. Then take him to court on the writ and have him explain how he thinks he should keep his job... Quo Warranto A legal proceeding during which an individual's right to hold an office or governmental privilege is challenged. You could also use the Color of Law. In regards to his refusal to protect citizens... Color of law n. the appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists. I'd try both...>> Perhaps, the first level of challenge to these evident stand-downs should be the Police Commissioner/Chief and the Mayor? The vids I saw suggest turf marking by the blackshirts, defended by the assault by masked, club-wielding marchers visible on many videos. That sounds a lot like subversion, rioting and assault with deadly weapons with intent to terrorise and intimidate to me. Things are spinning out of control and local officials have some serious 'splaining to do. kairosfocus

F/N: Let me cross-post from another thread on what was going on in this latest clash in Berkeley: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JAD, 10:

you can’t begin to make a moral argument unless it is based on moral TRUTH and that it is true that morality is really grounded in interpersonal moral obligation. It appears the Pomona students reject moral truth but still believe in some kind of interpersonal moral obligation. That is either hypocritical or absurd. Their beliefs and opinions are clearly based on passion not reason. When such idiotic thinking begins to spread through a democratic society it’s putting that society at risk. It will first lead to anarchy and then end up with tyranny or totalitarianism.

Prezactly. And, that is the message of Plato in The Laws Bk X based on the collapse of Athens, and again in his parable of the Ship of State. Both of which are in-thread above and both of which have been studiously ignored by the advocates of the party of amorality and radical relativism and/or subjectivism leading to might and manipulation make right nihilism. We are dealing with the principle of the reprobate mind here and its refusal to see the cliff just ahead, even as we are being induced to march towards it in a march of folly. KF PS: Geller catches a key clip on the ongoing flash-point in Berkeley, here:

“‘As the violence escalated police in Berkeley stood down and retreated from the crowds,’ reporter Tim Pool tweeted. ‘I have never seen so few police at an event like this.’ “One observer claimed police “ran away,” despite several Trump rally attendees being attacked. “Mother Jones reporter Shane Bauer saw two officers at a patrol car, not engaged in protecting citizens from violence. “‘Hey, how come you guys are hanging back?” he asked an officer standing in an open door of the car and another sat in the back seat. “‘That would be a question for the chief of police,’ an officer sitting in the driver’s seat responded. “‘You want a public statement, right?’ the standing officer asked the reporter. “‘I would refer you to our public information officer.’ “‘Do they told you to hang back?’ Bauer said. “‘As I said, I refer you to our public information officer,’ the cop responded. “‘I’ve been watching all day people get beat up pretty bad and I haven’t seen you guys around much,’ Bauer said. “‘Okay, and?’ the officer responded. “Numerous videos show Trump supporters being beaten in the streets as police failed to keep the two sides apart. “At one point, several black-clad agitators isolated a lone Trump supporter and pummeled him with fists and feet. “Someone jumped in and clubbed him with a skateboard.”

Of course, this time around, the Trump supporters had their own toughs, who counter attacked, leading to the scenes in the various vids online. (Last time, the pro-Trump etc supporters were swarmed and beaten with no defence, with the Police on obvious stand down -- the toughs on the other side this time are the only real difference, and it sounds like these toughs were more experienced than the blackshirts, especially the woman tossing green glass bottles taken out by a punch "pulled" on realising it was a woman -- yes, 95 lb women have no business in brawls with 180 - 250 lb men with much more robust skeletal structures and the muscle mass to back it, never mind Hollywood fantasies that are creeping into even military doctrine.) I am continuing to follow up in my longstanding thread on this topic. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see the inconvenient truth playing out on the streets. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we begin to understand the fire we are playing with? KF kairosfocus

F/N: Footage of the confrontation, starting with the black shirts showing up in masks with sticks and obviously toting the weapons they proceeded to use -- right from the moment of marching up, the police should have read the riot act and intervened, other footage shows them retreated to vans. Note, the police had banned even sticks for flagpoles, so the free speech rally attendees were empty-handed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7on-BcK-54&ytbChannel=rekt%20sjw%20videos We need to then contrast media coverage, to see how we are being manipulated through the dominant narrative games. KF kairosfocus

F/N: Battle of Berkeley 2 -- Antifa blackshirts try to pounce on a free speech rally (including lobbing large rocks into crowds) -- ends in a rout for the blackshirts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbmjFD4KBjc&ytbChannel=Stefan%20Molyneux --> Very troubling. KF PS: Cernovich in Austin, Texas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqPVgl3ohbs&ytbChannel=Stefan%20Molyneux kairosfocus

The power of a big lie amongst the polarised, in the hands of the new US DNC chair: http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/31/perez-trump-didnt-win-the-election-republicans-dont-give-a-st-about-people-video/ >>Perez claimed those people gathered and proclaimed, “Donald Trump, you don’t stand for our values… Donald Trump you didn’t win the election.” Later in his speech, President Obama’s secretary of labor added that he doesn’t “care” if people take issue with his speech . . . >> --> A lie. --> That is, speaking in willful disregard to truth, in the hope that what is said or suggested is taken as true. --> The US Electoral system, per constitution, is designed to award the Presidency to the candidate who is most broadly acceptable across the coalition of states (as opposed to the one who may win the percentage popular vote). Often these are the same, sometimes, they are not. (In effect the US has 50 elections in parallel not one unified election that may be dominated by one or two major urban clusters.) --> If the objection is to that design, then take up the Constitutional amendment process. that such was not done while the relevant party held the dominant position shows that this is not a principled commitment. Instead, what we are seeing is a means of propagandistically attacking the duly elected president, to create the perception of illegitimacy among the polarised and naive. --> Again, that is an undermining of the peaceful transfer of power on legitimate election, and is an extremely dangerous sign of the march of folly we are on as a civilisation. --> If you doubt me, ask, where is the widespread objection to this dangerous manipulation of lawful election? --> A sobering sign. KF kairosfocus

Further updates on the SMICE problem: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-4367540/Police-arrest-102-internet-child-porn-crackdown-Spain.html >>Spanish police say they have arrested 102 people for possession and distribution of child pornography material on the internet. A Civil Guard statement Friday said they had traced some 450,000 computer images and videos showing sexual abuse of babies and children aged up to 14. The statement said 90 houses had been raided and more than 400 hard discs and other computer material seized. Police said 10 of the child victims had been identified so far. Details on the nationality of the detainees or when the arrests took place were not immediately available.>> --> This one is a year ago http://truthuncensored.net/university-academics-say-pedophilia-is-natural-for-males-aroused-by-children/ >>University Academics Say Pedophilia Is ‘Natural, And Normal For Males To Be AROUSED By Children’ By Lauren Richardson 9:00 PM January 27, 2016 An academic conference held at the University of Cambridge said that pedophilia interest is “natural and normal for males”, and that “at least a sizable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children, and normal males are aroused by children.” These sentiments were discussed at a conference that took place last year to discuss the classification of sexuality in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the standard international psychiatric manual used by the legal system. The conference, which was titled “Classifying Sex: Debating DSM-5?, had featured a number of speakers who spoke in favor of sex with children, which, in essence, is supporting pedophilia. The American Psychiatric Association (APA), which produces it, had been locked in battle over whether hebephilia should be included as a disorder. Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14 year old’s. The proposal was being discussed because children are going through puberty at a younger age and the current definition of pedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescent children. One of the attendees, and enthusiastic participant, was Tom O’Carroll, a multiple child sex offender and long time campaigner for the legalization of sex with children and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange. “Wonderful!” he wrote on his blog afterwards. “It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!” . . . [DTeleg in-art clip:] "But perhaps the most controversial presentation of all was by Philip Tromovitch, a professor at Doshisha University in Japan, who stated in a presentation on the “prevalence of paedophilia” that the “majority of men are probably paedophiles and hebephiles” and that “paedophilic interest is normal and natural in human males”.">> --> We need to understand what has been going on. KF kairosfocus

AJ, BTW, John the Baptist was out there in the bush, crying in the wilderness. It seems you will not learn the lesson of Wilberforce, as to why the road of reformation is the one to take. That itself speaks volumes. KF kairosfocus

Let me pick back up from 416: >>PS: Back to main focus, when Google search, Twitter, Facebook and Youtube become massively dominant in their areas, and are known to be working with Govts that censor and persecute, is that really just a matter of private co’s carrying out their own private policies? What about when there is an obvious orchestrated targetting of those the progressivists, cultural marxists and blackshirts as well as their backers don’t like? How does this look when bakers have been fined out of business etc for simply trying to exert right of conscience to refuse business they saw as entangling them in, in effect endorse or promote seriously destructive perversions? What is going on? PPS: And, what about the SMICE game and honey traps etc leading to controlled opposition?>> --> Where are we heading? --> Shouldn't state-monopolist (or de facto Cartel) alliances that undermine rights and freedoms give us sobering pause on the history of the 1930's and 40's, esp. if there is a tendency to look to political messiahs? kairosfocus

Cullen on YouTube demonetisation and restrictions tactics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxU4Ib4K3cI&ytbChannel=Computing%20Forever --> Is he even nearly right? Is this balancing, need to know stuff? How could we tell? What about the PewDiPie [?] case? --> Is YouTube trying to become Web-based Cable TV, with all that that implies about the media shadow-show game? --> Is Google's dominance giving rise to monopolistic behaviour that is also in a media-state partnership (esp. given concerns over cases in Pakistan and Germany etc?) If so, what does this point to for things like the Android platform? (Already I suggest you set up a few alternative search engines. As a hint, Bing is not enough, try others, e.g. DuckDuckGo, Dogpile or even good old AltaVista etc. A Firefox Alternative -- try PaleMoon for starters -- with these looks better and better to me. Load Wayback Machine too. And don't forget who backs Chrome.) --> For one, I have already sworn off Apple products because of domineering behaviour. KF kairosfocus

Wash Examiner on what is being cut out of State Dept reports: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillarys-officials-cut-criticisms-out-of-state-dept.-reports/article/2565827 >>Hillary's officials cut criticisms out of State Dept. reports By Sarah Westwood (@sarahcwestwood) • 6/9/15 8:33 AM State Department Inspector General officials edited out passages of a high-profile report in 2013 that could have embarrassed Hillary Clinton just days before she quit President Obama's Cabinet. The officials excised details of a cover up of misconduct by Clinton's security team. The edits raise concerns that investigators were subjected to "undue influence" from agency officials. The Washington Examiner obtained earlier drafts of the report which differ markedly from the final version. References to specific cases in which high-level State officials intervened and descriptions of the extent and frequency of those interventions appear in several early drafts but were later eliminated . . . . an earlier version dated November 16, 2012, reveals much greater detail about internal investigations that were blocked by top State Department officials. "Inspectors learned in conversations with Department employees…that in some cases superiors in [diplomatic security] and in senior levels of the State Department have prejudiced the commencement, course and outcome of [special investigations division] investigations," the early draft said. "Sources referred to [diplomatic security] sometimes circling the wagons to protect favored [diplomatic security] rising stars from criminal charges or from embarrassing revelations that could harm a promising career," the draft continued. "One case, which triggered outraged comment from several [special investigations division] sources, relates to allegations that a Regional Security Officer engaged in serious criminal conduct including sexual abuse of local embassy staff during a series of embassy postings. Sources also reported that a senior [diplomatic security] official successfully protected some agents on the Secretary's Detail from investigations into misbehavior while on official trips," the November 16 draft said. It is unclear why this critical text was stripped from the report before the inspector general published it in February 2013 . . . . Another passage that was removed from the public report suggests officials in Clinton's office may have protected an ambassador from a child abuse investigation. "Sources reported that a senior '7th Floor' Department official ordered [diplomatic security] to stop the investigation of an ambassador accused of pedophilia, and another such senior official had [diplomatic security] stop an investigation of an ambassador-designate," the draft reads. The seventh floor is the location of the secretary of state's office, as well as the offices of the deputy secretary and the undersecretaries, according to the State Department's website. If any of these details were removed because of exculpatory information, this is never stated. The same section of the final report, titled "Need for Independence," makes no reference to the pedophilia allegations or the sexual abuse charges that were covered up by State Department staff . . . >> --> More ugly smoke from that subterranean, hellish fire. --> And no, this is not any one party, government or country, something truly ugly is going on across the world. KF kairosfocus

F/N: Let me add, main body plan origin issue is of course the 500+ MYA issue addressed in say Darwin's Dilemma. Just pointing. KF PS: Back to main focus, when Google search, Twitter, Facebook and Youtube become massively dominant in their areas, and are known to be working with Govts that censor and persecute, is that really just a matter of private co's carrying out their own private policies? What about when there is an obvious orchestrated targetting of those the progressivists, cultural marxists and blackshirts as well as their backers don't like? How does this look when bakers have been fined out of business etc for simply trying to exert right of conscience to refuse business they saw as entangling them in, in effect endorse or promote seriously destructive perversions? What is going on? PPS: And, what about the SMICE game and honey traps etc leading to controlled opposition? PPPS: Haeckel's drawings willfully and misleadingly distorted truth he knew or should have known. Those who used such for nearly a century continued the educational deceit. And those who use the related broader notions to dehumanise the unborn child are carrying it to the next level, enabling the slaughter of innocent human individuals in the womb. kairosfocus

AJ, neutral drift theories and the like are typically fitted into the above outline picture, especially when what is on the table is body plan origin, not minor variation. And no there is no need to get into all the elaborations, the key point is still that blind, non-foresighted forces of chance character are required to provide the changes, and that differential success counts. That obtains for even punk eek type approaches (which have been more or less backed away from in recent years). And no, you will not play the thread pull and derail game. I have only given this much of a response to help underscore your non-responsiveness to the primary focus of the topical focus, and that you have never had a sound answer to Wilberforce as pivotal historical exemplar on reformation in the face of a culture caught up in massive institutionalised wrong and blood guilt, or the value of the individual from conception to natural death. What you are eager to run down because you think you can set up and knock over a loaded strawman caricature, while you refuse to address matters central to a civilisation in deep trouble, speaks. KF kairosfocus

KF:

AJ, FYI I just summarised the mainstream view of the heart of macro-evo, chance non foresighted variation culled by differential reproductive success leading to descent with modification. And we are still off on a parthian shot tangent. KF

Then you would be well advised to read up on the more recent research in evolutionary biology. Something in the last 50 or 60 years would help. Armand Jacks

AJ, FYI I just summarised the mainstream view of the heart of macro-evo, chance non foresighted variation culled by differential reproductive success leading to descent with modification. And we are still off on a parthian shot tangent. KF kairosfocus

KF:

our problem is...

I lay awake at nights wondering what you think my problem is. Rather condescending, don't you think?

There is no sound body of credible empirical observation that sustains the view that blind chance driven incremental variations culled by differential reproductive success has actually given rise to significant novel body plan features that are functional much less advantageous.

Then it's a good thing that evolution involves more than that. Armand Jacks

AJ, Your problem is that that is being appealed to as a key component of the major source of body plan level biodiversity.There is no sound body of credible empirical observation that sustains the view that blind chance driven incremental variations culled by differential reproductive success has actually given rise to significant novel body plan features that are functional much less advantageous. Johnson's retort to Lewontin et al is right:

For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence.

[--> notice, the power of an undisclosed, question-begging, controlling assumption . . . often put up as if it were a mere reasonable methodological constraint; emphasis added. Let us note how Rational Wiki, so-called, presents it:

"Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses."

Of course, this ideological imposition on science that subverts it from freely seeking the empirically, observationally anchored truth about our world pivots on the deception of side-stepping the obvious fact since Plato in The Laws Bk X, that there is a second, readily empirically testable and observable alternative to "natural vs [the suspect] supernatural." Namely, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity [= the natural] vs the ART-ificial, the latter acting by evident intelligently directed configuration. [Cf Plantinga's reply here and here.] And as for the god of the gaps canard, the issue is, inference to best explanation across competing live option candidates. If chance and necessity is a candidate, so is intelligence acting by art through design. And it is not an appeal to ever- diminishing- ignorance to point out that design, rooted in intelligent action, routinely configures systems exhibiting functionally specific, often fine tuned complex organisation and associated information. Nor, that it is the only observed cause of such, nor that the search challenge of our observed cosmos makes it maximally implausible that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity can account for such.]

That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]

KF kairosfocus

KF:

AJ, as a footnote to your remarks at 381 (I have a moment given a pause in the annual local budget season madness), are you aware that artificial selection by breeding generally has pretty hard limits as to the results achievable, and that the results often come at a price of loss of general viability of the organism, as can be seen from dog breeding and goldfish breeding?

And, strangely enough, we see the same thing in nature as the result of natural selection. Small isolated populations, limited genetic variation, etc. Not all instances of reproductive isolation result in positive adaptations. Armand Jacks

AJ, as a footnote to your remarks at 381 (I have a moment given a pause in the annual local budget season madness), are you aware that artificial selection by breeding generally has pretty hard limits as to the results achievable, and that the results often come at a price of loss of general viability of the organism, as can be seen from dog breeding and goldfish breeding? Thus, this is both an act of ART-ificial, intelligently directed configuration, and does not point to descent with unlimited modification leading to novel body plans. I suggest that you would be well advised to read the UD Weak Argument correctives, under the resources tab on this and every UD page. KF kairosfocus

SB, and that is how dangerous cultural marxist/Alinsky-ite agit-prop street theatre and media shadow show games tied to corruption of institutions, law, government and professions are. That is how we get to 800+ million of our posterity slaughtered in the womb in 40+ years, now mounting at a million more per week. And that is how we become so benumbed in conscience and depraved in mind that we have impaired ability to think straight about anything, this being further amplified by the impacts of self-falsifying, inherently amoral evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow traveller ideologies.. Of course, that is exactly what some movers and shakers behind the scenes want, refusing to see that our civilisation is heading for shipwreck. KF kairosfocus

Armand Jacks

Since all of your questions were answered in my previous comments, it only looks like you are too lazy to read for comprehension.

You are not telling the truth. Provide evidence that you answered my questions, one by one.

So, you won’t jail women who have an abortion because you think that they all suffer from diminished capacity. When you are already in a hole, it is advisable to stop digging.

As I explained, I would not jail women who have an abortion primarily because they often have imperfect knowledge of their crime. As is your custom, you ignored the point and labored over diminished capacity, which is also a factor, but not as important. However. I would put the doctor in jail. If someone had the kindness to instruct these women about fetal development, many would probably not kill the fetus. You on the other hand, have been instructed, but you refuse to accept the truth. That is why you are afraid to answer my questions. Young women in trouble, who are often ignorant and under pressure, have an excuse. You are without excuse. Believe me when I tell you that it is not I who is digging a hole. StephenB

SB:

Do you realize how it appears when I answer all your questions in detail and you run away from all my questions without even a hint of a response.

Since all of your questions were answered in my previous comments, it only looks like you are too lazy to read for comprehension. So, you won't jail women who have an abortion because you think that they all suffer from diminished capacity. When you are already in a hole, it is advisable to stop digging. Armand Jacks

Armand Jacks

So, you ascribe to the theory that women are not intellectually or emotionally capable of knowing right from wrong. Good to know.

You are very confused. so much so, that you have forgotten your own question. You asked if I would put her in jail for twenty five years for murder. You didn't ask me if she committed a wrong act, or if she knew it was wrong.

Oh. And you think that women are so weak that they can’t make decisions for themselves. You might want to stop digging.

Now you are even more confused. I am referring to the legal theory of diminished capacity. Let me help you with the relevant remedial education. "In criminal law, diminished responsibility (or diminished capacity) is a potential defense by excuse by which defendants argue that although they broke the law, they should not be held fully criminally liable for doing so, as their mental functions were "diminished" or impaired." Just so that you will know, the decision making capacity of everyone, men and women, is compromised under pressure. Didn't you know that? I recommend that you do some reading on the subject. Meanwhile, you continue to dodge my questions. I am going to assume that you cannot defend your position since you are obviously afraid to try. Do you realize how it appears when I answer all your questions in detail and you run away from all my questions without even a hint of a response. StephenB

SB:

...many women do not know that a fetus is a human being because the abortionist lies to them and tells them that it is just a clump of tissue, which diminishes responsibility because of ignorance...

So, you ascribe to the theory that women are not intellectually or emotionally capable of knowing right from wrong. Good to know.

...because they are often under undue pressure from others to kill their child, which diminishes responsibility because full consent is lacking.

Oh. And you think that women are so weak that they can't make decisions for themselves. You might want to stop digging.

Also, it is no small matter that it was not her that did the killing.

No, it was just her that made the decision, planned it, and contracted someone to do it for her. We charge people with first degree murder for doing that. Armand Jacks

Armand Jacks

Then you must be in favour of charging women who have abortions with first degree murder and, if convicted, spending at least 25 years in jail. If not, why not?

I notice that you completely ignored my refutations and the difference between being fully human and being a fully developed human. If you don't understand the difference, you cannot analyze the subject properly. I also notice that you failed to provide an argument to support your notion that you have a moral right to live when a fetus doesn't. I also noticed that you did not respond to the point that the right to life has nothing to do with the developmental process. That is a lot to leave on the table. I also noticed that you have changed the subject from morality to law, presumably in an attempt to evade the refutations. To answer your question, I would not charge a woman who has had an abortion with first degree murder for two reasons: [a] many women do not know that a fetus is a human being because the abortionist lies to them and tells them that it is just a clump of tissue, which diminishes responsibility because of ignorance and [b] because they are often under undue pressure from others to kill their child, which diminishes responsibility because full consent is lacking. Also, it is no small matter that it was not her that did the killing. StephenB

SB:

Morally, a fetus has the same right to live as you do.

Then you must be in favour of charging women who have abortions with first degree murder and, if convicted, spending at least 25 years in jail. If not, why not? Armand Jacks

Armand Jacks

I didn’t say that the fetus wasn’t human. I just said that it was “completely” human. Or, more accurately, a completely developed human.

[a] You said a fetus wasn't fully human. That is not correct. It isn't possible to be human and not be fully human. A fetus is either human or it is not. If it is human, then it is fully human. It is not part giraffe or part something else. [b] It is a totally different thing to say that a fetus is not a fully "developed" human, which of course is correct, just as a ten year old boy is not a fully developed human. That is the point. You would not say that a ten year old boy is not fully buman just because he is still a developing human, would you? Of course not. So you can't say that a fetus is not fully human just because it is still developing. One must be fully human to develop at all. Morally, a fetus has the same right to live as you do. The fact that you are a fully developed (physically) and a fetus is not has nothing to do with the right to live, which is based on what person IS, not at which stage of development a person finds himself.

As you well know, my argument has never been about the humanness of the fetus, merely the status of it’s right to life.

You have presented no argument in defense of the proposition that you have any more right to live than a fetus. Do you have one? If so, this would be a good time to present it. StephenB

KF:

Finally, SB is dead right to point out that the unborn child develops, from conception, AS his or her own distinctly identifiable human being, it does not somehow evolve through Haeckel’s stages from an amoeba to a fish then a monkey or the like then finally a human being at some stage — oh, there is enough of a nervous system there or whatever [notice, how conveniently the fact of its own beating heart at 5 1/2 weeks or so, the point where some awareness that a pregnancy may be in progress is usually recognised, has been conveniently swept away by studious silence]...

I didn't say that the fetus wasn't human. I just said that it was "completely" human. Or, more accurately, a completely developed human. As you well know, my argument has never been about the humanness of the fetus, merely the status of it's right to life. I don't understand the point you are trying to make about the awareness of the pregnancy. As such, how could I have swept it away.I was talking about the self-awareness of the fetus, not the woman's awareness of the pregnancy. A woman wouldn't have an abortion if she wasn't aware of the pregnancy. And with modern home pregnancy tests, women are usually aware of the pregnancy long before the 5 1/2 week mark. But again, I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

FYI, Haeckel’s drawings were a fraud,...

Haeckel's drawings were certainly exaggerated and inaccurate, They were biased by his understanding of embryonic development but they were not a fraud. Piltdown Man was a fraud. The Shroud of Turin is a fraud. But, again, you are making statements that have absolutely no relevance to the discussion of abortion or objective morality.

Wider haeckelism on oh there is not enough of a nervous system there or other such irrelevancy tot he distinct human nature and identity of the unborn child in the womb becomes little more than a rationalisation for dehumanisation.

Are you arguing that the nervous system of the first trimester fetus is developed enough for self-awareness, consciousness and the perception of pain? If you have evidence otherwise, I will certainly modify my opinion. This is not a rationalization for dehumanization. It is a rational division based on our current knowledge of embryonic development.

Which is one characteristic symptom of targetting victims of a holocaust.

True. But irrelevant to the discussion.

The other, being denigration, projection of blameworthy stereotypes, demonisation and scapegoating.

Yes. And you would be well advised to stop doing it.You don't hear me talking about 'fellow travellers', 'others of your ilk','AJ, Pindi et al (including the fever swamp penumbra)', etc. I have been respectful and present logical arguments devoid of emotional rhetoric. The closest I came to a personal approbation was calling you an insignificant little man, but it was said in context and as a comparison to Wilberforce. By that standard we are both insignificant little men, as is everyone who comments here and on most blogs. It is not an insult, it is simply a statement of fact. The one thing that has been made very obvious is the refusal by some here to actually address the approach of early and comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to contraceptives, an approach that has been shown to significantly reduce the demand for abortion. Armand Jacks

F/N: I did a search and find the indicated Dr Phil show full episode more or less in at least two locations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7bBFtR3e5M&ytbChannel=Deniz%20Arslan and: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJNrzYHE-2s&ytbChannel=The%20Silentist I am downloading and archiving, as I suspect this will not last long online. Looks like it includes the testimony of a child sex abuse, human commoditisation and trafficking victim. Dr Phil -- for whatever it is worth -- says they spent four months validating and cross checking and she seems to be a real case. Recall, the Boys Town etc Franklin Bank case already brought up above and what happened to victims and their family including gaoling of a witness whose testimony seems to have been valid. KF PS: We should compare Olaudah Equiano's Interesting Narrative, as a testimony on the slave trade. kairosfocus

AJ, Pindi et al (including the fever swamp penumbra): WJM has responded to a direct request from me, and has provided a useful update on the swamp draining operations. Perhaps it has not registered with you that the SMICE intel-operative/ equivalent driven compromise game enmeshes people across the political spectrum. So it is no surprise to see people across the various parties caught up in honey traps and worse; that tactic is called controlled opposition, as say Mr Hastert demonstrated for the USA. (It is obvious that part of why Trump has been so ferociously attacked is that he is obviously not controlled opposition and can use tactics that the string-pullers cannot control . . . the pull the tape attempt at a late surprise obviously failed, never mind the recent obscene marches. [Recall, I do not like or support him, I am just reporting what seems a plain fact.]) KF kairosfocus

AJ, It is you and/or RVB8 and/or CR [elsewhere] who introduced the general issues of science in thread as part of what seemed to be an intended parthian shot. I responded correctively, and up to now you are unwilling to for instance acknowledge that one of the greatest works of modern science, the Newtonian Synthesis, did not actually address mechanism of causation and that even in the teeth of sharp challenge. Your constant distortions of the circumstances, suppression of facts on the table in front of you and repeated pattern of distractions, distortions and denigratory remarks does not speak well of your attitude to truth or the right, which is precisely an issue for evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or its fellow travellers. At this point, your track record above has made you into a poster-child of the sorts of problems we see coming from those unduly influenced by these dominant worldviews and cultural agendas. Finally, SB is dead right to point out that the unborn child develops, from conception, AS his or her own distinctly identifiable human being, it does not somehow evolve through Haeckel's stages from an amoeba to a fish then a monkey or the like then finally a human being at some stage -- oh, there is enough of a nervous system there or whatever [notice, how conveniently the fact of its own beating heart at 5 1/2 weeks or so, the point where some awareness that a pregnancy may be in progress is usually recognised, has been conveniently swept away by studious silence] -- that is convenient for those who are responsible for or are enabling the slaughter of 800+ millions in the womb over 40+ years, and now racing ahead at a million more per week. FYI, Haeckel's drawings were a fraud, and have been known to be such for a century and more. Wider haeckelism on oh there is not enough of a nervous system there or other such irrelevancy tot he distinct human nature and identity of the unborn child in the womb becomes little more than a rationalisation for dehumanisation. Which is one characteristic symptom of targetting victims of a holocaust. The other, being denigration, projection of blameworthy stereotypes, demonisation and scapegoating. As is plainly happening now with the agit-prop and media shadow show tactics playing out across our civilisation. KF kairosfocus

Armand Jacks

Since it is my opinion, and that of objective knowledge, that early stage fetus’ are not fully human, I really don’t think your point carries any meaning.

No. A human being, which has DNA right from the beginning, does not develop into a human being, it develops as a human being. StephenB

WJM, its just that your "sources" say this is part of PG "going mainstream" with a chain of "multiple arrests leading up the food chain" branching out into politics, and that the Oklahoma senator is "the latest". You said it, so you must think it means something. The latest what? The latest example in the US of a person having sex with a minor? I'm sure its out of date by now. Pindi

WM:

I’m not going to debate it or elaborate.

For very good reasons. Armand Jacks

Pindi & AJ: I'm providing some information KF asked about. I'm not going to debate it or elaborate. Those who want to check into it can do so. William J Murray

Pindi:

WJM, is the Oklahoma State rep this guy?

Hmmm. This sounds like the 52 year old married Conservative Canadian Senator who, by the way, is also a Christian pastor nominated to the senate for his moral Christian values, who had sex with a 16 year old minor while being a senator. Claiming that he is being persecuted by racist liberals. Armand Jacks

WJM, is the Oklahoma State rep this guy? https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/oklahoma/articles/2017-03-16/oklahoma-senate-punishes-senator-found-with-teen-in-motel A conservative republican senator who is alleged to have had sex with a teenage boy. What is the connection of this with PG? Pindi

KF: seen.life is the facebook alternative. It uses pretty much the same interface and software. The PG issue went mainstream on the Dr. Phil show on March 21, you can find the whole show on Youtube. It wasn't referred to as PG but my sources say it's part of an acclimation effort to mainstream knowledge of the issue and how bad/pervasive it really is. It's a very disturbing show. When they cut to the faces of the audience - the shock and disbelief - you get a measure of how difficult it is to bring this issue into the light. There have been multiple arrests heading up the food chain and branching out into multiple school networks (at all levels), law-enforcement (at all levels) and politics (the latest being an Oklahoma state rep.) Some mainstream coverage has recently been given to the fact that there is a nationwide epidemic of missing young black girls - probably because several celebrities have gotten involved. It just gets worse and worse. Bringing it to light (what the community calls "red-pilling", from the movie The Matrix), is the hard part. It's very difficult for average people to believe how ugly, deep and widespread it is. Political cartoon by Ben Garrisson - note the Podesta octopus in the upper left hand corner. William J Murray

KF:

AJ, I see you on a tangent again;

All I did was respond to your comments so if I am off on a tangent it is because you took us there.

As in, years ago here at UD we took a look at how beavers create dams and lodges adapted to the particular circumstances of a given situation.

I wasn't aware that beavers wrote "text (not to mention the associated execution machinery) in such quantities — 100 to 1,000 k bits [OOL] to 10 – 100+ mn bits [OO body plans]? It looks like you are going off on a tangent. But let's go down that road. Can you provide supporting evidence that the beaver dams and lodges are intelligently designed? Or are they the result of instinct and reflex? Beavers raised from kit without ever seeing dams or lodges will still build them when released to the wild. As well, without any knowledge of beavers and without seeing them build these structures, you would be very hard pressed to conclude that they were designed and not just the outcome of water movement and the fact that wood floats. There are plenty of instances of naturally occurring dams and piles formed by branches and sticks.

Indeed, given evidence of design of the physical cosmos, we cannot even confine design inferences to materially embodied designers.

Except that there is no compelling evidence that the universe is designed.

PS: On Newton, you apparently are unaware of the huge debates that he faced linked to for instance the notion of action at a distance.

No, I am not unaware of it. I just don't see where it is relevant to this discussion.

I again point to how Wilberforce dealt with an institutionally entrenched trade that commoditised human life, creating holocaust level slaughter in the process; illustrating his insight that reform of culture, heart, mind and soul must come first to lead to enforceable reform of law.

He was a man with significant influence in the most powerful country in the western world at the time. He laid the legal groundwork for the abolition of slavery. But that wasn't sufficient to make a permanent change in the western world. It still required people with less influence to take direct action, including violence. The underground railroad is an example. And, ultimately, it took one of the most violent eras in US history (the Civil war) to finally make it a thing of the past. You are, relatively speaking, an insignificant little man from an insignificant little island, commenting on an insignificant little blog and web-site. And before you start screaming "ad-hominem", I am also an insignificant little man from an insignificant little country. Comparing what you do to what Wilberforce did is just self-delusion. Since you have no hope of influencing the abortion rate through political influence, the most effective approach would be direct action, which you refuse to do. Myself, on the other hand, have taken direct action on two occasions. I twice witnessed an aggressive pro-lifer harrassing women entering an abortion clinic. In both cases I physically stood between the woman and the pro-lifer so that the women could enter the clinic unmolested. I then called the police, after which the pro-lifer was arrested and sentenced to some jail time (repeat offender). Direct action does not always require violence. But, even Wilberforce would have supported the charging and severe punishment of anyone caught continuing to profit from the slave trade after its abolition. Your hesitance to support the same thing for women having abortions after you succeed in making it illegal speaks volumes. And not in your favour. Armand Jacks

AJ, I see you on a tangent again; here the hoary old fallacy that we may only infer to HUMAN design from empirical evidence. Not even wrong, wrong-headed -- as we all know that humans do not exhaust the list of either potential or actually observed much less potential designers. As in, years ago here at UD we took a look at how beavers create dams and lodges adapted to the particular circumstances of a given situation. Nor are beavers the only other things that may do designs. And obviously, we may distinguish secondary designers that show signs of being designed themselves (check out our DNA and the text therein) from primary, reality roots level designers. Indeed, given evidence of design of the physical cosmos, we cannot even confine design inferences to materially embodied designers. For that matter, given the huge gulch between computation and contemplation, we cannot even say that design is a computational process on a computing substrate. Not that I expect any of this to move you any more than the rest of the many correctives from multiple sources above. I suggest -- i/l/o the focus of this thread -- you and ilk ponder that there are two distinct types of ignorance, primary due to non-exposure or lack of a base, and secondary due to indoctrination that polarises and distorts. KF PS: On Newton, you apparently are unaware of the huge debates that he faced linked to for instance the notion of action at a distance. PPS: BTW, are you aware of the interaction between Wilberforce and Pitt, hinted at in the epitaph for Wilberforce on his statue in the Abbey? Do you understand the principle that the lessons of sound history were bought with blood and tears, so that those who ignore or dismiss them doom themselves to pay the same coin over and over again? (Your consistent attempts to dismiss the relevance of the leadership of the first great democratising reforms for today makes me wonder how history is being taught or not taught, today. I again point to how Wilberforce dealt with an institutionally entrenched trade that commoditised human life, creating holocaust level slaughter in the process; illustrating his insight that reform of culture, heart, mind and soul must come first to lead to enforceable reform of law. In his case, the same Royal Navy that started by viewing the slavers as a chief recruitment pool, stood guard at significant cost off the coasts of Africa for a full century to suppress the slave trade. And BTW, there are hints that something like this may need to be done again; slavery is in the shadows but for cause there is still an active anti-slavery society. While I am at it, could I suggest that the porn- prostitution- child sex abuse- perversion trade is yet another commoditisation of the human being that is a source of great corruption, one that is not exactly without casualties including fatalities? Indeed a recent case seems to indicate that the longstanding rumours of "snuff" porn -- to our horror -- have some truth to them. And of course where corruption is, dirty money, the power-class nexus and the SMICE strategy cannot be far away; the S tells us that cynical intel operators know the first lever of extortion connects to shady sex. Drugs are likely to be implicated. Money-laundering, is of course the next door neighbour to all of these things. Maybe WJM can give us an update.) PPS: Rubbish dressed up in statistical clothes only manages to taint the statistics. The search space challenge tells us why FSCO/I is not going to come from blind search, and this is confirmed quite well by random document generation exercises that peter out a factor of 10^100 short of the FSCO/I threshold of complexity. Intelligently directed configuration is the only empirically warranted sufficient cause of FSCO/I and there is no good reason to lock down the scope of potential designers to humans, as the main comment notes. kairosfocus

KF:

You have already been pointed to a direct historical exemplar, the reformation from the slave trade as led by Wilberforce especially.

And I have pointed out repeatedly that it still took extreme violence to actually end slavery. Larger death toll than all other wars combined. And, once the slave trade was abolished, people were charged and jailed for it. You have yet to respond as to why you don't think that women should be charged with first degree murder and jailed accordingly for the premeditated murder of a human being. To do otherwise either acknowledges that early stage abortions really aren't the same as killing a baby or you are being hypocritical. If you have another explanation, I am all ears.

Just remember, it is Wilberforce who lies next to Pitt in Westminster Abbey, not any of the champions of the West India Interest. KF

That is not an argument for the relevance of Wilberforce to this discussion. Darwin is buried in the abbey as well.

PS: Re Darwin, it is patent that artificial selection by breeding techniques is a means of intelligent design. So, Darwin used an example of ID to try to justify (or at least make plausible) the powers of blind mechanisms.

Did he or anyone suggest otherwise? All he did was posit the nature might act on natural variation in an undirected fashion in a similar manner that humans do with breeding. And then he also provided many examples from nature.

That is a bait-switch if this is then used to EXCLUDE ID from consideration.

That is not used to exclude ID. The lack of testing, predictions, evidence and a possible mechanism is what excludes ID.

Beyond, this system and its extensions fail as there is no adequate, empirically warranted blind mechanism for writing significant quantities of functionally specific text.

We have gone over this before. An extrapolation from zero degrees of freedom (human design) is statistically invalid.

The only empirically warranted, credible source of such text (not to mention the associated execution machinery) in such quantities — 100 to 1,000 k bits [OOL] to 10 – 100+ mn bits [OO body plans] — is HUMAN design;

There. I corrected it for you. Armand Jacks

WJM, yup -- and meanwhile they cry up to the heavens about the censorship of old. It looks a lot like, their problem is not censorship but that they wanted to be the censors. So, they have a new cluster of scarlet letters to brand those they wish to lock out and having duly smeared, proceed to censor and de-platform away with apparent impunity. Some suggest, fork open source projects and create alternative platforms. For Youtube, is Vimeo a good alternative? What else? I see Gab for Twitter. I have heard of InfoGalactic as a Wikipedia fork, and know of New World Encyclopedia online. I know not what is there for Facebook, though Linked In may be useful professionally. I strongly suggest get into blogging, noting that Word Press can be hosted locally and that it is robust enough as a CMS to host online newspapers etc. I am suggesting the time has come to build cyber schools of all sorts. I use alternatives to MS whenever I can -- I highly recommend LibreOffice -- and will have nothing to do with Apple products. If you get a Kindle book you care about, convert it to a format you control, and print a PDF copy. I am suggesting go Android and go Linux for OS. (where is Ubuntu these days?) And so forth. But in the end I am saying that nothing beats print and radio, including shortwave radio. I have lived through a mini civil war and saw how a good newspaper and a good radio station can save a nation. KF PS: How goes the investigation? kairosfocus

YouTube is now eliminating the ability of people to monetize their uploads if their content is deemed "offensive" (meaning: conservative or otherwise not in line with approved thinking) and removing them from common searches. Google has already banned ads from some conservative websites they have classified as "extremist". They are now attempting to re-establish their stranglehold on media information and choke off avenues of dissent. William J Murray

F/N: Meanwhile, it looks like the narrative that we have "right wing" "fascists" and "extremists" taking over social media is now being used to impose a purge, through the key businesses being dominated by the progressivist narrative and through the notion that it is okay to do almost anything to a "nazi." Scapegoating and targetting work. Ironically, when bake shop owners -- equally private enterprises -- simply wish to give up jobs that would run counter to conscience [if you really just want a cake for a mockery of a wedding under false colour of law (marriage, properly is closely tied to our inherent nature as male and female and the linked requisites of sound child nurture), just go next door . . . ], they too are targetted as "extremists" and are hounded out of business. So, we see the game plan of slanderous labelling/ branding as extremists in order to delegitimise the target in the eyes of many, the better to rob of basic rights. More agit prop and media narrative games, it looks like. The march of folly continues, apace heading for the cliff edge faster and faster. KF kairosfocus

PS: Re Darwin, it is patent that artificial selection by breeding techniques is a means of intelligent design. So, Darwin used an example of ID to try to justify (or at least make plausible) the powers of blind mechanisms. That is a bait-switch if this is then used to EXCLUDE ID from consideration. Which, it routinely has been for 150+ years. Beyond, this system and its extensions fail as there is no adequate, empirically warranted blind mechanism for writing significant quantities of functionally specific text. Which -- ever since Crick in 1953 -- is precisely what we find in the heart of the living cell, its DNA. The only empirically warranted, credible source of such text (not to mention the associated execution machinery) in such quantities -- 100 to 1,000 k bits [OOL] to 10 - 100+ mn bits [OO body plans] -- is design; esp. given that needle in haystack search thresholds for sol system and observed cosmos are conservatively 500 - 1,000 bits; and where the search space doubles for every additional bit, this is an exponential phenomenon. Such would not be even controversial, apart from the imposition of evolutionism that demands that somehow, copious text wrote itself from lucky noise filtered by incremental functional improvement leading to culling out the less successful varieties. The truth is, this begs the main question, how do we get to the shores of an island of function in a vast sea of non-functional configs, on sol system [body plan origin] or observed cosmos [OOL] scale resources including time. Consistently, this challenge will be ducked, diverted from, distorted into a strawman caricature and more, showing that there is no cogent answer on the actual merits. kairosfocus

AJ, the rhetorical game continues. You have already been pointed to a direct historical exemplar, the reformation from the slave trade as led by Wilberforce especially. That trade [whether trans-Saharan, Trans-Atlantic or Trans Indian Ocean), as you were pointed to, was associated with a holocaust-scale death toll and was of genocidal character. The solution then as now as to win the recognition that a great evil was being carried out that was ruinous to us and to civilisation. After that was won, the Royal Navy stood off Africa for a century policing it as it had policed piracy. There are many direct parallels to the ongoing abortion holocaust [starting with commoditising human life and human rights], evident save to those suffering secondary ignorance due to indoctrination and blood guilt through direct participation and/or enabling. A glance at the thread above esp. at the attempts to denigrate, discredit and dismiss those pointing to awful facts speaks for itself. Speaks on record that is not going to go away. Speaks, exposing the agit-prop tactics and media shadow show games that are propping up what cannot stand on its own legs, a great evil. That is enough, and this case in point of the corruption of thought, reasoning, conscience and key responsible institutions all too aptly shows the force of WJM's point in the OP. Just remember, it is Wilberforce who lies next to Pitt in Westminster Abbey, not any of the champions of the West India Interest. KF kairosfocus

Notice, you are the ONLY person who has suggested gaoling women for abortions?

I am not recommending it. I am simply pointing out the inconsistency in your beliefs.

Just as you persistently tried to do by suggesting we should be engaging in violent direct action while brushing aside the highly relevant historical paradigm case of reform from a major abuse, Wilberforce.

I have never recommended violence. I just said that if I witnessed an actual holocaust taking place, and I was in a position to do something about it, I would use violence if necessary to stop it. Wilberforce may have had much to do with the legal abolition of slavery in the western world, as did Darwin's grandfathers interestingly enough, but it took a civil war that killed more US citizens than all other wars combined to actually end slavery in the western world.

Similar cases of rhetorical enabling include the attempt to suggest that numbers of abortions have been lower in recent years, or to try to couple abortions to reduced levels of crime [note: the baby boom generation is aging (now past child-bearing with the first cohorts at retirement age) and incarceration rates have been quite high, much more direct causal factors for all of the above], trying to press us on support for activist led sexuality education etc.

I have never tried to couple abortion rates and the level of crime so I won't dignify this part of your comment with a response.. I have not suggested that the number of abortions are lower, just that the rate has decreased. This rate takes into account the demographics of women.

FYI, that pattern is a clear sign of attempted rhetorical justification of abortionism, and it is enabling behaviour.

How is pointing out that the rate of abortion is decreasing a justification of abortion? That statement just doesn't make sense.

Your obvious anger at our pointing out that we speak here of the mass killing of innocent posterity in the womb, amounting to 800+ millions in 40+ years and going at a million more per week in terms of holocaust, likewise speaks for itself.

Again, you are assigning emotions to me that do not exist. I simply point out to you that your over the top hyperbole in this regard hurts your argument rather than helping it. You can take my advice or leave it. It doesn't matter to me.

The reality is, we all once were as posterity in the womb now is, and we can confidently predict that once the hysteria whipped up and sustained by interests subsides, the mass killing of unborn children the womb will be seen for what it is, a crime against humanity. A holocaust that enmeshed a generation in mass blood guilt that then corrupted thought, conscience, rights, law, education, policy, politics and more.

And we charge and imprison people responsible for crimes against humanity. This is where your ridiculous hyperbole hurts your argument. You are trying to convince people who are sitting on the fence that abortion should be made illegal. Most people have a close friend or two who have had an abortion. Calling their friends the equivalent of war criminals and worse will only drive more people away. But as I mentioned above, you are free to continue alienating possible allies if you want. But it is definitely a failing strategy.

As for other things that catch my eye, it is simply not true that strengths and limitations of science and its methods on dealing with traces from and reconstructions of the unobservable deep past of origins are adequately addressed.

That is not the case in my country. I can speak from my own personal experience.

As for attempted goal-shifting on the significance of Newton identifying a major law without giving a mechanism...,

There was no goal shifting. Newton understood that mass and distance greatly affected gravity (i.e., mechanism). It was just how the force itself was created that he did not know. And we still do not fully understand.

the consequences of the simple conclusion that FSCO/I (or the like) beyond 500 – 1,000 bits of information is a reliable sign of design as cause speaks straight to D/RNA and proteins in the cell, thus origin and diversity of life.

This is all an extrapolation from a single source of design (human) to what we see in nature. Extrapolation from zero degrees of freedom is statistically invalid.

As for the attempt to deflect the observed fact of primitive gene and cell engineering as indicators of FSCO/I by design as fact, the deflection speaks for itself as to want of genuine substance.

As far as I am aware, genetic engineers have not created any FSCO/I. They have merely transferred it from one organism to another, or reduced it by excising it. Something that bacteria have been doing for billions of years.

And of course breeding and associated artificial selection are forms of intelligently directed configuration of life forms. Darwin’s adroit use of intelligent design as a model for imagined powers from first life up to the tree of life is a classic of successful bait and switch rhetoric.

Calling Darwin's arguments a bait and switch is just ridiculous. He used animal husbandry and breeding to demonstrate what selective reproduction can do and suggested that something similar could occur naturally, as has been demonstrated hundreds of times since then. Armand Jacks

AJ, Notice, you are the ONLY person who has suggested gaoling women for abortions? In short, you here set up and knock over a strawman. Just as you persistently tried to do by suggesting we should be engaging in violent direct action while brushing aside the highly relevant historical paradigm case of reform from a major abuse, Wilberforce. Another similar exercise above was the attempt made to conflate deliberate killing of unborn children in the womb with the unfortunate miscarriage of a child. Similar cases of rhetorical enabling include the attempt to suggest that numbers of abortions have been lower in recent years, or to try to couple abortions to reduced levels of crime [note: the baby boom generation is aging (now past child-bearing with the first cohorts at retirement age) and incarceration rates have been quite high, much more direct causal factors for all of the above], trying to press us on support for activist led sexuality education etc. FYI, that pattern is a clear sign of attempted rhetorical justification of abortionism, and it is enabling behaviour. Your obvious anger at our pointing out that we speak here of the mass killing of innocent posterity in the womb, amounting to 800+ millions in 40+ years and going at a million more per week in terms of holocaust, likewise speaks for itself. The reality is, we all once were as posterity in the womb now is, and we can confidently predict that once the hysteria whipped up and sustained by interests subsides, the mass killing of unborn children the womb will be seen for what it is, a crime against humanity. A holocaust that enmeshed a generation in mass blood guilt that then corrupted thought, conscience, rights, law, education, policy, politics and more. I say that because I can look on the fate of what was once a mainstay of the global economy: the slave trade. I also spoke to a sort of mass delusion, with warped thinking sustained by media shadow shows, agit prop, interests and money. This is a reason why we need a truth and reconciliation commission in coming years, to face the truth together on how we became caught up in such a sad situation. And no, this does not need to be a Nuremberg, indeed the only custodial care envisioned is that some of the more responsible may need to go on long term suicide watch. As for other things that catch my eye, it is simply not true that strengths and limitations of science and its methods on dealing with traces from and reconstructions of the unobservable deep past of origins are adequately addressed. As for attempted goal-shifting on the significance of Newton identifying a major law without giving a mechanism, the consequences of the simple conclusion that FSCO/I (or the like) beyond 500 - 1,000 bits of information is a reliable sign of design as cause speaks straight to D/RNA and proteins in the cell, thus origin and diversity of life. It does so by putting up a causal factor on inference to best, empirically anchored explanation that gives an observed adequate means of generating FSCO/I. The institutionalised ideological imposition of a priori evolutionary materialism in our day cannot pass this test of Newton's Rules. As for the attempt to deflect the observed fact of primitive gene and cell engineering as indicators of FSCO/I by design as fact, the deflection speaks for itself as to want of genuine substance. And of course breeding and associated artificial selection are forms of intelligently directed configuration of life forms. Darwin's adroit use of intelligent design as a model for imagined powers from first life up to the tree of life is a classic of successful bait and switch rhetoric. But that is even more tangential to the purpose of this thread, which is why that commonplace point was not put in. (Isn't it ironic that if we are selective, tangents are dragged in to try to make us seem ignorant, and if we are more comprehensive, even by linking, we are accused of making long, pedantic screeds. Attacked if you do, attacked if you don't. Conclusion long since in place, just find a few talking points to virtue signal and "guide" to the predetermined conclusion.) And so forth, this is enough to show the pattern relevant to the theme in the OP. KF kairosfocus

KF:

1: Your attempts to deflect or dismiss do absolutely nothing to change the fact that human life begins at conception and that each conceived human being is from the very beginning distinct from her or his mother.

Have I ever suggested that human life does not begin at conception? That would be a very silly claim to make.

2: Nor have you or others been able to justify the taking of 800+ million lives across a generation under false colours of law and rights.

I never attempted to justify it. I want to significantly reduce those numbers. But I am not willing to put women in jail to do it.

3: Your further moves above only show that you think you have enough rhetorical power to get away with dismissing and studiously ignoring the issue, while projecting accusations against those who insist on pointing to the ghost in the room.

Not rhetorical power. Just examining the scientific evidence, the historical evidence and applying logic to the issue. I have made no accusations against anyone.

4: You cannot answer the issue, so you attack the man.

Attacking the man's logic, assumptions and conclusions is not attacking the man. You would be wise to remember that.

5: False, Science routinely investigates the products of art. Science investigates the empirical world seeking to accurately describe, explain, predict and where applicable give means of influence and/or control. (For a current case notice how scientific counsel on environmental interventions is routinely sought.)

Are you suggesting that the arts are supernatural processes?

6: You have also brushed aside evidence of ideological censorship and imposition.

No I haven't. The fact that you don't accept my responses on this do not mean that I have brushed them aside.

7: Yet another strawman caricature.

Actually it is not. When they are prevented from teaching ID in the science class, many don't respond to the criticisms raised about ID, they cry censorship. That is just a fact.

8: This is after over 50 papers are in the literature in the teeth of great hostility and yes censorship — the investigations of several cases demonstrate that.

How many of those specifically mention ID? How many specifically provide testable hypotheses about ID and include results of these tests? How many are published in BioComplexity by one of the journal's editors? If you submit a paper that is logically sound and provides compelling supporting evidence for ID, it will be published. It may be strongly criticized, but it will be published. Given all of the thousands of words that you have published on the subject, how many papers on ID have you submitted to a peer reviewed science journal? Of all those who claim censorship, how many have posted these rejected papers on-line along with the reviewers comments so that others can judge the validity of the rejection for themselves? I would certainly be interested in reading these.

9: In the classroom, it is fair comment to note that the nature, strengths and limitations of science and its methods are too often poorly taught, especially on issues of the unobservable deep past of origins.

When I went through high school in the seventies and universities in the eighties, the limitations and weaknesses of science were dealt with quite thoroughly. More so in university than in high school, but that is to be expected. I can't speak for other school systems, but I have not seen this in the country I live in.

11: For telling example, when Newton identified the law of gravitation, he did not have a clue as to how it worked or how apparent action at a distance happened. This was the work that truly settled the cultural debates over science.

True. But he was able to model it to levels of accuracy sufficient to put a man on the moon (if you believe that nonsense). And he could support it with copious observations and measurements. He defined how it works, just not the underlying mechanism behind it. Even doing something like this would put ID on much firmer ground. Develop a model to explain how ID works (like evolutionary theory does) and back it up with examples ( as evolutionary theory does) with supporting evidence from different fields of science (as evolutionary theory does), etc.

12: The core design inference is based on the power of inductive logic, and it is open to falsification. Namely, we can readily identify observable characteristics and can trace their observed causes and make the appropriate connexions in thought.

Which is known to work quite well for human designed artifacts. But has not been demonstrated to work for biological structures. All you have is, 'wow, that looks complicated. Must be designed'.

13: In this case, functionally specific complex organisation and associated information is obvious from trillions aof cases. It is characteristic as a result of intelligently directed configuration, is readily observed to come about by this means, and it is never seen to come about by any combination of blind chance and mechanical necessity, justifying an inductive inference that it is a reliable sign of design as cause of FSCO/I (or other related abbreviations).

Yes, it is obvious in trillions of man made things. I concede this. But we already know that man made things are man made. Statistically speaking, you are not talking about trillions of cases. You are talking about one. Human designs. That would be zero degrees of freedom. You can't make any statistical inferences with zero degrees of freedom.

16: To test, simply provide a case that breaks this threshold. To date eg random documents generation exercises are a factor of 10^100 short of the lower end of the threshold zone.

Not when you include a feedback system. And evolution has feedback galore.

17: And, thanks to Venter et al, we know some adequate though primitive means to get to FSCO/I in the world of life, by genetic engineering. So there are known mechanisms also.

I was wondering when the have your cake and eat it too argument would surface. One of the arguments used by ID against a natural origin of life is that we have not been able to create life in a lab. Now you are arguing that the fact that humans can genetically engineer life tat that is evidence for ID. You do realize that many of the examples used in Origin of Species were examples of genetic engineering.

18: Your parthian shot side track fails and fails in a way that exposes the projections involved in your attempt to attack the man.

Again, provide me with an example where I have attacked the man. As I said above, an attack on a man's logic and conclusions is not an attack on the man. Even an attack on a man's ideology is not an attack on the man. Armand Jacks

Wiki on Moon landing conspiracism makes a telling admission against interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Origins >>An early and influential book about the subject of a moon-landing conspiracy, We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle, was self-published in 1976 by Bill Kaysing.[8] Despite having no knowledge of rockets, or technical writing[9] Kaysing, a former U.S. Navy officer with a Bachelor of Arts in English, was hired as a senior technical writer in 1956 by Rocketdyne, the company which built the F-1 engines used on the Saturn V rocket.[10][11] He served as head of the technical publications unit at the company's Propulsion Field Laboratory until 1963. Kaysing's book made many allegations, and effectively began discussion of the Moon landings being faked.[12][13] The book claims that the chance of a successful manned landing on the Moon was calculated to be 0.0017%, and that despite close monitoring by the USSR, it would have been easier for NASA to fake the Moon landings than to really go there.[14][15] In 1980, the Flat Earth Society accused NASA of faking the landings, arguing that they were staged by Hollywood with Walt Disney sponsorship, based on a script by Arthur C. Clarke and directed by Stanley Kubrick.[Note 1][16] Folklorist Linda Dégh suggests that writer-director Peter Hyams' 1978 film Capricorn One, which shows a hoaxed journey to Mars in a spacecraft that looks identical to the Apollo craft, might have given a boost to the hoax theory's popularity in the post-Vietnam War era. She notes that this happened during the post-Watergate era, when American citizens were inclined to distrust official accounts. Dégh writes: "The mass media catapult these half-truths into a kind of twilight zone where people can make their guesses sound as truths. Mass media have a terrible impact on people who lack guidance."[17] In A Man on the Moon,[18] first published in 1994, Andrew Chaikin mentions that at the time of Apollo 8's lunar-orbit mission in December 1968,[19] similar conspiracy ideas were already in circulation.[20 --> If the mass media are so powerful at manipulation, we must ask, who guides the guides? --> As a counter to all such games and agendas, let me cite, again, Simon Greenleaf:

Evidence, in legal acceptation, includes all the means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is established or disproved . . . None but mathematical truth is susceptible of that high degree of evidence, called demonstration, which excludes all possibility of error [--> Greenleaf wrote almost 100 years before Godel], and which, therefore, may reasonably be required in support of every mathematical deduction. [--> that is, his focus is on the logic of good support for in principle uncertain conclusions, i.e. in the modern sense, inductive logic and reasoning in real world, momentous contexts with potentially serious consequences.] Matters of fact are proved by moral evidence alone; by which is meant, not only that kind of evidence which is employed on subjects connected with moral conduct, but all the evidence which is not obtained either from intuition, or from demonstration. In the ordinary affairs of life, we do not require demonstrative evidence, because it is not consistent with the nature of the subject, and to insist upon it would be unreasonable and absurd. [--> the issue of warrant to moral certainty, beyond reasonable doubt; and the contrasted absurdity of selective hyperskepticism.] The most that can be affirmed of such things, is, that there is no reasonable doubt concerning them. [--> moral certainty standard, and this is for the proverbial man in the Clapham bus stop, not some clever determined advocate or skeptic motivated not to see or assent to what is warranted.] The true question, therefore, in trials of fact, is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but, whether there is sufficient probability of its truth; that is, whether the facts are shown by competent and satisfactory evidence. Things established by competent and satisfactory evidence are said to be proved. [--> pistis enters; we might as well learn the underlying classical Greek word that addresses the three levers of persuasion, pathos- ethos- logos and its extension to address worldview level warranted faith-commitment and confident trust on good grounding, through the impact of the Judaeo-Christian tradition in C1 as was energised by the 500 key witnesses.] By competent evidence, is meant that which the very-nature of the thing to be proved requires, as the fit and appropriate proof in the particular case, such as the production of a writing, where its contents are the subject of inquiry. By satisfactory evidence, which is sometimes called sufficient evidence, is intended that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind [--> in British usage, the man in the Clapham bus stop], beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances which will amount to this degree of proof can never be previously defined; the only legal [--> and responsible] test of which they are susceptible, is their sufficiency to satisfy the mind and conscience of a common man; and so to convince him, that he would venture to act upon that conviction, in matters of the highest concern and importance to his own interest. [= definition of moral certainty as a balanced unprejudiced judgement beyond reasonable, responsible doubt. Obviously, i/l/o wider concerns, while scientific facts as actually observed may meet this standard, scientific explanatory frameworks such as hypotheses, models, laws and theories cannot as they are necessarily provisional and in many cases have had to be materially modified, substantially re-interpreted to the point of implied modification, or outright replaced; so a modicum of prudent caution is warranted in such contexts -- explanatory frameworks are empirically reliable so far on various tests, not utterly certain. ] [A Treatise on Evidence, Vol I, 11th edn. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1888) ch 1., sections 1 and 2. Shorter paragraphs added. (NB: Greenleaf was a founder of the modern Harvard Law School and is regarded as a founding father of the modern Anglophone school of thought on evidence, in large part on the strength of this classic work.)]

KF kairosfocus

AJ: >>I have addressed the over the top hyperbole of statements like this on numerous occasions.>> 1: Your attempts to deflect or dismiss do absolutely nothing to change the fact that human life begins at conception and that each conceived human being is from the very beginning distinct from her or his mother. 2: Nor have you or others been able to justify the taking of 800+ million lives across a generation under false colours of law and rights. 3: Your further moves above only show that you think you have enough rhetorical power to get away with dismissing and studiously ignoring the issue, while projecting accusations against those who insist on pointing to the ghost in the room. >>I have no desire to continue this discussion any further as it obvious that you have no desire for an honest and open discussion. >> 4: You cannot answer the issue, so you attack the man. >>The scientific process is only capable of examining and postulating on natural processes. That is what it was designed to do. There has always been resistance to change, as there is in every human endeavour, but it is not censorship.>> 5: False, Science routinely investigates the products of art. Science investigates the empirical world seeking to accurately describe, explain, predict and where applicable give means of influence and/or control. (For a current case notice how scientific counsel on environmental interventions is routinely sought.) 6: You have also brushed aside evidence of ideological censorship and imposition. >>Censorship claims are too often the fall back for ID proponents who are not allowed to teach their ideas in the science class. >> 7: Yet another strawman caricature. >>Start doing real science on ID instead of simply identifying gaps and weaknesses in current evolutionary understanding. Gaps and weaknesses, I might add, that are identified and published by scientists doing work in the field. >> 8: This is after over 50 papers are in the literature in the teeth of great hostility and yes censorship -- the investigations of several cases demonstrate that. 9: In the classroom, it is fair comment to note that the nature, strengths and limitations of science and its methods are too often poorly taught, especially on issues of the unobservable deep past of origins. >>Without postulating the nature of the designer and the mechanisms used by the designer to take the designs from the drawing board to the display room floor (earth), you do not have a scientifically testable and falsifiable theory.>> 10: Rubbish. Rubbish sustained in the teeth of repeated correction because it sounds good to the ill-informed. 11: For telling example, when Newton identified the law of gravitation, he did not have a clue as to how it worked or how apparent action at a distance happened. This was the work that truly settled the cultural debates over science. 12: The core design inference is based on the power of inductive logic, and it is open to falsification. Namely, we can readily identify observable characteristics and can trace their observed causes and make the appropriate connexions in thought. 13: In this case, functionally specific complex organisation and associated information is obvious from trillions aof cases. It is characteristic as a result of intelligently directed configuration, is readily observed to come about by this means, and it is never seen to come about by any combination of blind chance and mechanical necessity, justifying an inductive inference that it is a reliable sign of design as cause of FSCO/I (or other related abbreviations). 14: Just to compose your objection, you composed yet another case in point. It is THAT plainly obvious. 15: Such is then backed up by search challenge for islands of function in configuration spaces, yielding the obvious reason for the empirical observation: blind search cannot search enough on available resources at sol system or observed cosmos scope, for 500 - 1000 bits as threshold. 16: To test, simply provide a case that breaks this threshold. To date eg random documents generation exercises are a factor of 10^100 short of the lower end of the threshold zone. 17: And, thanks to Venter et al, we know some adequate though primitive means to get to FSCO/I in the world of life, by genetic engineering. So there are known mechanisms also. 18: Your parthian shot side track fails and fails in a way that exposes the projections involved in your attempt to attack the man. KF kairosfocus

KF:

AJ, the dehumanisation of our posterity in the teeth of the evidence has led to holocaust under false colour of law. KF

I have addressed the over the top hyperbole of statements like this on numerous occasions. As you refuse to address this, I have no desire to continue this discussion any further as it obvious that you have no desire for an honest and open discussion.

PS: You have fallen into exactly the trap the NSTA did, preloading evolutionary materialistic scientism into your understanding of science as a controlling ideological commitment, leading to grand question begging and censorship.

I haven't fallen into any trap. The scientific process is only capable of examining and postulating on natural processes. That is what it was designed to do. There has always been resistance to change, as there is in every human endeavour, but it is not censorship. Censorship claims are too often the fall back for ID proponents who are not allowed to teach their ideas in the science class. There is a very simple solution to this problem. Start doing real science on ID instead of simply identifying gaps and weaknesses in current evolutionary understanding. Gaps and weaknesses, I might add, that are identified and published by scientists doing work in the field. Without postulating the nature of the designer and the mechanisms used by the designer to take the designs from the drawing board to the display room floor (earth), you do not have a scientifically testable and falsifiable theory. I know that these words are difficult for you to hear, but sometimes tough love is necessary. Armand Jacks

AJ, the dehumanisation of our posterity in the teeth of the evidence has led to holocaust under false colour of law. KF PS: You have fallen into exactly the trap the NSTA did, preloading evolutionary materialistic scientism into your understanding of science as a controlling ideological commitment, leading to grand question begging and censorship. The key claims end up being beyond empirical test through that question-begging and censorship. Which instantly shows they are not scientific. In that context, "pseudo-scientific" does little more than indulge in branding the heretic. kairosfocus

KF:

You have actually managed to confirm the dehumanisation of our posterity in the womb and how that contributes to the ongoing holocaust under false colour of law.

Since it is my opinion, and that of objective knowledge, that early stage fetus' are not fully human, I really don't think your point carries any meaning.

PS: BTW, i am not speculating about conspiracies, I have spoken to quite well known agendas and impositions driven by worldviews.

Your clip centres around the fact that the US National Science Teachers Association states that science teaching should be limited to naturalistic concepts and that pseudoscience should not be taught. Given that science, by definition and limitations, can only address naturalistic processes, your objection is rediculous. If you have compelling scientific evidence for something, it could be taught in the science class. Your objection to not teaching pseudo-science made me laugh. A "loaded word""? Maybe we should teach pseudo-math in math class, pseudo-chemistry in chemistry class and pseudo-physics in physics class. Pseudo-science is a well understood term. Examples include astrology, phrenology, numerology and scientific creationism. The couple concise :) examples you have detailed in several hundred words and links to several thousand more words as a response to my request have been responded to on WM's thread. Armand Jacks

PS: As for the no [compelling] evidence gambit above, that classic selectively hyperskeptical dodge not only fails to address the implications of subjectivism (as Ruse and Wilson overlooked) but also it simply brushes aside a very specific argument linked several times in this thread that starts with a yardstick self-evident moral truth. Cf. here: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_morals Your response as to how this fails to provide ADEQUATE evidence that we are under moral government rather than the general delusion of morality is: _____________, and if you are right, a "compelling" reason why we should trust arguments leading to such a conclusion, reasoning in general, purported experiences of a real world, etc is: ________ . kairosfocus

F/N: Will Hawthorne of Atheism is dead weighs in on amorality of such physicalist schemes:

Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' [the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action . . . [We see] therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'. For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don't like this consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time. Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit. Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can't infer 'ought' from [a material] 'is'. [Emphases and paragraphing added.]

kairosfocus

F/N: On amorality and/or morality as delusion, Ruse and Wilson in a 1991 essay:

The time has come to take seriously the fact [--> This is a gross error at the outset, as macro-evolution is a theory (an explanation) about the unobserved past of origins and so cannot be a fact on the level of the observed roundness of the earth or the orbiting of planets around the sun etc.] that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day . . . We must think again especially about our so-called ‘ethical principles.’ The question is not whether biology—specifically, our evolution—is connected with ethics, but how. As evolutionists, we see that no justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will … In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding… Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place.

[ --> And everything instantly falls apart as this would set grand delusion loose in our mental lives. Even logical reasoning is guided by the conscience-driven urge to truth, right and justice, so once such a grand delusion is let loose it undermines the general credibility of conscious mindedness, setting up a cascade of shadow-show worlds. The skeptical spider has enmeshed himself in his own web. Thus, any such scheme should be set aside as self-refuting.]

[[Michael Ruse & E. O. Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics,” Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement, , ed. J. E. Hutchingson, Orlando, Fl.:Harcourt and Brace, 1991. (NB: Cf. a separate discussion on the grounding of worldviews and ethics here on, which includes a specific discussion of the grounding of ethics and goes on to Biblical theism; having first addressed the roots of the modern evolutionary materialist mindset and its pretensions to the mantle of science. Also cf. here on for Plato's warning in The Laws, Bk X, on social consequences of the rise of such a view as the philosophy of the avant garde in a community.]

The attempt to dismiss such serious concerns in the context of a discussion of our holocaust of our posterity, should give pause. Especially after we saw the dictators, totalitarians and revolutionists of the last century and the havoc they wreaked, racking up over 100 million victims. In short, in this context AJ's dismissive appeal to conspiracy theorising simply reveals yet another fallacious agit prop and media shadow show tactic. kairosfocus

PPS: Alex Rosenberg inadvertently lets the cat out of the bag on the self-referential incoherence and self-falsification of evolutionary materialistic scientism:

Alex Rosenberg as he begins Ch 9 of his The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: >> FOR SOLID EVOLUTIONARY REASONS, WE’VE BEEN tricked into looking at life from the inside. Without scientism, we look at life from the inside, from the first-person POV (OMG, you don’t know what a POV is?—a “point of view”). The first person is the subject, the audience, the viewer of subjective experience, the self in the mind. Scientism shows that the first-person POV is an illusion. [–> grand delusion is let loose in utter self referential incoherence] Even after scientism convinces us, we’ll continue to stick with the first person. But at least we’ll know that it’s another illusion of introspection and we’ll stop taking it seriously. We’ll give up all the answers to the persistent questions about free will, the self, the soul, and the meaning of life that the illusion generates [–> bye bye to responsible, rational freedom on these presuppositions]. The physical facts fix all the facts. [--> asserts materialism, leading to . . . ] The mind is the brain. It has to be physical and it can’t be anything else, since thinking, feeling, and perceiving are physical process—in particular, input/output processes—going on in the brain. We [–> at this point, what "we," apart from "we delusions"?] can be sure of a great deal about how the brain works because the physical facts fix all the facts about the brain. The fact that the mind is the brain guarantees that there is no free will. It rules out any purposes or designs organizing our actions or our lives [–> thus rational thought and responsible freedom]. It excludes the very possibility of enduring persons, selves, or souls that exist after death or for that matter while we live.>>

And, Martin Cothran shows how Sam Harris chimes in:

The materialist, said Chesterton, "is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle." Materialists like Harris keep asking why we make the decisions we do, and what explanation there could be other than the physiological. The answer, of course, is the psychological, the philosophical, the whimsical, and about a thousand others. But these violate the central tenets of his narrow dogma, and so are automatically rejected. There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. And this is not only a mortal consequence for Harris as the one trying to prove his point, it is also problematic from the reader's perspective: If we are convinced by Harris's logic, we would have to consider this conviction as something determined not by the rational strength of his logic, but by the entirely irrational arrangement of the chemicals in our brains. They might, as Harris would have to say, coincide, but their relation would be completely arbitrary. If prior physical states are all that determine our beliefs, any one physical state is no more rational than any other. It isn't rational or irrational, it just is. If what Harris says is true, then our assent to what we view as the rational strength of his position may appear to us to involve our choice to assent or not to assent to his ostensibly rational argument, but (again, if it is true) in truth it cannot be any such thing, since we do not have that choice -- or any other. Indeed, it is hard to see how, if free will is an illusion, we could ever know it. ["The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It: Sam Harris's Free Will" by Martin Cothran at ENV (echoing C S Lewis and J B S Haldane etc) on November 9, 2012, HT the too often underestimated BA77, cf. here.]

kairosfocus

AJ, pardon, but we can scroll up for ourselves and see what has been going on, including the quite plain subtext. You have actually managed to confirm the dehumanisation of our posterity in the womb and how that contributes to the ongoing holocaust under false colour of law. The driving worldview and cultural agenda roots behind that are quite well known, in some respects for over 2300 years. KF PS: BTW, i am not speculating about conspiracies, I have spoken to quite well known agendas and impositions driven by worldviews. As a further illustration beyond Lewontin, try this from an official declaration of the Board of the US National Science Teachers Association in 2000, as affecting science education:

The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts [--> ideological imposition of a priori evolutionary materialistic scientism, aka natural-ISM; this is of course self-falsifying at the outset] . . . . [S]cience, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific [--> loaded word that cannot be properly backed up due to failure of demarcation arguments] methods, explanations, generalizations and products [--> declaration of intent to ideologically censor education materials] . . . . Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work [--> undermined by the question-begging ideological imposition and associated censorship] . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements [--> question-begging false dichotomy, the proper contrast for empirical investigations is the natural (chance and/or necessity) vs the ART-ificial, through design . . . cf UD's weak argument correctives 17 - 19, here] in the production of scientific knowledge.

Is it any surprise that in the years since, NSTA joined with the NAS in Kansas to threaten to lock out of good jobs and colleges students taught a more traditional (and historically much better warranted) understanding of science and its methods? I call that holding students hostage through ideological imposition backed up by media shadow show games that frankly willfully distorted the truth. And, the beat goes on. kairosfocus

KF:

With all due respect, you clearly do not realise that evolutionary materialistic scientism (and its fellow travellers) holds a dominant position backed by many elite power centres.

A little heavy on the hyperbole, but not entirely inaccurate. But, you forget to mention that small bit of information that evolution is also supported by mountains of evidence.

Thus instantly it is where we should see the opportunity for manipulation.

If you are suggesting that scientists and researches are subject to the same human failings that we all have (greed, envy, resistance to change, etc.) then I don't disagree. But to suggest that there is some sort of coordinated conspiracy behind it, then you will have to provide evidence to support this. Forgive me if I don't just accept your claims on this.

Then, you miss the readily demonstrated points that such is both self-falsifying through self-referential incoherence and has long been known to be utterly amoral, thus a gateway to nihilism.

I certainly have not missed your assertions that evolution and materialism are self referrentially incoherent, I simply say that your repeated attempts to demonstrate this have failed. I am not interested in reading another link to one of your multi thousand word tomes on the subject, but if you are willing to concisely (emphasis on the word concisely) present one or two examples of how it is self referrentially incoherent, I will gladly respond to them. Your statement that evolution is amoral is moot. All science is amoral. Morality only comes into play when people use the discoveries of science.

Moreover, despite your denials just above, you have clearly argued or implied that morality is only subjective.

I have never "implied" that morality is subjective. However, I have claimed that there is absolutely no compelling evidence that it is objective. So, it is more of a conclusion than an implication. But that is not what you claimed that I was implying.

This entails that conscience-guided reason is pervaded by grand delusion and lands you in the infinite regress of Plato’s Cave worlds.

Then you have no idea what the implications of subjective morality are. I will give you a hint as to why your oft repeated Plato's cave allegory is inappropriate for your so-called debunking of subjective morality. If a subjective moral value is based on objective observations, evidence, experience, logically extrapolating possible consequences, etc., is this subjective moral value based on a grand delusion? If your answer is yes then you would have to do a lot of explaining as to why you are not lying.

You also know full well what you intend by dismissively referring to “your” [small-g] “god.”

Yes. I explained it. Your god's name is not God. The word "god" is a common noun. As an atheist I do not capitalize the word because it would would be hypocritical for me to do so. Nothing more, nothing less. That you read some other intention into it is your problem, not mine.

An all to common move by atheists who do not wish to face the fact that the reality of God is the only serious candidate explanation of a world in which we find ourselves as morally governed, responsibly and rationally significantly free individuals in community — a worldview issue not merely a matter of blind adherence to “religion” .

I'm sorry. I have not seen any compelling evidence to conclude that any gods exist.

. . usually (and foolishly) equated with blind, stupid, dangerous ignorant superstition in such a rhetorical context.

Since I have never suggested any such thing, your point is irrelevant to our discussion.

Of course, that leaves the door open to much trollish mischief that cynically seeks to exploit, manipulate and denigrate.

Again, since I have not tried to exploit, manipulate and denigrate you or anyone else here with my comments, I fail to see your point. Armand Jacks

AJ, With all due respect, you clearly do not realise that evolutionary materialistic scientism (and its fellow travellers) holds a dominant position backed by many elite power centres. Thus instantly it is where we should see the opportunity for manipulation. Then, you miss the readily demonstrated points that such is both self-falsifying through self-referential incoherence and has long been known to be utterly amoral, thus a gateway to nihilism. As we look around, there are many, many clues on the domination and manipulation coming from such circles, and a capital case in point is precisely the holocaust of posterity that is mounting up at a million victims per week and which you wish to dismiss or even suggest is nothing, really. The sanctity of life has been seriously violated under false colours of law. Lewontin speaks inadvertent volumes on what has been going on across the past few generations:

. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads [==> as in, "we" have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge] we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,

[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]

and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth

[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]

. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident

[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]

that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]

Your blame the targetted victims turnabout projection fails. Moreover, despite your denials just above, you have clearly argued or implied that morality is only subjective. This entails that conscience-guided reason is pervaded by grand delusion and lands you in the infinite regress of Plato's Cave worlds. You also know full well what you intend by dismissively referring to "your" [small-g] "god." An all to common move by atheists who do not wish to face the fact that the reality of God is the only serious candidate explanation of a world in which we find ourselves as morally governed, responsibly and rationally significantly free individuals in community -- a worldview issue not merely a matter of blind adherence to "religion" . . . usually (and foolishly) equated with blind, stupid, dangerous ignorant superstition in such a rhetorical context. Where, to dismiss that freedom and government at once ends in absurdity, even undermining the basis for serious discussion. Of course, that leaves the door open to much trollish mischief that cynically seeks to exploit, manipulate and denigrate. And, more. KF kairosfocus

KF:

Unfortunately transparent by now. Your insistence on a lower-case g to refer to God tells us a lot about the gaps in your understanding of worldviews issues.

Actually it speaks very well for my knowledge of worldview issues. The god you worship is one among many that have been and continue to be worshipped The word itself is a common noun. As such, there is no need to capitalize the word, any more than we would capitalize it when we refer to the god of war, or the sea god. If I was going to refer to your flavour of god by name I would say Jehovah (or Yahweh) and capitalize it as I would with any other proper noun. Besides, I am an atheist that does't believe in the existence of gods. Why would or should I capitalize the word?

Second, you don’t seem to realise the implications of implying that any core, major facet of our conscious rationality is delusional.

Since I have never implied this, I don't see the relevance of this point. Or maybe I am just not understanding what you are trying to suggest with this statement.

In this case, conscience-guided reason, which is what impels us to truth and to duties of care relative to neighbours who are evidently of like order of being as we are.

My reason is influenced by my conscience just like yours is. Again, I don't see where you are going with this. What does this have to do with whether or not an early stage fetus has any human rights?

FYI, conscience cannot be safely or surgically removed from rationality.

Again, where have I suggested this? Are you sure that you are not responding to the wrong person?

But we need to go to a far older philosopher to see the full force of the point, Plato and his parable of the cave.

I guess the real question is who is best represented by the prisoners in the cave, you and your views or me and mine? Since my views are based on reasoning, rationality, evidence and experience, and yours are heavily influenced by one of many religions, all of which can't be true, I think that it is quite possible that I stand on the higher ground.

We do not even know that humans cease from conscious existence once brain activity ceases or even when brains are destroyed.

You keep referring to hyper-scepticism. But if you are suggesting that consciousness exists after the brain is completely destroyed, or before the brain even starts to develop, then you have left the realm of rational, logical, evidence based thought and entered the realm of hyper-speculation. Something that is every bit as dangerous as hyper-scepticism. In short, your opinion is based on your religious beliefs, not on objective reality. And I am repeatedly told that the most of the opposition to early term abortions is not a religious one. Call me skeptical if you like. But there are many times when skepticism is justified. Armand Jacks

Venezuela poses lessons in how one cannot eat agit prop and ideological media shadow shows: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/03/16/venezuela-socialists-denounce-nationwide-bakers-conspiracy-threaten-to-seize-bakeries/ >>Venezuela’s socialist government has imposed new draconian measures on its bakeries intended to lay the blame for the intense food shortages the country is experiencing on craven small business owners. Bakers who do not adhere to these rules, the vice president announced this week, will risk having their business seized by the government. Venezuela’s bakeries must now begin selling bread at 6AM – any later than 7AM will result in sanctions for the bakery – and use 90 percent of their wheat content to make bread. They are not allowed to be in possession of more than 300 sacks of wheat a month. Inspections to ensure bakeries are complying with these new requirements began on Monday, and over 700 of them have received government visits so far this week. Bakers who do not comply with these programs risk having their bakeries expropriated and handed to the Committees for Supply and Production (CLAP), socialist brigades tasked with distributing the nation’s food supply. “We have identified part of the conspiracies and deeds that have generated sabotage in order to bring bread to the people,” Vice President Tareck El Aissami said on Monday. “Bakeries which do not follow [the rules] will be occupied by the government.” El Aissami reiterated the government’s belief that the reason for the current bread shortage in the country is that bakers use too much of their wheat for expensive and needless pastries instead of using their supplies to make bread for poorer people. President Nicolás Maduro issued a stern warning to the nation’s bakers, whom he accused of launching a bread war. “They will pay, I swear,” he told a crowd on his Sunday night television program. “Those responsible for the bread war will pay and, later, don’t go and say that it is political persecution.” . . . . Bakers have expressed extreme frustration at the new measures. Last year, the government put the nation’s food supply under the control of the military, so bakeries are beholden to the whims of the government ration system. According to the nation’s bakers’ organization, 80 percent of the nation’s bakeries do not have inventory to make bread. The government also regulates the price of bread, so the laws of supply and demand do not apply in the Venezuelan economy, and bakers have no hope of making a profit.>> --> this is the sort of political incitement that cost my auntie her life. --> This is ideological farce turned real world tragedy: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/venezuela-arrests-brownie-croissant-bakers-bread-war-024355524.html >>Venezuela this week arrested four bakers making illegal brownies and other pastries as President Nicolas Maduro's socialist government threatens to take over bakeries in Caracas as part of a new "bread war". Maduro has sent inspectors and soldiers into more than 700 bakeries around the capital this week to enforce a rule that 90 percent of wheat must be destined to loaves rather than more expensive pastries and cakes. It was the latest move by the government to combat shortages and long lines for basic products that have characterized Venezuela's economic crisis over the last three years. The ruling Socialist Party says pro-opposition businessmen are sabotaging the OPEC nation's economy by hoarding products and hiking prices. Critics say the government is to blame for persisting with failed polices of price and currency controls. Breadmakers blame the government for a national shortage of wheat, saying 80 percent of establishments have none left in stock. During this week's inspections, two men were arrested as their bakery was using too much wheat in sweet bread, ham-filled croissants and other products, the state Superintendency of Fair Prices said in a statement sent to media on Thursday. Another two were detained for making brownies with out-of-date wheat, the statement added, saying at least one bakery had been temporarily taken over by authorities for 90 days. "Those behind the 'bread war' are going to pay, and don't let them say later it is political persecution," Maduro had warned at the start of the week.>> --> Hanged if you do, strung up if you don't; that is how ideological revolutions typically end up, and it is how people who have been cornered by revolutionaries eventually turn on their tormentors. (Unless the revolutionaries strike first with a reign of terror and gulags to go with it.) --> Notice, an incident with Savage:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4317798/Pro-Trump-radio-host-Michael-Savage-claims-attacked.html Pro-Trump radio host Michael Savage claims he was assaulted while having dinner with his toy poodle Teddy Savage, 74, says he was having dinner in Tiburon, California, with his 12-year-old pooch when a man began taunting him by saying, 'weener, weener' Heckler was apparently referring to Savage's legal name, Michael Alan Weiner Man then allegedly knocked Savage to the ground and punched another diner who tried to intervene Both men had placed each other under citizen's arrest, but police let them go Last month, Savage had an hour-long meeting over dessert with Trump, which concluded with president declaring, ‘I wouldn’t be president without this man' >>As Savage was heading out the door, the verbal abuse allegedly turned physical when the jeerer knocked the septuagenarian to the ground, according to the talk show host's attorney, Daniel Horowitz. When another diner tried to step in between the brawlers, he was punched in the face, Horowitz told the Mercury News. Savage's beloved 12-year-old pooch also got shoved after getting caught in the middle of the scuffle.>>

--> Time to think again. KF kairosfocus

AJ, Unfortunately transparent by now. Your insistence on a lower-case g to refer to God tells us a lot about the gaps in your understanding of worldviews issues. Second, you don't seem to realise the implications of implying that any core, major facet of our conscious rationality is delusional. In this case, conscience-guided reason, which is what impels us to truth and to duties of care relative to neighbours who are evidently of like order of being as we are. FYI, conscience cannot be safely or surgically removed from rationality. Even the most cynically manipulative and nihilistic rhetors assume that the general run of society will not be as they are. If that were to even be remotely approached, society would collapse. And though such don't really care about society, they hope to have a sufficiently viable host to leech upon. That's already a big clue as Kant's categorical imperative will inform us. But we need to go to a far older philosopher to see the full force of the point, Plato and his parable of the cave. For the denizens thereof live in a world of grand delusion, misled by senses and environment to imagine they experience reality. Of course, one is set free and sees the cheat (conscience in action urging us to truth and against error and deceit), then is made to see more and in pity -- as in, conscience is acting again -- tries to help his fellows, only to be scorned for a fool, with threats being made against the life of his liberator. The problem with this is, it stops at the second level and locates the delusions externally. When today's cynics turn on conscience and imply that it is delusional in testifying that we are under government of moral law in thought, word, deed and relationships, they locate the grand delusion where we cannot escape it. This means, when we imagine the level 1 perception is delusional, the levels 2, 3 . . . n, . . . have become just as inherently tainted. An infinite regress of grand delusions stares us in the face and leads to collapse of confidence in mind. That is why any appeal to grand delusion (save for the enlightened, red pill few to use updated language) is inherently absurd. Global hyperskepticism is self-defeating. Likewise, turning that around through logic on a swivel and being selectively hyperskeptical and sneeringly, superciliously dismissive of the despised others not only fatally inconsistent and equally absurd, but it tempts us to that pride that imagines WE are the exceptions to the rule we just made to put our imagined inferiors in their place. (Nor, does subtly dodging by saying, we have not said that explicitly allow wriggling off the hook. There is something called reading between the lines after all, a particularly important praxis in dealing with the cynically manipulative.) The way out lies in the path of reasonable, responsible trust in our senses and old fashioned common sense, especially through establishing first, self-evident, yardstick truths. Truths we trust as to reject them lands us in immediate, patent absurdity. One of such being that grand delusion is not to be entertained. So, when conscience tells us that we are under moral government of thought, word, deed and relationships, we take it seriously, never mind that we can and do fall into error. For, without that prior recognition, there is no basis for escaping from error through reform. So, we see that it is reasonable and responsible to work with conscience-guided reason, and to apply first principles of right reason to discern moral truth from moral error. These, we can live by and build family and society upon, grounding a sound system of governance. And yes, there are moral, self-evident truths. Had you bothered to seriously ponder the already repeatedly linked, you would have seen how this can be put to good use. Rather than going over that, let us bring the reasoning in Locke that lies under and sustains the 2nd para of the US DoI, 1776, in his 2nd treatise on civil govt, ch 2 sec 5:

[2nd Treatise on Civil Gov't, Ch 2 sec. 5:] . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [This directly echoes St. Paul in Rom 2: "14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . " and 13: "9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law . . . " Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity ,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.] [Augmented citation, Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch 2 Sect. 5. ]

A place to begin from, again pivotal to the modern era. Then, if you will understand where I point, notice this more extended cite than the usual from the US DoI, and yes, the 55 Founders understood quite well that being under moral government is best understood -- here I allude to inference to the best explanation, which is a form of warrant that is explicitly not a proof beyond all doubt or dispute (appropriate to a world of soul-making test) -- as being rooted in the reality of an adequate ultimate moral governor the author of moral law:

When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . . We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions [Cf. Judges 11:27 and discussion in Locke], do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

By now it should be quite clear that democracy is inherently unstable and requires the fostering of honour, moral fibre and prudence among the people to be sustainable. Which points us right back to the pivotal importance of reform and the example set by Wilberforce. The same, you and others would scant. And, at the same time, this exposes the shoddy counterfeits of our time. Counterfeits exposed by how a vice president of an organisation that carries out what, 300,000 abortions per year and receives 40% of its budget as what is taken from the taxpayer, to the tune of US$ 500 millions each year, is unable and/or unwilling to publicly answer as to the humanity or otherwise of the victims of killings in the womb. For shame! At least, shame is a good sign: conscience in action. KF PS: I note, we have no good reason to confine the possibility of conscious life capable of responsible, rational freedom to biological or otherwise material computational substrates. To assume that (as you casually do above) is to beg big questions. We do not even know that humans cease from conscious existence once brain activity ceases or even when brains are destroyed. In short, you have been loading up on evolutionary materialistic assumptions and/or fellow travellers. There are major, longstanding alternative views on the subject and they should be heard, not foreclosed by flashing a lab coat clad self-referentially incoherent philosophy and/or its fellow travellers at them. kairosfocus

I wasn’t aware that a building could be a Christian whose rights needed protecting.

And I certainly wasn't aware buildings held weddings for themselves and could be pressured to do so or that the buildings declare themselves to be churches or that they miraculously lift off the ground and run to apply for tax-exempt status or that the buildings would care about having their tax-exempt status revoked. Gotta love those sentient buildings eh? Do you teach buildings how to pay tax? I might need that information for this pesky little building down the street that is worried about its taxes. Vy

Vy@359, I wasn't aware that a building could be a Christian whose rights needed protecting. Armand Jacks

KF:

Completely off base. Our view is that humans hold inherently valuable natures and are owed duties of care, thus by mutuality enjoy rights.

And what is responsible for these inherently valuable natures? Are you suggesting that your god is not at the root of this? That would definitely be a surprise to anyone who has read your posts and comments.

In this context, I hold that ethical theism is the best explanation for such a circumstance.

So, you agree that your beliefs inform your opinions and decisions. That is all I was saying. I don't understand why WM was so defensive about this.

If you doubt such, kindly propose another base for moral governance that does not rapidly collapse into absurdities such as those of society grants rights. FYI, sound societies recognise and respect rights.

You have answered your own question. Sound societies recognize and respect rights. More accurately, sound societies listen to their members in establishing the rights that must be respected. There are plenty of examples of societies that did not do this and they only last as long as their power to enforce their will lasts.

In this context, there is just one objectively identifiable point for the initiation of human life, conception (and not implantation).

That is certainly debatable, but I really don't have a problem with this. But we are not talking about when human life starts, we are talking about when the fetus is entitled to the rights that society has determined is afforded to all others.

As to, you are a theist so you believe in human rights that start at conception, that is actually an inadvertent commendation of ethical theism: it promotes what is sound.

No, it is an acknowledgment that it is a circular argument. Theists believe that human rights begin at conception therefore human rights must begin at conception.

And no, being a theist does not — save in the imaginations of ever so many cynically hyperskeptical atheists and fellow travellers — imply being ignorant, stupid, insane or unduly wicked.

This would be a good argument if I have ever made this claim. But since I haven't, it is nothing more than a strawman for you to knock down.

So, that side-track also fails.

Since it was a side-track that has only been fabricated by your own imagination, there is no pass or fail.

The ugly columns of smoke are going up all over our civilisation, and the ongoing abortion holocaust is one of the worst.

What happened. Was the "civilization heading over the cliff to a sudden stop on the rocks below" trope get tiring?

Wilberforce’s reformation leadership is the touchstone example of how effective, beneficial and lasting sound morally anchored reformation is.

Yet it actually took a civil war that killed more Americans than all other wars combined before slavery as an institution was effectively ended. Great example of morally anchored reformation while opposing the blandishments of violent radical revolutionism. Armand Jacks

Apple Jack I think you are spreading a little fake news that Trump banned Muslim immigration. Did CNN send you? Eugen

As I would fight to reinstate the rights of Christians if they were removed

You don't say...

Armand Jacks: I would not be unhappy if governments and the general public pressured other churches to perform same sex ceremonies. Even as far as revoking tax free status to churches that refuse to do it.

Vy

You Demand that I support my assertion that a person without a brain is not self aware and that a person without a brain would not be alive.

Absolutely.

Here, I will make a couple more assertions. A person without legs cannot run.

Can you run faster than Oscar Pistorius?

A person without eyes cannot see.

I'm sure if Ben Underwood was alive he would disagree.

Are you going to demand that I provide support for these assertions as well?

You ought to. Vy

AJ, 335:

[KF:] AJ, that you thought to dismiss Wilberforce’s historical example of the power of morally driven reformation to eradicate key evils and positively transform the world speaks volumes. Not, in your favour. KF {AJ:] I dismissed it because it is not relevant to this discussion. The fact that you do not see this speaks volumes. And not in your favour.

Your attempted dismissive remark, including borrowing of language I have used, and given wider context above on reform vs radical revolution -- characteristic themes of the modern era since the scientific revolution -- points out that you reject that Wilberforce is relevant to why I would stand with morally anchored reformation and oppose the blandishments of violent radical revolutionism. Your further attempts fail just as badly, and reveal a characteristic failure of the left to realise just how bloodily destructive and futile revolutionism has consistently been. Wilberforce's reformation leadership is the touchstone example of how effective, beneficial and lasting sound morally anchored reformation is. So much so that latterly there have been attempts to create counterfeit reformations through the tactics of cultural marxism and associated so-called critical studies and radical identity politics joined to agit-prop and media shadow shows. One of these is mass abortion's ongoing holocaust under false colours of rights and of law. KF kairosfocus

AJ:

It is probably more accurate to say that KF’s and your belief that human rights begin at conception is greatly influenced by your theistic beliefs. I think that you would agree that this is a fair statement.

Completely off base. Our view is that humans hold inherently valuable natures and are owed duties of care, thus by mutuality enjoy rights. The issue as to rights of X pivot on, is X human (or a comparable being), where such a being existing in time will have a succession of stages of existence. As a simple example, consider that responsible rational freedom we have, which allows us to hold a serious discussion. Such cannot be reduced to blindly mechanical computation. In this context, there is just one objectively identifiable point for the initiation of human life, conception (and not implantation). In this context, I hold that ethical theism is the best explanation for such a circumstance. If you doubt such, kindly propose another base for moral governance that does not rapidly collapse into absurdities such as those of society grants rights. FYI, sound societies recognise and respect rights. Which soundness is precisely the issue at stake concerning our holocaust-enabling generation. As to, you are a theist so you believe in human rights that start at conception, that is actually an inadvertent commendation of ethical theism: it promotes what is sound. And no, being a theist does not -- save in the imaginations of ever so many cynically hyperskeptical atheists and fellow travellers -- imply being ignorant, stupid, insane or unduly wicked. (I hold, we all struggle with the challenge of virtue as attested to in a healthy person by the voice of conscience-guided reason.) So, that side-track also fails. The ugly columns of smoke are going up all over our civilisation, and the ongoing abortion holocaust is one of the worst. KF kairosfocus

WM:

I can’t speak for KF, but my view of when a human’s rights start depends entirely upon three things; (1) the concept of rights being endowed upon us via a system of natural law (also written in the Declaration of Independence), (2) the scientific fact of when a human life begins, and (3) logic.

Forgive me if I think you are lying, or deceiving yourself. If your belief system doesn't inform your decisions, of what use is it?

You are confusing a right with a law,...

Since I have seen no compelling evidence for inherent human rights, your point is moot.

Since you did not support your assertion and instead decided to insult me, I’ll take that to mean that you cannot support your assertions and thus they are only a matter of your personal opinion.

This is priceless. You Demand that I support my assertion that a person without a brain is not self aware and that a person without a brain would not be alive. Here, I will make a couple more assertions. A person without legs cannot run. A person without eyes cannot see. Are you going to demand that I provide support for these assertions as well?

Well, if you consider rational arguments to be “nothing”,...

No, rational arguments are definitely something. Please let me know when you start making one.

I take you are refusing to answer the question I posed: “if society decides that atheists have no rights and can be treated as property, will that be okay with you?”

The reason it was a stupid question is because nobody has suggested that everyone must agree with what society has decided are basic rights. You build strawmen faster than Canadians build snowmen. Yes, as an atheist I would not agree with the rights I currently enjoy being removed. But the sad reality is that I may not have enough influence and support to do anything about it.

Just as you would agree that women, children and gays only have what rights each particular society grants them, and that there are no such thing as universal human rights. Correct?

Yes, That is absolutely correct. Again, I suggest that you read a history book. But just because there are no universal human rights doesn't mean that we shouldn't put in every effort to develop human rights that we all agree to. And even use force to impose them on others as the north did to the south in your civil war.

IOW, if it is okay in those countries to beat women, abuse children and kill gays, that’s just that society’s particular system of laws based on their particular system of rights, and so it’s all just fine with you, right?

You have this nasty habit of putting words in other people's mouths. Again, where have I said that anyone has to agree with the rights allowed by the society they live in or the rights allowed in other societies? I even gave examples.

if atheists were stripped of their human rights by society, would you try to get them reinstated?

Yes. As I would fight to reinstate the rights of Christians if they were removed, or the rights of Jews or Muslims. Just look towards your own country and the opposition to Trump's executive order to ban Muslim immigration. Armand Jacks

AJ said:

OK. I concede the fact that I should have chosen better words. It is probably more accurate to say that KF’s and your belief that human rights begin at conception is greatly influenced by your theistic beliefs. I think that you would agree that this is a fair statement.

I can't speak for KF, but my view of when a human's rights start depends entirely upon three things; (1) the concept of rights being endowed upon us via a system of natural law (also written in the Declaration of Independence), (2) the scientific fact of when a human life begins, and (3) logic.

Now it is you who should have chosen better words. We don’t give people the right to drink until they are, more or less biologically and mentally mature. Whether we pict 18, 19 or 21 is rather arbitrary, but picking an age within this fairly narrow window is not.

You are confusing a right with a law, and you're apparently confused about the difference between laws that govern what age a person can legally buy alcohol and what age they can legally drink alcohol in various circumstances, say in public or at home. On private property with parental consent, minors can legally consume alcoholic beverages in several states.

I’m sorry, but that has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. And I have heard plenty on UD. I even admit to having said some really stupid things. But nothing in this league. I bow to the master.

Since you did not support your assertion and instead decided to insult me, I'll take that to mean that you cannot support your assertions and thus they are only a matter of your personal opinion.

No you have nothing. That’s what I thought.

Well, if you consider rational arguments to be "nothing", I guess there's really no point in even debating the matter.

Please support this assertion.

Since you consider logical arguments to be "nothing", I don't see the point.

Maybe I have missed something. Isn’t a debate a discussion between people who disagree about something. Without the disagreement, we don’t have a debate, we just have a love-fest or an echo chamber.

I don't understand your response. You may think "we" are debating something that is "produced via social agreement", but it is not my position that rights are produced in such a manner. We are debating rights, which you believe are created via social agreement (and I supposed fixed by law), and which I (and I think some others here) believe are fixed by nature and cannot be voided by any law or government.

You know how I said that what you said earlier was the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I take it back. Your comment just above has now taken the lead.

I take you are refusing to answer the question I posed: "if society decides that atheists have no rights and can be treated as property, will that be okay with you?" Can you not answer the question? You're the one that claims rights are generated by society; I assume that if society strips atheists of all human rights, you'd agree that atheists in that country have no rights and have no reason to object to such a situation since it was arrived at via due process of social agreement. Correct? Just as you would agree that women, children and gays only have what rights each particular society grants them, and that there are no such thing as universal human rights. Correct? IOW, if it is okay in those countries to beat women, abuse children and kill gays, that's just that society's particular system of laws based on their particular system of rights, and so it's all just fine with you, right? If you would also answer another question: if atheists were stripped of their human rights by society, would you try to get them reinstated? William J Murray

WM:

No, we’re talking about whether or not it is a “theistic” belief that human rights begin at conception (as per your comment to KF), and that is not fair. It’s an opinion about when one should have human rights based upon a very simple scientific fact – when human life begins. There’s no reason to characterize that position as “theistic” or “religious”.

OK. I concede the fact that I should have chosen better words. It is probably more accurate to say that KF's and your belief that human rights begin at conception is greatly influenced by your theistic beliefs. I think that you would agree that this is a fair statement.

Of course it does. Any other point where one assigns such a right is entirely arbitrary.

Now it is you who should have chosen better words. We don't give people the right to drink until they are, more or less biologically and mentally mature. Whether we pict 18, 19 or 21 is rather arbitrary, but picking an age within this fairly narrow window is not.

Conception is the only point with scientific basis where assignation of “human rights” can be precisely and confidently assigned.

No, it is simply the easiest approach. But easy does not mean that it is scientifically based.

AJ: Any rights we have are the result of societal agreement.

WM: Please support that assertion.

You are correct. I am caught in using sloppy language again. Let me amend my statement:

Any rights we have are the result of societal agreement or enforcement by those with the power to enforce them.

. .

I take then it you are unconcerned with the fate of women, children and gays in countries where they are treated as property, abused, tortured and killed? Because, by your view, they only have the rights those societies assign them, correct?

They do only have the rights that their societies assign them. Have you not read the news or any history books. That doesn't mean that I have to like it or accept it. We have a long history of societies modifying the rights that their members are entitled to. A few years ago, homosexuals did not have the right to marry or adopt. Myself and thousands of others fought to extend these rights to them and were successful. You and thousands are fighting to extend the right to life to the fetus. And you may win. But that won't' stop abortions and, if history has shown, it probably won't even reduce the numbers significantly. So, what will you really have one? The criminalization of women? The unnecessary death and suffering of women? Doesn't sound like much of a win to me.

No. That may be what you are talking about, but that is not what those you are debating are talking about,...

Maybe I have missed something. Isn't a debate a discussion between people who disagree about something. Without the disagreement, we don't have a debate, we just have a love-fest or an echo chamber.

AJ: If a person does not have a brain, they can’t be self-aware. But your point is moot as someone without a brain would not be alive.

WM: Please support these assertions.

I'm sorry, but that has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. And I have heard plenty on UD. I even admit to having said some really stupid things. But nothing in this league. I bow to the master.

AJ: Give me examples of how allowing a woman to choose abortion in the first trimester is corrosive to society.

WM: The[y]’re not “examples”, they’re arguments.

So you have nothing. That's what I thought.

Abortionism, or the legalizing and normalizing of abortion, inherently devalues the idea of human life to something that is disposable for the sake of convenience.

Please support this assertion.

I have a further question for you; if society decides that atheists have no rights and can be treated as property, will that be okay with you?

You know how I said that what you said earlier was the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I take it back. Your comment just above has now taken the lead. Armand Jacks

AJ said:

We were talking about a human’s rights, not the time at which life begins.

No, we're talking about whether or not it is a "theistic" belief that human rights begin at conception (as per your comment to KF), and that is not fair. It's an opinion about when one should have human rights based upon a very simple scientific fact - when human life begins. There's no reason to characterize that position as "theistic" or "religious".

Even for adults, the right to live is not sacrosanct. We have capital punishment. We have war.

Nobody claimed it was an inviolable right. I don't know of anyone here making that argument.

The one doesn’t follow from the other.

Of course it does. Any other point where one assigns such a right is entirely arbitrary. Conception is the only point with scientific basis where assignation of "human rights" can be precisely and confidently assigned.

Any rights we have are the result of societal agreement.

Please support that assertion. I take then it you are unconcerned with the fate of women, children and gays in countries where they are treated as property, abused, tortured and killed? Because, by your view, they only have the rights those societies assign them, correct?

Again, we are not talking about the start of life. We are talking about when the societally given right to life starts.

No. That may be what you are talking about, but that is not what those you are debating are talking about, because we don't see rights entirely as social constructs, but rather as innate rights.

If a person does not have a brain, they can’t be self-aware. But your point is moot as someone without a brain would not be alive.

Please support these assertions.

By using the word “possibly” I am erring on the side of caution.

Or, we can err on the side of scientific fact and not vague speculation rooted in materialist ideology by assigning that right at conception.

Give me examples of how allowing a woman to choose abortion in the first trimester is corrosive to society.

The're not "examples", they're arguments. Abortionism, or the legalizing and normalizing of abortion, inherently devalues the idea of human life to something that is disposable for the sake of convenience. There's just no way around that. Just as you have done, it also paves the way to rationalizations that make it easier to terminate the lives of those who do not meet certain arbitrary and often vague, unprovable criteria based on materialist assumptions - like your idea that human rights require some degree of self-awareness, when self-awareness is impossible to demonstrate. Are you saying that a sufficiently challenged child who cannot respond in a way that indicates "self-awareness" according to some test, or really anything beyond physical reaction to sensory input, should have no rights? I have a further question for you; if society decides that atheists have no rights and can be treated as property, will that be okay with you? William J Murray

FYI: Approx 100,000 New Yorkers are aborted every year - for every 1,000 black babies born alive, 1,180 are aborted. Heartlander

societally given right to life

System reports a fatal error. Andrew asauber

Andrew:

You start off describing your position concerning when rights begin with I believe . What makes your belief superior to anyone else’s?

It may be. And maybe it is not. But using the word "believe" was probably a poor choice of words. "Opinion" is probably more accurate. But, an opinion based on the evidence that I have seen, not on what my priest or minister tells me. WM:

That is an entirely unfair characterization. It’s a scientific fact that a human life begins at conception;

We were talking about a human's rights, not the time at which life begins. Very different things. Even for adults, the right to live is not sacrosanct. We have capital punishment. We have war.

if one is in favor of human right to life, then it follows that the right to life begins at the conception of that life.

The one doesn't follow from the other. Any rights we have are the result of societal agreement.

Note the vague language; “possibly” have “something resembling” self-awareness.

I used the word "possibly" because we do not yet know at what stage of brain development self-awareness occurs. But we can be certain that it can't occur without the brain. By using the word "possibly" I am erring on the side of caution.

Can the same standard be applied to human life outside the womb? Can people have their loved ones put to death if they do not meet the “self-awareness” criteria?

If a person does not have a brain, they can't be self-aware. But your point is moot as someone without a brain would not be alive.

It doesn’t take “extensive knowledge of fetal development” to know that human life begins at conception.

Again, we are not talking about the start of life. We are talking about when the societally given right to life starts.

Once again, what the abortion rate will or will not be is largely irrelevant to the point KF argues about the corrosive effect “abortionism” has on our culture.

Now who is talking about vague terminology. Be specific. Give me examples of how allowing a woman to choose abortion in the first trimester is corrosive to society. And don't give me the nonsense about them going to hell or regretting the decision later in life. We all make decisions that we regret later. It is not the government's role to protect us from bad decisions unless they are decisions that negatively impact others.

You can mention it all you want; it has no bearing on the main issues being addressed. It’s odd how you keep wanting to steer the discussion towards “reduction of abortions” when that is not the main issue being addressed in this thread and how it pertains to “abortionism” (the legalization/normalization of abortion and the vilifying of pro-life perspectives) as a corrosive ideology.

Again with this vague notion of "corrosive ideology". Yet nobody has provided any conclusive examples of how abortion on demand has been corrosive to society. Armand Jacks

AJ, has it dawned on you that brain structure inherently cannot explain consciousness, much less responsible freedom? That is what the so-called hard problem of consciousness is in effect reluctantly half-conceding. It matters not that the processor elements are in wetware and seem to operate on analogue signals, voltages, currents and pulses running through signal processing elements have no relevance in themselves to consciousness, conscience, choice and reason. Computation is not contemplation. KF kairosfocus

AJ said (in another thread)

Where we disagree is the time at which this right applies. You believe that it starts at conception, which is based on your theistic beliefs, not on objective evidence.

That is an entirely unfair characterization. It's a scientific fact that a human life begins at conception; if one is in favor of human right to life, then it follows that the right to life begins at the conception of that life. Every other argument - such as capacity to feel pain, capacity to think, etc. - is rife with problems when examined both logically and scientifically.

I believe that it starts at the time when the brain is sufficiently developed to possibly have something resembling self-awareness.

Note the vague language; "possibly" have "something resembling" self-awareness. How does AJ propose we scientifically measure this "self-awareness"? Can the same standard be applied to human life outside the womb? Can people have their loved ones put to death if they do not meet the "self-awareness" criteria? If not, why not?

This opinion is based on current knowledge of fetal development, which is quite extensive,

It doesn't take "extensive knowledge of fetal development" to know that human life begins at conception.

... and the knowledge that criminalizing abortion will not reduce the abortion rate, except for the short term until a network of illegal options become available, and will increase the risk to women who avail themselves of these services.

Once again, what the abortion rate will or will not be is largely irrelevant to the point KF argues about the corrosive effect "abortionism" has on our culture.

As I mentioned, I prefer the approach of minimizing the abortion rate by minimizing the incidence of unwanted pregnancies. Experience has shown that this is best done by non judgemental comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to contraceptives. So far, you have given no logical reason why this comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to contraceptives should not be adopted by all jurisdictions.

You can mention it all you want; it has no bearing on the main issues being addressed. It's odd how you keep wanting to steer the discussion towards "reduction of abortions" when that is not the main issue being addressed in this thread and how it pertains to "abortionism" (the legalization/normalization of abortion and the vilifying of pro-life perspectives) as a corrosive ideology. William J Murray

I believe that it starts at the time when the brain is sufficiently developed to possibly have something resembling self-awareness.

Armand, You start off describing your position concerning when rights begin with I believe . What makes your belief superior to anyone else's? Andrew asauber

KF:

AJ (& attn JDK), That you imagine that Wilberforce is irrelevant to modernity simply underscores a refusal to learn from history.

Nice example of a deflection. I never said that Wilberforce was irrelevant to modernity. I was responding to your comment that he was:

the pivotal, key example of a reformer in the modern world.

Which he clearly is not. And his efforts in abolishing slavery, as auditory as it was, has no relevance to the abortion issue.

You already know what my Mom spent a good slice of her career doing:

Yes, I read the part about your mother but I fail to see the point you were trying to make. I apologize, it is probably my inability to understand what you are trying to say with this. I understand your issue with regard to the right to life. Where we disagree is the time at which this right applies. You believe that it starts at conception, which is based on your theistic beliefs, not on objective evidence. Which is fine if that is how you choose to lead your life. I believe that it starts at the time when the brain is sufficiently developed to possibly have something resembling self-awareness. That is why I support abortion on demand during the first trimester and only if the woman's health is seriously at risk for any time after that. This opinion is based on current knowledge of fetal development, which is quite extensive, and the knowledge that criminalizing abortion will not reduce the abortion rate, except for the short term until a network of illegal options become available, and will increase the risk to women who avail themselves of these services. As I mentioned, I prefer the approach of minimizing the abortion rate by minimizing the incidence of unwanted pregnancies. Experience has shown that this is best done by non judgemental comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to contraceptives. So far, you have given no logical reason why this comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to contraceptives should not be adopted by all jurisdictions. Armand Jacks

AJ, My reading of the last few exchanges between you and KF is that it is you are the one that seems obsessed with sexual practices while KF is arguing about something you seem intent on ignoring, much like the PP rep in the Carlson interview. Let's assume that you are correct that sex education and availability of contraceptives helps reduce the number of abortions. Great! However, that has nothing to do with KF's main point about the corrosive nature of the ideology that champions abortion as a "right", attempts to normalize it, attempts to villainize pro-lifers (or reduce their position to cartoonish hypocrisy),and endorses agit-prop, Alinsky tactics to enforce that view via intimidation, ridicule and violence. Let's also assume you are right for argument's sake that abortions do not decrease in number if you criminalize them. So what? One could make similar arguments about murder, burglary, assault, pedophilia, rape, child neglect - virtually any undesirable human activity; that criminalizing a behavior/activity doesn't actually reduce the frequency of the activity, it only punishes and stigmatizes those who engage in it. Isn't that part of the social contract and cultural norms? To establish boundaries of behavior of what is acceptable and what will not be tolerated as a form of continuing self-governance for the ongoing successful, long-lasting success of that society? Shouldn't murderers and rapists be scorned and imprisoned? Shouldn't child abusers? KF's point, which I agree with, is that accepting and normalizing abortion is a an anti-life cultural corrosive. That perspective should be pushed back against. William J Murray

F/N: The Wilberforce Epitaph on his statue in Westminster Abbey, where he lies next to Pitt:

To the memory of William Wilberforce (born in Hull, August 24th 1759, died in London, July 29th 1833); for nearly half a century a member of the House of Commons, and, for six parliaments during that period, one of the two representatives for Yorkshire. In an age and country fertile in great and good men, he was among the foremost of those who fixed the character of their times; because to high and various talents, to warm benevolence, and to universal candour, he added the abiding eloquence of a Christian life. Eminent as he was in every department of public labour, and a leader in every work of charity, whether to relieve the temporal or the spiritual wants of his fellow-men, his name will ever be specially identified with those exertions which, by the blessing of God, removed from England the guilt of the African slave trade, and prepared the way for the abolition of slavery in every colony of the empire: in the prosecution of these objects he relied, not in vain, on God; but in the progress he was called to endure great obloquy and great opposition: he outlived, however, all enmity; and in the evening of his days, withdrew from public life and public observation to the bosom of his family. Yet he died not unnoticed or forgotten by his country: the Peers and Commons of England, with the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker at their head, in solemn procession from their respective houses, carried him to his fitting place among the mighty dead around, here to repose: till, through the merits of Jesus Christ, his only redeemer and saviour, (whom, in his life and in his writings he had desired to glorify,) he shall rise in the resurrection of the just.

Lessons of history . . . KF kairosfocus

AJ (& attn JDK), That you imagine that Wilberforce is irrelevant to modernity simply underscores a refusal to learn from history. Here, that of the very first modern human rights campaign -- and rights are inherently a moral issue -- sustained by a tiny minority at first, in the teeth of ruthless power interests as modern democratic government and public opinion were emerging. To you I say, the sound lessons of history were bought with blood and tears; those who refuse to heed them doom themselves to pay the same coin over and over again. But of course, your dismissive rhetoric is most likely a sign that the lessons in question do not lead where you and ilk wish to go. (And this should make clear why I see the successive tangents and implied silly caricatures of those who object to the mass blood guilt of our civilisation -- you straight laced hypocritical prudes who don't want anyone to have fun, and try to block us from having access to our protective equipment and backup procedure if things don't quite work out, etc, and the like -- as little more than distractive, denigratory rhetoric. You already know what my Mom spent a good slice of her career doing: health education, including sexual health and family planning with an emphasis on audio-visual aids; working with a circle of informal aunties who were likewise just as sober and impressive. I simply note, that a key breakthrough in that work was when a comic book was created and made freely available; in a time when comic books were viewed with disdain by the better educated. A linked key move was the creation of a long-running radio drama that spoke to the issues of rural-urban migration, created by an informal uncle.) KF PS: The pivotal rights question in the case of the ongoing holocaust of posterity is: LIFE, the first right, without which there are no other rights. The direct relevance to this thread is that we see here a case of the imposition of mass slaughter under false colours of choice, rights, health etc, leading to utterly warping and corrupting of consciences through mass blood guilt that devalues life, rights, morality and more, injecting the nihilistic premise that might and manipulation make 'right,' 'truth,' 'morality,' 'justice,' 'rights' etc. That is, this is capital example number one of agit-prop and media shadow shows corrupting our civilisation and heading it down a march of ruinous folly. PPS: I notice, how studiously you and ilk have side stepped any substantial challenge about the objectivity of moral governance, showing one of the core fallacies here; if morality is a mere matter of opinion and feeling, why not manipulate such through agit-prop and media shadow shows? I again point to a 101 that pivots on a case of self-evident moral truth: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_morals (And yes, self-evident first truths are absolutely critical to rationality and to responsible thinking about morality. Which, BTW, pervades all sober-minded reasoning through that conscience-driven urge to truth, right, fairness, prudence etc. It is not difficult to see why the ongoing undermining of such in popular thought, in the media and in the academy is a key factor in our civilisation's ongoing march of ruinous folly. While I am at it, here is a classical era historical case in miniature on how easily democracy can be manipulated to ruin once people fail to be sober and responsible. And if you think Divine Justice sleeps or is non-existent, even as you indulge in enabling or participating in mass blood guilt, stay tuned; the mills of God grind exceeding slow, but they grind exceeding fine.) PPPS: Likewise, I observe how the Carlson interview in 338 just above exposes both the pivotal importance of the question of just what is being killed in the womb, and that of how the tactics of evasion, side tracking and cynical manipulation have led us to this sad pass. Notice, that's a Vice President of Planned Parenthood there. her evasiveness is a strong indicator that PP knows it has no sound answer to this issue, and it is determined to proceed on a path of blood, backed by compelled taxpayers' money to the tune of US$ 500 mn per year, what, 40% of the budget of PP. Ponder, how much of that then comes back as donations that prop up politicians who protect this march of folly? kairosfocus

KF:

JDK, I suggest that you take a moment to see that I critiqued by implication, casual sex and the tendency to view it as a sport or game with protective equipment, as opposed to committed creation order marriage and family.

If that is your attitude towards sex, I feel sorry for your wife. Before I was married, both my wife and I partook of what you would call casual or recreational sex with different people. And, there were no unwanted pregnancies for either of us because we had comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to contraceptives. And, when we got together, there was much recreational sex before we were married, with no unwanted pregnancies. Again, because we both had comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to contraceptives. And, since we have been married, over 34 years, we have had a very active sex life with no unwanted pregnancies (three wanted children). Did I mention that we had comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to contraceptives? And, our three children, two 29 year old twin girls and one 31 year old boy have been sexually active since they were teens. With our blessing. And, again, not a single unwanted pregnancy. Why do you think that is? Could it possibly be due to comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to contraceptives? If I might suggest, it appears that your problem is less with abortion and more with a sexual lifestyle that you find morally unacceptable. Which is fine. But you have no right to dictate someone else's sexual lifestyle, any more than I have a right to dictate yours. Armand Jacks

KF:

AJ, you are already off on tangents. I simply point out that Wilberforce is the pivotal, key example of a reformer in the modern world.

Are you serious. Wilberforce died in 1833. Almost two centuries ago. Over six generations ago. How old are you? There is nothing modern about him. How does he reflect anything in the modern world? Although, to give you credit, he is more modern than Plato.

Thank you for inadvertently showing us by live example just how eaten out our civilisation’s moral reasoning capacity is, and just how pivotal a role the abortion holocaust has played in that. Beyond, the rhetorical stratagems you have used — the latest being Alinsky’s ridicule to dismiss — show just how destructive agit prop and media shadow show tactics are. KF

WTF? May I suggest that you are so full of bovine excrement that your eyes are brown? I have presented a concrete strategy for moving society forward that will significantly reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions. One that has been shown to be effective in several countries. But you continue to refuse to address it. Why? Is it because it acknowledges the fact that humans are sexual animals? Is it because it only works if you lay aside the puritanical sermonizing pontifical nonsense? Is it because it gives permission for young people to have sex (which they are going to do regardless)? Is it because it encourages the use of contraceptives? You really have to pick a side. What is more important, eliminating unwanted pregnancies and abortions, or pretending that you can control human sexuality? Armand Jacks

Hmmm, kf. You first mentioned abortion in #7, and in various ways it has been a topic since #114, so here at #334 I'm not sure the thread has consistently stayed on the topic you wish it to. And if you don't want to be responded to, don't write. You wrote, "The core point remains: holocaust driven by utter devaluation of life and degradation of the act of marital love that procreates into a relationally empty, soul-tearing, conscience benumbing contact sport and questions of safety equipment backed up by getting rid of unwanted contraceptive failures. Utter, soul-wrecking moral failure, in short.)" I'm asking if you think married couples who engage in playful sex and use contraception are part of that "holocaust", or not. Not all marital sex (very little of it, really) is for procreation. jdk

Carlson and a planned parenthood rep on the issue of the humanity of the unborn child. A lesson in agit prop, medsia shadow show, amoral or nihilistic evasion and refusal to address the pivotal issue: http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/ultimate-dodge-tucker-carlson-asks-simple-question-7-times/ >>“Why are you giving me robotic responses? I’m asking you a human question, and I hope you’ll favor me with a human answer?” That was Tucker Carlson on his primetime Fox News show “Tucker Carlson Tonight” interviewing Planned Parenthood Executive Vice President Dawn Laguens Monday night. Carlson was looking for the answer to a simple question – the most basic, yet profound, question of the entire abortion debate: What exactly is the little “something” with a beating heart, residing in a mother’s womb, that is destroyed during an abortion? Is it a human being, a clump of tissue or something else? In a remarkable series of exchanges, Carlson asked Laguens the same question seven times in a row, each time fending off his guest’s talking points about “choice,” “women’s health” and “cancer screenings.” Carlson’s question has been the moral and legal touchstone for abortion opponents for decades, and as Laguens demonstrated, one that is virtually always sidestepped by abortion providers and proponents. Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion provider and has long received approximately half-a-billion dollars annually in taxpayer funding, something President Trump has promised to end when Obamacare is replaced. “What is ‘being aborted’?” Carlson asked at the outset. “If you can hear the heartbeat, what is that thing?” After Laguens’ evasion, Carlson asked again: “If you can hear the heartbeat of this ‘thing,’ this fetus, what is it? Is it a piece of tissue, or is it a separate human being?” Bringing Planned Parenthood’s VP back to the question after more “pro-choice” talking points, Carlson tried again: “If you can hear the fetal heartbeat, and then it’s extinguished, what do you think of that? Is it a big deal or not, to you? And if not, why not?” Finally, after multiple attempts, Carlson doubled down with Laguens even more earnestly: “I’ve let you repeat your talking points, which I’ve heard a thousand times. … But I want to take it just a level deeper, because I think it’s worth it. It’s a big deal to a lot of people. And people say, ‘Look, this is killing a life.’ A heart is beating, you can hear it at five-and-a-half weeks, and the majority of your abortions take place after five-and-a-half weeks. So I want to know if that bothers you at all. … Do you ever stop and think, ‘Wow, what is happening here, is a life being taken?’ People say a life is being taken. Do you think that?” As the clock ran out on the interview, Carlson gave the Planned Parenthood chief still one more crack at the question: “Why are you giving me robotic responses? I’m asking you a human question, and I hope you’ll favor me with a human answer. … You can hear the heartbeat. Is that a human being or not? Is it separate from the mother or not? Different blood type, often different sex, different DNA. It doesn’t seem like a tumor. … What does that mean?” True to form, Laguens, herself the mother of triplets, answered with yet more “abortion rights” talking points that totally avoided the question. “With respect,” responded Carlson, “I know you’re smart, but you’re giving me a series of rehearsed and very childish answers and it’s just disappointing.”>> --> Resemblance to what has happened above in this thread is NOT coincidental. --> The ugly columns of smoke continue to rise. KF kairosfocus

AJ, you are already off on tangents. I simply point out that Wilberforce is the pivotal, key example of a reformer in the modern world. As for reducing abortions and disparaging the holocaust nature of the mass slaughter of 800+ million unborn children in 40+ years, mounting up at a million more per week, reducing the rate of a holocaust is simply not the same as facing it for what it is. Thank you for inadvertently showing us by live example just how eaten out our civilisation's moral reasoning capacity is, and just how pivotal a role the abortion holocaust has played in that. Beyond, the rhetorical stratagems you have used -- the latest being Alinsky's ridicule to dismiss -- show just how destructive agit prop and media shadow show tactics are. KF kairosfocus

JDK, it is now hard for me to avoid the conclusion that you are playing the troll and seeking to sidetrack by repeated tangents. I simply remind you that the main focus is agit prop and media manipulations. Playing the troll is a known agit prop tactic. Shape up, or please ship out. KF kairosfocus

KF:

AJ, that you thought to dismiss Wilberforce’s historical example of the power of morally driven reformation to eradicate key evils and positively transform the world speaks volumes. Not, in your favour. KF

I dismissed it because it is not relevant to this discussion. The fact that you do not see this speaks volumes. And not in your favour. But again, your avoidance of actually addressing the real issue is patently obvious to all onlookers. Let me clip from above.

I don’t know why you keep bringing up Wilberforce. It is a false equivalency. Please stay on topic. Your argument boils down to the fact that you will not accept anything other than an absolute ban on legal abortion. Even though it has been shown that this will do very little in changing the actual abortion rate other than making it far more risky for the women having them. Can you tell me where the benefit is in this? The only thing I can see is that it would assuage your false guilt at the fact that the government allows abortions under certain restrictions. Setting goals that are not achievable is just plain stupid. It just sets us up for failure. We would all like a world in which women never had unwanted pregnancies. But that will never happen. The combination of raging hormones and the fact that sex is very enjoyable (and it is) dooms it to failure. However, providing young people with objective knowledge, devoid of puritanical moralizing, and unrestricted access to contraceptives has been shown to go a long way to reduce unwanted pregnancies and, by extension, the number of abortions. I have presented an approach that has been shown to significantly reduce the abortion rate. You have presented an approach that will not affect the abortion rate and will result in the unnecessary deaths of countless women. It concerns me that you are more interested in the false appearance of doing something to reduce the abortion rate rather than doing something that will actually reduce the abortion rate.

Are you going to continue to deny that the approach I suggested is not a good first step towards significantly reducing abortion rates? Is it because you find the idea of teaching kids about sex without the puritanical judgement morally reprehensible? Or that the idea of unrestricted access to contraceptives is morally reprehensible? This in spite of the clearly demonstrated fact that this significantly reduces unwanted pregnancies and abortions? If you are serious about your rediculous holocaust analogy, you should embrace any strategy that will significantly reduce unwanted pregnancies. But that, obviously, is not your motivation. You, for a reason I can't fathom, would prefer to force women with unwanted pregnancies to complete their pregnancy rather than give them the knowledge and tools to prevent the pregnancy in the first place. Armand Jacks

Can married couples have casual, playful sex, in your view? Can married couples use contraception, in your view, in order to limit the number of children they have and still enjoy the benefits of a regular sexual relationship? jdk

JDK, I suggest that you take a moment to see that I critiqued by implication, casual sex and the tendency to view it as a sport or game with protective equipment, as opposed to committed creation order marriage and family. I gather, there is actually a whole horrid subculture of sex as a game out there, with emphasis on seduction as a sort of shady art form leading to racking up a score of numbers and types of attractive young women manipulated and bedded (I guess, extra points for virgins, I was too disgusted to look that far in web sites on that ugly, ugly, ugly topic -- for sure I saw posted betting lists for women targetted on campuses decades ago). That is an extreme but the tendency behind it is clear. Second, you need to ponder the corrosive impacts of evolutionary materialism and its fellow traveller ideologies and agendas on our civilisation. And BTW, the second time around -- Plato pointed out much the same 2350+ years ago in The Laws Bk X. KF kairosfocus

kf - my thoughts about the value of good sex education, contraceptives, etc have absolutely nothing to do with "evolutionary materialism." And since you weren't specific, I don'y know what words of yours you think I'm twisting. I got a laugh out of your referring to sex as "playing at a contact sport." jdk

AJ, that you thought to dismiss Wilberforce's historical example of the power of morally driven reformation to eradicate key evils and positively transform the world speaks volumes. Not, in your favour. KF PS: On objectivity of morality, you have of course adroitly side stepped links above. I again point: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_morals (Also, beware what you wish for, responsible rationality itself pivots on the binding force of oughtness towards truth and right. Logical nihilism is just as ruinous as any other form.) kairosfocus

JDK, you show the moral breakdown I pointed to, by your twisting of my words. I suggest you think again, more soberly, on what you are telling us about the menace of evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers. KF kairosfocus

I have said that there is no evidence of objective morality.

Well then, carry on with the claim and hedging but don't feel it carries any more weight than "Health at every size".

How do you prove the non-existence of something?

Are you a strand of spaghetti? Vy

AJ @324 Turnabout? Did you not make the claim @293:

History has shown this over and over again. It probably has something to do with the subjective nature of morality. Wishing that it was objective doesn’t make it so.

You even double downed @309 while admitting it’s problematic. Surely you can back up your claim that morality is subjective… Heartlander

Vy:

Nice hedging. You are the one who has repeatedly claimed here that there is no evidence to support objective morality in response to WJM so the onus is on you to back up that claim. Deflecting by offering tu quoque excuses about other threads does not absolve you of that burden here and now.

What burden? I have said that there is no evidence of objective morality. Maybe that is just because I am unaware of the mountains of evidence supporting it. It should be a simple task to correct me in this respect. Yet nobody has done so.

Funny how this fallacious myth continues to thrive in the Atheist hivemind. Much like the 10% brain myth.

How do you prove the non-existence of something? Maybe I am just woefully ignorant. Feel free to prove to me that something doesn't exist. Armand Jacks

Nice turnabout. You repeatedly assert that objective morality and moral truth exist (even writing a couple OPs about it) and when someone says that there is no compelling evidence to support it, rather than provide examples of that evidence, you demand that they prove that the evidence doesn’t exist.

Nice hedging. You are the one who has repeatedly claimed here that there is no evidence to support objective morality in response to WJM so the onus is on you to back up that claim. Deflecting by offering tu quoque excuses about other threads does not absolve you of that burden here and now.

Although I am curious, how is it possible to prove that something doesn’t exist? Can you prove that Santa Clause, leprechauns, the tooth fairy, unicorns and god don’t exist? Of course not.

Funny how this fallacious myth continues to thrive in the Atheist hivemind. Much like the 10% brain myth. Vy

I also am curious about the evidence. jdk

WM:

Since that’s the second time you’ve made that assertion, I challenge you to support it.

Nice turnabout. You repeatedly assert that objective morality and moral truth exist (even writing a couple OPs about it) and when someone says that there is no compelling evidence to support it, rather than provide examples of that evidence, you demand that they prove that the evidence doesn't exist. Although I am curious, how is it possible to prove that something doesn't exist? Can you prove that Santa Clause, leprechauns, the tooth fairy, unicorns and god don't exist? Of course not. You can either prove that they do exist or not be able to find any evidence of their existance. Armand Jacks

AJ said:

I just know that there is nothing to support the concept of objective morality.

Since that's the second time you've made that assertion, I challenge you to support it. William J Murray

Nice - to kf, sex is playing at a contact sport. :-) jdk

KF:

AJ, the side-tracking and refusal to face consciences benumbed in the context of the ongoing worst holocaust in history continue; where amelioration of holocaust is another word for continuation of holocaust under false colours of moderation.....

I don't know why you keep bringing up Wilberforce. It is a false equivalency. Please stay on topic. Your argument boils down to the fact that you will not accept anything other than an absolute ban on legal abortion. Even though it has been shown that this will do very little in changing the actual abortion rate other than making it far more risky for the women having them. Can you tell me where the benefit is in this? The only thing I can see is that it would assuage your false guilt at the fact that the government allows abortions under certain restrictions. Setting goals that are not achievable is just plain stupid. It just sets us up for failure. We would all like a world in which women never had unwanted pregnancies. But that will never happen. The combination of raging hormones and the fact that sex is very enjoyable (and it is) dooms it to failure. However, providing young people with objective knowledge, devoid of puritanical moralizing, and unrestricted access to contraceptives has been shown to go a long way to reduce unwanted pregnancies and, by extension, the number of abortions. I have presented an approach that has been shown to significantly reduce the abortion rate. You have presented an approach that will not affect the abortion rate and will result in the unnecessary deaths of countless women. It concerns me that you are more interested in the false appearance of doing something to reduce the abortion rate rather than doing something that will actually reduce the abortion rate. WM:

I’m sure you consider that to be true, but to be fair billions disagree, including me.

I don't know if it is true. I just know that there is nothing to support the concept of objective morality. This doesn't make me happy. But I am a realist. O:

Thus spoke the sociopath with a complete lack of conscience, lack of empathy, remorse, guilt and shame.

Nice ad-hominem. Do you actually have a logical argument? Armand Jacks

PS: A thought-provoker on the objectivity of morality: https://philosophynow.org/issues/115/Is_Morality_Objective >>Morality is objective. That is, moral claims are true or false about aspects of human interaction that involve the ideas of rights and obligations. Further, the fundamental moral maxims apply universally, and reasonable people can agree on their truth. There are really just two alternatives to moral objectivism: moral relativism, and all the rest. But all the rest lead to absurdity: if I truly believe that I cannot know right from wrong (moral skepticism), or that all moral claims are false (moral error theory), or that there is no right or wrong (moral nihilism and non-cognitivism), then I must conclude I don’t know what I should do. However, as a social animal I must interact with others. Thus, I find myself in the dilemma of having to act but not knowing how to act. Any theory that leads to this absurd state of mind must be rejected. Moral relativism then is the only credible challenge to moral objectivism. The case for moral relativism is that different societies have different moral judgments. However, most more complex moral judgments are derived from a few basic ones, with components that vary with the material conditions of different societies. But the fact that different societies make different moral judgments does not prove relativism. To prove their position, relativists must dig down to the fundamental moral judgments in every society, and then show that these judgments are not shared by societies. This they have not done. This is the indirect case for moral objectivism. The direct case includes the following ideas: (1) All societies share certain values necessary for any society to function (for example, no lying, promise-keeping, nurturing children) (2) Objectivism appeals to reason over feeling and offers a better chance for humanity to solve its many problems; (3) The purpose of ethics is to provide guidance, and humanity needs guidance for world affairs and not just within any particular society, and (4) Nations and societies must cooperate, and this requires agreement on core values. Ethics first; meta-ethics [that is, thinking about the foundations of ethics] second. Meta-ethics should not be an obstacle to the pragmatic project of seeking guidance for human social interaction grounded on something we can all agree on, which I believe is a common human nature. John Talley, Rutherfordton, NC>> kairosfocus

AJ, asserting that nothing points to objectivity of moral government that we find ourselves under is effective rhetoric for some, but that begs a very big question or two, for starters cf: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_morals . . . begs 'em to the point of being a fallacy of confident manner. BTW, thanks for underscoring the amoral implications of evolutionary materialistic scientism on this and other points. KF kairosfocus

"sex education and easily available contraception" These are irrelevant to a person's right to be born. Andrew asauber

Armand Jacks: There is nothing in life, in history, in society, that lends credence to the existence of a system of objective morals.

Thus spoke the sociopath with a complete lack of conscience, lack of empathy, remorse, guilt and shame. Origenes

AJ said:

There is nothing in life, in history, in society, that lends credence to the existence of a system of objective morals.

I'm sure you consider that to be true, but to be fair billions disagree, including me. William J Murray

AJ, the side-tracking and refusal to face consciences benumbed in the context of the ongoing worst holocaust in history continue; where amelioration of holocaust is another word for continuation of holocaust under false colours of moderation. As for history/facts, you appear to be utterly unaware of and unwilling to face the tellingly parallel case of Wilberforce and the contrasting track records of radical revolution and reformation rooted in prophetic, visionary intellectual and cultural leadership -- exactly what that case is all about. G'day. KF PS: I can hardly recognise either myself or my mother in the caricature you have made on health education. That should tell you something about the strawman projections you are making. (FYI, I am not a Roman Catholic, nor am I bound by teachings of or alliances with that church, you and your ilk have raised a distractive irrelevancy, exactly a known agit-prop and media shadow show tactic. The core point remains: holocaust driven by utter devaluation of life and degradation of the act of marital love that procreates into a relationally empty, soul-tearing, conscience benumbing contact sport and questions of safety equipment backed up by getting rid of unwanted contraceptive failures. Utter, soul-wrecking moral failure, in short.) PPS: The White Rose Martyrs have somewhat to say:

WR, II: Since the conquest of Poland three hundred thousand Jews have been murdered in this country in the most bestial way . . . The German people slumber on in their dull, stupid sleep and encourage these fascist criminals . . . Each man wants to be exonerated of a guilt of this kind, each one continues on his way with the most placid, the calmest conscience. But he cannot be exonerated; he is guilty, guilty, guilty! WR, IV: Every word that comes from Hitler's mouth is a lie. When he says peace, he means war, and when he blasphemously uses the name of the Almighty, he means the power of evil, the fallen angel, Satan. His mouth is the foul-smelling maw of Hell, and his might is at bottom accursed. True, we must conduct a struggle against the National Socialist terrorist state with rational means; but whoever today still doubts the reality, the existence of demonic powers, has failed by a wide margin to understand the metaphysical background of this war.

kairosfocus

KF:

JDK & AJ, again, side-tracking, setting up strawman targets and knocking them over.

I don't think that means what you think it means. I have presented a sound proposal, supported by actual statistics, many from the same sources that you have cited. And you dismiss it without addressing any of it. Let me simplify it, using small words to make it easily understood. ==>1 when abortions were illegal the abortion rate was similar or higher than what it is now. ==>2 when abortions were illegal botched abortions accounted for approximately 18% of pregnancy related deaths. ==> 3 comprehensive sex education starting at an early age and non-restricted access to contraceptives are partially responsible for the dramatic reduction in both unwanted pregnancies and abortions. ==> 4 countries like Switzerland that have adopted the approach mentioned above, even though they have abortion on demand, have one of the lowest unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates in the world. You are not willing to take direct physical action against this pseudo-holocaust. And we know that criminalizing abortion doesn't actually reduce the rate of abortion (remember the 27 per 1000 estimate I provided earlier, from the same source you have repeatedly cited). And you are not willing to support comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to contraceptives, the two things proven to actually reduce the abortion rate (again, from the same source you cite). I can only conclude that your actual goal (obsession) is to prevent people having sex for any reason other than procreation rather than to actually reduce abortion rates. Armand Jacks

JDK, why are you still on a side-track, strawman chase? You have had a more than clear enough answer, starting with my mother's work. And BTW, family planning is family planning, not a means to "reduce" abortions while playing at in effect a contact sport . . . again, the moral consideration surfaces. The issue that we are looking at holocaust driven by devaluation of human life in our thoughts and multiplied by benumbed consciences must not be lost sight of. Nor, the focus of the thread, cynical agit prop and manipulative media shadow shows. We need profound reformation, if we are to avert ruin as a civilisation. KF kairosfocus

So you would be for sex education and easily available contraception as a way of reducing the number of abortions if they were guided by sound moral principles - true? jdk

JDK & AJ, again, side-tracking, setting up strawman targets and knocking them over. The pivotal issue being again ducked is that regarding the war on our posterity. Namely, we are looking at the worst holocaust in history, reflective of a dangerous and potentially utterly ruinous undermining of respect for the value of human life. Where also we too often see a clear pattern -- the main focus of this thread -- of agit prop and cynical manipulative media shadow shows. In such a context anything presenting itself as sex education or HIV prevention or contraceptive promotion or health education or the like (and my Mom used to work in this field, there is nothing wrong with such education in principle, if it is guided by soundness and also by sound moral considerations . . . ) will likely become tainted also, as some recent cases in my homeland underscore to me. Until we are healthy enough in our souls to get recognising and facing holocaust right, there is no reason whatsoever to trust any other claim or argument or proposal, as blood guilt on this scale is one of the most corrupting influences of all. KF PS: AJ, across time the US position has driven and has funded what is going on across the world, so I am a lot less than impressed by claims that numbers have fallen there in recent years, especially when the value of human life -- and so also the horror of what we are doing -- is not being seriously reckoned with. We need reformation, and nothing less will do. kairosfocus

Good post at 308 and elsewhere, Armand Jack's. It baffles me that people who are strongly against abortions are not therefore for the things you mention: among other things, good sex education, easily available contraceptions, and support for young women having full-fledged social opportunities rather than feeling limited to the role of bearing babies. jdk

WM:

Well, at least you’re capable of admitting the historical, problematic nature of moral subjectivism.

Damn right it is problematic. As is cancer, herpes and generous. But that doesn't make them any less real. There is nothing in life, in history, in society, that lends credence to the existence of a system of objective morals. Armand Jacks

Andrew:

I don’t like the use of analogies. They’re just poetry."

I agree. But you might want to mention that to KF.

I’m afraid you’re being a little obtuse here.

How is this obtuse? I have proposed concrete actions that have been shown to be a significant factor in the reduction of unwanted pregnancies and , therefore, abortions. Actions that many states fight against tooth and nail. And I have provided my reasons for preferring this approach over simply criminalizing abortion. If that is being obtuse, your definition of that word must be different than mine.

Abortion’s only purpose is to end an unwanted pregnancy. That’s all it does. That you deny this fact kind of leads me to believe you aren’t interested in a serious discussion.

Actually it is also used to terminate wanted pregnancies when the mother's life is at serious risk. But that is really beside the point. Abortion's purpose is to end a pregnancy. Where have I denied this? What is it about my proposal to provide comprehensive sex education to all children, have unrestricted access to contraceptives, provide significant levels of support for women who want to carry their pregnancy to the end, whether for adoption or to keep it, that you have a problem with? Switzerland has abortion on demand yet it has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world (6.8 per 1000 as compared to 16 per 1000 in the US) Don't you think that we can learn something from their approach. An approach, I might add, which mirrors my suggestions. Is your real goal to significantly reduce the abortion rates, or to simply criminalize it to make your conscience feel better"? Have you even thought about the consequences of driving abortion back underground where it was before abortion on demand became avaliable. Maybe these numbers will give you cause for thought:

Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.[Guttmacher Institute]

Assuming that these numbers are correct, a little math gets us to approximately 27 abortions per 1000 women of child bearing years. (Math: 200,000,000 population. 50% female. 30% of child bearing year). Please check my math, I have been known to make mistakes. For further reflection:

In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women—nearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year....By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. And these are just the number that were officially reported; the actual number was likely much higher.[Guttmacher Institute]

Illegal abortions have a greater impact on the poor and disadvantaged. Read the following for more of what you are inviting back to our society:

These women paid a steep price for illegal procedures. In 1962 alone, nearly 1,600 women were admitted to Harlem Hospital Center in New York City for incomplete abortions, which was one abortion-related hospital admission for every 42 deliveries at that hospital that year. In 1968, the University of Southern California Los Angeles County Medical Center, another large public facility serving primarily indigent patients, admitted 701 women with septic abortions, one admission for every 14 deliveries.[Guttmacher Institute]

We were woefully incapable of preventing illegal abortion in the past, with all of its consequences. What makes you think that we would be any more successful in the future? Armand Jacks

No, abortion is not the solution to unwanted pregnancies. That is like saying that amputating your arms is a solution to armpit odour.

Armand, I don't like the use of analogies. They're just poetry. I'm afraid you're being a little obtuse here. Abortion's only purpose is to end an unwanted pregnancy. That's all it does. That you deny this fact kind of leads me to believe you aren't interested in a serious discussion. Andrew asauber

Andrew:

Abortion is the solution to unwanted pregnancies, which are the things you seem to be trying to eliminate. Why would a decrease in abortions be desirable if that’s the case?

No, abortion is not the solution to unwanted pregnancies. That is like saying that amputating your arms is a solution to armpit odour. There are two ways to reduce abortion, but neither of them will completely eliminate them. 1) Criminalize it, which history has shown does not stop the demand for abortion or eliminate access to it. What it does, however, is make the abortion far more risky for any women getting one. 2) Reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies through a combination of many things including early and comprehensive sex education, unrestricted access to contraceptives, the provision of support for any woman who would like to bring the pregnancy to term, etc. I prefer the latter. Sadly, many of the people who oppose abortion in all instances, also oppose sex education and availability of contraceptives. As such, their myopic solution is to criminalize abortion. Armand Jacks

Andrew, I have respond a couple times but they appear to be disappearing. I will try again shortly Armand Jacks

Armand, You didn't answer my question. You asked me two questions instead. Let's be polite and answer before we start firing back questions. Abortion is the solution to unwanted pregnancies, which are the things you seem to be trying to eliminate. Why would a decrease in abortions be desirable if that's the case? Andrew asauber

Andrew:

Why would abortion numbers plummeting in the US be considered good news?

Why not? Are you in favour of abortions? I'm not. But I would prefer to see them drop because women do not have unwanted pregnancies rather than because the government forces other peoples' religious values on them through lawfare. Armand Jacks

Armand Jacks, Why would abortion numbers plummeting in the US be considered good news? Andrew asauber

KF:

Of course, the issue is the global total, where per Guttmacher and UN, abortions are about 50 millions per year, about a million per week. A simple growth model across 40 years [known to be conservative] yields 800+ millions and 1 million more per week. That is the reality we face.

Yet, the numbers in the US have plummeted. And comprehensive sex education at an early age and unrestricted access to birth control are clearly important contributors to this. Why not encourage similar approaches in areas of the world where unwanted pregnancies and abortions remain very high. After all, the ultimate goal is to have a world where there are no unwanted pregnancies and, therefore, no demand for abortions. Armand Jacks

Fortunately the mainstream media is no longer a trusted source of news information by the majority of US citizens. Counter-narrative information and opinion has become available virtually universally, even though many social media networks are attempting to filter in favor of the mainstream narrative. I'm not sure it's even appropriate to call that narrative or the media that promotes it "mainstream" anymore, because the majority rejects it, which is greatly encouraging. Groups on VOAT, Reddit and 4chan call this process "red-pilling" as people wake up to the extensive, pervasive lie that is being billed as truth and fact by media and various figures of authority and popularity. You never know what effect you can have on others. Recently my brother had been posting some Bernie Sanders stuff about corporations not paying any income tax, the memes implying that they doing something unethical or immoral to avoid paying taxes. It was typical anti-corporate & class warfare polemic. I directed him to information that explained that most corporations pay no corporate income tax because profits are diverted to shares (S corps), partners or owners and and they pay those taxes as personal income tax. This made him realize that Bernie was using deceptive wording, I think causing him to question Bernie's motives and creating ideological space for him to question his understanding of the political landscape. Disruptive snippets such as that can bring a whole worldview crashing down. People are waking up to the actual existence of the Globalist agenda and the Deep State as they see leak after leak after leak without any real substance used in a concerted way to delegitimize Trump and see the shocking, anti-democratic, violent words and actions of the progressive mob. This agit-prop works on highly conditioned people, but the worse it gets, the more they lose to common sense and decency as disruptive media grows more and more available. More people get their information from so-called "alternative" sources than so-called "mainstream" sources. Look at the press conferences; Trump and Spicer are disrupting the entrenched system by bringing in press from alternative sources, fielding questions from Skype participants, and ignoring the old press pecking order. Trump takes his message directly to the people without the interpretive filter of any media. However, as KF notes in other words, an injured, cornered animal is much more desperate and dangerous. The anti-globalist wave is crashing the old, established system. Fortunately, we now have a very vigilant and active counter-culture and its size is increasing every day. William J Murray

Under what conditions would you support capital punishment.

In situations where incarceration would prove as dangerous as non-incarceration - for example, the incarceration of individuals that can run criminal organizations from the inside of prisons, which can put guards and staff under threat and generate systemic corruption, or for persons too dangerous to be handled without extreme measures. IOW, in situations where the continued life of the criminal poses a unique, ongoing, real threat to the outside world, other prisoners, guards or prison staff.

No. demand never changed.

I think you're confusing demand with desire. From Wikipedia:

In economics, demand is the quantity of a commodity or a service that people are willing or able to buy at a certain price.[1]

A consumer can desire a product but not be willing to try to buy it, especially if that product is illegal. Desire for X is not the same thing as economic demand, which depends on several social factors including legality. If you make X illegal, most law-abiding people are not willing to pay for X regardless of its price. That they would be willing to pay for it if legal doesn't change the fact that they are unwilling to pay for it if illegal.

My comment used numbers for abortions.

The comment I quoted and referred to was the first comment in this paragraph of yours:

Let’s examine the US numbers. Teen pregnancy rates have dropped 51% since 1990 and teen abortion rates have dropped 66%. But from state to state, Maine, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont have the lowest teen pregnancy rates. The highest teen pregnancy rates are found in the southern states. I will leave it to you to guess which of these two groupings have the more comprehensive sex education programs and access to contraceptives. [Emphasis mine- WJM]

... where, for some reason, you go on and on about teen pregnancy rates as if they have some weight on the matter being discussed - abortions.

The link between smoking and cancer also isn’t based on fact. But very few doubt that it exists.

Actually, both sets of correlations are based on fact. The problem is that correlation is not causation, no matter how many times you repeat the correlation, it doesn't make the case for causation. That's the nature of science and logic.

If your goal is really to reduce abortion rates, why the opposition to the approach that appears to be effective?

Where have I opposed birth control and sex education? Did you miss where I said: "Perhaps it is a combination – I’m not against the availability of most contraceptives nor am I against proper sex education. It would be great if abortion became so rare that the legality of it no longer was an issue."

Answer my question about whether you oppose capital punishment in all circumstances, and we can talk about this.

Please keep in mind, just because I consider all human life sacred doesn't mean I think there is no valid reason for killing another human - it just has to be an extremely good reason and carried out with regret and a realization of the gravity of the act. Terminating humans for one's personal convenience doesn't come close to meeting that standard; terminating a pregnancy because it poses a substantive risk to the mother's life, IMO, does. As does executing those who cannot be safely incarcerated. I would suspect that at some point we will have other means of "incarcerating" these dangerous individuals that will be safe - at that point there probably will be no morally valid reason to have a death penalty.

Nothing. History has shown this over and over again. It probably has something to do with the subjective nature of morality. Wishing that it was objective doesn’t make it so.

Well, at least you're capable of admitting the historical, problematic nature of moral subjectivism. William J Murray

If Obama's administration was responsible for "wiretapping" (let's not forget Trump used the scare quotes), it is entirely appropriate to lay the responsibility on Obama. The buck stops there. William J Murray

Wiretaps? Sunnunu suggests, http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/donald-trump-john-sununu-wiretap-department-of-justice/2017/03/13/id/778464/ Notice: >>"Up until the Trump tweet on being tapped, the theme in the liberal press was Trump and his people were doing horrible things, and we know it because their phone calls were tapped," Sununu said. "Now that Trump says he was tapped, they reverse their claim. "This again is another case of the liberal media trying to have their cake and eat it too, or trying to have our cake and eat it too. They were all gloating before his tweet that there was information from wiretaps available to embarrass the Trump administration. "The mistake Trump made was saying Obama did it instead of the Obama administration ordered it . . . It probably was the Obama administration through the Loretta Lynch Justice Department that did it." Sununu said he believes Attorney General Jeff Sessions is "trying to find all the information there and eventually will put whatever they have in public, but it is amazing to me how quickly . . . the liberal press, can reverse course and not be called on it.">> --> There is a clear case of NYT on Jan 20 having a headline on wiretapping, which was subsequently changed (wiretapping is still referenced in teh articles), but of course printed papers cannot be un-printed [never mind Mr Winston Smith's job in 1984]. --> Which is it, the media were lying when they confidently appealed to wiretapping, or they are lying now when they pretend there is no evidence of such wiretapping. KF kairosfocus

More on media shadow shows: https://www.newsmax.com/JamesHirsen/administration-attorney-attorneys-general/2017/03/13/id/778372/ >>The Trump administration, through its attorney general, recently asked for the resignation of all remaining Obama-appointed U.S. attorneys. This is, in fact, a change of personnel in which new administrations routinely engage. However, the media reporting by the mainstream press and broadcast media has been anything but routine; rather, the coverage has been somewhat hysterical in nature. "Trump Abruptly Orders 46 Obama-Era Prosecutors to Resign," The New York Times stated in an overly dramatic headline. CNN focused on the emotional reaction of Obama appointees with a story entitled, "Anger mounts over handling of US attorney firings." Another, "Sessions Ousts Nearly Half Of The US Attorneys Across The Country In Friday Order," was a BuzzFeed posted headline. Media outlets and social media posts floated the dubious idea that radio and television personality Sean Hannity had somehow influenced the president to facilitate the attorneys' exits. The New York Times said that the request for U.S. attorney resignations "came less than 24 hours after Sean Hannity, the Fox News commentator who often speaks with Mr. Trump, called for a 'purge' of Obama appointees at the Justice Department on his show." The following Democratic politicians sounded a familiar anti-Trump chord. Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., remarked that she was "surprised" and “concerned” by the Justice Department changes. Senator and Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., issued a statement indicating that the he was "troubled to learn of reports of requests for resignations from the remaining U.S. Attorneys." Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., tweeted that the president cannot fire the "rule of law." Congressman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., suggested that the termination of the U.S. attorneys is some kind of cover up. The Trump administration did indeed ask for the resignation of all remaining Obama-appointed U.S. attorneys; however, such a request in the modern political era is an anticipated and customary action.>> --> As in, it is normally a part of peaceful transfer of power in the USA that political appointees are routinely replaced. --> Do we really want to go down this road, what happens next time, then the next then the next? (As in, which box is coming if the ballot box is undermined?) KF kairosfocus

Of course, the issue is the global total, where per Guttmacher and UN, abortions are about 50 millions per year, about a million per week. A simple growth model across 40 years [known to be conservative] yields 800+ millions and 1 million more per week. That is the reality we face. kairosfocus

WM:

I’m sure what also contributes to the decrease in abortions is that the government helps to care of mothers who are otherwise unable to support, or have difficulty supporting, children. Also, there are programs that pay all the expenses of the expectant mother if she wants to give the child up for adoption – including bills, housing, etc. These (IMO) are probably the greatest reasons that abortions have decreased as much as they have over the years.

These have undoubtedly had an impact. That is why I said that sex ed and contraceptives partially attributed to it. Do you have evidence that the same states that use the abstinence only approach and require parental approval for access to contraceptives also have less government and program support for pregnant women than the other states? Armand Jacks

WM:

If by “believe in” you mean “support”, it depends on the circumstances in each case.

OK. Under what conditions would you support capital punishment. Just so you don't think that it is a "gotcha" question, I will tell you that I oppose capital punishment regardless of the crime. Before you accuse me of being inconsistent with my stance on being willing to kill the German soldier to save a train full of children, they are different in that one involves what I am personally willing to do and the other is what I am willing to empower a government to do.

Yes, it did. Criminalizing reduced demand, and decriminalizing increased demand.

No. demand never changed. Availability did. But the point I was making was that even the access increase significantly during prohibition. There was the initial reduction to 30% of pre-prohibition levels, followed by an increase to 70% before the government realized that prohibition was not working.

We are talking about abortions, not teen pregnancies. Is there some part of that you find confusing?

My comment used numbers for abortions. Teens and early twenties. 66% reduction. Partially attributed to more comprehensive sex education and available contraceptives. YWhat about "an education is for life" don't you understand? These teens, who are getting pregnant at increasingly reduced rates are likely to carry this through adulthood.

In other words, no causal linkage has been shown to exist, so your claim that the reduction of abortions is “largely attributed to comprehensive sex education and access to contraceptives” isn’t founded on fact,...

The link between smoking and cancer also isn't based on fact. But very few doubt that it exists. In states where comprehensive sex education and access to contraceptives by teens is the norm, teenage pregancy rates and abortions are significantly lower than states where abstinence only approaches and parental approval for access to contraceptives is the norm. If your goal is really to reduce abortion rates, why the opposition to the approach that appears to be effective?

Perhaps it is a combination – I’m not against the availability of most contraceptives nor am I against proper sex education. It would be great if abortion became so rare that the legality of it no longer was an issue.

In this we agree.

Whether or not you call a belief “religious” in nature, someone is going to have their beliefs ensconced into law, whether that it is that a human has those rights and protections from conception, or that they have them after birth.

Again, we agree. But one path does not force their view on how others must live their lives, and the other does.

What’s to keep other moral subjectivists from drawing the “less valuable” line in a different place, or according to entirely different parameters?

Nothing. History has shown this over and over again. It probably has something to do with the subjective nature of morality. Wishing that it was objective doesn't make it so.

This is why all human life should be considered sacred.

Answer my question about whether you oppose capital punishment in all circumstances, and we can talk about this. Armand Jacks

I'm sure what also contributes to the decrease in abortions is that the government helps to care of mothers who are otherwise unable to support, or have difficulty supporting, children. Also, there are programs that pay all the expenses of the expectant mother if she wants to give the child up for adoption - including bills, housing, etc. These (IMO) are probably the greatest reasons that abortions have decreased as much as they have over the years. William J Murray

BTW, AJ, don't forget - this isn't an argument about abortion per se; what I'm showing you is that your characterization of Pro-Lifers wrt how you would expect them to act in certain situations you think are comparable (thus revealing some sort of hypocrisy) is woefully inaccurate and based on a lack of understanding, on your part, of the real depth and issues that complicate a pro-lifers behavior in various different situations - not because they are just "pro-lifers", but because of the spiritual worldview that informs that position and their choices. It's revealed by your "if you are pro life, how can you support the death penalty" line of questioning; you're taking the "pro-life" out of a much deeper, more complicated context and using a superficial comparison as if that reveals hypocrisy. It might prove useful to you to, instead of trying for some cheap-shot gotcha moment where you think you've revealed hypocrisy or inconsistency, you actually try to understand these issues. William J Murray

AJ said:

I’m afraid that we disagree here. The lives of soldiers who are forcibly taking children against their wills for execution are of less value than those of the children.

And that's part of the problem. You don't understand the gravity and complex nature of moral choice from the perspective of those you are talking to which leads you to make false equivalences, bad comparisons and erroneous conclusions - such as the one where you insist that anti-abortionists "don't really" consider abortion murder and a holocaust. Of course you and a pro-lifer are not going to behave the same because you don't hold all human life as sacred.

But I am curious. Do you believe in the death penalty?Torture?

If by "believe in" you mean "support", it depends on the circumstances in each case.

Criminalizing the sale of alcohol initially resulted in a reduction to 30% of pre-prohibition levels, followed by an increase to 70%, and quickly rose to pre-prohibition levels following the repeal of prohibition. Apparently, making it illegal did not affect demand.

Yes, it did. Criminalizing reduced demand, and decriminalizing increased demand. Which is what anyone with common sense would expect as law-abiding citizens avoid doing things that are against the law.

I thought we were talking about ways to reduce abortions. 11% of abortions are for teens, and 34% are for women just out of their teens. Surely anything that reduces these numbers would be a good thing.

We are talking about abortions, not teen pregnancies. Is there some part of that you find confusing?

We both know that direct causal linkages are very difficult to prove. However, there are several studies and articles that show a strong correlation:

In other words, no causal linkage has been shown to exist, so your claim that the reduction of abortions is "largely attributed to comprehensive sex education and access to contraceptives" isn't founded on fact, only on an ideologically friendly interpretation of data that could equally be interpreted by Pro-Lifers as evidence that their tactics are working. IOW, interpreted to mean that instead of killing doctors, blowing stuff up, sabotaging equipment or kidnapping pregnant women, that their work in changing the cultural perception of abortion via education, philosophical discussion and enlightenment, legal reform, lawful activism and providing alternatives is paying off as society turns away from abortion as an acceptable answer to the problem of unwanted pregnancies. Perhaps it is a combination - I'm not against the availability of most contraceptives nor am I against proper sex education. It would be great if abortion became so rare that the legality of it no longer was an issue.

I’m sorry, but I find it very difficult to conclude that a single celled fertilized ova should have all the rights and protections of a living breathing human being without importing religious belief on the subject. And for those with these religious beliefs, nobody is forcing you to avail yourself of abortion or contraception. I would strongly fight any proposal to do so.

Whether or not you call a belief "religious" in nature, someone is going to have their beliefs ensconced into law, whether that it is that a human has those rights and protections from conception, or that they have them after birth. However, that you find it hard to believe is not the point; that is what pro-lifers believe, and if you don't take it into account you cannot correctly address their position.

And, if that early stage fetus has such value, why do so many end up in miscarriages? The designer obviously does not afford the fetus the same worth and value that you do.

That's one of the most baffling lines of reasoning I've ever read. I don't see at all how a miscarriage indicates a lack of value for all human life on the part of god (what I assume you mean by "designer"). What it appears to indicate is that producing human life through to a successful birth is difficult - how would this reduce the value of the fetus?

This being said, I am in favour of imposing restrictions on abortion. It is my opinion (and it is just opinion) that there should not be any abortions after the first trimester except under very specific conditions (e.g., the life of the woman is at risk). The dividing line should be when the point at which there is significant brain activity and where there is the clear ability to feel pain. Not reaction to stimulus, but real pain. This will obviously not be a clear cut date, so a generous buffer would also have to be applied.

Since pain is a subjectively discerned phenomena, I'm not sure how you expect to differentiate between a fetus "feeling real pain" and "reacting to stimulus". However, the problem here is the arbitrary nature of where you decide to devalue human life - you pick the arbitrary line of "being able to feel real pain" and whatever degree of brain activity you would decree as "significant". Once you start making arbitrary decisions on where to begin devaluing human life (like, you know, shooting less-valuable soldiers without a second thought, or aborting the unborn), you have begun the walk down the path of moral subjectivism and treating humans like commodities. What's to keep other moral subjectivists from drawing the "less valuable" line in a different place, or according to entirely different parameters? This is why all human life should be considered sacred. William J Murray

WM:

Sorry, I can’t think of any other than providing discussion, counseling and support services that might convince her to change her mind...

Mandatory or voluntary?

Innocent children do not have a greater right to life than the german soldier, nor are the german soldiers less valuable than the children.

I'm afraid that we disagree here. The lives of soldiers who are forcibly taking children against their wills for execution are of less value than those of the children. But I am curious. Do you believe in the death penalty?Torture?

Do you really think that taking life without a second thought is a morally superior position to doing all one can without murdering anyone in pursuit of a just cause?

No. But if it is necessary to kill someone complicit in the act of killing a train full of innocent children in order to save them, I could do it with a relatively clear conscience. Do you really think that it is a morally superior position to allow a train full of children die when the death of someone complicit in the act would save them?

My logic is good – criminalizing a thing will certainly reduce demand and availability, thus reducing abortions.

Criminalizing the sale of alcohol initially resulted in a reduction to 30% of pre-prohibition levels, followed by an increase to 70%, and quickly rose to pre-prohibition levels following the repeal of prohibition. Apparently, making it illegal did not affect demand. Yes, it reduced availability, but even that was only short-live. So your logic isn't as sound as you claim that it is.

I live in the united states. Planned Parenthood clinics only provide 1/3 of abortion procedures and women certainly do not have to leave the country to find another.

True, but are you suggesting that making it immediately more difficult (financially) for some women to obtain an abortion will not result in a reduction in abortions? Given that 50% of women receiving abortions live below the poverty level, I think that this is a reasonable extrapolation.

Non-sequitur. I didn’t ask you about, nor did I say anything about, teen pregnancy rates.

I thought we were talking about ways to reduce abortions. 11% of abortions are for teens, and 34% are for women just out of their teens. Surely anything that reduces these numbers would be a good thing.

Yes, abortion rates have come down, and I see I worded my challenge poorly. Please direct me to where a causal linkage has been established between the (1)contraceptive availability and sex education and (2) declining abortion rates.

We both know that direct causal linkages are very difficult to prove. However, there are several studies and articles that show a strong correlation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7971545 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4852976/ https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2016/us-teen-pregnancy-birth-and-abortion-rates-reach-lowest-levels-almost-four-decades https://mic.com/articles/98886/the-states-with-the-highest-teenage-birth-rates-have-one-thing-in-common#.MiJCobiOk Obviously, none of these can conclusively prove that comprehensive sex education and availability of contraceptives is responsible for the reduction in abortion rates, especially among teens. But there are enough breadcrumbs to draw a very strong inference.

The only question is why you don’t consider the unborn a “human being” worthy of the same protections we afford other human beings

I'm sorry, but I find it very difficult to conclude that a single celled fertilized ova should have all the rights and protections of a living breathing human being without importing religious belief on the subject. And for those with these religious beliefs, nobody is forcing you to avail yourself of abortion or contraception. I would strongly fight any proposal to do so. And, if that early stage fetus has such value, why do so many end up in miscarriages? The designer obviously does not afford the fetus the same worth and value that you do. This being said, I am in favour of imposing restrictions on abortion. It is my opinion (and it is just opinion) that there should not be any abortions after the first trimester except under very specific conditions (e.g., the life of the woman is at risk). The dividing line should be when the point at which there is significant brain activity and where there is the clear ability to feel pain. Not reaction to stimulus, but real pain. This will obviously not be a clear cut date, so a generous buffer would also have to be applied. Armand Jacks

AJ asks:

Surely you do not lack so much in imagination that you could not come up with one or two courses of action that would result in abortions not being conducted on some women. I can think of several, even without resorting to physical violence against a person.

Sorry, I can't think of any other than providing discussion, counseling and support services that might convince her to change her mind and contribute politically to those who would change the law.

Since the trains were guarded by armed soldiers, using some level of lethal force would be necessary. Are you saying that you would not kill a German soldier or two to save a train load of children? Thank god that I am an atheist because I wouldn’t think twice about it.

Innocent children do not have a greater right to life than the german soldier, nor are the german soldiers less valuable than the children. When humans become fungible commodities that are expendable without a second thought even in pursuit of a moral goal, you have just demonstrated the problem with atheism. Do you really think that taking life without a second thought is a morally superior position to doing all one can without murdering anyone in pursuit of a just cause?

Because of that soul nonsense that is inserted in the fetus at conception? A small question. Do identical twins share a single soul?

Whether or not you consider the existence of a soul to be nonsense is irrelevant to the fact that the existence of the soul and the existence of spiritual laws and consequences is what one must take into account when addressing the pro-life side of the abortion debate and when posing hypotheticals or making comparisons. This is why you have utterly missed the most important aspects of the Pro-Life position and continue to make an ineffectual argument.

If you effectively shut down these clinics (eg. Sabotage) you would effectively prevent some women from getting an abortion. Many women with unwanted pregnancies are not financially able to travel to another country to obtain one. She would have to carry it to term.

I live in the united states. Planned Parenthood clinics only provide 1/3 of abortion procedures and women certainly do not have to leave the country to find another. I disagree with your assessment of my capacities to do anything of the sort.

Just like prohibition reduced the demand for alcohol. Now who’s logic is ridiculous. Unwanted pregnancies and abortions occurred before it was legal. Making it illegal again will simply drag it underground again.

My logic is good - criminalizing a thing will certainly reduce demand and availability, thus reducing abortions. I didn't say it would eliminate demand and I didn't say it wouldn't drive those wanting one underground. It's your logic that is bad thinking that because abortions will still occur or go underground there won't be a reduction in abortions. Of course there will be. By your logic there's no reason to make anything illegal because it won't affect the rate of occurrence. Facing criminal charges and punishment is indeed a deterrent for most law-abiding citizens.

Let’s examine the US numbers.

Non-sequitur. I didn't ask you about, nor did I say anything about, teen pregnancy rates.

The short answer is, yes. Over 50% reduction in both teen pregnancy and abortion rates in the US, largely attributed to comprehensive sex education and access to contraceptives.

Yes, abortion rates have come down, and I see I worded my challenge poorly. Please direct me to where a causal linkage has been established between the (1)contraceptive availability and sex education and (2) declining abortion rates.

Now the true agenda is revealed. It is about enforcing your religious beliefs on those through force of law. A wise man once called this type of tactic “lawfare”. There are many things that are legal that are not endorsed by government. Smoking, drinking, marijuana, skydiving, divorce, etc. It is all about responsible free choice. The right of all of us to make poor choices.

Where that line is drawn even by the most libertine of political thinkers (and, BTW, I am just such a libertine) is when your choices directly harm another human being. I think you'd probably agree with that and not consider it an aspect of any desired theocracy. The only question is why you don't consider the unborn a "human being" worthy of the same protections we afford other human beings William J Murray

WM:

but I would certainly not break the law in an attempt that is both doomed to failure and would result in my own incarceration and put me and my family at financial risk due to it’s illegal nature.

Surely you do not lack so much in imagination that you could not come up with one or two courses of action that would result in abortions not being conducted on some women. I can think of several, even without resorting to physical violence against a person.

What I would do is find non-lethal means of saving as many Jewish children as I could since I had no legal option open to me.

Since the trains were guarded by armed soldiers, using some level of lethal force would be necessary. Are you saying that you would not kill a German soldier or two to save a train load of children? Thank god that I am an atheist because I wouldn't think twice about it.

It seems you need something explained to you. First, the primary reason one would be against abortion is not the welfare of the child – the child is going to be just fine wrt their spiritual well-being.

Because of that soul nonsense that is inserted in the fetus at conception? A small question. Do identical twins share a single soul?

What I, KF and others here are primarily concerned with is the spiritual health of those who (1) get abortions, (2) provide abortions, and (3) the nation/society/civilization that endorses the activity. Our efforts are not so much to save that child, but rather to “save” those going down that path. This is where you atheism has blinded you to the motivations of those who wish to put an end to abortion.

Now the true agenda is revealed. It is about enforcing your religious beliefs on those through force of law. A wise man once called this type of tactic "lawfare". There are many things that are legal that are not endorsed by government. Smoking, drinking, marijuana, skydiving, divorce, etc. It is all about responsible free choice. The right of all of us to make poor choices.

If you kill a doctor or bomb an abortion clinic, you haven’t accomplished anything. Expectant mothers can go elsewhere and find other doctors.

Your imagination really is very limiting if you can't think of a way to prevent access to abortions without killing doctors or bombing clinics. There are many places where access to abortion is very limited due to number of clinics and location. If you effectively shut down these clinics (eg. Sabotage) you would effectively prevent some women from getting an abortion. Many women with unwanted pregnancies are not financially able to travel to another country to obtain one. She would have to carry it to term.

The truth is that you and others like you have incorporated a false equivalence into your position that is entirely based on vague terminology and faulty comparisons.

You mean like equating abortion to the holocaust?

That’s just about the worst “logic” I’ve ever heard. If abortion is illegal, it affects demand because many people will have a far greater concern about the consequences of their sexual behavior.

Just like prohibition reduced the demand for alcohol. Now who's logic is ridiculous. Unwanted pregnancies and abortions occurred before it was legal. Making it illegal again will simply drag it underground again.

Where on Earth do you live that there is a “stigma” with having an “unwanted” pregnancy? Where do you live where contraceptives are difficult to obtain? Where do you live where there is a lack of comprehensive sex education?

Let's examine the US numbers. Teen pregnancy rates have dropped 51% since 1990 and teen abortion rates have dropped 66%. But from state to state, Maine, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont have the lowest teen pregnancy rates. The highest teen pregnancy rates are found in the southern states. I will leave it to you to guess which of these two groupings have the more comprehensive sex education programs and access to contraceptives.

Has the proliferation of these things in western society decreased the number of abortions?

The short answer is, yes. Over 50% reduction in both teen pregnancy and abortion rates in the US, largely attributed to comprehensive sex education and access to contraceptives. Armand Jacks

WJM, sobering words. KF kairosfocus

AJ said

WM, you talk about false equivalence but it is not. You are saying that you would use violence to save a child, because it is legal to do so. But would not do so if it was against the law. It is sad when the atheist is the only one here who would knowingly break the law to save that same child.

That's not what I said. I used the example to point out the folly in attempting to prevent an abortion. I didn't say I wouldn't break the law in order to do what is right; but I would certainly not break the law in an attempt that is both doomed to failure and would result in my own incarceration and put me and my family at financial risk due to it's illegal nature. If I'm going to break the law I'm going to do everything I can to make sure it achieves the goal and minimizes the risk. There's no reason to be stupid about it.

Knowing what you know now, if you were transported to Nazi occupied Poland, would you use violence, if necessary, to stop a trainload of Jewish children from being taken to Auschwitz? Using KF’s logic, exterminating Jewish children in Nazi occupied lands and conducting abortions in 2016 are analogous. In fact, he said that the abortions are a far worse holocaust, but I will ignore that for the moment. They were both conducted under the full protection of the law and they are both the amoral murder of innocent human beings.

So, a couple of points; the only avenue for resistance in Nazi Germany was to pursue illegal actions because of the fascist, extreme nature of their situation. What do you mean by "using violence to stop the train?" What exactly are you saying? Do I have to kill soldiers to stop the train? How would that be that a "more moral" action on my part? What I would do is find non-lethal means of saving as many Jewish children as I could since I had no legal option open to me. Did Miep Gies run around blowing up buildings or killing soldiers? No, she just hid a family from the Nazis at great personal risk.

So, I will ask the same question. If you would be willing to break the law, including the use of sabotage and violence, to save a trainload of children being legally taken for extermination, why would you not be willing to break the law, including the use of sabotage and violence, to save other children from being legally aborted?

It seems you need something explained to you. First, the primary reason one would be against abortion is not the welfare of the child - the child is going to be just fine wrt their spiritual well-being. What I, KF and others here are primarily concerned with is the spiritual health of those who (1) get abortions, (2) provide abortions, and (3) the nation/society/civilization that endorses the activity. Our efforts are not so much to save that child, but rather to "save" those going down that path. This is where you atheism has blinded you to the motivations of those who wish to put an end to abortion.

And before you start screaming “false equivalence” do you have such low imagination that you could not perceive of any direct actions that would prevent doctors from being able to perform abortions? I can think of many.

No, I can't. Abortions are legal across the nation. If you kill a doctor or bomb an abortion clinic, you haven't accomplished anything. Expectant mothers can go elsewhere and find other doctors. The only thing you will have done is harm your own spiritual health by murdering someone or by putting others at risk. There is no "safe" way to bomb or use arson; you will always be risking the lives of the innocent. You would have also harmed your cause of pursuing legal and social change by becoming a murderer or a terrorist. In Germany, there was no avenue of pursuing social change via legal means. You are presenting an entirely false equivalence by (1) being vague about what you mean by "violence"; (2) drawing a comparison between two entirely different legal and cultural scenarios, and (3) entirely misunderstanding or ignoring what "pro-life" is ultimately about in spiritual and cultural terms for those who pursue it.

But let’s be honest here. Most people do not take that kind of action because they do not perceive an early stage abortion as the equivalent of killing a young child.

The truth is that you and others like you have incorporated a false equivalence into your position that is entirely based on vague terminology and faulty comparisons. You have also reduced the motivations of those in the pro-life movement to a false, oversimplified single point. I understand that as an atheist with little or no spiritual comprehension or framework you might think the phrase "Pro-Life" is entirely about saving the lives of the children and that this is what drives your false equivalence and profound misunderstanding about what "pro-life" is really all about. It's not even mostly about "saving the children" (because their souls will be just fine), it's about saving the soul of civilization and preventing it from anti-life, nihilistic moral subjectivism and cultural self-annihilation.

And they shouldn’t. Claiming that they are equivalent and calling it a holocaust just makes your position less tenable, not stronger.

Perhaps you can explain to us how legally killing Jews in mass numbers and legally aborting the unborn in mass numbers are not equivalent?

Don’t get me wrong. I would much prefer that there were no abortions. But I am a realist. Even if you made it illegal and jailed doctors who performed them, they would still occur, simply because you have done nothing to affect demand.

That's just about the worst "logic" I've ever heard. If abortion is illegal, it affects demand because many people will have a far greater concern about the consequences of their sexual behavior.

If you are serious about reducing the abortion rate, expand sex education, make contraceptives more available, remove the stigma around unwanted pregnancy and increase the support for women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. But many of the people who vehemently oppose abortion under all circumstances also oppose contraceptives, comprehensive sex education and removing the stigma around unwanted pregnancies.

Where on Earth do you live that there is a "stigma" with having an "unwanted" pregnancy? Where do you live where contraceptives are difficult to obtain? Where do you live where there is a lack of comprehensive sex education? Has the proliferation of these things in western society decreased the number of abortions? Look, I'm not a Christian nor am I near as moral as others here. IMO, if that was all it was about, I'd say let the atheists and progressives weed themselves out and have all the abortions they want. If they want to go down the path of spiritual ruin, that's their free will decision. From my spiritual perspective, the aborted suffer no spiritual harm and I - as a somewhat lesser moral being than others here - don't really care if you want to continue down your path of personal spiritual self-destruction. But, that's not what it's all about; the atheistic, morally relativistic nihilists are taking the whole of civilization down with them via their materialistic nonsense and abortion is a huge part of that path. Human life needs to be seen as sacred in our culture, not as a disposable inconvenience. Otherwise, we're doomed to the horror that inevitably ensues when human life is seen as a fungible commodity. William J Murray

CIA and the Meme Warfare Center -- as if further evidence was needed that something has gone very wrong: https://townhall.com/columnists/pauljacob/2017/03/12/deep-state-shallow-media-and-meme-warfare-n2297680 >>Sometimes it seems everybody wants to mess with what goes in and out of our brains. For all sorts of reasons, not least being to jigger with elections. And no, I am not talking about the Russians. The CIA has plans for a new department — the “Meme Warfare Center.” We know about it courtesy of WikiLeaks and its big “Year Zero”/Vault7 release, made just last week. The idea is to “aim for a full spectrum meme generation, analysis, quality control/assurance and organic transmission apparatus.” Cumbersome language is typical of bureaucratic memoranda, sure. Maybe once the Internal Memes Center (one of the two proposed divisions) is up and running, professional memesters will clean up such gobbledygook. A “meme,” after all, is the term Richard Dawkins invented for any notion or habit that is replicable in human brains. Obviously, the clearer — better constructed — an idea or icon or image or recipe is, the easier it will be to spread. And this “warfare” won't be limited to just inside the agency. They want an External Memes Center, too. The CIA does not merely want to know everything we do. It wants to influence how we think. Planting stories and ideas in the great conversation on the Internet and in the old Gutenberg dimension might do the trick, and the trick is control. Freaked out? Well, the Deep State’s “intelligence agents” are not alone. Almost everyone in politics wants to influence others. And that means meme generation, analysis, and transmission. Are you tired of the word “meme” yet? Well, I am afraid we are not quite done with it. Why? Because a few old-fashioned words no longer cut the proverbial mustard— words like FACT. CARTOONS | Henry Payne View Cartoon Which brings us to Snopes(.com) and Politifact, two well known websites devoted, like Sergeant Joe Friday, to “just the facts, ma’am.” Well, that’s the official meme. The trouble is, the current batch of fact checkers have more in common with the CIA’s infowars (not to be confused with Alex Jones’s) than with a straight-laced, probity-bound interrogator of “is” and “isn’t.” . . . . It is obvious that much of the major media leans left. And it is just as obvious that Fox News leans rightward. Everyone spins sometimes. It would be great if the fact-checkers concentrated on the facts, letting the hermeneuticians of a more sophisticated sort manage contexts. Or they could simply offer a double analysis, with a double rating — True/False and then Clear/Caution, the latter category to cover interpretations and implications. Then, we would have much less reason to complain. Instead, they seek to mold opinion, and we are stuck with just more propaganda and heavy partisanship. Meanwhile, Twitter and Facebook have both plunged deep into the cult of partisan memework, pretending that “fact checking” is some kind of panacea, and not just vomit-inducing Meme Warfare in disguise, a mercenary memetic emetic. This I noticed some time back, when I couldn't help asking the immortal question, “who will fact check the fact checkers?”>> --> This is now past parody: Agit Prop fed into media shadow shows is the new norm. Where, no, this is not a fantasy created in interests of satire, cf this book from the US Marine Corps: https://www.amazon.com/Memetics-Growth-Industry-Military-Operations/dp/1522931740 --> Blurb:

Tomorrow’s US military must approach warfighting with an alternate mindset that is prepared to leverage all elements of national power to influence the ideological spheres of future enemies by engaging them with alternate means—memes—to gain advantage. - DISCUSSION: - Defining memes. Memes are "units of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation," and as ideas become means to attack ideologies. Meme-warfare enters into the hotly contested battlefields inside the minds of our enemies and particularly inside the minds of the undecided. - Formations charged with Information Operations (IO) Psychological Operations (PsyOps), and Strategic Communications (SC) provide an existing construct for memes and the study of memes, memetics, to grow and mature into an accepted doctrinal discipline. - Epidemiology of insurgency ideology. Using the analogy that ideologies possess the same theoretical characteristics as a disease (particularly as complex adaptive systems), then a similar method and routine can/should be applied to combating them. Memes can and should be used like medicine to inoculate the enemy and generate popular support. - Private sector meme application. 3M Corporation employed an innovation meme designed to cultivate an employee culture, which accepts and embraces innovation in product development. As a practical matter, 3M executives endorsed and employed the lead user process in new product development, which translated into a thirty percent profit increase. The innovation meme was key to 3M’s profit increase. -The proposed Meme Warfare Center (MWC). The MWC as a staff organization has the primary mission to advise the Commander on meme generation, transmission, coupled with a detailed analysis on enemy, friendly and noncombatant populations. The MWC aims for a full spectrum capability of meme generation, analysis, quality control/assurance and organic transmission apparatus. The proposed MWC structure lays in stark contrast to the ad hoc nature of current IO and JPOTF formations. CONCLUSION: Cognitive scientists, cultural anthropologists, behavior scientists, and game theory experts must be included as professional meme-wielding-gunfighters on future battlefields. The US must recognize the growing need for emerging disciplines in ideological warfare by ‘weaponeering’ memes. The Meme Warfare Center offers sophisticated and intellectually rich capability absent in current IO, PsyOps and SC formations and is specifically designed to conduct combat inside the mind of the enemy. Memes are key emerging tools to win the ideological metaphysical fight .

--> And, the march of ruinous folly goes on and on and on. KF PS: The primary focus of this thread is too important to be side tracked. kairosfocus

AJ, you continue the red herring side tracks led away to strawman caricatures, while ignoring a highly specific, rich historical example laid out in outline with key lessons, and backed up by pointing to the generally futile, bloody and tyrannical course of violent, radical revolutionism over the past 200+ years. I have explicitly stated that I (along with many others) have chosen the path of reformation based on highlighting truth in generally democratic polities in which there is significant respect for rights, freedoms and responsibilities rooted historically in the Judaeo-Christian, scripturally informed worldview and former cultural consensus; precisely what Heine warned about regarding consequences of undermining it, c 1830, in an astonishingly predictive passage that Imperial Germany and Nazi Germany all too accurately fulfilled. The solution to the huge ugly column of smoke in the abortion sector is reformation, not attempted bloody revolution that will be predictably futile and self defeating; even as a supposed privateer Wilberforce hiring say John Newton as sailing master and chief cannonier would have failed; by contrast with the 50 years it took for reformation to triumph and begin to positively transform society. Just on the pragmatic level. Which, you obviously have failed to seriously listen to. On the principled level, there is a vast difference between force and illegitimate use of force, i.e. violence. That is, we see the significance and prudence implied by just war theory. And no, I decline to chase down the rabbit-trail of Hitler's cruel cat and Polish Christian or Jewish mice; if you had read my linked, you would know just what in Mein Kampf I just alluded to and what its implications are. Your failure to acknowledge the real views and approaches of real people in favour of trying to repeatedly set up loaded strawman caricatures, speaks volumes. And, precisely at a point when a nominee has had to grudgingly be given a highly qualified rating for the US Supreme Court, a key front in the now generation long kulturkampf battle on the abortion holocaust front. Where, to try some silly terroristic campaign -- that is how it would be reported -- would simply play the role the holocaust enabling agenda wishes. KF PS: The proper time to have acted in respect of Poland etc is in the mid-late 1930's, at which time there was every prospect of overthrowing Hitler's already manifestly malevolent regime. I point you to the future Pope John Paul II and how he rescued a Jewish woman as a counter-example tot he latest side track you would set up. The second significant point was to support the code-breaker stuff from the 1920's in Poland, and the Bomba, which were key to breaking the Enigma, and thus to the Ultra project. Polish underground work did its best in contributing intelligence to the Allied cause, not in trying to rise up. When the Russian armies were close enough to contribute, perhaps something could have been done, but we must recall Stalin in part wished for the Western-influenced Polish forces to burn themselves up the better for his own malevolent takeover. The other significant contribution was Poles in the allied and Russian armies. Persuasion on the holocaust to back up the White Rose movement would have made better sense too. in short, reasonable responses are not locked up to the loaded strawman you set up. kairosfocus

WM, you talk about false equivalence but it is not. You are saying that you would use violence to save a child, because it is legal to do so. But would not do so if it was against the law. It is sad when the atheist is the only one here who would knowingly break the law to save that same child. Since KF is so fond of calling abortion a holocaust, let's use his favourite analogy. Knowing what you know now, if you were transported to Nazi occupied Poland, would you use violence, if necessary, to stop a trainload of Jewish children from being taken to Auschwitz? Using KF's logic, exterminating Jewish children in Nazi occupied lands and conducting abortions in 2016 are analogous. In fact, he said that the abortions are a far worse holocaust, but I will ignore that for the moment. They were both conducted under the full protection of the law and they are both the amoral murder of innocent human beings. So, I will ask the same question. If you would be willing to break the law, including the use of sabotage and violence, to save a trainload of children being legally taken for extermination, why would you not be willing to break the law, including the use of sabotage and violence, to save other children from being legally aborted? And before you start screaming "false equivalence" do you have such low imagination that you could not perceive of any direct actions that would prevent doctors from being able to perform abortions? I can think of many. But let's be honest here. Most people do not take that kind of action because they do not perceive an early stage abortion as the equivalent of killing a young child. And they shouldn't. Claiming that they are equivalent and calling it a holocaust just makes your position less tenable, not stronger. Don't get me wrong. I would much prefer that there were no abortions. But I am a realist. Even if you made it illegal and jailed doctors who performed them, they would still occur, simply because you have done nothing to affect demand. If you are serious about reducing the abortion rate, expand sex education, make contraceptives more available, remove the stigma around unwanted pregnancy and increase the support for women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. But many of the people who vehemently oppose abortion under all circumstances also oppose contraceptives, comprehensive sex education and removing the stigma around unwanted pregnancies. Armand Jacks

AJ and Pindi, you studiously ignored the answer I gave, the better to set up and knock over a strawman. Does the name William Wilberforce mean anything to you? It should. Further, I spoke to the lessons that are rooted in history: revolutionary tactics are predictably bloody and useless, leading as a rule to increased tyranny. indeed the sort of notions you put up would only feed straight into the media shadow show narratives and further lock in the holocaust. the first thing, then is to point out that there is in fact a holocaust ongoing, and how it corrupts far and wide. On this, the sidestepping of facing holocaust for what it is above speaks volumes. So, the only sound approach is the one being taken, to expose the suppressed truth in a way that does not simply feed the deceitful narrative that has put holocaust under false colours of law, rights and the like, and to highlight the evil that must be changed, as a framework for genuine and lasting reformation backed by a critical mass of convinced support. Precisely as Wilberforce et al pioneered 200+ years ago. Do you think Wilberforce should have bought some ships and launched out as a privateer attacking slave trade ships off Africa? That would have betrayed his principles and would only have got him hunted down as a pirate. We would still be facing entrenched slavery and its kidnapping based trade -- which also had clearly genocidal impact and was associated with mass murder. So, your strawman false dilemma fails and further exposes the lack of seriousness and responsibility in how you have argued. Please, do better. A lot better. KF PS: WJM, good points. We may add that on all sorts of excuses and scenarios even protests or side walk counselling near to abortion clinics in the US were hammered by activist judges, what 20 years and more ago now. The only reasonable approach there is reform. On the wider stage, I doubt that there is even a sufficient awareness of the sobering issue, to start with, So, the first step is to discuss and help foster awareness. PPS: We see again, refusal to acknowledge the impact, direct and indirect, of shining a light here. One illustration of this is how stridently and even obsessively we have been opposed here and in the penumbra of hate and attack sites. kairosfocus

Armand Jacks & Pindi, What utterly absurd and childish equivalences. If we in the course of our day see a child in serious danger and have the capacity at the time to physically intervene - say, tackling an abductor - we all would do so, confident that our actions would be held as lawful and necessary. The child will be safe and the perpetrator taken away by the law. What violent action would you have KF or anyone else here do in order to stop an abortion? Enter an abortion clinic and do what? Stand between the doctor and the patient? Physically stop them from performing an abortion ... until the police arrive to take us away, and the child is aborted anyway in our absence? What "violent act" in the abortion process are you comparing to, say, an intervention in a child abduction? You don't get to make such a vague equivalence as if there are equitable and valid comparisons to be had when on one hand you have something very simple and on the other something very complex; provide a specific hypothetical comparison that you think offers comparable violence and outcome. As it stands your question is grounded in a false equivalence because different forms and extents of "violence" would be required in the two scenarios resulting in entirely different kinds of outcomes. William J Murray

AJ: He won't give you a straight answer. But the fact is, they all say they witnessing mass murder, yet they stand by doing nothing about it apart from commenting on blogs and the odd protest march. As you note, if KF really believed that you would expect him to behave differently. The fact that he doesn't "speaks volumes". Pindi

Pindi:

Despite what they say, they clearly don’t see abortion as murder. Of if they do they are all absolute hypocrites. At best.

I think that KF honestly believes that abortion is murder, equivalent to killing a young child. I just can't reconcile why he would not take the same action to prevent abortion that he would to prevent a young child being killed. Maybe, subconsciously, he does see the difference between abortion and killing a child. Or maybe he sees the difference as one of differing values. A young child has more worth than s fetus. But, unless he is willing to answer the question, all we have is speculation. Armand Jacks

AJ, I have asked that question a number of times here. They never give a straight answer. Obviously because they know themselves their talk of holocaust etc is total hyperbole. Despite what they say, they clearly don't see abortion as murder. Of if they do they are all absolute hypocrites. At best. Pindi

KF@275, yet I notice that you are still conveniently avoiding my question. Maybe you missed it amongst the other text. If you would use violence if necessary to prevent the killing of a young child, why are you not prepared to use violence to prevent millions of abortions? Especially considering that you know where these abortions take place. Armand Jacks

AJ, you inadvertently underscore the point, by dehumanising our posterity in the womb and robbing unborn children of the first right, life. Without that, there are no other rights. Our blood guilt in this matter and the rhetorical, mental and policy gymnastics we have gone through about it are a big part of the corrosion of our civilisation. KF kairosfocus

Doxxing Bannon to create a cloud of suspicion and scandal? https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/during-his-political-rise-stephen-k-bannon-was-a-man-with-no-fixed-address/2017/03/11/89866f4c-0285-11e7-ad5b-d22680e18d10_story.html --> Spending huge resources to track down a man's residence patterns and construct a narrative seems just a bit over the top. KF kairosfocus

KF:

AJ, It is not so-called holocaust,..

I didn't refer to it as a "so-called holocaust". If I was asked, I would say that it is an unpleasant and uncomfortable act that I wish was not considered necessary by any woman. But unwanted pregnancies, particularly teen pregnancies, and abortion are as old as recorded history. All of the sermonizing and laws will not prevent them. To equate them to the holocaust is not only ridiculous hyperbole, it is an insult to all that suffered and continue to suffer because of the holocaust.

So, we are tainted by mass blood guilt, pervading all of our significant institutions across the whole world, ...

If by mass blood guilt you mean women's reproductive health, of which abortion is only a small part, I am proud of this. In fact Canada has just announced that they will give $650,000 for international women's reproductive health.

I wonder what we will have to say for ourselves when on That Day, we stand before the Judge of all flesh.

Feel free to worry about it. But since I am an atheist, I am not going to worry about it.

PS: As for obscurity of UD, you would be surprised.

Not really. I have seen the numbers. But I noticed that you have studiously avoided my question. If you would use violence if necessary to prevent the killing of a young child, why are you not prepared to use violence to prevent millions of abortions? Especially considering that you know where the abortions take place. I am not trying to downplay your abhorrence to abortion, but I can tell you that repeatedly referring to it as the worst holocaust in history is viewed as unnecessary hyperbole and seriously detracts from your message. Just a suggestion. Armand Jacks

AJ, It is not so-called holocaust, holocaust -- refused acknowledgement as such -- it is: 50 million unborn children per year currently, under the most flimsy of reasoning, and with a simple, conservative growth model known to be an under estimate if anything, we can see that 800+ millions in 40+ years is a reasonable cumulative number. So, we are tainted by mass blood guilt, pervading all of our significant institutions across the whole world, I wonder what we will have to say for ourselves when on That Day, we stand before the Judge of all flesh. Who, was himself targetted by a jealous king who slaughtered the young children of Bethlehem. And this horror is going on under false, deceptive and destructive colour of law, freedoms, rights and more. in terms of correcting horrible and pervasive corruption in a culture, we have two choices, revolution and reformation. The history of revolutions gives pause to any responsible person and so we see the issue of the slower, painful path of reform rooted in recognition of evil that must be removed. And surely, you can realise that this path is what I have taken and what many others have taken. KF PS: As for obscurity of UD, you would be surprised. And don't forget that part of my work elsewhere is good governance reform, promoting transparency and accountability in the systems that influence, make and carry forward key decisions. Where, the abortion horror cannot stand the cold light of day. Where also, a good part of the riot and manipulation now at work are due to fear that things are tipping in a very different direction than the radicals so long worked to push through. This is expressing itself in the blatant attempted undermining of peaceful transfer of power on legitimate election. kairosfocus

KF:

AJ, you unfortunately failed the litmus test by side-stepping it.

And then you go on at length about what you have repeatedly claimed is the worst holocaust ever. Might I suggest that you are yourself failing the litmus test. I am confident that you would risk your life to save a young child from a killer. And, if absolutely necessary, resort to lethal force to do so. As would I and most other people. We would consider our actions to be morally acceptable, and possibly our moral obligation. Yet, when presented with an ongoing mass murder, murders for which you know the times and locations, you limit your action to complaining about it on an obscure web site. And possibly other peaceful protests that I am unaware of. Surely if you see it as a moral obligation to use force, if necessary, to prevent a young child from being murdered, it is also a moral obligation to use force, if necessary, to prevent the murder of millions. Until you can reconcile the difference in the level of action you are prepared to take to protect a young child and to prevent abortions, referring to abortion as a holocaust and mass murder will just be dismissed as hyperbole. Armand Jacks

Meanwhile, we see testimony pointing to an out of control surveillance state. More ugly smoke: http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/the-dark-intelligence-state-and-the-judiciary/ Klayman: >>Years ago, I had the occasion to meet a former NSA/CIA contractor, Dennis Montgomery, who was then serving as a consultant for Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County in Arizona. Montgomery revealed to me, as he had to Arpaio’s investigators, that these intelligence agencies, then run primarily by James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and John Brennan, the former director of the CIA, had been for years “harvesting” the confidential information of scores of prominent Americans, such as the chief justice of the Supreme Court, other justices, 156 judges, prominent businessmen such as Donald Trump, and even me. Indeed, anyone who was in the public eye or an activist was within the sights of the intelligence agencies. This surveillance, according to Montgomery, was being carried out without probable cause that there was any connection to communications with terrorists or that a crime was being committed. It was done simply to collect confidential information that could be used to coerce or blackmail or for what other ever purpose the intelligence agencies had in mind, presumably on behalf of others in or outside of government. This criminal conduct was particularly dangerous when applied to Supreme Court justices and judges, the public servants who are supposed to be free from outside influence and serve are a check to the tyranny of the other two branches of government, the executive and the legislative. After hearing what Montgomery had to say, I asked him for backup proof of what he had revealed. He then told me that he had left the service of the intelligence agencies with 47 hard drives of material, amounting to over 600 million pages of information, some of which was classified. At that point, not knowing or wanting to know what specifically was on these hard drives, I contacted one of the few people I really trust in Washington, D.C., the Honorable Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. With Judge Lamberth’s help, I took Montgomery to the general counsel of the FBI, James Baker, who works just under Director James Comey. With Judge Lamberth’s help, Baker then put me in contact with the U.S. Attorney’s office in the District of Columbia, and through Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Curtis I was able to get use and derivative use immunity for Montgomery to come forward and produce his 47 hard drives for FBI investigation. During this time period, I had asked to meet with Director Comey himself, but Baker assured me, even though Comey was “unavailable” to meet, that he was fully informed about this and would “personally” supervise what was going on at the agency. Later, Montgomery was asked to sit down with FBI Special Agents Walter Giardina and William Barnett and be interviewed under oath about the contents of the 47 hard drives and what Montgomery knows about the illegal surveillance. He did so for nearly three hours in a secret room at FBI Field Headquarters in D.C. The testimony was videotaped, and I have asked the FBI to preserve it as Montgomery has a potentially fatal brain aneurism and could die at any time. Since that time, I have heard nothing from the FBI, General Counsel Baker, or the two special agents that were supposed to be investigating from a working level. It has now been nearly two years since Montgomery’s interview . . . . When Supreme Court justices, 156 judges and others such as President Trump himself are under the sword of the lawless intelligence agencies who have no respect for the constitutional protections of the Fourth Amendment, of the citizenry to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, our nation faces a threat bigger than even ISIS. As just one primary example, under this Orwellian state, no one can be sure that the decisions of judges are free from influence and that they are not being blackmailed by the powers to be, including but hardly limited to ethically challenged congressmen like Peter King, who not coincidentally sits on the House Intelligence Committee. In short, our country is in grave danger when its judges in particular are subject to coercion and blackmail. Without a pure system of justice, we are no better than the former Soviet Union and now, ironically, Russia, doomed for eventual extinction at the hands of lawless forces in the intelligence community . . . >> --> Where is this tape, where are the 47 drives of information? What is the status of this potentially explosive investigation? --> Big brother is watching is not a healthy sign, and this does tend to confirm that we have a situation of compromised governing elites under secret blackmail or potential blackmail. --> More ugly smoke rises. KF kairosfocus

AJ, you unfortunately failed the litmus test by side-stepping it. In effect, you are in the position of pointing to those who you obviously regard as ideological enemies and saying, see there is ugly smoke rising up from under your institutions. Meanwhile, ugly smoke is rising up all over the place from every institution, warning us of a civilisation on a march of folly to ruin, already on the brink of a crumbling cliff. We are of a generation that is the worst in history, we collectively are responsible for the worst holocaust ever, which mounts up at the rate of a MILLION new victims per week. Our silence or enabling or participation in this condemns us. Yes, reasonable professional measures need to be taken when any professional is found in serious ethical violations, and in some cases this may warrant civil sanctions as well, but this is not confined to the clergy, it holds for lawyers, engineers, soldiers, doctors, teachers, journalists and editors, and more. So salient is this, that there should not be an isolated, ideologically loaded singling out of any one profession for in effect a piling on attack, there needs to be recognition that there is a broad-based ethical breakdown that needs to be addressed across the board. In the case of politicians, parliaments or key executive and judicial officers are often immune from ordinary law (which could readily be used to harass them without good cause -- e.g. slander accusations), but there are provisions in constitutions for impeachment that removes them from shields, and/or there are provisions in the laws and practices of parliaments -- cf Erskine May for a good example -- that allow judgement by their peers including custodial sentences [e.g. for contempt of parliament]. What we are seeing is a refusal to deal with the pattern pointing to the common, subterranean dirty fire, which includes evidence of widespread sexual misconduct and perversities, but also financial and many other ethical issues and concerns that amount to a grand failure of our governance classes across the seven mountains of influence. I repeat, the ongoing abortion holocaust is the litmus test that tells us much. KF PS: Wiki on Liberal, Learned Professions should be of some help in understanding the importance of responsible independence of professions and public recognition of self-regulation, with a measure of trust implying a linked degree of responsibility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profession (The manifest, ongoing corruption of the professions in our time is a significant and terrible sign.) kairosfocus

KF:

Did you not see what the pope actually said?

Yes I did. My comment wasn't a critique positive or negative about what the Pope said. I merely posted my opinion about the forgiveness that should be (or should not be) afforded to people who take advantage of their position of authority and trust. The pedophile priest is the obvious example, but the same would apply to Protestant ministers, teachers, coaches, etc. Armand Jacks

AJ, Did you not see what the pope actually said? (And kindly note, I am a convinced Protestant who is not at all pleased with the pattern of scandals that have engulfed too many Christian bodies AND with the unresponsiveness to the evidence that points to far wider corruption across our civilisation, note my speaking of ugly smoke coming up from all over the place pointing to a vast subterranean dirty fire that is wrecking our civilisation on many levels. Not just with pedophilia and other forms of sexual corruption, but in a vast array of situations. For cause, I hold that the number one case in point is the ongoing worst holocaust in history, of posterity: 800+ millions in 40 years and mounting up now at a million more per WEEK. When I see responsiveness to this case, I will take the remarks of those pouncing on any one or two groups they are hostile to anyway seriously. This, for cause, is litmus test that searches out soundness or otherwise of conscience and reason. Your response to this case, holocaust, is: _____________ ?) He spoke to repentance and to reform of life, then contrasted the problem that we deal always with the moral hazard of being human, with the issue of institutional corruption that instead of repentance and reform, seeks to pretend that all is well and resists correction. That is a beginning, in a key institution in our civilisation. KF kairosfocus

KF@263, forgiving sin at the priest level is fine. As long as that sin does not involve an abuse of his power. For example, a priest having an affair with someone, regardless of gender, with someone that is not part of the congregation may be sin but certainly one that deserves forgiveness. However, having sex with someone within the congregation, even though consensual, should carry far greater consequences. The priest is an authority figure for the congregation and that carries certain obligations. And having sex with a minor should never be forgiven. The priest, in those circumstances, should be handed over to the police. Armand Jacks

Some media talking points on "persecution" of Muslims and "immigrants" [note, consistent failure to affix: "illegal"]: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/03/10/msnbcs-reid-bread-and-circuses-for-trumps-base-includes-the-persecution-of-muslims-and-immigrants/ >>On Friday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “All In,” MSNBC anchor Joy Reid argued that the “bread and circuses” for President Trump’s base, “includes the persecution of people they fear, the persecution of Muslims is part of the bread and circuses, the persecution of the immigrants, throwing out DREAMers from the country, people that it’s easy for his base to hate and to fear.” Reid said, “[T]he most cynical thing he’s done so far, is to say, I have to ban people from these seven Muslim countries. It’s urgent. I’ve got to do it now. And then, when it gets rejected by the courts, the 2nd version of this ban, actually can wait because he’s getting lauded by the press. And so, while he’s being applauded, it’s not so urgent. It can wait now.” She added, “[T]he bread and circuses for his base includes the persecution of people they fear, the persecution of Muslims is part of the bread and circuses, the persecution of the immigrants, throwing out DREAMers from the country, people that it’s easy for his base to hate and to fear. That is part of the show he gives them instead of giving them substantive things like, I don’t know, health care.”>> --> A commenter in the combox: "The concept is really simple: Illegal immigrants and immigrants from countries exporting terrorists have no business being in the US. It's called common sense." --> Obviously, there are racists and ill-informed hotheads using concerns about such issues to advance dubious agendas, but unless there is a responsible balance that can address the issues of security and economic impacts of illegal immigration and countries that are terrorism etc hot-spots, the fringe will have the free gift of being the "only" voices making at least some sense on key issues of concern. --> I do not think it is wise to go down that road. KF kairosfocus

The mentality (and some tactics) of the blackshirts, in their own words: https://barricadasblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/05/on-black-bloc/ --> Truly ugly --> You doubt, here, on Molotov cocktails (and remember no blood would be spilled if there were no rioting and deliberate provocation by the blackshirts):

The tactical use of molotovs is multifold. One use is to create a visual and thermal deterrent to the police deploying in front of the you or to your sides by throwing Molotovs between them and us. Pigs may wear armor, but they’re still human, and humans fear fire. Another use is after the cops have drawn blood. Destruction of police vehicles via Molotov to the back seat and fuel intake is an effective way to escalate things. And watching police dance like a damned soul all aflame is still a beautiful thing.

--> This is the mentality on the loose, folks. KF kairosfocus

PPS: Meanwhile on the church reformation needed front: http://religionnews.com/2017/03/09/claims-of-sex-orgies-prostitution-and-porn-videos-shake-catholic-church-in-italy/ Observe a key clip that might be a good start: >>Since his election the pope [= Francis] has taken a tough line on ethical behavior in the church though he has also recognized the reality of human imperfection and personal flaws. In recent weeks he has spoken out many times against “temptation,” and last week he told a gathering of clergy at the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome that faith could not progress without the challenge of temptation. “Temptation is always present in our lives. Moreover, without temptation you cannot progress in faith,” he said. Alberto Melloni, professor of church history at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, said there is nothing unusual about scandals in the priesthood. “There is no sin that a cleric doesn’t commit. Scandals to me seem quite normal,” he told RNS. “And I think the illusion of stopping scandals through better selection of personnel is not very promising and has not yielded great results. ” Francis has frequently called for a more rigorous screening process for seminarians, and he has taken direct action when scandals erupt in Italy. A case in point: When reports of “playboy priests” surfaced in the Italian diocese of Albenga-Imperia in the northern region of Liguria in late 2014, the pope sent a special envoy to investigate claims that clerics had posted nude photos of themselves on gay websites, sexually harassed the faithful and stolen church funds. Two years later the pope replaced the leader of the diocese, Bishop Mario Oliveri. Austen Ivereigh, commentator and author of “The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope,” said the pope distinguished between sinfulness and corruption and was intent on “rooting out” corruption inside the church. “The remedy for those who succumb to temptation is forgiveness and a fresh start,” Ivereigh told RNS. “The problem is when priests turn their backs on the people, lead hidden lives and end up justifying their conduct. That’s corruption. “And it’s only possible in the priesthood because of clericalism. That’s why the pope is so intent on rooting it out.”>> kairosfocus

The demonisation-smear tactic (as part of polarising narratives in media shadow-shows); here, an attack on Mrs Trump by way of fallacy of complex question loaded assumptions and assertions against her husband: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/03/09/dan-savage-melania-trump-is-ugly-on-the-inside/ >>on his “Savage Love” podcast, gay rights activist Dan Savage went after first lady Melania Trump, saying she was “as ugly on the inside as she is pretty on the outside.” “I want to open today’s show talking about someone I hate,” Savage, who is a self-proclaimed anti-bullying activist, said. “But God knows there’s enough hate in the world, and I don’t want to add to the sum total but forgive me, I have got to get this off my chest: I [SNIP] hate Melania Trump.” He continued, “I’m not alone in loathing Donald Trump’s third wife — she’s married to a misogynist after all. Odds are good her husband hates her, too. But there are some folks on the left who not only don’t hate her. They view her as some sort of sympathetic figure. The pretty princess in the tower locked up by the orange ogre with the bad combover, a princess desperately blinking out distress signals during swearing-in ceremonies and inaugural balls.” He added, “I think we can credit that undeserving charitable view of our new first lady to our propensity as humans, as a species to think that the insides of pretty people match the outsides of pretty people. And that may be true sometimes but only randomly. And everyone always beware of confirmation bias. And you know what it’s definitely not true in this case. Mrs. Trump, Melania Trump, is as ugly on the inside as she is pretty on the outside. She is a birther. Pretty Melania went on TV to push the same racist conspiracy theories about Barack Obama that her husband did. She’s an immigrant who doesn’t give [SNIP] about the plight of other immigrants. She’s famously a plagiarist. And she’s brought ruinous lawsuits against journalists and bloggers accusing them of, among other things, potentially interfering with her ability to profit off her role as first lady.”>> --> Much of this is hate-driven projection, and in particular Savage has utterly distorted the substance of Mrs Trump's suit against those whose assertions directly implied that she was a prostitute. --> That distortion is already fair warning as to the nature of his remarks and utterly discredits him to a fair-minded informed person. But, the target audience he has are anything but this, we see here a part of the agenda of sowing discord and stirring up hate-driven hysteria in pursuit of undermining peaceful transfer of power through a legitimate election. --> If you want to understand where the negative emotional energy behind rioting etc is coming from, this sort of incitement should be seen for what it is. Incitement. --> Likewise the list of assumptions and projections are driven by agenda-loaded narratives that simply dismiss or distort then demonise the other side. --> For example, it is a serious flaw in US elections that voters are often not properly identified, and that candidates have not been properly vetted as to core elements of identity and background. (For a potentially significant development, cf here from "Malik") --> Likewise, there is a world of difference between a legal, background checked, legitimate immigrant, and an ILLEGAL one (especially those who slip over the border instead of overstaying a visa). It should be obvious that the latter are a security concern, on many levels. --> This is how situations spin out of control. And you had better believe that such continues because at high behind the scenes levels, some hope to profit. Otherwise, we would have seen a united front calling for civility. (For instance, a First Lady of the USA is not typically an active political figure and people normally draw a line against attacking those not involved.) --> So, silence where a voice of correction/calming is called for, speaks volumes. --> In a related development: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2017/03/09/trump-campaign-ads-more-policy-than-clinton/ >>Donald Trump’s 2016 TV campaign advertisements were far more focused on promised policies than were the ads run by Hillary Clinton’s team, which were far more numerous, negative and narrowly focused on personality claims, says a new report. “Over 60 percent of ads supporting Clinton were solely about candidate characteristics, while only about 25 percent were focused on policy,” said the report, titled “Political Advertising in 2016: The Presidential Election as Outlier?” “This is a huge difference from Trump’s advertising, over 70 percent of which was focused on policy,” said the report, released March 6. “These strategic differences may have meant that Clinton was more prone to voter backlash and did nothing to overcome the media’s lack of focus on Clinton’s policy knowledge, especially for residents of Michigan and Wisconsin, in particular, who were receiving policy-based (and specifically economically-focused) messaging from Trump.” “Clinton’s message was devoid of policy discussions in a way not seen in the previous four presidential contests, “ said the report, which was prepared by the Wesleyan Media Project . . . . The report debunks much of the establishment media’s narrative, which portrayed Trump’s campaign as a personality-driven chaotic scramble, saying: For all of the talk of the unusual advertising campaign that Trump ran in 2016, his message strategy was more traditionally policy-focused. Ironically, it was the Clinton campaign that deviated sharply from the conventional playbook when it came to messaging despite following conventional norms in terms of volume, placement and targeting of ads. Indeed, only one in four Clinton campaign ads focused on policy, which is by far the lowest percentage we have seen since data from Kantar Media/CMAG have been available. The media narrative also ignored Clinton’s far greater expenditure on TV advertising. In prior presidential campaigns, coverage by the establishment media has often bemoaned the scale and negativity of the campaign advertising, but according to the report: Hillary Clinton’s campaign (alone and with her allies) spent vastly more on campaign advertising than did Donald Trump’s. And yet Trump won the election … The Clinton campaign aired just under 200,000 ads at an estimated cost of just under $120 million during the last 9 weeks of the campaign, dwarfing the Trump campaign’s 76,000 ads at a cost of $66 million. Clinton’s advantage becomes even more stark when one adds in the almost 50,000 spots aired by Priorities USA Action, a pro-Clinton super PAC. There was some outside group spending on behalf of Trump, including the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, which aired about 10,000 ads on broadcast during the general election period … Clinton’s campaign also bought almost 300,000 ads on local broadcast and national cable outlets, plus almost 700,000 ads on local cable channels. In contrast, Trump’s campaign funded less than 100,000 ads in both categories combined.>> --> In short, we have seen the impact of a polarisation vs policy campaign, and its consequences continue to play out. KF PS: Notice, in this case how the loaded word "NAZI" was used based on a haircut -- that turns out to be a matter of grave health challenge: http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/03/09/bee-mocks-man-brain-cancer-nazi-hair/ >>TBS’ late-night comedy show Full Frontal with Samantha Bee issued an apology Thursday after a video segment mocked a conservative man for sporting a “Nazi” haircut when in fact he suffers from Stage 4 brain cancer. “This year, the bow ties were gone, replaced by Nazi hair, Nazi hair, Nazi hair… and CPAC was decidedly Trump country.” a Full Frontal correspondent says in the video clip, as multiple images of young men with partially shaved heads appear on screen. One image, however, showed Kyle Coddington, who, according to his sister, Megan, is suffering from “stage 4 brain cancer.” “When @iamsambee makes fun of your brother for having ‘Nazi hair.’ He actually has stage 4 brain cancer, but whatever floats your boat,” Megan wrote on Twitter Thursday morning.>> --> why is "Nazi" being so readily used as a rhetorical club? To incite and polarise. One commenter pointed to Alinsky's Rules for Radicals (which calls for demonisation, polarising and targetting of opponents and the pretence that "we" are angels fighting devils, and another astutely notes:

It's much like the word Racist or Islamophobia or Homophobia. They are used repeatedly thrown around in attacks in order to make their targets appear to be something that they probably are not. Of course...it's interesting because it has always typically been the Left and the Democratic party that has been associated with these things but I guess they figure the more they call people names and try to deflect....the more they will appear like the good guys.

--> why was a haircut used as a basis for such a projection? Because the narrative talking point has been spread. --> Why is a mere apology regarding this instance not enough? Because this accusation is by and large a smear driven by historical and ideological ignorance (Nazi's are right wing and so those to the right of progressivism are suspect fascists . . . cf above in thread), and needs to be corrected, acknowledged and apologised for. kairosfocus

WJM, good, they need to face serious consequences. There is no excuse for riots and street violence in a reasonably democratic country. Contrast 44 annual marches for life, protesting the worst holocaust in history, which is ongoing. Police and local officials, too need to face consequences for creating a riot friendly atmosphere. So do the media. The violence and rioting have been escalating for a year, there is no excuse. KF PS: I see one of the escorts in Berkeley was arrested and charged but now they have backed off, I guess seeing vid that he hit those hitting or trying to hit others, and realising that their inaction led to the need for escorts, is just maybe beginning to hit home. Unfortunately, he has been "doxxed" in an effort to invite targetted attacks, showing what we are dealing with. These jokers do not realise that rule 303 upgraded to 6.5 mm 800 - 1200 yd sniping is serious business indeed. And that is where this is headed if it spirals further out of control. kairosfocus

Over 200 of those involved in the inauguration day anti-Trump "protest" in Washington, DC have been charged with felony rioting. The information I have about the nature of those rioting and engaging in anti-free speech violence and intimidation is that while there are no doubt a few thousand hard-core, militant true believers, by far the bulk of the agit-prop is populated by paid activists (who mostly have no idea what they are protesting about) and cultural fashionistas who are marching/participating as a means of virtue-signalling. They also largely have no idea what they are protesting, and they are the progressive left's "useful idiot" class, deliberately molded into such by post-modernist, marxist academia. A lot of them will be rudely awakened by the new law enforcement protocols. Just as border arrests of incoming illegals have dropped to their lowest point in 5 years (very meaningful, given the mild winter and new zero tolerance enforcement) signalling a big drop in border crossing attempts, you can bet that jackboot tactics will decline once enforcement and and a new air of zero tolerance for rioting, violence and intimidation starts to sink in. William J Murray

5-Principles of self-defence: https://lawofselfdefense.com/the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense-in-a-nutshell/ --> Obviously, go see a lawyer. --> It seems pretty clear that police are in many cases going to stand down, and that has serious implications. --> Do we really want a situation where black shirts own the streets, including queues for events in lecture halls? --> I suspect some serious cases can be made for esp Berkeley and UCB, on failure to protect the public from rioters, arsonists, and violent assault. --> At this stage, it is clear to me that the pro-Trump supporters rallying Mar 4 followed the advice available online that they needed escorts ready to fight in a context of riots. --> Rioters showed up and it seems the escorts held the line. --> Police again stood down, and we see their rationale as linked; put up in the local paper . . . that is public notice if there ever was such. --> This is a very dangerous threshold and the authorities need to re-think i/l/o the trend building up. --> What steps are being taken to deal with the obvious outlaw blackshirts, decisively? --> Failing that, what is going to happen when the next levels of escalation kick in? --> For, rule 303 is obviously not very far away now. --> The media, here, have some terrible responsibility for what they have fomented. Including the wider issue of undermining peaceful transfer of power on legitimate election, joined to feeding polarisation and trumpeting slander. --> Again, it is time to turn back from the brink of disaster before it is too late. KF kairosfocus

WM@252, As I mentioned earlier, I don't want to drag KF's thread off on a tangent. Might I suggest that you post an OP here (or elsewhere) with the five pieces of evidence that you feel are most compelling to you pointing towards s link between Comet Pizza and a pedophile ring. We can then discuss it in detail. Armand Jacks

Were the Berkeley police right (in a lawfare world)? http://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/03/07/intervention-risks-escalation-berkeley-police-explain-approach-march-4-demonstration/ --> Or is this simply playing with bigger fire, long term as the public realises things are out of the control of the civil authorities? --> How did it go down in Germany in the 1920's and 30's? --> I don't buy the police line, last time unarmed unprotected people were assaulted, pepper sprayed, swarmed down and kicked and stomped by black shirts. That seems to be a very good explanation of why the pro Trump marchers brought along escorts willing to fight to protect them. And, this is a sign that things are spinning out of control KF kairosfocus

*Breaking News*: Trump used Russian dressing during campaign Origenes

Paid trolls: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamascare-60-of-online-obamacare-defenders-paid-to-post-hits-on-critics/article/2615774 kairosfocus

Tangled webs of tapped wires and twisty half-denials? http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/irony-alert-n-y-times-asks-wheres-evidence-for-own-wiretap-story/ (Look at the picture of NYT Jan 20.) kairosfocus

Pindi: It’s hard to disprove wild accusations. Trump has accused Obama of wiretapping him. This has been denied by Obama and the FBI. Trump and no doubt the extreme right news sources he relies on, maintain its true.

Isn't it correct that the BBC, New York Times and the Washington Post are among those sources? Mark Levin Origenes

A few notes about Armand Jacks' comments in this thread. Let's begin with this comment he made:

All because of a conspiracy theory that has been proven to be false.

However, after challenging AJ to direct me to where this disproving could be found, he backtracked:

I admit that me using the word “proven” was ill advised. I should have said “discredited”.

This statement implies that the accusations "has been discredited" (replacing "proven to be false" in his original claim). Again, I challenged this assertion, asking to be directed to where this "discrediting" occurred and how it was achieved. AJ further walks back this lesser claim with this:

The same sources that you have used. The internet. Every piece of evidence that I have looked into has quickly unravelled on even a cursory examination.

Note that "proven to be false" which lends itself an air of authority as if some actual investigation has taken place, has been walked back to a much more modest "I don't personally find the claims credible" (paraphrasing). Why promote one's personal, subjective view of a subject as if one's view is based on some sort of substantial investigation that "proved" the issue one way or another? Why use the terms "disproven" or "discredited" as if they referred to something more substantial than one's personal opinion? Still, this is what a lot of people on such forums do - characterize their personal views as some sort of proven or recognized fact, and other views as "discredited", in order to make their position seem stronger than it actually is. Let's look at some other comments by AJ:

The entire conspiracy rests on emails that talk about going out for pizza and other nonsense.

That's not even close to a fair characterization of of what the "entire conspiracy" rests on; the fundamental pieces of "the entire conspiracy" rest upon actual arrests and convictions of high-level people like Savile, Hastert and Epstein; factual records of their relationships and travels, most notably the Clinton's personal relationship with Epstein and their multiple travels on the "Lolita Express"; Ben Sasse and his connection to the Congressional Page pedophilia scandal; the factual Podesta connections to Hastert and the Pizza place/owner in question; Hastert's connective relationships to multiple DC players who refuse to this day to disavow or condemn him; the historical linkages between many large pedophile scandals and high-ranking politicians, as revealed in the squashed documentary linked to earlier; etc. For anyone to characterize "the entire conspiracy" the way you did necessarily means one of two things; you do not know what you are talking about, or you are deliberately mischaracterizing the information available that is most often linked to any serious compilation found online. None of the case made by citizen journalists and investigators has anything whatsoever to do with anyone saying "let's go out for pizza" to a pizza place. That's an utterly, profoundly ridiculous characterization. Let's go on. You said:

It is a pizza joint after all. Including a triangle in the logo? It is a pizza joint after all. Mentioning the word “sauce”? It is a pizza joint after all.

This is a blatant lie. The symbol in question is not a mere "triangle"; it is a triangle specifically with an inward spiral that follows the shape of the triangle inside its outer edges that makes the triangle look something like a maze. Now, could that be a coincidence? Sure. But it simply and factually is not near the expected coincidence one would gather from the way you characterized it. If you had even a cursory reading or viewing of the evidence as you have claimed, there is not a single such collection of such evidence that fails to point out the specific nature of this triangular pedo logo. So, you are either lying, or you have not looked at any evidence whatsoever that is presented by those investigating the conspiracy, because that is something they all point out at the very beginning because of the specificity of that particular logo. I could move on to your characterization of the images and comments found on the various social media of those alleged to be involved, but countering that would require links and quotes that, honestly, are NSFW and are very distrubing. Suffice it to say, when "the whole conspiracy" includes Twittergate and thousands of hidden twitter accounts housing child porn and a network of sharing such images, it is clear that you are either entirely ignorant of what you are talking about or you are, for whatever reason, deliberately lying about it. Let's move on to your attempt to draw an equivalence between the agit-prop techniques of progressive-left groups and "Pizzagate" investigators and advocates. Every major investigative individual and group involved repeatedly reassert that these are unproven allegations and that they are acting only to collect data and to present it to legal authorities. They all expressly disavow any tactics that involve violence or intimidation. To date, we have seen one single event where a single man acted threateningly towards that particular establishment involving a discharged firearm where no one was physically harmed. I agree that there has been online harassment of employees and others who have contributed to the social media posts in question; I don't think that rises to the level of agit-prop calling for the overthrow of a duly elected President and his administration, or actually killing cops in the streets. Do you? A Pizzagate protest is scheduled for March 25th in Washington, DC. The organizers and major players require that all participants be lawful, non-violent and peaceful. Agitator will not be welcome and will be quickly dealt with. Keep in mind, all of this is with the intent that this conspiracy accusation be officially investigated. Now, compare this with the agit-prop tactics of progressive-left groups; they advocate and engage in violence and intimidation techniques, they chant about killing cops; they routinely physically attack trump supporters; they routinely destroy property; they shut down free speech; they attempt to physically block and harass people from attending events or talks they disagree with ideologically; they talk openly advocate circumventing a democratic election; they openly advocate assassinating Trump; etc. To draw an equivalence between the two is irresponsible and I'm beginning to question your motives. For anyone who has actually investigated these subjects, it's starting to look like you are deliberately spreading disinformation. William J Murray

Vault 7 -- is your TV watching you? Your phone? Your PC? And more? https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/wikileaks-says-it-has-obtained-trove-of-cia-hacking-tools/2017/03/07/c8c50c5c-0345-11e7-b1e9-a05d3c21f7cf_story.html >>A vast portion of the CIA’s computer hacking arsenal appeared to have been exposed Tuesday by the anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks, which posted thousands of files revealing secret cyber-tools used by the agency to convert cellphones, televisions and other ordinary devices into implements of espionage. The trove appeared to lay bare the design and capabilities of some of the U.S. intelligence community’s most closely guarded cyberweapons, a breach that is likely to cause immediate damage to the CIA’s efforts to gather intelligence overseas and place new strain on the U.S. government’s relationship with Silicon Valley giants including Apple and Google.>> --> Who is watching whom? --> Is anyone now prepared to deny that say Mr Trump's complaints, are not outlandish? --> The surveillance state is here. -->Infowars is of course going ape: https://www.infowars.com/cia-turned-samsung-smart-tvs-into-listening-devices-wikileaks-dump-reveals/ >>Hackers within the Central Intelligence Agency have developed malware which can turn Samsung Smart TVs into listening devices, leaked documents published by WikiLeaks Tuesday reveal. The malware, coined “Weeping Angel” – released as part of WikiLeaks’ “Vault 7” data dump – appears to have been created during a 2014 joint workshop with Britain’s equivalent spy agency MI5. The attack, which seems to require physical access to the TV and an infected USB drive, enables a “Fake-Off mode” that allows the microphone to be accessed remotely even after the TV has been seemingly turned off. The malware also suppresses the TV’s LED lights, removing any suspicion that the device is still active. Weeping Angel can also reportedly extract usernames, passwords and Wi-Fi keys – allowing the target’s network and other connected devices to be compromised. “The tool appears to be under active development,” security researcher Matthew Hickey told Forbes. “The capabilities it boasts cannot currently capture video, according to the leaked docs.” “But that is a goal of the project. It can record audio but it does not stream it in real-time to the CIA. Instead it copies it off the TV as files.” Hickey also stated that Weeping Angel may be neutralized if the target updates their TV’s firmware since the malware is designed specifically for versions below 1118. “Updating firmware over internet may remove implant (not tested) or portions of the implant…” Hickey said. “Firmware version 1118+ eliminated the current USB installation method.” The CIA can also use a feature known as “prevent updates” to stop a device from removing the malware. While a factory reset code can bring the TV back to its original state, most users are unlikely to closely monitor firmware updates. Security researchers have long warned about vulnerabilities with not only Samsung TVs but with IoT (Internet of Things) devices in general. In a 2012 Wired article, entitled, “CIA Chief: We’ll Spy on You Through Your Dishwasher,” then-CIA Director David Petraeus’ heralded the role of emerging technology in espionage . . . . [While] the Snowden files revealed massive surveillance programs that gathered data on millions of Americans, the CIA documents posted so far by WikiLeaks appear mainly to unmask hacking methods that many experts already assumed the agency had developed. U.S. intelligence officials and experts said details contained in the newly released documents suggest that they are legitimate, although that could not be independently verified, raising new worries about the U.S. government’s ability to safeguard its secrets in an era of cascading leaks of classified data. The files mention pieces of malware with names like “Assassin” and “Medusa” that seem drawn from a spy film, describing tools that the CIA uses to steal data from iPhones, seize control of Microsoft-powered computers or even make Internet-connected Samsung television sets secretly function as microphones. The release of so many sensitive files appeared to catch the CIA, the White House and other government entities off-guard. A CIA spokesman would say only that “we do not comment on the authenticity of purported intelligence documents.” In a statement, WikiLeaks indicated that the initial stockpile it put online was part of a broader collection of nearly 9,000 files that would be posted over time describing code developed in secret by the CIA to steal data from a range of targets. WikiLeaks said it redacted lists of CIA surveillance targets, though it said they included targets and machines in Latin America, Europe and the United States. The release was described as a huge loss to the CIA by security experts and former U.S. intelligence officials. “It looks like really the backbone of their network exploitation kit,” said a former hacker who worked for the National Security Agency and, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the subject. The breach could undermine the CIA’s ability to carry out key parts of its mission, from targeting the Islamic State and other terrorist networks to penetrating the computer defenses of sophisticated cyber-adversaries including Russia, China and Iran, former officials and tech specialists said. “Any exposure of these tools is going to cause grave if not irreparable damage to the ability of our intelligence agencies to conduct our mission,” a former senior U.S. intelligence official said.>> --> Big Bro is watching you (or, is that a whole tribe of big brothers?) --> Just add SMICE. --> Though, in fairness, there is a legitimate place for spying etc, the problem is, this is an utterly wicked generation. KF kairosfocus

The end of boycotts? http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/322818-ivanka-trump-clothing-line-reports-record-sales >>Ivanka Trump’s eponymous women’s fashion line is reporting record sales figures despite calls for a boycott and controversies surrounding President Trump. “Since the beginning of February, they were some of the best performing weeks in the history of the brand,” Abigail Klem, the president of the Ivanka Trump fashion brand, tells Refinery29 in an interview published Tuesday. “For several different retailers Ivanka Trump was a top performer online, and in some of the categories it was the [brand’s] best performance ever.” The news of a sales surge comes after Nordstrom announced in early February that it would no longer carry the 35-year-old’s clothing and accessories, citing poor product sales. The move caused President Trump to tweet shortly after the announcement that his daughter was being “treated so unfairly” by the luxury department store giant. Also last month, Neiman Marcus stopped carrying the first daughter's jewelry line on its website, and employees of T.J. Maxx and Marshalls stores were instructed to throw away any signage advertising her wares. The Office of Government Ethics recommended disciplinary action against White House adviser Kellyanne Conway after she urged viewers to “go buy Ivanka’s stuff” during a February interview on “Fox & Friends.” A campaign called Grab Your Wallet, which is critical of the Trump administration, asked shoppers to boycott retailers with any Ivanka or Donald Trump-branded products. According to the e-commerce aggregator Lyst, from January to February, Ivanka Trump sales increased 346 percent, Refinery29 writes.>> --> It seems that enough people have been angered by the political targetting of Mr Trump's wider family to make a significant sales impact. --> If Ms Trump's managers are smart, they will open a line of men's clothing! KF kairosfocus

Uh, oh, Alex Jones clips a CNN segment where a feed breaks just as a statistic that cuts across the narrative is revealed by a congressman on CNN. Yes, Mr Jones is not himself a source I regard, but he here accurately clips and summarises, giving yet another point where ugly smoke is rising: https://www.infowars.com/watch-cnn-feed-cuts-out-as-gop-rep-mentions-refugee-terrorism-stats/ >>Republican Congressman Scott Taylor was attempting to discuss President Trump’s revised executive order banning travel from six terror-prone nations when his feed was abruptly and inexplicably cut off. “Just today, the FBI comes out and says that 30 percent, 30 percent, of their domestic terrorism cases that they’re investigating are from folks who are refugees,” Taylor said. “It’s important not to label all refugees bad people, that’s not why I’m here, but –” Taylor attempted to tell CNN correspondent Dana Bash before his statement was interrupted. “I was just going to say, congressman, it’s time to go, but I think the TV gremlins did that for us,” Bash says before ending the segment. On Monday, a Department of Homeland Security official announced the FBI is currently conducting investigations into 300 refugees as potential domestic terrorists. Last month, a segment featuring Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders was also awkwardly cut short after the former presidential candidate joked that CNN was “fake news.”>> --> Gremlins of convenience, anyone? KF PS: when I wake up back, DV, vault 7 from Wikileaks and for example the TV may be watching you. (BTW, on a recent incident where W-App initiated a video call against my will, I have taped over the cams. I have reason to be concerned Facebook may be listening in on conversations, and more. kairosfocus

AJ, you obviously have a tin ear at this point. My policy (which differs from WJM's*) is, there is a point where enough has been said for the remnant. Good night. KF *PS: Over years, I have learned to trust WJM. If he says there is a counter-movement trying to create critical mass to roll up a global network of evils and has indicated that pedo is a part, I believe him. He has indicated 1500 cases in one month just in the USA, and linked a list I saw. I picked up only the CA component, and saw the selective attention that refused to acknowledge the plight of 28 children. That is a red flag to me and tells me whose report to believe. There has been ugly smoke for decades, on multiple fronts. There has been strangely ineffectual resistance and evident going along with being a punching bag. The abortion holocaust under false colour of law is a litmus test, and our generation fails; collectively, we are the worst, most blood guilt ridden generation in history. We are on the whole not fit to think straight on morally tinged matters. I draw the very broad conclusion that the masses of ugly smoke coming up from so many points indicate a horrific, demonically dirty subterranean fire. And worse, nukes are now on the table. kairosfocus

KF:

PS: As you have tried to shoot at me personally implying hypocrisy,...

For the record, I was not the one who said that someone was "too short for the ride". Where I come from, that is not considered to be civil discourse.

AJ, I have already said enough to substantiate the context in which pedo networks and other perversions will be part of a morally deeply challenged culture of governance,...

And I have not disputed this. But we were not talking hypotheticals and generalities. We were talking about specifics that involve real people. Nothing you have said justifies the smearing of people's reputations with absolutely no solid evidence. Wasn't it you that insist that people have a right to life, liberty and innocent reputation? Were you referring to everyone, or only yourself?

Likewise, my auntie was murdered by a vigilante stirred up by accusations, and jumping to conclusions then pulling a gun. If you cannot see how that is compatible with concern about the destructive nature of accusations that are malicious and unfounded [no reason to see there is smoke much less fire], then that is not my fault.

I sincerely simpathize with the death of your aunt. But, evidenced by your own words, her killer was incited by misinformation and misdirected emotions and hatred, not supported by reality and solid evidence. Do you honestly not see the parallels between your personal experience and what happened with the owners and staff of Comet Pizza? Armand Jacks

AJ, I have already said enough to substantiate the context in which pedo networks and other perversions will be part of a morally deeply challenged culture of governance, and that there will often be a pattern of SMICE driven manipulation, intimidation and extortion. if you cannot bring yourself to see how symbols and coded words can fit into that picture, that will simply stand as record. I suggest that agit-prop depends for its effect on being in control of the dominant relevant media, which in these days is most definitely with the progressivists. Cases that fit the agenda with far less evidence have received and in fact have been receiving wall to wall coverage and breathless speculation etc; that which does not fit the narrative is marginalised, and the pattern we see is marginalisation. BTW, that is right there in the parable of Plato's Cave. Marginalised media and groups can indulge slander and polarisation but they are simply incapable of driving the dominant media narrative on their own. In addition, the relevant agitation is there on the streets for all to see, it is the black shirts, it is the PC campus culture run amok, it is the demand for toeing the party-line and virtue signalling, it is in the career busting and more that we are seeing, it is in the classic projective turnabout tactic that blames the victim as the one who is at fault or at least as at fault, it is in the sustained attempt to undermine peaceful transfer of power after legitimate election that we are seeing. This last is directly, extremely worrying as it leads directly to the recourse of civil war. Pulling back to get the wider picture across the whole plain, we are playing with utterly dangerous, dirty fire here as a civilisation. KF PS: As you have tried to shoot at me personally implying hypocrisy, I note that I took time to show that there is general reason to expect pedo networks and to point to ugly smoke, then I repeatedly called for investigation of the dirty fire underneath; investigations and eventual court cases in responsible jurisdictions are not witch hunts. For specific example, GWG, reasonably, could have been tried or at least initially investigated. [In my view, he should have been cleared at once from a cross check with his physician -- who courageously wrote in protest in the newspaper on learning of the fate of his patient.] But being told on the ship heading to where martial law was in force that he was in effect going to be kangaroo courted and being refused the testimony of his physician which would have blown up the key point of the case that he was suspiciously absent from vestry meetings, is a travesty that led to judicial murder. (That transport to where a lower standard of evidence would be used, is another sign that something was wrong; he should have been tried in the capital city under normal courts, which would have brought his doctor out as pivotal witness -- not to mention, he got up from a sick bed at his sister's house to go to the Governor, who arrested him and packed him off to a kangaroo court.) Likewise, my auntie was murdered by a vigilante stirred up by accusations, and jumping to conclusions then pulling a gun. If you cannot see how that is compatible with concern about the destructive nature of accusations that are malicious and unfounded [no reason to see there is smoke much less fire], then that is not my fault. And if you cannot see how inappropriate your attempted immoral equivalency comparisons are, that too is not my fault. kairosfocus

KF:

AJ, the tangent continues.

But, to be fair, the tangent only continues because you keep responding. And another but, it is not a tangent. Your OP is about agit-prop tactics. Are you suggesting that the attacks against Comet Pizza can't possibly be agit-prop tactics?

Have you read the two summaries I linked?

Yes.

Do you appreciate why I expect that a pedophilia network will exist, alongside all the other networked perversions (some overt, some covert)?

No.

That, pedo is actually, for example, the historically typical form of male homosexuality — which often propagates through abuse of vulnerable boys? Hence, corrupters of boys as a classic description and the case of Zeus reflecting this thence the naming of the Galiliean moons?

What does this have to do with pizza? Besides, did I tell you that I am homosexual? Are you suggesting that I am a pedophile? Because if you are, you can expect to hear from my lawyer.

Do you now recognise the difference between merely having a triangle-based logo or a butterfly-based one and the specific forms used by pedo networks?

No, I don't. It concerns me that you do.

Have you seen the onward linked specific animated line art image I mentioned? The former advocacy for pedo hosted in certain progressivist sites that was recently scrubbed in context of the brew up over Yiannopoulous?

No I haven't. But I do notice that you have an unhealthy obsession with pedophilia.

As in, it is inappropriate to dismiss ugly smoke on grounds that there is no undeniable proof of fire?

You have provided hundreds of words and inuendo, but I don't see anything resembling smoke with regard to this pizza joint. They used triangles in their sign, as do hundreds of other pizza joints. They are mentioned in emails, as are hundreds of other pizza joints. Neither you nor WM have provided any specifics with respect to pizzagate that can be examined. I have never said that pedophilia does not exist. Or that it isn't reprehensible. What I have a serious problem with is people making accusations, assertions, suggestions, of pedophilia against people when there is no solid evidence. These rumours have been known to ruin careers and lives. And have resulted in suicides and murders. The fact that this doesn't concern you speaks volumes. You have often mentioned relatives that have been killed due to unfounded accusations against them. And I agree that this is terrible. But I don't see the same level of caution, concern and abhorrence from you with regard to unfounded accusations against the owners and staff of Comet Pizza. Sadly, that does not speak well in your favour. Armand Jacks

AJ, the tangent continues. Have you read the two summaries I linked? Do you appreciate why I expect that a pedophilia network will exist, alongside all the other networked perversions (some overt, some covert)? That, pedo is actually, for example, the historically typical form of male homosexuality -- which often propagates through abuse of vulnerable boys? Hence, corrupters of boys as a classic description and the case of Zeus reflecting this thence the naming of the Galiliean moons? [Cf also, the recent brew-up over Yiannopoulous as to his experience of such initiation at 13 and its impact on his life as a relevant case in point.) Do you now recognise the difference between merely having a triangle-based logo or a butterfly-based one and the specific forms used by pedo networks? Similarly for artwork and for coded words? Have you seen the onward linked specific animated line art image I mentioned? The former advocacy for pedo hosted in certain progressivist sites that was recently scrubbed in context of the brew up over Yiannopoulous? And more? Why, I therefore have pointed to ugly smoke indicating dirty fire to be more stringently investigated? (Notice, the force of this consistent imagery?) As in, it is inappropriate to dismiss ugly smoke on grounds that there is no undeniable proof of fire? The ugly smoke is there, it points to fire, and this is longstanding in the case of the USA, cf the extremely troubling Franklin Bank-boy's town etc scandal going back to the 1980's - 90's. The roots of the smoke need to be probed as part of a much wider cleansing of our governance culture, across our civilisation -- and especially so given the SMICE honey trap issue. Beyond this, I request that this thread be allowed to re-focus on its principal focal matter. I have no desire to create any thread here for rehashing the above, the wider issue of agit-prop feeding a culturally dominant media shadow show and destructive power agenda is properly focal as how the major threat is playing out. At most pedo and other perversions and networks are relevant to this as manifesting how SMICE honeytrap tactics and cultural marxist so-called critical studies agendas are used to carry identity politics, intimidation, manipulation and extortion that creates artificially weakened objections. I also point out that our civilisation's thinking and conscience are fatally indicted through the impact of the abortion holocaust of 800+ millions that mounts up under false colour of law at a million more per week, on Guttmacher figures and a simple calculation. This is a generation utterly perverse and reprobate in many quarters, insistently headed for ruin by march of folly. It has no credibility to address any significant, morally challenged issue, absent a definite large scale repentance and reformation. Under these circumstances, for credibility we look for a remnant, not the dominant narrative -- and yes, that is Nook from 1936 in an astonishingly apt essay I just learned of a few days past. And yes, too, I definitely mean that the dominant narratives are almost automatically suspect. KF kairosfocus

KF:

If you so lightly dismiss symbols, signs and codes, you are not tall enough for this ride.

I have not disparaged your intelligence. Please refrain from using this rude tactic. I agree. Symbols can be very powerfull. The swastika, the acronym KKK, the cross, the Star of David. But a symbol without strong supporting evidence means very little. Taking the leap from a triangle in a pizza joint brand to a pedophile ring, without strong supporting evidence, defies logic. Especially considering that a slice of pizza closely resembles a triangle. Just a quick google search finds hundreds of pizza restaurants that employ the triangle in their logo. Again, I don't want to derail your OP, but if you would be willing to start another thread to discuss this, I would certainly participate. Armand Jacks

AJ, this thread is on the whole about agit prop and media shadow shows. The exchanges show that the SMICE- honey trap, we got pics of you with hands in the cookie jar stratagem is also relevant as if enough of the elite have to watch how they can be hurt or destroyed by a strategic media leak, that may readily explain artificially weak opposition to some destructive pushes that I have noticed for a very long time. For that, the case of a what, 11 year old locker-room, grab the groupies tape that suddenly became the media narrative on Mr Trump speaks volumes, especially when much worse issues hardly stirred a whisper. There is ugly smoke, pointing to dirty fire. And, it points further to how deep is the trouble our civilisation is in. KF PS: If you so lightly dismiss symbols, signs and codes, you are not tall enough for this ride. Indeed, you are part of the enabling, sorry to say. I suggest you look again at the specific type of double triangles etc and the patterns that for me culminated in the asterix- marks- the- spot gif line art animation of a boy subjected to something that makes him lose bladder control. The ugly smoke is there and points to dirty fire. PPS: Remember too the vast difference between burden of proof to put you away in Her Majesty's Hotel and the burden anyone bears who puts himself forward for major offices of trust. One of the surest roads to ruin is to put inner rings of scoundrels -- as C S Lewis famously discussed -- in positions of grave trust. And it is patent that that is the blunder our civilisation has embarked on, for a full generation. The Baby Boomers are proving to be the ruin of our civilisation, rather like the game of musical chairs played in Paris until Hitler's Panzers swept it all away. And yes, I deliberately echo the wake-up call in Alistair Horne's To Lose a Battle. The lessons of history were bought with blood and tears, if we neglect, dismiss or ignore them, we doom ourselves to pay the same coin over and over again. That is written into my name, and it is the obvious reason why, after Breaker Morant paid the price to cover up Kitchener's de facto no prisoners order, Australia never again allowed its soldiers to be tried under British military tribunals. In 1943, bet on the White Rose students, not the august officials. And BTW, buy prison futures, I am confident, the trials that will put a lot of people away for cause are coming -- after the SMICE blackmail collapses and the shadow shows fail in cold light of day. I only hope we won't go over the cliff first, that's why I keep saying let us back away NOW -- by definition a cliff edge is prone to collapse. kairosfocus

It's hard to disprove wild accusations. Trump has accused Obama of wiretapping him. This has been denied by Obama and the FBI. Trump and no doubt the extreme right news sources he relies on, maintain its true. How should that story be discredited? And why should we discredit crazy theories? I think the Trump administration is a front for an international paedophile ring. Can someone prove me wrong? Pindi

WM:

We’ll just have to agree to disagree on whether or not the evidence available is enough to warrant investigation by authorities.

This is something that we agree on.

I have no capacity or desire to prove anything to anyone here, and certainly to to coopt KF’s thread further or impose on Mr. Arrington’s forum for this kind of content.

I agree that I don't want to cause a distraction from KF's OP. But, as I mentioned, I think that pizzagate is a good example of the agit-prop process that I would like to see discussed further. Possibly on a dedicated thread.

However, one final thing – you have yet to reveal your source for the supposed “discrediting” of the pizzagate claims. I’m still interested in reading that. Thanks!

The same sources that you have used. The internet. Every piece of evidence that I have looked into has quickly unravelled on even a cursory examination. But, again, this is a discussion best left for a dedicated thread. If you are willing to post one, just let me know where and when and I will join the discussion. Armand Jacks

Armand Jacks, If that is your view after a serious look at the evidence, then I don't think any further exchange on the matter is necessary. We'll just have to agree to disagree on whether or not the evidence available is enough to warrant investigation by authorities. I have no capacity or desire to prove anything to anyone here, and certainly to to coopt KF's thread further or impose on Mr. Arrington's forum for this kind of content. I think we've discussed as much as needed. However, one final thing - you have yet to reveal your source for the supposed "discrediting" of the pizzagate claims. I'm still interested in reading that. Thanks! William J Murray

WM:

If the comments were made in such appropriate contexts, then no one would be suspicious; however, the terminology used is, factually, FBI-recognized as pedophile code terminology and they are used in ways that make virtually no sense given a regular reading but, interpreted via the pedo code, make perfect if very dusturbing sense.

I have read the emails and they talk about going out for pizza, fundraisers, etc. They are totally innocuous to all those who do not see conspiracies everywhere. Maybe if you could provide some concrete examples rather than simply making assertions, we could discuss this.

However, the emails don’t exist in a vacuum; an enormous amount of additional evidence has been gathered and archived at places like VOAT and on YouTube by a virtual army of citizen investigators, which includes a vast amount of pictures, documents, relationships, comments and data that all paint a very disturbing picture. To my knowleddge no authority whatsoever has officially, publicly investigated the matter.

I have seen much of this evidence as well. A picture of the purported owner wearing a shirt with I ??L'Enfants on it. The problem with that is that it is actually the owner of a completely different restaurant. A very popular restaurant named L'Enfants. A room supposedly used to confine and abuse children. However, the picture happens to be of a walk in fridge. One that could not possibly fit in the pizza joint. The tunnels between basements. Basements that the pizza joint does not have. KF:

WJM, also included are pedophile symbols, the double triangle, butterfly hearts etc are KNOWN recognised pedo symbols.

Other companies with triangle or butterfly logos; CAT, Citgo, Delta, Google Play, Toblerone, Quantas, Bass beer, AOL, Adobe, MSN, CBC, Dollywood, etc. In fact, one of the most popular tattoo that women choose is a butterfly. Surely you are not suggesting that these women are part of, or supporting, pedophilia? A symbol is not evidence unless it is backed up my concrete evidence. None of which exists in this case.

this thread as you know is not about pedo networks and things that have all been tested in courts of law beyond responsible doubt; though there are enough cases that have come out across time to be troubling indeed. It is mainly about the agit prop and linked media shadow shows.

I suggest that the media and social media hype around pizzagate falls directly in the scope of your OP, in that it is an excellent example of directed agit-prop that raises suspicions without any supporting evidence. Armand Jacks

TA, this thread as you know is not about pedo networks and things that have all been tested in courts of law beyond responsible doubt; though there are enough cases that have come out across time to be troubling indeed. It is mainly about the agit prop and linked media shadow shows. Before I go anywhere else, I want to call the thread back to focus and balance. There is a grave issue on the table that needs to be faced squarely, not distracted from. In that context, sexual perversion linked corruption and SMICE in high places came up through WJM's remark on what he is actively involved with, apparently an international counter-network. In answer to evidence, please scroll upthread and click on two linked, documented summaries. I also suggest on long history, networks of corruption are historically commonplace, a context in which I pointed to the double significance of the Galilean moons of Jupiter. Nero, I pointed you to, but did not note that it is said that of the first 16 Roman Emperors, 15 were involved in homosexual affairs in an era where this mainly meant corruption of boys/youth. Rom 1 -- a devastating indictment -- was not written in a vacuum. In general, we find a pattern of sexual abuses and perversions in and around high places across history, so we are entitled to presume such networks exist in ALL major capital cities, much as we know the oldest "profession" exists and has clients in the same cities. In the case of DC, there are cases across time multiplied by the Franklin Bank case, indicating a decades long network, not something new. In that context the sort of things we see emerging around Epstein, Weiner, Hastert, Frank and his partner (who IIRC apparently ran a same sex prostitution ring from a shared apartment), and others points to confirming the expectation. The shops and restaurants recently challenged have clearly used symbols, images and code references that are telling . . . piece-a is an obvious aural allusion, hot dog is obvious visually and the snacks theme is there. With the onward links I have seen -- I assume a line drawing gets out of the child porn law issue -- such troubling signs definitely point to asterisk- marks- the- spot (notice the in your face symbolic games) buggery of boys, with hints that what is done is painful enough that bladder control is lost by the victimised boys. (I really don't know what the reality of that is -- and I don't want to know, but it must be demonically ugly indeed.) When it comes to various individuals -- I absolutely decline to specifically identify or focus on just a few particular personalities, as that would be unfair -- what I first see is a longstanding pattern of extremely troubling art work that puts up orange warning flags [I here specifically go back to crucifixes in urine, art displays of men photographed with whips in strange places and the like . . . something has to be very rotten for that to be put up in public]. That goes back what, 30 years? Likewise, I see telltale code words, themes and symbols today. I think the pattern is enough to suggest that the general culture of governance is liable to be riddled with sexual, financial ideological, and agit-prop forms of corruption, likely involving SMICE tactics. Nor would I confine this to any one city, country or institution. Our civilisation is in trouble, we need to stop being in denial and we need to begin to clean out the foul, rotten swamp by carrying out serious investigations on what we have instead of pretending there is no dirty fire under the ugly smoke. KF kairosfocus

KF Do you have any actual evidence of the existence of a paedophile ring associated with either the Podesta brothers or the pizza shop in question. If so, can you please lay it out. If not, please admit that you have none. You do know what evidence means, don't you? You know, something that you could actually present to a court. Do you have something in that line? timothya

TA, I note to you again, "A pedo ring in the USA’s capital would cross party and institutional lines, it would also span the continent and likely would cross oceans too. I would be looking at Thailand and the other notorious centres." Recall, Hastert and other cases. With the Podesta brothers, there are very troubling indicators including artwork that has given me pause. The restaurants etc are definitely associated with very questionable symbols, and are caught up in leaks of emails tied to Weiner; who was involved in sexting a 15 year old about in effect taking her virginity. That gives clear pedo context. I have already pointed to the other intersecting concerns including the SMICE issue. Any DC pedo ring -- network I think is better language -- would go far beyond any one party. My thought is, it is an international nest of interacting perversions, addictions, compromising information, implicit extortion, blackmail and intimidation that we face, leading to a spiral to the bottom. And that is why I take cases in the UK, Netherlands, Canada, and Norway as relevant. So also, pointers to cases in other parties and institutions including the churches, schools, medical practice and more. There is already a cloud of ugly smoke, underneath there is a dirty fire that needs to be exposed and quenched decisively. And if that discredits a generation of our global elites so be it. We are facing a widespread de-moralisation of our civilisation, driven by a perfect storm of corrupting factors. Don't think I have forgotten the 800+ million ghosts crying out about our mass blood guilt in all of this. I point to Suetonius on Nero as a warning on the fire we are playing with here. Then, bring to bear the agit prop, media shadow show picture and you will understand my pessimism and fight to find hope. KF kairosfocus

WJM: "I have a policy not to engage with trolls, which is why I won’t be interacting with you further." So, that would be a no, you do not have any actual evidence that a paedophile ring ever existed in the Democratic National Committee. OK, thanks. Onlookers, please note. timothya

WJM, also included are pedophile symbols, the double triangle, butterfly hearts etc are KNOWN recognised pedo symbols. I know for a fact that a lot of questionable groups delight in using code words and esoteric symbols to mislead the public while giving cues to those in the know that they are there, exercising power to act as they will. (Have we forgotten Orwell's 1984?) For me, the breaking point was when I found a link from one of these joints to a site for some sort of band that included a gif line drawing animation of a bent over, naked boy that made it absolutely clear what the sexual target zone was, with in effect bulls-eye imagery. Multiply by the rash of known cases and there are things there that need to be probed. This nest of rottenness needs to be rooted out. Hastert went down over pages, Clinton was involved with an intern [and has had serious complainants challenging him], Savile is exposed -- after 30 years. Epstein's Lolita express and island are big red flags. Rotherham is not just grooming but refusal to deal with signs that something serious is going on. Where, for me, there always lurk the SMICE issue and the known practice of honey traps/ swallows and ravens used to set up compromising tapes and pictures. But all of this is only one facet, we see clear signs of agit-prop and media manipulation. It is now clear that many major media houses have abandoned sound principles and are now agit-prop houses; we must now scan for balancing inputs and make up our own minds. So, the straight vs spin grid in the OP is now vital. And, most troubling, democratic transition of power is now clearly being undermined in pursuit of perceived advantage. Those who do that should NEVER be trusted with power or influence. KF PS: while we should not feed the trolls, we can make examples of them, for the sake of Nock's remnant: https://mises.org/library/isaiahs-job kairosfocus

TA, I explicitly quoted and linked Col Kratman on what works in dealing with riot turned insurrection. I then warned: "This is the fire we are playing with. God, have mercy on us." Elsewhere in this thread, I have repeatedly pointed out that agit-prop feeding destructive media narratives -- as I know through personal experiences described above -- is a manifestation of 4th gen war, and that in a world of nukes and other WMD's we cannot play games that could spin utterly out of control. Do you think I was joking when I pointed out the implications of low-recoil long range highly accurate cartridges such as the 6.5 mm family? When, I pointed out that the black shirts are now using less lethal weapons in riots? Do you not think that the current deliberate and sustained undermining of peaceful transition of power on legitimate election is a very, very bad sign? I think we had better realise that our civilisation has foolishly marched to the crumbling edge of a cliff and that we need to pull back. Now, not later. KF PS: A pedo ring in the USA's capital would cross party and institutional lines, it would also span the continent and likely would cross oceans too. I would be looking at Thailand and the other notorious centres. kairosfocus

TA: I have a policy not to engage with trolls, which is why I won't be interacting with you further. William J Murray

WJM @228: Do you have any evidence that a paedophile ring ever existed in the Democratic National Committee? You know what I mean, actual, material evidence? Not just the opinions of Alex Jones and the not-sewer Breitbart. It would be terrible if you might be misleading the Famous Onlookers. Can you give us a clue what we should believe? timothya

KF @213: Which are your words, and which are quoted. It appears that you are describing how to carry out a police massacre. Is that your intention? timothya

Armand Jacks @227,

I admit that me using the word “proven” was ill advised. I should have said “discredited”.

Okay than, can you tell who or what source provided information that brought you to the conclusion that it has been "discredited"? I would like to check it out.

The entire conspiracy rests on emails that talk about going out for pizza and other nonsense.

While the Wikileaks emails generated the huge interest thousans of people have now taken in the subject, those emails are now only a very tiny portion of the amount of evidence that has been gathered indicating a large-scale pedophile ring in Washington, DC, which includes hundreds of very disturbing pictures and comments from dozens of social media account of those involved, and with factual information about the art and music preferences of many of the players involved.

It is a pizza joint after all. Including a triangle in the logo? It is a pizza joint after all. Mentioning the word “sauce”? It is a pizza joint after all.

If the comments were made in such appropriate contexts, then no one would be suspicious; however, the terminology used is, factually, FBI-recognized as pedophile code terminology and they are used in ways that make virtually no sense given a regular reading but, interpreted via the pedo code, make perfect if very dusturbing sense. By themselves, though, the Wikileaks emails can be interpreted as rather strange but isolated communications. People who know each other say all kinds of strange things outsiders don't understand. However, the emails don't exist in a vacuum; an enormous amount of additional evidence has been gathered and archived at places like VOAT and on YouTube by a virtual army of citizen investigators, which includes a vast amount of pictures, documents, relationships, comments and data that all paint a very disturbing picture. To my knowleddge no authority whatsoever has officially, publicly investigated the matter. Which brings us back to your sources that have "discredited" pizzagate; I follow it rather closely and have investigated it myself, and I would be very interested in knowing if there is something I missed. As I said before, I would prefer it to not be true, and I hope everyday someone investigates it conclusively.

My only point is that there should be consequences for people who spread unsubstantiated rumours that harm innocent people.

I agree totally, but that concern must be balanced with legitimate concerns that a pedophile ring exists in Washington, DC (and beyond). From where I sit, there is a huge amount of very disturbing evidence that has accumulated over decades that points to this, of which "Pizzagate" is just the latest manifestation. It at the very least warrants someone looking into it in an official capacity (which, according to some sources, is actually going on and is the reason there have been so many related arrests recently). William J Murray

WM@224, I admit that me using the word "proven" was ill advised. I should have said "discredited". The entire conspiracy rests on emails that talk about going out for pizza and other nonsense. It is a pizza joint after all. Including a triangle in the logo? It is a pizza joint after all. Mentioning the word "sauce"? It is a pizza joint after all. My only point is that there should be consequences for people who spread unsubstantiated rumours that harm innocent people. Armand Jacks

WJM, I hear you, though of course the overall issue is very much in doubt: people do not move to blatant intimidation and raw media pushes unless they feel their power is capable of pushing things through -- even, if they are desperate and are gambling; this is an all or none throw that we are seeing. What I am seeing tells me the hour is very late for our civilisation and I hope we are not seeing the lights going out. We simply cannot afford a dark age with nukes and other WMDs in play. KF kairosfocus

KF - well, "we" broke through in electing Trump despite what I think is massive voter fraud engineered to elect Hillary, her 2 billion dollar election war chest (funded by totalitarian, anti-liberal countries in the middle east, bankers, corporations and hedge fund managers), non-stop attacks on Trump by the corporate media and collusion between the media and the Clinton campaign. Yes, it's a clash of ideology deep-state war, but the power of the progressive agit-prop mostly lies in its capacity to deceive the public via a controlled propagandist media, and in the fact that the conservative/libertarian public is more interested in working and supporting family than marching on the street. But, that's changing. As Paul Joseph Watson has said, conservativism is the new counter-culture. Note the rise of Drudge, Breitbart and OAN as powerful news and media sources that immediately push back and expose the progressive media collusion with the entrenched globalist administrative state to create destructive narratives. William J Murray

Armand Jacks said:

I support exposing pedophiles whenever they are identified. Where I draw the line is spreading stories (conspiracies if you will) that are not fully substantiated. Rumours of pedophilia can ruin people’s’ lives even if they are proven to be false. For example, the Pizzagate conspiracy resulted in harassment of the owner and staff of the restaurant and a shooting. All because of a conspiracy theory that has been proven to be false.

Could you please direct me to where the Pizzagate conspiracy theory was officially investigated and proven false? I'd really appreciate that in order to put it to rest and not be troubled by it any more. William J Murray

A striking, food for thought observation on "swamp leverage": https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/03/03/occams-razor-did-nsa-admiral-mike-rogers-warn-trump-on-november-17th-2016/ >>In the DC Swamp everyone has “black files” on everyone else, and they use them for leverage. The thicker the file the more leverage is carried by the holder. Swamp leverage is blackmail material which is traded like currency to achieve goals and objectives.>> --> I fear this hits only all too close to home, and means that sound, truly sustainable policy is very much on the back burner at best. KF kairosfocus

Points of potential concern on FISA: http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/yes-obama-could-be-prosecuted-if-involved-with-illegal-surveillance/ --> Let us see where the evidence substantiates or does not in coming days. kairosfocus

AJ, the possibility of false accusation is indeed an issue -- ever since Joseph and Potiphar's sexually predatory wife -- and we should be cautious about unsubstantiated accusation or a witch-hunt mentality. We should preserve the standard innocent till proved guilty. We also must not crush whistleblowers or complainants or the concerned, and must reckon with the fact that large scale pedo organised crime networks [with linked human trafficking and enslavement], institutional subversion, the inner ring the- price- for- promotion- is- you- must- compromise- yourself game and more are credibly on the ground. The nasty story of David Cameron's hazing incident with the mouth of a pig speaks volumes about the sort of leverage being held over a lot of people in positions of power. In too many cases, extorted as admission price to join the ever narrower circles of power. All of this is a tough balance. When it comes to Pizzagate, I am cautious about blanket acceptance of claims, and I am actually suspicious about the shooting incident you point to; esp. when contrasted with the attempt against FRC and the attacks in Texas, San Bernardino, Ft Lauderdale etc. But, it is fair comment to say there is a lot of smoke coming from Washington DC, pointing to both major parties [e.g. Hastert, Weiner, Clinton from the 90's on, the triumph of aggressive homosexualism (go read Suetonius on Nero and read Rom 1 in that light, also on the historic pattern of Greek style homosexual behaviour to see why that is there), Epstein, and more], and that smoke points to dirty fire. I suggest the incidence of symbols, code words and troubling associations leaves me concerned without necessarily buying wild speculations. (I suggest we all pause and read this and this; I have followed up links and have seen much worse.) I frankly suspect the corruption in various elite quarters and seven mountain citadel institutions in our civilisation is approaching Rom 1, Nero levels; starting with the porn-perversions plague that has eaten out a lot of consciences, lives and marriages. That is why they were able to so readily distort marriage and push a cynical counterfeit under false colour of law, rapidly followed by promotion of gender confusion. The very fact that this is happening with very little effective resistance is smoke. I suspect a LOT of people are caught in the SMICE honey trap in different ways -- cf above in this thread. A significant slice of the current unprecedented undermining of peaceful transfer of power on legitimate election obviously is, the insurgents are not part of the global web of tainted power. And, that tainted web cannot survive an honest, searching investigation. WJM and those with him have my best wishes, though I confess that I am not highly confident that they will be able to break through. Coming back, this is going to be a very difficult and painful ride on this front. But please remember, this thread has MUCH bigger fish to fry: agit-prop and media shadow show strategies pointing to serious subversion and undermining of our civilisation. Just the sign that the black shirts are now running with borderline lethal weapons should be a wake-up call. KF kairosfocus

More street level agit prop in Berkeley, showing a ramping up to the barely less than lethal: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/03/04/10-arrested-in-berkeley-elderly-man-assaulted-following-violent-anti-trump-protest/ >>Ten people were arrested in Berkeley, California on Saturday following an anti-Trump protest that sought to counter a march in support of President Trump. “A total of 10 people were arrested, including five for battery, four for assault with a deadly weapon and one for resisting arrest,” reported The Marin Independent Journal on Saturday. “Police reported items confiscated among the combatants were: ‘metal pipes, bats, 2x4s and pieces of wood. A group with bricks was detained, and their bricks confiscated.'” Fighting is spreading to the streets in Berkeley. This isn't a Trump rally anymore. It's the anarchists. pic.twitter.com/cFIu7akCSX — Lizzie Johnson (@lizziejohnsonnn) March 4, 2017 “Some anti-Trump protesters threw things at Trump supporters. Berkeley police made occasional forays into the crowd, but mostly held back,” they continued. “Protesters spilled out into Martin Luther King Junior Way and were fighting in the middle of the street, and there were people punching each other on the sidewalks. Some people had bloody faces. One pro-Trump supporter was apparently sprayed in the face with Mace.” Several attendees complained about the lack of intervention by police officers, a complaint that was also common during the anti-Milo Berkeley riot last month. An elderly attendee wearing a MAGA hat was also pepper-sprayed, causing him to collapse on the floor. #March4Trump #berkeley elderly man pepper sprayed by #antifa pic.twitter.com/5z3O6UZuhL — Jason Belich ???????? (@JasonBelich) March 4, 2017 Elderly Trump supporter rallies for Free Speech & Unity. Gets pepper sprayed by violent leftists. This is California.#Berkeley #March4Trump pic.twitter.com/PsBvqDK3eG — Alex ???????? (@SoCal4Trump) March 4, 2017 “At least two people, with their faces covered up, could be seen on video trying to set fire to an American flag, while a photo on Twitter showed the bloody face of a man who wore a T-shirt that said ‘Trump is My President.'” added The LA Times. During the riot at Berkeley last month against former Breitbart senior editor Milo Yiannopoulos, “Anti-fascists” started several fires, smashed windows and ATMs, looted downtown stores, attacked cars, and assaulted dozens of Milo fans, male and female, whom they falsely accused of being “Nazis.”>> --> the pepper spray assault tactic reveals its deadly possibilities by causing collapse of an elderly man. The gap to murder would be a heart attack or hitting his head badly. --> And notice the escalation of potentially lethal weapons: "metal pipes, bats, 2x4s and pieces of wood. A group with bricks was detained, and their bricks confiscated" --> Something very wrong is going on and Berkeley is a clear ground zero. --> Ask yourself, is this getting wall to wall so-called mainstream coverage? why or why not? --> Do we really want to end up where Col Kratman describes? --> Or, under rule 303? KF kairosfocus

A non-denial denial on wire tapping Trump? Food for thought -- at minimum on what CAN be done even if an artfully worded denial is more innocent than a probing look suggests -- recall, our concern here is to understand how dirty, manipulative shadow show games can be played by the utterly ruthless and amoral: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/05/deepstategate-obama-trump-surveillance-fisa-investigation-russia/ >>The spotlight is now on President Barack Obama and his administration’s alleged surveillance of the Trump campaign, as well as his aides’ reported efforts to spread damaging information about Trump throughout government agencies to facilitate later investigations and, possibly, leaks to the media. On Sunday morning, the White House released a statement indicating that the president would ask the congressional committees investigating Russian hacking theories to add the question of “whether executive branch investigative powers were abused in 2016.” Media outlets continued to repeat that the story was based on “no evidence,” though the evidence was plain. President Donald Trump originally tweeted about the alleged surveillance — which radio host Mark Levin called a “silent coup” by Obama staffers keen to undermine the new administration — on Saturday. Levin’s claims, reported at Breitbart News early Friday, were in turn based on information largely from mainstream outlets, including the New York Times and the Washington Post. Heat Street was one non-mainstream source, but the BBC also reported similar information in January. So, too, did the UK Guardian, which is a mainstream source (albeit with a decidedly left-wing slant, hardly favorable to Trump). All day Saturday, former Obama staffers tried to put out the fires. A spokesperson for President Obama responded — and Obama aide Valerie Jarrett tweeted: A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false. As Breitbart News’ Matthew Boyle noted, however, it was a “non-denial denial.” It is worth examining the statement in detail. “A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice.” Note that this sentence does not dispute any of the key factual allegations at issue: that the DOJ approached the FISA court for permission to spy on Trump aides; that surveillance, once granted, continued after no evidence was found of wrongdoing; that the Obama administration relaxed National Security Agency rules to facilitate the dissemination of evidence through the government; and that Obama staffers allegedly did so, the better to leak damaging (and partial) information to the media. In addition, there is reason to doubt the claim that the White House never “interfered”: the New York Times reported in January that “intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.” Moreover, the first part of the sentence raises doubts about Lewis’s entire statement. Lewis could simply have said: “No White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the DOJ.” That would have been a clear denial. Instead, he referred to a “cardinal rule” that supposedly existed. All that does is create deniability for the rest of the White House in the event that evidence turns up that someone was, in fact, involved with a Department of Justice probe. (No doubt Obama will be outraged to find out if someone broke the “cardinal rule,” and will claim to have found out through the media, rather than directly.) The Obama communications operation is notoriously careful with the way denials are worded. “As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen.” This is a meaningless denial, since the FISA court deals with communications with foreigners, with U.S. citizens potentially swept up in the investigation. It would have been possible for the DOJ to approach the FISA court with a request to monitor foreign entities allegedly communicating with the Trump campaign, using those intercepts as a way to monitor the Trump campaign itself. According to news reports cited by Andrew McCarthy, that could have been precisely what happened. And, again, this sentence does not deny that someone in the Obama administration may have ordered such surveillance. “Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.” What we have here is a blanket denial crafted to protect President Barack Obama himself, but allowing him to admit later — once the facts emerge — that his administration was, in fact, up to something.>> --> Not an endorsement, but let us understand how a world in which what the meaning of "is" is can become an issue. --> I am reminded of the saying, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. KF kairosfocus

Sessions, anatomy of a strawman caricature out of context, half-truth makes a whole slander, smear: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/03/02/sessions-were-having-a-lot-of-troubling-leaks-a-lot-of-it-would-appear-to-be-in-violation-of-the-law/ >>Sessions also said he never considered amending his statement to the Senate about his meetings with Russia’s ambassador before now, and commented on his decision to recuse himself from any investigations pertaining to the Trump campaign by stating, “we had a full meeting some — a week or so ago, and planned to have a meeting today. It was on our schedule to make a final decision about whether or not I should recuse myself. And the reason I believed I should recuse myself is because I was involved in the campaign.” Sessions was asked why, in the wake of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s resignation, he didn’t amend his statement to the Senate about his meetings with the Russians. He responded that his answer was an honest one given in response to a specific question about whether he met with Russians on a continuing basis to advance the Trump campaign’s agenda. After host Tucker Carlson followed up as to why he didn’t just clarify his statement to avoid a problem similar to Flynn’s, Sessions stated, “I never gave that a thought. I never considered it. I don’t believe anyone ever mentioned that to me.” He later said that he would amend the record as to his testimony. Sessions later stated that he didn’t recall “any discussion of the campaign” with the Russian ambassador “in any significant way.” He added, “It was in no way some sort of coordinating of an effort, doing anything improper. And I don’t believe anybody that was in that meeting would have seen or believed I said one thing that was improper or unwise.” Sessions also commented on his recusal by saying that a recusal isn’t an admission of wrongdoing and that after he became Attorney General, “we met with professional staff, ethics people, to discuss this issue, and we had a full meeting some — a week or so ago, and planned to have a meeting today. It was on our schedule to make a final decision about whether or not I should recuse myself. And the reason I believed I should recuse myself is because I was involved in the campaign.” . . . >> --> If this is how many major media houses are acting, and largely in lockstep, why should we give them the time of day, much less any respect? --> Willful slander damages innocent reputations and can cost a country dear. --> This also seems to be dirty political chess: to eventually take down the king, knock out the high value players one by one until the now isolated king can be taken down at will. --> In short, this looks a lot like, we are right back at undermining peaceful transfer of power through a legitimate election. KF kairosfocus

I support exposing pedophiles whenever they are identified. Where I draw the line is spreading stories (conspiracies if you will) that are not fully substantiated. Rumours of pedophilia can ruin people's' lives even if they are proven to be false. For example, the Pizzagate conspiracy resulted in harassment of the owner and staff of the restaurant and a shooting. All because of a conspiracy theory that has been proven to be false. I fully support free speech, but I do not support consequence free speech. Anyone who spread rumours such as this, that do harm to innocent people, should be criminally charged. But, I must admit that I have no idea how that could be done. Armand Jacks

WJM, have the remnant in mind. Cf von Mises: https://mises.org/library/isaiahs-job KF kairosfocus

Oh, I see now. I didn't realize TA is a troll. My bad. William J Murray

TA, I point you to 201 above: https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/the-problem-of-agit-prop-street-theatre/#comment-626231 I suggest i/l/o the substance there, that you need to seriously moderate your dismissive tone, and what seems to be a habitual pattern of selective attention and inattention. KF kairosfocus

Col Kratman, on riot control for the upcoming riot season -- which, with the degree of irresponsible incitement that has been going on is liable to be worse than 1968. Let us understand the fire that is being played with by the cultural marxist agit-prop operators, the media shadow show manipulators and their political and financial backers: http://www.everyjoe.com/2017/02/20/politics/riot-control-training-suppression-tips/#1 >>Of course, we should have been preparing for really serious riots starting several years ago. It was probably too much, though, to expect the same administration doing everything possible to encourage rioting to expend the money, time, and effort needed to suppress rioting. Why, next thing you know, people will be asking the government to undo the anti-white racism and anti-heterosexual sexism that’s been all the rage for most of the last eight years. And we can’t have that, now, can we? Ahem. In any case, we probably don’t have long to prepare. The riots that were small, in poor weather, at the inauguration, may well become quite large this spring and summer. Moreover, the enemy – and they are the enemy – has been getting in a lot of useful practice. As an ideal, it would be nice to raise a force of professional riot control police, maybe to the size of a large division. Again, though, there probably just isn’t time for that . . . . What I do recommend is a technique worked out by the troops themselves, down in Panama, in the 80s. It requires one formation, a portable loudspeaker, a certain understanding of mob psychology, and aggressiveness. Lightweight shields are certainly useful. The one formation is on line, something the troops don’t need much practice in assuming. It can and should be a partially double line, with some non-lethal weapons in the back, along with perhaps a few buckshot-loaded shotguns for dealing with armed or incendiary rioters, and a snatch team or a few of them. Designated marksman probably need to be under tighter control, adjacent to, or in radio contact with and following the direct orders of commanders: “The masked one in the red jacket carrying a flaming bottle towards that McDonald’s; shoot him.” It takes a little training, though less than what’s called for in the manual, and looks like this: 1. The troops, as they march in column to the point of forming the line, should be pounding their shields with their batons, one whack per left step. It should sound like a single, drawn out, fearfully powerful blow, to remind the rioters of what’s in store for them and to give the faint-hearted a chance to leave while they can. This will serve to partially demoralize those of somewhat stouter hearts, but who are not fanatical cadre. 2. The troops are brought to “mark time…march” (marching in place), but continue pounding their shields in time together. 3. The command is given to form a line; the lead platoon’s squads move out following their squad leaders, and, on command, face toward the rioters. Other platoons move up and continue to fan out to the flanks of the lead platoon. If the area is wide, quite likely more companies are deploying, too. They’re all still pounding their shields. 4. The commander, through his portable loudspeaker, gives the preparatory commands: “Ready…Ready…Ready…” The troops change to beating their batons frenziedly, bending their left legs, moving their right legs back as if to sprint, and positioning their shields to their front. 5. The commander orders “Rush!” The troops launch themselves forward. Most of the rioters will run and probably faster, both for not being as encumbered and for having a head start. Some, being braver than the rest, will delay too long for an escape. These the troops knock over with their shields and then smash with kicks, stomps, and downward strokes of the batons. The objective isn’t just inflicting pain but also damage. Don’t draw it out or make a Rodney King beating out of it. Knock them down and hurt them quickly and decisively. The second, thinner line flexicuffs them. They should leave by ambulance. Women rioters should not be knocked down but pushed forward and prodded with the nails in the ends of the batons. I’ll explain why, later on. 6. The rush stops at a pre-rehearsed fifteen meters and the troops dress the line (= get back into a line). Note, at this point you have already set a pattern; when the troops get ready to charge, rioters run like hell. 7. The rioters will slowly regather their courage. (Be fair; it’s tougher for them because, unlike a unit of infantry, engineers, tankers, air defense, or artillery, they are not a cohesive body to begin with.) As they do, they’ll begin to filter back to what we might call confrontation distance. Again the commander orders, “Ready…Ready…Ready…” but doesn’t give the “Rush!” Why not? Because they’ll have started to run again at the first or second “ready.” Instead, the commander orders, “cancel…cancel” and then marches the troops forward on line, into the space just vacated by the rioters, at a normal thirty-inch step. 8. At that point, having run from a threat that didn’t materialize, the riot cadres are humiliated and their followers more doubtful about their ability to take on the riot control force. Repeat the exercise, this time with a, “Rush!” The cadres will be slower to run, meaning they can be caught up to, or more of them can, and, again, be sent to the hospital, thence to jail, then to prison to be made non-anally retentive. It’s up to the commander on the ground to judge when to actually rush, when to march into the vacuum, and when to cancel. He and the troops can have a lot of fun this way, by the way, and the rioters will not like it a bit. Moreover, even though not nearly as heavily laden, this exercise will start to wear them out a lot faster than it will the troops. Ah, but what if the rioters don’t run, but hundreds (and hundreds) of them decide to stand and fight? Be still my heart. Oh, joy; oh happy-happy-joy-joy. These assholes know how to posture, but fight as a group, by which I mean a collective and mutually supportive action, not just a lot of people fighting at the same time? It is to laugh. If they try to stand, you don’t send a few to the hospital. You send them all to the hospital…or the morgue; whatever the market will bear. Rubber bullets, you know, fired from point blank range, are not necessarily non-lethal . . . >> His part 2: http://www.everyjoe.com/2017/02/06/politics/riot-control-stop-riot-before-out-of-hand/#1 >>Taking the recent anti-Milo riots, at Berkeley, as an example1; one suspects, given the size, that at least the cadres leading and organizing the riots – oh, yes, they’re led and organized – were semi-professional.2 I would be terribly unsurprised to discover that they were even paid. Some of these may not be from the local area, but brought in from wherever, specifically for the purpose of organizing, leading, and exacerbating the rioting. I mean…you know…people don’t show up with pepper spray (not useful against protective mask-equipped riot control forces but good for stopping free speech from mere civilians), bats (for breaking windows and perhaps heads), dressed in black (probably both for intimidation and mutual identification and support), and with face masks, just spontaneously. They don’t come with flares in their pockets, either, unless they’re at least contemplating arson. Arson; I mentioned last week that riots can be quite deadly. They not only kill people, they kill civilization. Anyone who doubts this I advise to take a drive through Detroit, sometime, a city which has never fully recovered from the riots that took place fifty years ago.3 So why do people riot? Why do people riot to that city-wrecking and life-ending extent? I would suggest there are three significant reasons: Outrage, fun, and profit. It’s not necessary, by the way, for everyone to feel a great deal of outrage. It’s sufficient if only a small cadre do, provided that cadre can provide fun and profit for a larger group. Fun? Fun comes in with wrecking things, with rape, with arson, and in exercising power against the helpless. One can see this in the assault on “Katrina,” as shown on Stefan Molyneux’s podcast of 3 February, 2017.4 One could see it, too, in the attack on Reginald Denny, twenty-five years ago, during the Los Angeles riots or 1992.5 It’s fun to go wild. It’s fun to be out of control. It’s fun to hurt people. I’m sure that for some it’s fun to rape. Those things, however, are not fun for everybody. You’ll have a hard time, ordinarily, getting a really big crowd for a gang rape in the streets. And it was, after all, only five men involved in the Reginald Denny beating out of tens of thousands rioting in Los Angeles. But everyone likes a free TV set, or a nice piece of jewelry for the missus or the girlfriend, or a free (and unregistered) rifle or pistol, or a new Rolex. Cash is nice, too. And that’s how these kinds of riots can typically get out of hand. First a small group of hardcore, dedicated rioters either show up on their own or infiltrate a peaceful protest. If they’re not stopped there, they create the anarchy of which all the most intense fun is made. That is also intended to attract a crowd sufficient to provide cover for the next steps, which include breaking safeguards – windows and doors, plus alarm systems – to desirable, lootable property. I say that windows and doors are safeguards, but what they also are are “moral” safeguards. Nobody wants to do the time for breaking and entering, and few of us are willing or eager to break windows and doors, but if it’s already been done by someone else then that becomes a different matter. That brings out the larger numbers of more normal, profit-minded folks, ever fearful that someone may get the color TV that – by rights, they’re pretty sure – really belongs to them. Once that happens, there is no controlling the riot without massive bloodletting. There’s also no accounting for the innocent blood that’s going to be shed, or the lives ruined, if that out of control riot is not suppressed. Thus, given the limited pattern of small scale rioting we’ve seen since Trump’s inauguration, there are four tasks to be accomplished, maybe better said, four firebreaks to hold, to keep more of our cities from turning into Detroit: 1) Stop the cadre, 2) stop the fun, 3) prevent looting, 4) isolate and destroy the cadre. That means a particular set of rules of engagement. Those would read something like this: Anyone seen carrying incendiaries will be shot to kill or maim. No specific additional warning will be given. Anyone dressed in a mask that prevents identification, in the vicinity of an incipient or ongoing riot, will be presumed to intend felonious activity. They will be shot to kill or maim. No specific additional warning will be given. Anyone seen wielding a weapon, including, but not limited to, firearms, clubs, machetes, knives, swords, or spears, will be presumed to intend the use of that weapon to commit or aid in the commission of a felony. They will be shot to kill or maim. No specific, additional warning will be given. Anyone engaged in arson will be shot to kill or maim. Anyone engaged in looting or encouraging looting by the breaking of safeguards will be shot to kill or maim.6 Oh, the horror, the horror; shooting people to defend mere property. No one should be surprised that I, personally, have no problem with that, but I admit I am in the minority there. However, no, it isn’t about defending property; it’s about removing the ultimate bait that turns a small riot into a huge one, which can turn a large city into a wreck. And don’t weep too much for the deservedly dead or mercifully maimed; they’ll have had sufficient warning, the first warning. If they’re shot for looting or breaking doors and windows to encourage looting, they’ll have volunteered for it. Note: Sixty-three people, most of them innocent, were killed in the 1992 Los Angeles riots. It seems to me only good math and good sense to shoot and kill a few of the people who would start that sort of riot all over again. So how does this one play out for the next anti-First Amendment, anti-free speech fascismo-fest masquerading as an anti-fascist rally? I’d expect one of a couple of things to happen, initially. Presuming the Rules of Engagement, given above, are read out over a loudspeaker, then the riot cadre either drop their masks or they’re shot. If they refuse to drop their masks, I expect they’ll do so after a couple of them are shot. At that point, if they want to break a window or burn a building, or just assault young women and beat their husbands senseless, they’ll have to do it with identifiable faces showing such that, even if they’re not shot on the spot, they can be arrested, tried, and sent to the very worst prisons in the system. Frankly, they’re wearing the masks for reasons, the big one being that they don’t want to do the time for the crime, so I’d expect there to be little or no arson, little or no breaking and entering, or breaking of safeguards, and hence not much of a riot. That’s a pity, really, because the more of them we shoot now the fewer we’ll have to shoot if we devolve into civil war, as still seems likely. And speaking of war, which this is, anyway, we can reasonably expect the black shirted thugs to escalate once we do. There will be snipers, though competence may be beyond their reach. Thus, there must also be counter-snipers . . . >> --> And if you thought my talking about 6.5 mm Grendel and Creedmoor was bad -- I was only warning on what letting rule 303 loose implies -- wait until we go up to pro-grade snipers capable of reaching out 2,000 yards and more with 50-cal anti materiel rifles (these used to be anti-tank rifles up to early days of WW II, look up the Boys) and doing almost as well with 0.338 Lapua sniper weapons. --> Kratman (in the first article) has some choice words for the traitor/ seditious/ fifth column press: >>The press is not only the enemy; they must be presumed to be an utterly unprincipled and dishonest enemy. Anything and everything the riot control force does will be filmed and, if necessary, edited, to present it in the worst possible light. Therefore, they must have their own camera teams recording everything to both clear themselves of wrongdoing or spurious charges of indiscipline, as well as to discredit the press which will have edited the truth heavily. [--> Media shadow show tactics that potentially turn riots into revolutions by way of waving the bloody shirt out of its proper context (assuming properly disciplined riot control forces). That is explicitly what was being planned in my homeland in 1986; as was blurted out by a hothead in a student union meeting, the hothead who was dragged out of the meeting literally by his ear (I never saw that before), by a lecturer in attendance who was a senior officer of the communist party.] NB: There is no real limit to how dishonest the modern press can be and will be in support of the leftist agenda. There is no placating them. There is no degree of righteous conduct they will not twist into wrongdoing. There is thus no sense in trying to placate them, in trying to be nice, in tightly limiting violence, etc.; because they will lie about you and all those who want to believe their lies will . . . >> --> This is the fire we are playing with. God, have mercy on us. KF kairosfocus

Get serious sunshine, I was quoting the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. You know, the people who actually organised the raids, processed the people arrested and laid the charges. Stop flapping your gums and deal with reality for a change. timothya

TA said:

If you could replace “potential” with “actual”, I might agree with you.

I find it troubling that you are apparently saying here that it is appropriate to summarily dismiss and ridicule those who express concerns about, or provide information about, potential child and adult sex slavery conspiracies. Again, I don't see how any responsible adult would advocate or take part in creating an air of hostility against people expressing such concerns or sharing such information.

But as the the mainstream media coverage of the California arrests demonstrated, the paedophiliac illuminati was not found.

Wy did you bring the term "illuminati" into this? Is that yet another attempt to ridicule the concerns of others when it comes to paedophile and human trafficking rings? Why on Earth would you do something like this? I find it difficult to believe and appalling that anyone would ridicule others for their concern about such horrific criminal enterprises. I can understand disbelief and doubt, but what warrants the ridicule and dismissiveness?

All the police found were prostitutes, pimps and johns. Sadly, some of the prostitutes were under age. According to the police, there were zero arrests for human trafficking.

Did you miss the quote from the news about the arrest that KF provided?

Hundreds of people were arrested and dozens of sexually exploited children and adult victims were rescued across California during a statewide operation to combat human trafficking, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department announced Tuesday.

I notice that the quote you provide in relation to these arrests leaves out the part about human trafficking - the part about the sexually exploited (human trafficking) women and children rescued by the raid. from the LA Times:

More than two dozen children in California were rescued during a week-long nationwide crackdown on commercial sex trafficking, federal officials announced Monday. State, local and federal officials also arrested at least 38 alleged pimps in California during the crackdown, dubbed "Operation Cross Country," according to an FBI statement. Nationwide, law enforcement officials in 106 cities recovered 168 children who had been forced into prostitution, and arrested 281 pimps.

It is disturbing to me that you have chosen to mischaracterize the results of that California operation using selective quotes that left out the very thing that KF and I were bringing to light. It is even more disturbing considering your admission that such conspiracies exist and your reference to other such investigations you apparently consider to be valid.

In any case, it strikes me as unlikely that any unfortunate victim of child sexual abuse would seek support from occupants of this blog. Nor would they, should they accidentally do so, pay any attention to you or me.

Are you attempting to justify your dismissal, ridicule and apparent willful mischaracterization of the facts of the case KF brought to your attention (in light of KF's correction and your subsequent doubling-down) by saying it's unlikely that such behavior on this blog will have much of an effect on the problem? Your willingness to ridicule such concerns about this matter in order to, apparently, score rhetorical points against political or ideological opponents, and then apparently attempt to justify such behavior when pointed out, is reprehensible. Surely you realize this is not appropriate behavior and all you can possibly be doing here wrt to the actual issue is potentially contributing to a serious problem? I suggest you apologize and agree that the dismissal and ridicule of such concerns is never appropriate, and that taking such concerns and allegations soberly and seriously is what we should all do regardless of our political and ideological differences in other areas. William J Murray

WJM If you could replace "potential" with "actual", I might agree with you. But as the the mainstream media coverage of the California arrests demonstrated, the paedophiliac illuminati was not found. All the police found were prostitutes, pimps and johns. Sadly, some of the prostitutes were under age. According to the police, there were zero arrests for human trafficking. In any case, it strikes me as unlikely that any unfortunate victim of child sexual abuse would seek support from occupants of this blog. Nor would they, should they accidentally do so, pay any attention to you or me. timothya

TA: you didn't respond to my #205 & #206. Will you agree that it is not appropriate (and indeed detrimental) to summarily dismiss and ridicule those who express concerns about, or provide information about, potential child and adult sex slavery conspiracies, seeing as we all know they actually exist? Shouldn't this problem be vigorously brought to light by all concerned citizens, officially investigated where warranted and prosecuted to the full extent of the law? William J Murray

@207 Nonsense. The only reason that no secular organisations are in the list is that the commission hasn't got to them yet. Hearings will likely continue for several years. However it is fair to note that major State School systems in this country have intensive and longstanding child protection units, mostly staffed by serving police officers. When I worked in one such system, I remember a CPU investigator saying that diagnosable psycopathy exists in the population at a rate of about 1 in 10000 people, which meant there were probably about 10 such individuals working in the Education Department at any time. Fortunately I only ever encountered them in senior management. timothya

WJM @ 205: I felt the same way after reading TA's collective comments. He understands the problem of pedophilia within various religious organizations, but then minimizes the problem elsewhere. Strange. Truth Will Set You Free

I have a further question, TA: Do you think that dismissing and ridiculing people that express such concerns helps or hinders the ability of people to come forward who may be witnesses or victims of actual such conspiracies? You see, I have a knee-jerk reaction to people that casually dismiss and ridicule others who express such concerns and views: I wonder if they are deliberately contributing to the creation of a hostile atmosphere that deters witnesses and victims from coming forward. After all, how does such dismissal and ridicule help when it comes to finding such criminals and criminal enterprises? How does it help in finding witnesses or victims? How does such an attitude help foster a sense of safety for witnesses and victims? How does it help anything at all in the process? Why would any reasonable, concerned citizen dismiss and ridicule anyone who shares their concern for the safety and innocence of children even if they think that person is erroneous in their view? William J Murray

Then, TA, I don't understand the dismissive, ridiculing tone of your post @#200. Do you think that such conspiracies only exist within the framework of the church and church organizations? I'm sure we agree that paedophilia and child sex trafficking is a horrible evil. I'm sure we agree that people in positions of power, throughout history, have engaged in conspiracies against the innocent. I'm sure we agree that all information brought forth about such activities should be vigorously pursued while taking adequate care to keep from mistakenly destroying lives. I'm sure we agree that if Trump has increased the apprehension of child sex traffickers thus saving children from this criminal enterprise, it's a great thing regardless of one's political leanings. This makes me wonder about your casual dismissal and implied ridicule for those, like KF and myself, who believe that there is good information available that at least warrants concern and vigorous investigation about the same kind of conspiracy that you refer to, albeit in political and not religious circles. It could be I'm wrong - I hope I am. However, a look at the evidence available raises questions that, IMO, do not warrant so quick a dismissal and certainly not ridicule for those who share your concern for this kind activity and want it stopped. If we have been duped by "fake news", then that is our honest mistake based on our good intentions and deep concern about the issue; I don't see how dismissing and ridiculing is appropriate. William J Murray

WJM: "TA’s reaction is understandable – in fact, it’s normal. Nobody wants to believe this kind of this kind of thing actually exists and is going on. I sure don’t. However, here is the problem; if true, it necessarily means the media and high levels of the government are complicit in the cover-up/conspiracy of silence. This makes information gleaned from such sources suspect if one wants to give the issue serious consideration. That means it takes a lot more work looking at various non-mainstream sources of information and checking on information yourself when possible. From my perspective, I’ve had personal, first-hand experience with government working hand in hand with the media to promote an absolute falsehood as true and paint all contradicting witnesses as “conspiracy nuts” and engage in a coordinated disinformation and intimidation campaign. Unless you actually experience that kind of thing first-hand, it’s very, very difficult to believe." Are you insane? I live in a country that is currently conducting an extremely public national judicial investigation into child sexual abuse. Here is a list of organisations so far identified, some of whose members were evidently paedophiles: The Catholic Church (1880 complaints) The Christian Brothers The Jehovah's Witnesses The Saletian Order The Anglican Church The Uniting Church The Salvation Army The Adass Israel School Knox Grammar School (Uniting Church) The Order of Saint John of God ("Over the course of 60 years, 40 per cent of the members of the Brothers of St John of God had allegations of child sexual abuse made against them") So yes, I do know something about this issue. timothya

WJM, unless you know enough history. Hence, Ganymede, Plato's two parables, nero's life and cases to Beria. Etc. KF kairosfocus

TA's reaction is understandable - in fact, it's normal. Nobody wants to believe this kind of this kind of thing actually exists and is going on. I sure don't. However, here is the problem; if true, it necessarily means the media and high levels of the government are complicit in the cover-up/conspiracy of silence. This makes information gleaned from such sources suspect if one wants to give the issue serious consideration. That means it takes a lot more work looking at various non-mainstream sources of information and checking on information yourself when possible. From my perspective, I've had personal, first-hand experience with government working hand in hand with the media to promote an absolute falsehood as true and paint all contradicting witnesses as "conspiracy nuts" and engage in a coordinated disinformation and intimidation campaign. Unless you actually experience that kind of thing first-hand, it's very, very difficult to believe. William J Murray

TA, you are in effect calling me a liar. That is a verrry serious step with someone who has staked his life and career on matters of truth and integrity. I know, I know -- on track record -- you will try the denial stunt again, predictably. I stated above that this is on a side point to the main focus as can be seen from OP and thread above. I further stated, I may have misread this case from CA [though kindly cf below]; which is not central to my focal point and likely is not to WJM's either. I pointed out the person speaking to 1500 cases is WJM, who can fill out details if he wishes. I also provided a summary of current or recent cases from all around the world -- which you obviously have not taken seriously; those are in the main big broken cases offered as backdrop to look at the apparent smoke coming out from Wash DC [and I studiously am NOT signing on the dotted line about all or even most of that brewing debate on pizza and hot dogs with a different meaning, simply, there is smoke]. I also linked a vid from a reader which has in it telltales that suggest fire not just ugly smoke, going back decades. And, on my life experience, corruption getting in on law enforcement, courts and govts, businesses, schools, media and even churches or orphanages and banks, is not unheard of or to be brushed aside. That smoke points to pedo that has corrupted business, finance, parties, government, churches and it points to what looks like signs of ruthless cover up. I took time to point onward to a link to the main theme through Beria, even clipping on his girl-flower rape-pick "game." Now, in which of these have I shown untruth, deceitfulness or not caring what the realities on the ground are? Ans, nil. But, you are obviously looking for excuses to dismiss and denigrate. And, no 63 in the other thread still waits. KF PS: I clip from an article from your side of the general debate on the CA case, that may help clarify my "may": http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cali-children-trafficked-arrested-saved/ >>Massive Child Sex Ring Busted in CA — 474 Arrested, 28 Children Saved Matt Agorist February 1, 2017 29 Comments >>Los Angeles, CA — In a massive statewide operation targeting human traffickers, hundreds of people were arrested and dozens of sexually-exploited children were saved. These are the men & women to thank for rescuing 27 Adult & 28 juvenile females, and attesting 36 suspected traffickers & 142 "Johns" @LASDHQ pic.twitter.com/rR67pED7Ih — Jim McDonnell (@LACoSheriff) January 31, 2017 The bust was part of a statewide operation to combat human trafficking, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department announced Tuesday. According to KTLA, more than 30 federal, state and local law enforcement agencies and task forces, as well as the Los Angeles Regional Human Trafficking Task Force, participated in the third annual “Operation Reclaim and Rebuild” enforcement operation, according to a sheriff’s news release. The operation resulted in 474 arrests including 142 males on solicitation charges, and 36 males for pimping. It is important to note that some of these arrests included people trying to simply pay another willing adult to have sex with them . . . . >> KTLA, linked from the above adds: http://ktla.com/2017/02/01/474-arrested-28-sexually-exploited-children-rescued-during-statewide-human-trafficking-operation-lasd/ >>Hundreds of people were arrested and dozens of sexually exploited children and adult victims were rescued across California during a statewide operation to combat human trafficking, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department announced Tuesday . . . . In total, 474 arrests were made, including 142 males on solicitation charges, and 36 males on suspicion of pimping, according to figures provided by the Sheriff’s Department. Additionally, 28 commercially and sexually exploited children and 27 adult victims were rescued. “You are worthy of more. And we will work tirelessly with our partners … to provide you services and help you rebuild your life,” Sheriff Jim McDonnell said, addressing the victims during a news conference on Tuesday. The minors who were recovered during the operation were being cared for by various children and family services agencies across the state, according to sheriff’s officials. The Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking and the Saving Innocence organization were coordinating efforts to help victims in L.A. County. “Operation Reclaim and Rebuild focused on rescuing victims of sexual slavery and human trafficking, providing victims with much-needed services, identifying and arresting their captors, seeking successful prosecutions, and disrupting the demand for vulnerable victims by targeting their customers,” the release stated.>> PPS: What I wrote about my homeland is no secret, conspiracy theory history. Start with Pearnel Charles' Detained and move forward through 1980 to 1983 in Grenada. Yes, WPJ leader Trevor Munroe advised the Grenada folks in the days of the Ft Rupert Massacre and aftermath, and I subsequently learned that a Cuban neighbour of my second parents [the Embassy was a short distance away] died there in the US-led invasion. BTW, a trove of papers captured in that invasion was subsequently published as being the first time since the German invasion of 1941 that such a trove showing how Commis act in power was captured; of course the collapse of the USSR provided much more. The Cess student strike events of 1986 played out before a shocked country. I can name the agitator I spoke of, and just what post -- to my astonishment -- he now holds. In 1990, Russia sent a delegation of apology to hold a public conference of apology; duly reported in the newspapers. The account of the murder of my auntie in her shop at the head of Mountain View Avenue appeared in the press in 1980, and the head of the Committee of Women for Progress did make two radio appearances, the first calling for vigilantism against alleged hoarding shop keepers, the second denying that she provided incitement provoking murder by just such a vigilante. There was of course a very real shortage of rice, which led to the shooting. And, much more; just as with how your assumed knowledge of the Dover case collapsed once a few details were put on the table fleshing out my initial summary. In short, it is you who have shown yourself disrespectful of facts that are inconvenient. PPPS: I will pick up just one other point. Jupiter's moon Ganymede points to how prevalent pedophilia was among the powerful in pagan times. It also gives hints about the mentality among elites in Galileo's day. Onward, this points to the issue that such pedophilia among the powerful and decadent is a recurring, persistent phenomenon that needs to be seen and addressed as a whole. So, no, this is not trivia, men do not lightly give names to heavenly bodies, especially where the four moons were a major discovery, indeed an unprecedented one: almost doubling the number of known "wanderers" in the heavens and providing powerful support for heliocentrism. In that context, why such a loaded name? kairosfocus

Of course a factual statement by the law enforcement agency carrying out the arrests in California is irrelevant to your narrative. I understand that. Facts don't matter when we are invited to buy into conspiracy theories, nefarious elites, paedophile pizza shop rings, gun fondling, the homoerotic naming of Jupiter's moons, the secret history of Jamaica, Freemasonry, Islam-bashing, Breitbart (definitely not an agit-prop sewer), WW2 aircraft specifications, secret cash for Iran (wasn't the USA legally obliged to return the money it sequestered in 1979?), Trump's Almighty, and just for fun, a personal car crash morality fable. timothya

TA, please take a moment to read here, on the global matter you are dealing with; duly noting the number of countries involved, as well as the number of individuals; WJM if he wishes will address his figure of 1500. If I misread the CA case, I did so, that is irrelevant to what is emerging bit by bit and in my current view has been going on for at least decades, plainly backed up by willingness to use murder and perversion of justice to enforce omerta. Kindly, take time to watch Reader X's vid also [nb: i just saw a 2 hr : 43 min version here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uBMXOsryd0 ] -- the telltale that there is substantial truth to the issue is the crushing sentence delivered against a steadfast witness through pressured recantations including by a young man whose brother mysteriously died. Notice what happened to an investigator, his son and a briefcase. There is horrible-smelling smoke here, it has been coming up for a long time, it is literally of global reach and on reasonable inference, this is about utterly ruthless perverted, powerful people. People who, on known cases, e.g. Savile, have clearly corruptly influenced governments and major institutions of trust and responsibility as well as churches [it looks like we see a sudden change of attitude when the pedo corruption issue is seen to go well beyond a scapegoated institution . . . ]. We have reason to be seriously concerned that we are seeing the tip of a very ugly iceberg. And, the pattern of unresponsiveness on your part to that broad pattern is telling us something. KF PS Recall, this is a side point. The core issue is that there is a decades long known pattern of agit prop feeding media shadow shows used to push agendas and reinforce abusive, destructive power. In case you don't know, one of the authors of this system of manipulation and subversion, Beria, was a horrible pervert -- a rapist at will, torturer and murderer beyond merely mass murder. Let me clip a few samples from Telegraph and add to what was here:

Of all the brutal killers to emerge from the 20th century, Beria, a Georgian like his master, was one of the most malign. Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko, a historian, who spent 13 years in the camps and later wrote a book about Beria, said: "The gulags existed before Beria, but he was the one who built them on a mass scale. He industrialised the gulag system. Human life had no value for him." He was also deeply depraved and a notorious sexual predator. At night he would cruise the streets of Moscow seeking out teenage girls. When he saw one who took his fancy he would have his guards deliver her to his house. Mr Antonov-Ovseyenko said: "Sometimes he would have his henchmen bring five, six or seven girls to him. He would make them strip, except for their shoes, and then force them into a circle on their hands and knees with their heads together. "He would walk around in his dressing gown inspecting them. Then he would pull one out by her leg and haul her off to rape her. He called it the flower game." Even fellow senior Communists, many of them mass murderers in their own right, had nothing good to say about Beria. They described him as slippery and obsequious in front of his superiors, brutal and cunning behind their backs. He reportedly won Stalin's favour in the early 1930s after faking a conspiracy to assassinate the Soviet leader that he then claimed to have foiled. In 1938 Stalin rewarded Beria's dog-like loyalty by making him head of the NKVD. One account says Beria personally strangled his predecessor, Nikolai Yezhov. When Stalin died in 1953, Beria made a bid for power but was outmanoeuvred by Nikita Khrushchev, who feared and loathed him. Khrushchev had him arrested, charged with spying for Britain and shot.

PPS: A summary of evidence on the Dover case still awaits your attention in another thread, cf esp no 63 there. PPPS: towards the end the vid speaks of a US$1 mn/yr call boy network, with 20,000 documents in evidence including credit card records and cancelled cheques sealed from investigative reporter on court order once it was discovered someone was looking. Telltale again, this one tying Nebraska to Wash DC. Claimed to implicate govt, law enforcement, media and even churches. There is something rotten and it is not just Denmark this time. kairosfocus

PS: The tell-tale that effectively says it all. Alisha Owen, witness turned on by others (including one whose brother died mysteriously and who says he was pressured to recant . . . ) was sentenced to an unprecedented up to 27 years on perjury charges. Here is the report in the newspaper on her parole after 4 1/2 years: http://www.franklincase.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=168:king-expands-into-food-service-something-on-every-burner-jan-12-1985-&catid=6:news-articles&Itemid=14 . Smoking gun. Owen speaks: http://www.franklinscandal.com/Owen/ kairosfocus

"478 people arrested in a statewide California sting that included zero sex-trafficking arrests, according to a press release from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. One-hundred and forty-two men were arrested for attempting to pay consenting adult women for sexual activity. Thirty-six men were arrested for pimping. The rest of those arrested—300 in total—were women taken in on prostitution charges or people in trouble for charges unrelated to commercial sexual activity." timothya

Reader X in action: Pedo omerta: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HOQR2kYdFM --> Watch, this is not a blanket endorsement, this has been passed to me by a reader X. (Note the other vids, watch i/l/o the issues in the straight vs spin grid in the OP. [I add, cf this summary on the more recent allegations, do read here and onward with care; neither dismissing out of hand nor gullibly swallowing, the former case makes the latter at the very least be worth a careful reading that does not forget the Potiphar's wife problem: false accusation with plausible evidence is also possible so warrant has to be carefully grounded indeed, particularly on explosive matters. Note, the Savile case, hushed up for decades, also reinforces the point.]) --> Omerta is proof of organised crime scale conspiracy, here with human trafficking and likely with not just kidnapping but inevitably murders likely to be involved. (I am not endorsing speculations on ritual murder, I am just saying that kidnappings and human trafficking esp. if tied to abuse will have "casualties." FYI, if you break and enter a house and in the process an innocent is injured and dies, robbery just went up to murder. I add, the documentary points to claimed FBI pressure on victims to recant and highlights the air crash death of an investigator and his child, and that of the brother of a chief "recanted" witness' brother in a gun accident termed "mysterious." That should give us very careful pause indeed.) --> Here, case no. 2 popped open just yesterday, a medical practitioner was arrested for allegedly assaulting a patient sexually. Other doctors have gone on a demonstration-strike on grounds they are highly vulnerable to false charges of abuse. (They are saying, they now have to hire chaperones [nurses, I believe will be required and they cannot be spouses], and the implication is we just joined the world of malpractice insurance. They announced private practice fees are expected to double.) --> Case no. 1 goes ahead v. slowly, and many doubt it will ever succeed, as the lawyer in question is expert on breaking criminal prosecutions. I think there is likely to be DNA evidence, and smart phones have accelerometers etc. So they can fingerprint the gait of those carrying them, and they can fingerprint the unique typing styles of those using them, as well as voices. This means they can pin you down, including of course location through GPS and/or interaction timing with cell towers. (A cell signal can be picked up by several towers, and speed of light gives delay times of ~300m/micro-sec, as is commonly used with radar. If you are on a special list, they have you covered. [I suggest WhattsApp or the like, if you are dealing with legitimate business but are concerned about 1984 stuff. If you are a crook, I have no suggestions, other than get your soul straight, find a priest and a lawyer and go to a good prosecutor to make a clean breast of it and plea bargain. Do not talk to police etc without due guidance. I once had a minor accident, my fault (save for a surprise windscreen white-out due to light through tree-tops) -- I insisted on saying so again and again, and that I was standing costs -- but went through a 2-hour grilling and statement process obviously structured to be entangling.]) --> In related stuff, FB may be listening to you as well as monitoring content you post and look at all over the net . . . note, all those FB link backs and sharing features. Ostensibly, adverts are targetted, covertly I wonder if Big Brother is watching you, Winston Smith. KF kairosfocus

WJM, I missed the scale. So they are using pedo as the leverage to break the omerta. KF kairosfocus

Look up the mythological connexions of Ganymede. And what a "Catamite" is. Do not miss the significance of Nero's two "marriages" (a) to a castrated boy, and (b) to a man. Tie in the sexual cannibalism in the arena, per Suetonius, and connect a dot or two across to the events and aftermath of July 18, 64 AD. Then, look again at Rom 1:19 - 32. kairosfocus

KF: "Notice the names of the Galilean moons of Jupiter.". What significance to you ascribe to those names? timothya

Pindi's reaction is normal. It's far easier, and more soothing for the mind, heart and soul, to deny such things and ridicule them, keeping them firmly out of mind and at arm's length. It’s so bad it’s beyond belief. The human trafficking epidemic is easy enough to verify - one only needs to run a few searches with search engines or on YouTube to find plenty of documentation. Here is a good starting point: Why the MSM Is Ignoring Trump's Sex Trafficking Busts It lists some of the latest large-scale sex trafficking busts just in the USA, a large portion of which were pedo-related. From the article:

Since President Donald Trump has been sworn in on Jan. 20, authorities have arrested an unprecedented number of sexual predators involved in child sex trafficking rings in the United States. This should be one of the biggest stories in the national news. Instead, the mainstream media has barely, if at all, covered any of these mass pedophile arrests. This begs the question – why? As a strong advocate for sex crime victims, I’ve been closely following the pedophile arrests since Trump took office. There have been a staggering 1,500-plus arrests in one short month; compare that to less than 400 sex trafficking-related arrests in 2014 according to the FBI.

400 arrests in all of 2014 under Obama. 1500 arrests under Trump in his first month in office in 2017. Many more major global rings busted in other countries. You can look up and find the connections on your own. That's all I'm going to say on the subject. William J Murray

PPS: A clip from Barron, never mind the follytricks-driven snide remarks by the artic;le's author:

“As a writer, intellectual, and friend of the Boris Pasternak [author of Dr. Zhivago] family, Krotkov was welcomed by foreigners in Moscow. This tall, slender man, with a handsome shock of dark brown hair and an intense, expressive face, could talk suavely in English or Russian about the arts, history, and prominent Soviet personalities. Soon he learned to exploit the hunger of visitors for communication with the Soviet people. All the while, Krotkov was instructed to look for attractive girls whom the KGB could use to tempt foreigners into trouble. He picked them primarily from among actresses he met while writing film scenarios. The KGB offered them various inducements—the promise of better roles, money, clothes, a measure of liberty and gaiety absent from normal Soviet life.” The girls were called “swallows” and they flew solo or in formation, depending upon the needs of Krotkov and his masters in the special services. Quarters were provided to them for assignations with their foreign marks—these were “swallow’s nests”—which consisted of two adjoining rooms; one for the tryst and one for the KGB’s audio-visual squad to record everything for the inevitable blackmail and Faustian offer.

A bit of SMICE, if you please . . . kairosfocus

PS: That infamous French case is at least mentioned online: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/30/the-epic-honey-trap-a-classic-case-shows-just-how-far-moscow-will-go.html kairosfocus

TA, Pardon, but I have to start on a personal note. You are the one who has evidently slunk away on tippy-toes (h'mm, a strangely familiar pattern . . . ) when substantiating details have been provided in another thread. That speaks volumes. Or, perhaps, you are now willing to engage the substantial issues. We wait. As for this thread, you obviously have forgotten the world-rocking revelations about the P2 Lodge and its corrupt influences in Italy, the Vatican and more. Just say, Blackfriar's Bridge bears strange "ornaments" on occasion. (Oh, a bit of a historical mystery from 1826 may help spark a thought or two on some strange coincidences on Masonic Oaths and penalties.) You also seem ignorant of the standard intel toolbox of manipulation, SMICE: sex, money, ideology, compromise and extortion. As in, did you ever read the account of the KGB Swallows Nest honey trap entrapment of French military attaches etc? And how that led to suicide? (Is it much of a stretch from that to enmeshing targets in a decadent inner circle then bringing on the thrills of the Lolitas on some Lolita Air private jet flying to a privately owned Lolita Island, with cameras and mikes a-rolling? In places such as Thailand or even next door to Puerto Rico? No, I am not talking Epstein Island, I am talking the DR butterskins here (the type of exotic beauties at the heart of a local apparent instance involving a very senior individual now facing a huuuuge case). H'mm, Y'r Honour, I call to the stand Mr Dennis Hastert [Congressional pages wasn't that], followed by Mr Weiner [last heard from sexting a 15 YO girl in NC on how he fantasised taking her virginity . . . which is now a definite commodity, price upwards of US$10,000 for a real exotic hottie] -- or, have we so soon forgotten that. For sure, right here we have a case playing out of powerful men indicted as caught up in pedo; which seems to be addictive and entangling. Dirty money dealings seem to lurk in the background.) From my POV, I came to awareness at a time when intel agit prop and media shadow show games brought my native land down to civil war. That ugly tactic cost me a dear auntie, murdered in her shop by a vigilante motivated by media statements of heads of commi front operations. I was personally targetted later on in a student meeting, but the swarm tactic could not be sprung as Hall Mates were present and turned on the snake in the grass. I left that meeting, only to hear within two hours that the main axis for reinforcements from a military base in the mountains was blocked. I rushed to the scene, about a mile away on the other side of the uni campus. By then mobile reserve paramilitary police had used teargas and M16's firing blanks on full auto followed by a charge to clear the block. (The message was, next time it won't be blanks. That was 1986, and the commis -- actually one hothead -- had blurted out in earlier meeting that the intent was to get student marchers to provoke a bloody shirt incident to trigger revolution, parallel to Philippines and Haiti. I saw that student literally dragged out of the meeting by the ear, by a senior commi and Uni Lecturer present.) Don't try to pretend that agit prop, media shadow show games and corrupt elite inner circle networks, honey traps and SMICE are not real. All you are demonstrating is how living in denial of the potential and/or signs of actuality of such are enabling behaviour. For shame! KF kairosfocus

Pindi: "Fascinating. [backs away slowly…]" Quick, hide in Plato's Cave. timothya

Pindi, You are being over the top. WJM spoke to what he knew of, you wanted details. Based on what I have noted I pointed to some indicators that something IS out there, you now want to play at hyperskeptical, sneeringly dismissive games by projecting snide hints of lunacy. Shame on you, I came to awareness in the years when I saw the P2 Lodge bring down a Govt and shake the Vatican. I lived through clear Intel agency subversion that sparked a civil war in my homeland and taught me about agit prop and media shadow show tactics the hard way. The blood of a dear auntie was shed through that ugly tactic. I was nearly victimised in a student meeting by communist agit prop operators in the way the UCB victims were, and within a couple of hours that led straight to students being used as cannon fodder to block a key road down which military reinforcements would have to come, leading to the Mobile Reserve charge following up teargas and M16's on full auto loaded with blanks [as in next time it WON'T be blanks . . . ] just above students' heads. (Where, I was present when a commi student blurted out details of trying to do a Phillipines or a Haiti in Jamaica to get the bloody shirt to trigger revolution, only to be dragged out of the meeting by the ear by a leading Commi also in the meeting. That was 1986 in case you don't know or have forgotten the history.) Did you even pause to look at the report on Savile, a case of pedo implicating the power circles and institutions of the UK -- including BBC -- as, how such went on for decades is "mysterious" indeed? As for things that go well beyond pedo (cited as one indicator that there be dragons there), did you ponder where these blackshirts have come from, how they are organised, funded and trained? (Have you taken time to actually follow the issues of agit prop agitation and manipulative media shadow shows moving in lock-step, as the OP points to? Did you read or view Plato's Parable of the Cave and his parable of the mutinous ship of state, comparing the state of our democracies?) Believe you me or not as you please, the tactics we saw on the streets that tellingly echo the SA are not spontaneous. As for taking over, ponder theP2 Lodge story in Italy here [deliberately, Wiki as that would be on the progressivist side] with here -- Guardian, ditto -- and here for starters, then look at the way pols etc in the UK are often controlled by holding embarrassing details to be released on cue, such as happened to Mr Cameron, multiplying by the gangland initiation requirement of incriminating oneself. That is very likely just the tip of a very ugly iceberg, showing that deep and broad corruption is very real and enmeshing. Just ponder a what-if, where just perhaps corrupt power circles will only progressively promote to the next inner ring [yes, read C S Lewis' essay on the inner ring], those they have increasing levels of blackmail-level leverage on. Compare the praxis of SMICE in intel work, sex, money, ideology, compromise and extortion. Likewise, ask yourself how the US came to be flying was it four planeloads totalling US$ 1.6 billions in cash to a nuke threshold, leading terrorism sponsoring state, and making a deal behind that that is just pregnant with rivers of blood. Did you pause to look at the bio of the rapist of Africa, Rhodes, and what he proposed in his earlier will? Notice a very close resemblance of those C19 ideas to the League of Nations and the UN? I put it to you, there's none so blind as he who WILL not see. Where, WJM is perfectly able to speak for himself when he wants to. KF kairosfocus

So let me get this straight. This worldwide army of networked classical liberals and conservatives that WJM knows about are in a war against progressive globalists who are somehow taking over the world through the medium of paedophilia? Fascinating. [backs away slowly...] Pindi

Pindi, I spoke to what I know about; in a context where pedo has been a notorious problem of corrupt power elites for thousands of years; to the point that Zeus in mythology had a catamite (duly written into the names of the Galillean moons of Jupiter as in, hint, hint). So, that there are corrupt pedo networks in power circles should not be a big surprise. I guess you did not ponder the implications of even just the decades-long Savile case in the UK, with report by a BBC Trust that in my personal experience understates issues and protects BBC; ponder what had to be going on for this to remain under wraps so long. As for fascist tactics, just scroll up and see what the blackshirts have been up to already. Compare with Hitler's behaviour with a speaker in a Bavarian Beer Hall in 1921. Beyond, I suspect WJM has his own info. As to your dismissiveness, that's little more than don't believe yer lyin' eyes -- spoken to someone who has dealt with this stuff on the ground decades ago, and so I can read it. If you look just above, on cue we have talking point scripts laced with slanders and falsities to feed the street and media narratives, with a money trail. KF kairosfocus

KF, so "pedo linked offences" etc are what WJM is referring to when he references "the criminal enterprises and fascist plans of the progressive globalists"? Sounds like the product of a fevered imagination to me. Pindi

Looks like smoking gun, Soros-backed scripts to disrupt townhalls and make accusations. Aaron Klein: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/28/soros-groups-provide-word-word-anti-trump-script-protesters-use-lawmakers/ >>An organization partnered with far-left groups that calls itself the Revolutionary Love Project distributed an actual script with anti-Trump talking points for citizens to use when meeting with constituents in town halls, including during last week’s Congressional recess. The script provides word-for-word language suggestions that accuse the Trump administration of “xenophobia, racism, and Islamophobia.” It asks activists to use the descriptors to petition their representatives to “forcefully condemn” and support legislation opposing President Trump’s immigration and border security agendas. The script is entitled, “#NoBanNoWallNoRaids Talking Points for Congressional Townhalls.” It ends with contact information for activists from two groups heavily financed by billionaire George Soros – Avideh Moussavian at the National Immigration Law Center and Deepa Iyer at the Center for Social Inclusion. Contacted by Breitbart News, Moussavian confirmed his group “contributed” to the script “in response to overwhelming concern and fear stemming from the January 27th executive order that sought to ban the entry of refugees and Muslims and in response to mounting questions from community members about how to express these concerns to policy makers.” Despite Moussavian’s claims, Trump’s executive order did not seek to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. It temporarily halted the refugee program while the flawed security screening process could be reworked. The anti-Trump script for activists is meant to aid a project driven by the George Soros-funded MoveOn.org group declaring the week of February 18-26 – the first congressional recess of the 115th Congress – to be “Resistance Recess.” The project called on activists to show up at “elected officials’ events, town halls, and other public appearances to make it clear to those who represent us in Congress, as well as to the media, that tolerance of the Trump Administration’s hurtful policies is intolerable, that indifference or idleness is not acceptable, that complacency is politically toxic.”>> --> media shadow show actors need scripts, and it looks like we got some here. --> Talking points, courtesy Soros et al: >>Members of the 115th Congress are holding meetings and town halls in their districts during the week of February 18-26th . This is the time to demand that your member of Congress take action on issues affecting immigrants and refugees in light of the executive orders issued by the Trump Administration. Find out more about the events scheduled in your district here or here. Step 1. Who You Are. My name is ______ and I’m a resident of _______. Add a description of your connection to the community (I am a parent; I am a small business owner; I am an immigrant). Step 2. Your Concerns. I am particularly concerned about the Administration’s efforts to target and criminalize immigrants, refugees and people entering our country from Muslim- majority countries . . . . Use any of the below talking points to buttress your concerns: *Trump’s executive orders to deport undocumented immigrants, to punish so-called sanctuary cities for defending the Constitution, to ban people from seven Muslim-majority countries, and to shut the door on refugees all have one thing in common: they are rooted in hate, bigotry and a desire to instill fear rather than promote unity. We call this xenophobia, racism, and Islamophobia. *Each of these executive orders is based on the false premise that immigrants pose a threat to us. They are hateful attacks not only on those newly arriving or seeking entry into the U.S. but to those of us, including U.S. citizens, who have raised families here, paid taxes for years and who have made enormous sacrifices and contributions. *The policy changes called for in the executive orders are extremist, costly and ineffective, and they will not make us safer . . . . *We are witnessing a massive militarization of our deportation force, and a supersizing of interior and border patrol agents. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids are occurring in homes and workplaces, and the climate of fear as a result of rumored and reported raids are paralyzing our communities . . . >> --> Notice, the studious failure to distinguish specific threat vector countries listed by the Obama administration and the rest of Muslim countries amounting to 85% of the world's Muslim population. --> Notice, the similar studious failure to distinguish legal and illegal --as in unvetted and therefore automatically a potential threat -- immigrants. --> What will these same people say when there is clear evidence of blood as a result of their behaviour? Of course, there will be other talking points to shift blame then, too. --> It is time to wake up to what is being done. KF kairosfocus

F/N: Found something on the P38, which makes me wonder if a follow up attack or the original should have been based on P38s in fighter-bomber role and/or B24 bombers escorted by P38's. Also, the Italian campaign would then have focussed on bringing up a land base in S Italy to ramp up the attack on a critical nodal industry -- petrol [esp Aviation gas], oil and lubricants [which could not then be made synthetically]. I clip: http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=74 >>Part of the specification also called for the fighter to be substantially armed and the P-38 was thusly fitted with a base armament of 1 x 37mm cannon (later downgraded to a 20mm caliber) and a battery of 4 x 12.7mm Browning machine guns, all mounted in the nose . . . . The installation of all armament in the nose, however, provided the pilot with a more accurate attack "cone" when compared to wing-mounted armament common to traditional fighters of the time. The armament was also quite formidable against anything unfortunate to come within the range of the attack cone - machine guns offered up greater rates-of-fire while the cannon could render engines useless with a single direct shot. When British interest had peaked on the development of the American P-38, several test variants were shipped across the Atlantic for evaluation, sans the superchargers as there remained a ban on American supercharger technology at the time. Thusly the exported P-38 systems woefully under-performed when evaluated by British test pilots and interest in the Lockheed product dissipated. Nevertheless, United States military planners themselves liked what they saw in the P-38 (with the superchargers installed) and would soon be utilizing them across every theater of war around the globe during World War 2. It was soon after production began that the rather forgiving airframe was modified to carry fuel drop tanks to be issued for longer ranges, promoting long distance bombing runs or bomber escort duty and rail-launched rockets (held within structural support "trees" under the wings) could be added, allowing Lightning pilots to field up to 10 x high-explosive, air-to-surface unguided rockets (5 per wing) for use against ground structures, convoy vehicles, concentrations of enemy troops and trains . . . . Thirteen pre-production evaluation aircraft were then delivered as YP-38s with the first one flying on September 16th, 1940 under power from V-1710 series piston engines. These were armed with 1 x 37mm cannon and 4 x 12.7mm heavy machine guns. However, all was not rosey in the P-38s development for there remained a recurring issue encountered along the tail surfaces during high speed dives. It was only later in its development that the issue was ironed out for the better with the introduction of the P-38D and its revised tail section. 36 of the type were produced and these also incorporated self-sealing fuel tanks. The P-38 was therefore formally accepted into service in August of 1940 with serial production of the initial model - the P-38E - beginning in September. At least 210 of this version were delivered by Lockheed and now modified with 1 x 20mm cannon and 4 x 12.7mm heavy machine guns . . . . Installed Power and Standard Day Performance Engine(s): 2 x Allison V-1710-111 water-cooled inline piston engines developing 1,425 horsepower. Maximum Speed: 414 mph (666 kph; 360 knots) Maximum Range: 2,237 miles (3,600 km) Service Ceiling: 43,963 feet (13,400 meters; 8.33 miles) Rate-of-Climb: 2,500 feet-per-minute (762 m/min) Armament / Mission Payload STANDARD: 1 x 20mm cannon in nose 4 x 12.7mm Browning heavy machine guns in nose OPTIONAL: 10 x 5in high-explosive rockets 2 x Drop Drop Tanks 2 x 500lb Conventional Drop Bombs Up to 4,000lbs (908kg) of underwing stores.>> --> The P38 was the size of a light bomber, and was capable of carrying considerable bombardment armament, in RW it seems to have been mainly deployed to Europe for Sept '43, but that could have been accelerated. --> Ploesti was an oil refinery complex, inviting fire largely fuelled by its own materials as the main instrument of destruction. --> A 20 mm cannon and 50-cal mg's [why not some incendiary bullets?) alone could do fair damage, a/c armed with the 37 mm gun would be far more destructive through doubtless slower. And it could carry bombs and rockets, thought he latter would seem to be more a '44 platform, unless british rockets had been used. --> When we compare the RW costs and losses of 1944 - 45 and the implications of Russian conquest of E Europe for the next 40 years, this looks like the opportunity foregone. --> I note, when I chatted with my son on it, his statement was [after drawing out much of the issue of the RW alternative], Russians would do such a grinding battle of attrition from the air, but not Americans. --> Again, we need to think, what were the real alternatives? And, what would the role of the media be in all this? --> My thought, an augmented Raid 1, with P38s, and that includes fighter sweeps to smoke out Flak and kill it, while shooting up and igniting refinery fires. --> Follow up raids would blend fighter sweeps and bombing, with maybe night bombing brought in as in RW [RAF Wellingtons]. --> timeline would likely run across late '43 from Sicilian bases [July '43] and then ramp up with mainland bases from what October- November, then a winter campaign. A fuel-starved LW would have been much less effective in Feb '44 when the Northern air campaign ramping up to June '44 kicked off. --> Mustangs would come in to take up escort duties allowing P38's to go full F/B. --> Maybe P47's too. --> What-if? What would the media of the time have said? --> Now the killer: what would the media of our time, transferred to that time, have said? Where would that have forked the timeline further? --> And yes, this is scenario-based thinking. KF kairosfocus

Pindi, start with about 500 for pedo-linked offences in California, multiply by related roll-ups in Canada, Netherlands, Norway etc. For some reason corrupt power elites have long been associated with that especially destructive perversion, back to catamites for Caesars and things so entrenched that in pagan mythology Zeus had a catamite; cf. Rom 1 and read between the lines informed by Lives of the Caesars. Notice the names of the Galilean moons of Jupiter. Even here where I am, we have a case with a former politician that has attracted disproportionate int'l police support and what looks like a move to put in place an internationally eminent jurist as sitting "hanging" judge. I think dirty money issues may -- this is speculation under fair comment, given seizure of financial papers as part of the arrest process [the arrested man complained in the media] -- rpt, may, lurk there too. Epstein island looks very suspicious to me and I have seen some seriously questionable things from Wikileaks was it tying back to Podesta. IIRC, this one may implicate a royal. Do not forget things going back to at least Hastert (yes, this cuts across the parties): remember, such offences are apparently deeply addictive and may be being used as admission ritual price and blackmail-control point for really destructive power networks and secret societies. Remember the P2 lodge and linked banking scandals leading to a "suicided" Vatican banker hanging was it from Blackfriar's Bridge with stones in his pocket? [Cf. Lodge oaths.] Do not overlook the significance of Cameron and his u/g club hazing incident with the mouth of a dead pig. Same for Skull and Bones and other groups. Saville in the UK is an index, as is Rotherham. I recall too how the 2nd Krupp clearly committed suicide over exposure of a pedo love nest involving Italian boys forming a harem. Roehm [sp?] and the SA were involved, as were other Nazis and before them upper echelons of the German Officer Corps and elites -- there was a notorious incident of a Gen Staff officer collapsing with heart attack while dancing in a tutu before Kaiser et al and being stuffed back into his uniform. Those must just be the tip of the iceberg and obviously if you have some by that level of offence, you have extraordinary leverage for investigation, giving ability to break the omerta. Mix in the 214 felony rioting charges against blackshirts in DC (which MUST be being used to begin to roll up some pretty serious and deep networks; it takes years to create a continent(s?)-wide network and months to train in the swarm tactics seen OTG in vids). There were some earlier waves in Belgium. There may doubtless be other things WVM knows about that I don't. I do not know how much he will wish to detail, but I do not doubt that he will speak from knowledge. KF PS: To get an idea, go read the Wiki and New World Enc biographies of Cecil B Rhodes, rapist of Africa. Notice the roots of the League of Nations and the UN. Not to mention, the Rhodes scholarships. kairosfocus

Well I must admit WJM, I'm curious. What are the many large-scale arrests you are referring to that are being ignored by the mainstream media? Pindi

WJM, I hear you and did notice mass arrests in California. The fact remains, up to coming on midnight Nov 8, 2016, these folks thought they were about to hit the point of no return. They are now in a race to break the momentum the other way, and they have a LARGE number of the deluded to use as cannon fodder. The issue is in doubt. Though, the signs pointing to widespread, deeply organised child abuse and trafficking are serious. As for political schemes, it is very hard to prove things unless you have money trails, voter fraud, tapes of conspiracies and the like. And many will not believe, they will cry McCarthyism . . . never mind that post Soviet collapse evidence shows the late Senator had a serious point though he himself was not particularly credible. In my native land, propaganda talking points from 37 years ago still have currency and dominate thinking; never mind the evidence to the contrary has been readily accessible. When it comes to the betrayal as regards Iran and handing over of $1.6 bn CASH to a nuke threshold terrorist state, that is open news and nothing has been done. Marriage was openly corrupted through blatant abuse of law within the past few years. Education is a shambles. The worst holocaust in history stands at 800+ million, growing at a million more aborted per week, under false colour of law and rights. This one is pivotal, as blood guilt is about the most corrupting of influences. The global media picture is not on your side, and Mr Obama just handed the Internet over to the UN. I am not convinced the game has switched decisively to the other side. KF kairosfocus

Truth, those are descriptive terms for what has been going on. The agendas are ruthless and utterly dishonourable. They don't seem to realise that if they erode civil society, it will be back to clans, clan lords and blood feuds to the bitter end. If we are lucky. If not, criminal warlords, especially in urban environments. And if the media operatives lynch and rape reputations, destroying enough people, they are going to find out that 800 yards* is a long range to have to secure before going out of doors or being by a window etc. Yes, that is what I am pointing to regarding Rule 303, as a grim warning. KF * (The Grendel 6.5 mm in an AR-15 framed rifle with modern tactical reticle scopes makes that range quite "easy" to reliably score hits at, with much lighter recoil than the 308. The Creedmoor version is even more effective at long distances; 6.5 mm being in the middle of a sweet-spot for long range ammunition, based on sectional density. Cf here: https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2016/9/6/65-grendel-and-65-creedmoor-cartridges/ And no, it is far too late to ban your way out of this. Maybe, this will help wake somebody up to the fire they are playing with.) kairosfocus

KF @ 173: You are correct in emphasizing "lawfare" as a major destructive force in our society. Same for "media lynching" and "reputation rape." Sad. Truth Will Set You Free

KF, The public "conservative" and libertarian media are the tip of the iceberg. I'm familiar with a worldwide army of networked classical liberals and conservatives that are actually collecting data, evidence and intel on the criminal enterprises and fascist plans of the progressive globalists. They are working with various intelligence, police and military personnel around the world, right now, working from the ground floor of these cartels - arresting, confiscating more materials and intel, interrogating and flipping those they arrest, working their way up the food chain. There have been many large-scale arrests around the world and here in the USA that the mainstream media is ignoring because they are knee-deep in it. The increase in violent tactics and threatening rhetoric is due to the fact that they know their opportunity for total control is quickly evaporating. This is why Trump has talked so much about human trafficking and stopping it. He is privvy to this war being waged at the grass root level by good people all around the world that have woken up because of the counter-narrative information and data that was never before available. Also, historical data can be compiled so that the mechanisms and infrastructure and lies can be revealed and understood, whereas before only authorized historians and media kept records that only served the interests of the powerful. They could invent any historical narrative they wanted and it would go unchallenged, such as the notion that the Republicans or conservatives that supported slavery and opposed equal rights and civil rights. William J Murray

F/N: Perhaps, Lincoln puts the matter best:

Second Inaugural Address. Delivered at Washington, D. C. March 4, 1865. Fellow-countrymen: At this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured. On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it—all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came. One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes his aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered—that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through his appointed time, he now wills to remove, and that he gives to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to him? Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, "The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.

It is time to wake up and step back from the brink, before the abyss yawns open. KF kairosfocus

PPPS: As, even more ominously, will Breaker Morant's Rule 303. I warn, I plead, I beg -- even though it is hopeless that those who most need to heed this now will do so before it is bloodily too late -- some people will kill in defense of honour in the face of reputational rape and ruin of good name through slander. If you willfully destroy a man's life through slander, some will take up the mission to avenge themselves at any price; and some proportion of these will be even worse, berserkers. I have solemnly warned: we are recklessly playing with hellfire here, with the agit prop and media shadow show games that are going on. kairosfocus

WJM, I should note that the turn to violence is a sign they think they don't need to gain more support, they think intimidation and manipulation will be enough. And if they can take down enough people around the new US President and/or keep the news in a boil that allows hysteria and manipulation, they may well get away with it. What is the reach of the media alternatives? How vulnerable are they to attack, including by regulators? My suspicion is the last free media will be print and the short wave radio. Which strictly -- in terms of propagation -- also takes in MW AM. If we can hold enough satellite in bands where a pie plate dish is enough, that may help. But the Internet is very vulnerable, and I suspect things like facebook of being spies, monitoring you, your whereabouts and what you say as well as watch and read or type, surreptitiously. KF PS: My guess is, if we can maximise use of the Internet now, we may not have to retreat to other media that are more resistant to intrusion and spying. use it, or lose it, on steroids. But we must not forget there is a reason why the narratives out there are so blatantly polarising. They think they can get and hold critical mass for their purposes. PPS: As for guns, I think they are setting it up so if you use one in defense, they will come after you and break you financially and reputationally, even if they cannot get through legally; lawfare is real. Media lynching and reputation rape are real too. These point to the issue I spoke to earlier, after San Bernardino: set up an organised, disciplined civilian marshal corps. That will work with terrorists carrying out jihad by bands or assassin cult type suicide raids, and it will work with blackshirts playing at street bully games. At some point the old reformation doctrine of interposition by lower magistrates will likely become relevant. kairosfocus

WJM @167/168 +1000 mike1962

WJM and Truth, I wonder. I think of when there were a lot of town newspapers, independent magazines that moved by mail or newsagents, books, and pulpits that had not suffered the modernist agenda. There were still large regional blocs, and there was a civil war in the early days over one such regionalised divisive issue. I accept that major voices dominated electronic media and this led to shifts in power balances: the way the Tet defeat of a Viet Cong attack -- which seems to have crippled the VC as a serious fighting force -- was twisted into an American defeat in the popular mind, speaks volumes on that degree of influence. If the advantage was properly pressed at that point, the war could have been won, decisively, but that would have required doing the bombing campaign of 1972 in 1968; Johnson was utterly defeated in his own heart and the public were cowed by the drama in the streets across the West and how this was projected on the media stage. [In August 1943, a costly raid against Ploesti's oil infrastructure showed what was possible through aerial bombardment, but there was not a determined follow up over the next several months; that shows again the same pattern where a breakthrough is there but there is a hesitation to take it up for various reasons.] From the 1970's and 80's, though, we saw talk radio emerge and it made a big difference to Reagan, whose press in the major media was almost uniformly bad -- that mad cowboy dummy about to precipitate the world into nuclear war for no good reason, etc -- but to little effect, they would speak of him as the teflon president. he had build up a reservoir of trust over decades and the attacks bounced off. After Reagan, the more or less conservative never had a figure of such dominance who could run for and win the presidency against a backdrop of a discredited liberal-progressive left [as in, Carter]. And in the background education, the academy and others fell victim to cultural marxism and its critical studies agendas, from feminism to gayism to radical environmentalism to you name it. I think Obama is a community organiser of the Chicago school, which means he is a trained cultural marxist agitator [notice how the media obfuscated the implications], and his coalition of the radicals came close to utter victory in our civilisation's leading country. His fingerprints are also all over the effect of the so called Arab Spring [predictably, open the way for an Islamist winter], and the subsequent Iran deal, both of which are clearly motivated by the view that the West is what is wrong with the world, and more specifically the heritage of Christendom. They wanted the US to become much like the post-Christian Europeans have increasingly become. But the blue collar rustbelt had enough and the Reagan Democrats returned in force. A key clue is, the blackshirts took years to organise and months to train for the sort of tactics on display. Up to Nov 8 late evening the left thought they had won, so what were these red guards in training for? Surely, not to escort little old ladies across the street. I think things were going to get very ugly indeed with an exceedingly hostile and aggressive post-Christian, radical secularist, nihilist might and manipulation make right agenda rampant and running riot. They are lashing out, undermining peaceful transfer of power through legitimate election, and are going on eleven with the major media, knowing that a good slice of the population is in their pockets. They clearly mean to take down Trump and then go after anyone who does not meekly shut up and go along with the radical agendas. That is why we are seeing the same things I saw 30+ years ago: agit-prop and media shadow shows to turn our civilisation into a march of folly -- to predictable ruin. (The radicals are always blind to their own overconfidence in their capabilities and are too filled with hate and contempt to have patience to listen to correctives.) You and I are the automatically illegitimate and evil "reaction" to be ruthlessly silenced, discredited and eliminated. The recent incidents with Milo Yiannopoulous [sp?] that twisted a victim of pedophilia who has evidently exposed several, into a perceived pedophile, is an example of that utter wickedness. This stopped his growing momentum, at least for the moment and that was all that they cared about. We really need to understand what the truly radical will do with power, what they spent the past 100+ years doing with it, at a cost well north of 100 million lives. Add in how mass abortion was pushed through under false colours of rights and law and we see their utter disregard for life, the very first right. the one without which there will be no other rights. Our civilisation is at a terrible pass and the issue is in doubt. KF kairosfocus

KF @ 166: Yes. The western MSM has been exposed for what it truly is...a propaganda tool of the left. The internet made this possible by allowing a free press to rise up and challenge the leftist MSM. These are great times to be alive! Truth Will Set You Free

WJM @ 168: Spot on! Here's a new post revealing the logical ends of Darwinism (of every stripe), courtesy of the not-so-great Peter Singer: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/02/peter_singer_th103518.html Truth Will Set You Free

KF: I think the tide has turned in terms of the intellectual battle, which is why the progressives and globalists are turning more and more to violence and intimidation, which in itself turns people away from their position and helps to wake up reasonable people. Fortunately for the USA, we still have a large degree of free speech protections and we still have our guns, which makes it a lot harder for the progressives to intimidate us and shut us down. William J Murray

The difference between the situation then and the situation now is that the general population now has access to a multitude of alternative news and information sources, and the current citizenry is, to a much larger degree, better informed about the biased nature of certain media sources and what they are trying to achieve. In the past, Presidents and their administrations were basically held hostage to a single narrative because they had no way of bypassing that narrative in any significant way. Apparently, the left still thinks it can control the narrative via their apparatchik media allies, and so they keep trying to find something that will "stick", no matter how absurd or self-contradictory (there is no voter fraud / Russia hacked the election, for example). The conservative/libertarian media is now at least just as influential as the progressive meda or else there's now way Trump could have won the election. The stranglehold the old progressive media had on the narrative has been broken, but that fight needs to be engaged every day from now on as they seek to re-establish their power. William J Murray

PS: Is the state of the major media the under-reported scandal of the year? kairosfocus

Ben Stein on the agit prop-media shadow show game: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/02/26/ben-stein-media-looking-for-a-scandal-every-day-with-trump-to-do-to-him-what-they-did-to-nixon/ >>Saturday, former Nixon and Ford speechwriter, actor and author Ben Stein said on “CNN Newsroom” that mainstream media like CNN and The New York Times are “looking for a scandal” with President Donald Trump and they want to do to him like they did to former President Richard Nixon. “Look, every day you pick up The New York Times, every day they’re slamming, slamming, slamming [Trump]. I’m a great fan of CNN; I watch it quite faithfully, every day CNN is slamming him, slamming him, slamming him. Every day, they’re looking for a scandal. They’re just turning the woods upside down looking for a scandal. They’re hoping, I think, to do to him what they did to Nixon a long time ago. And, you know, still haven’t found any real scandals,” Stein stated. He continued, “With all due respect, I don’t blame him for being furious at them. And I think he’s got a lot of company. I’m out there giving speeches all around the country all the time, an awful lot of people are not great fans of the media, and they see the media as an unelected aristocracy … who are dumping all over the mainstream of America.”>> --> The progressivists need to pause and ponder the implication of their behaviour in terms of attitude manifested: only we are qualified to govern, and our agenda must prevail by any means, fair or foul. --> Such an attitude and behaviour are among the strongest evidences that the opposite is the case. --> Notice, anti-Trump RIOTS started during the inauguration (and blocked people from attending), and we have seen a clear pattern of undermining peaceful transfer of power through legitimate election, a very dangerous sign. --> Notice, the media narratives in major media have clearly discarded duties of care to truth, fairness, innocent reputation and more, utterly disqualifying them to the point that they deserve to be put in the category of notorious tabloids. --> all of these are sobering signs, as democracy is inherently unstable and needs to be buttressed by a great many cultural, moral and -- frankly -- religious supports that have such broad-based presence that they constitute a community consensus. --> We are seeing, before our eyes, the consequences of slandering, tainting and turning against the heritage of Christendom. (And if that grates against your perceptions, that is a sign of how deeply you have been misled and indoctrinated in order to poison your mind against what is the real hope for our civilisation -- godly reformation energised by the authentic gospel. I suggest, read here on the Christian contribution to modern democratic liberty, and here on the sins and blessings of Christendom. Beware, the fallacy of the closed, indoctrinated, hostile mind.) KF kairosfocus

U/D, Feb 25: 200+ Blackshirts from Wash Dc Inauguration rioting indicted: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/02/22/More-than-200-Inauguration-Day-protesters-indicted-for-rioting/9231487744646/ >>A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday indicted more than 200 people arrested during the presidential inauguration on felony rioting charges, spotlighting their intent to sabotage peaceful protests with violence and destruction. Called out for individual acts of vandalism, violence and destruction, prosecutors alleged Tuesday that 214 protesters engaged in "black bloc" tactics on Jan. 20 during President Donald Trump's swearing-in, causing damage to vehicles and property. Six police officers were also hurt during the riots as they exchanged flash-bang explosives with protesters hurling rocks and firecrackers at them. D.C. police have stressed that the vast majority of protesters were peaceful, but that these 214 people -- the other 17 people arrested during the inauguration were released from custody -- showed up specifically to disrupt the event. "Black bloc" protest tactics, which have been used by some protesters for decades, include dressing in black or dark colored clothing while concealing one's face using scarves, masks and sunglasses. Some of the protesters brought with them hammers, crowbars, bricks, rocks, flares and firecrackers. A Florida man, Dane Powell, is accusing of felony rioting and assault on three police officers, but most of the protesters are charged with smashing windows at Starbucks and McDonalds while others torched a limo [--> Cf. OP]. Many of the violent protesters threw items at police, as well. If convicted, felony rioting carries a maximum jail sentence up to 10 years, and a fine of up to $25,000.>> --> That's a start. I repeat, in a reasonably democratic, constitutionally grounded community NOTHING can justify rioting. KF kairosfocus

F/N: Project Veritas reveals 119 hours of CNN Newsroom c. 2009, from Ms X. Note, how Climate issues, "Creationism," Bible believers and Republicans are characterised and how "consensus" and "no debate" are appealed to. Observe how polls are presented and how questions about that are brushed aside. It seems, 100 more hours to go. Clips as linked clearly document biases and agendas that shape the narrative portrayed as news. The weaponised media thesis is looking all too troublingly plausible. KF kairosfocus

Censorship questions arise: Do we really want to go down this road, Facebook? Do we understand the blood and tears of the history implicated? http://www.christianpost.com/news/facebook-suspends-christian-homeschool-moms-account-over-posts-citing-bible-on-homosexuality-175521/ >>Elizabeth Johnston, an Ohio homeschooling mother of 10 who runs the popular conservative blog "The Activist Mommy," told The Christian Post on Tuesday that Facebook suspended her account earlier this month because she wrote about how Leviticus condemns homosexuality as "detestable" and an "abomination." Johnston said the comment in question was posted over six months ago in a long thread of comments that was in response to another Facebook user who claimed that Christians are hypocrites for condemning homosexuality but being willing to eat shellfish and pork. The post was removed on Feb. 9 and Johnston's public "The Activist Mommy" Facebook page, which has over 76,000 followers, was frozen for a period of three days. She was alerted that her comment on homosexuality was removed because "it doesn't follow the Facebook Community Standards." "Someone had commented underneath one of my videos and were commenting under the thread and said something about how Old Testament law prohibits the eating of pork — one of the homosexuals' favorite arguments to make. I responded with just scriptural commentary and that is considered 'hate speech' by Facebook," Johnston explained. "It was just very intellectual and it was just a commentary on what the Bible says. There was no name calling or anything like that." After her account was unfrozen on Feb. 12, Johnston said that she re-posted her thoughts on the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality only to have Facebook remove the post again and freeze her account for an additional seven days.>> --> We are going down a terrible road here. --> As for the notion that issues on homosexual behaviour are even remotely comparable as matters of morality and sin to eating shellfish, that itself tells us something is deeply wrong in our culture. KF kairosfocus

Truth, I pray God you are wrong but am horrified you may be right. You don't have to jump over the visible edge of a cliff to go over it, the very existence of the edge warns of ground that may collapse underfoot and take you down with it. And, our civilisation is plainly dancing on just such an edge. The cynical agit prop and media shadow show games do not point to anything any sane person could wish for. Can we all PLEASE wake up from the bewitchment and step back, back, back and go in a safer direction? Before, it is fatally too late? KF PS: Wasn't Sen. Sumner caned insensible right there in congress as events spiralled out of control into civil war in the US? https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Caning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm >>Senator Charles Sumner, a Massachusetts antislavery Republican, addressed the Senate on the explosive issue of whether Kansas should be admitted to the Union as a slave state or a free state. In his "Crime Against Kansas" speech, Sumner identified two Democratic senators as the principal culprits in this crime—Stephen Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina. He characterized Douglas to his face as a "noise-some, squat, and nameless animal . . . not a proper model for an American senator." Andrew Butler, who was not present, received more elaborate treatment. Mocking the South Carolina senator's stance as a man of chivalry, the Massachusetts senator charged him with taking "a mistress . . . who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight—I mean," added Sumner, "the harlot, Slavery." Representative Preston Brooks was Butler's South Carolina kinsman. If he had believed Sumner to be a gentleman, he might have challenged him to a duel. Instead, he chose a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs. Shortly after the Senate had adjourned for the day, Brooks entered the old chamber, where he found Sumner busily attaching his postal frank to copies of his "Crime Against Kansas" speech. Moving quickly, Brooks slammed his metal-topped cane onto the unsuspecting Sumner's head. As Brooks struck again and again, Sumner rose and lurched blindly about the chamber, futilely attempting to protect himself. After a very long minute, it ended. Bleeding profusely, Sumner was carried away. Brooks walked calmly out of the chamber without being detained by the stunned onlookers. Overnight, both men became heroes in their respective regions. Surviving a House censure resolution, Brooks resigned, was immediately reelected, and soon thereafter died at age 37. Sumner recovered slowly and returned to the Senate, where he remained for another 18 years. The nation, suffering from the breakdown of reasoned discourse that this event symbolized, tumbled onward toward the catastrophe of civil war.>> kairosfocus

We might already be in a civil war...the very early stages. Widespread divisive rhetoric often precedes widespread divisive violence. Truth Will Set You Free

PPS: One of Cernovich's commenters has captured the portents of civilisational civil war that lurk beneath this present attack on peaceful transfer of power as a result of a legitimate election: https://www.dangerandplay.com/2017/02/20/lessons-from-milos-soon-to-be-bounce/#comment-3166864509 >>Today was a reminder of the ruthlessness of the media, the globalists, and the deep state. We will need to be just as ruthless or more than they are. When we get to the point where we are victorious and they are begging for mercy, remember how they showed no mercy to Milo, Flynn, Spencer, or Trump and show them no mercy either. They protect the evil and attack those that seek to expose and destroy evil. They have shown that they will not live peacefully with us. The only way for there to be peace is for them to be physically removed or powerless. Do not let them get the level of power they have had in the past two decades or they will destroy us and our children without mercy.>> --> This is a road no sane person and no sane community, nation or civilisation wishes to go down. --> But, I find it hard to deny that this is exactly the road we are looking at. --> Can we turn back from this crumbling edge of a cliff before it is too late? --> Going over a cliff is not a wise policy for any civilisation. KF kairosfocus

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asJMvd5VHWc kairosfocus

F/N: I am late to a media party, and though I really do not like going into the truly distasteful, it seems necessary to address the ruthless, demonic ferocity with which the major media target those who do not fit in with the agendas of its paymasters and begin to pose a threat. In the case in view it looks like MY's real crime is that he is capable of meeting the media gunslingers on their own turf and besting them, so he is a level II target for character assassination by smear to irrevocably taint his "brand" -- his name. This incident echoes the locker-room "grab" talk tape used in the US Election campaign to try to break Mr Trump, and it points to just how nihilistically determined the agendas we are seeing are. (FTR, no, we will not entertain a side track on pedophilia etc, and FTR, it does not seem to me that MY supports this. Yes, too, age of consent in UK style jurisdictions tends to be 16.) It seems the proposed speaker at UCB has been set up for a media lynching. Note, the same media have been nowhere so eager to deal with the truly ugly patterns and implications outlined above. The pattern of red herrings led away to ad hominem soaked strawmen set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere continues. MY's response is here at Facebook, and it would be well for us to ponder the straight vs spin grid above in the OP. Cernovich's remarks here are worth the while too. I note -- as one slandered snidely as corrupt through cynical exploitation of parliamentary immunity, once such a smear is put out there, there will be a segment inclined to believe the worst. My own response was to publicly refute on record, call for dealing with the culture of slander and to serve due notice that anything further would meet with a much stronger counter-attack, as willful insult to honour in the teeth of public warning. Whispers in corners have continued, of course, but it seems clear that the message has been sent that there are people who are old fashioned enough to take honour seriously. KF PS: It seems MY is a victim of child sexual abuse, which is a frequent path into self-destructive, twisted behaviour. He seems to have very conflicted feelings about those who abused him, as it is obvious he was deeply emotionally involved with them and was clearly a more than willing participant; made little difference to the life-damaging impact. He would be well advised to seek sound spiritual counsel, and to sort out his life, from the spiritual roots on up. kairosfocus

F/N: Mr Assange, also has a few sobering words we need to heed; again regardless of our general view of the man and his Wikileaks: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/02/20/julian-assange-read-newspaper-article-reading-weaponized-text/ >>[SNIP on adverts for Wikileaks] “When you read a newspaper article, you are reading weaponised text that is designed to affect a person just like you . . . ">> --> weaponised text, designed to affect a person just like you. --> We can extend this to what we hear and to what we see on TV or on the Internet. Weaponised media. --> So, again, we are back to the critical necessity to be able to sort out what is straight from what is spin, and to get out of the Plato's Cave shadow show games. KF kairosfocus

F/N: Limbaugh is interesting on the notion implied by many journalists, that they are above accountability or critique on issues of fairness and accuracy: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/02/20/limbaugh-first-amendment-doesnt-give-press-immunity-criticism/ >>I said, “Where does this come from?” It’s more than just hubris. I finally found out. You know what it is, Mr. Snerdley? These clowns actually believe that since they are recognized in the First Amendment that they have constitutional immunity. Criticizing them is attacking the First Amendment. They really believe this. Criticizing them is akin to attacking the Constitution, and that’s un-American, and that’s why you hear these journalists say. “It’s un-American to criticize. It’s un-American for Trump to be destabilizing. It’s un-American for Trump to be going out there and trying to do damage to the media. We’ve got First Amendment protection.” Well, so does the president, and the president happens to be mentioned in the Constitution before the media. The president’s mentioned in Article 2. The media doesn’t make it ’til the First Amendment. But yet the media thinks there’s nothing bad about running around and trying to attack political figures and destroying them. This is what it is, folks. They are so far gone, they really think that they are the last line of defense between freedom and democracy and tyranny. And attacking them and challenging their reputation is no more and no less than attacking the Constitution and trying to destroy America and democracy . . . . Look, the only thing the First Amendment does for the press is the same thing it gives everybody else. They can say what they want to say. That’s essentially what the First Amendment says for the press like it says it for you and me. It singles them out and references them in terms of their importance, a free and unintimidated, whatever, unattached media. And nobody objects to that, but it does not grant them immunity from criticism. It does not grant them freedom to be disagreed with. It does not grant them freedom from opposition.>> --> Whatever one may say or think about Mr Limbaugh, he has a point here, and beyond him, the source of his comment: F. Chuck Todd of NBC. --> Too often, history is cynically dismissed as the lies of the winners, victory propaganda. That is a very dangerous notion. --> Instead, sound history was bought with awful pain, blood and tears, and so it is a sacred duty to be truthful, responsible and objective. if we do not learn from sound history, we doom ourselves to pay the same price over and over and over again. --> And don't even bother with cynical, nazi-tactic, cheap-shot turnabout accusations and dismissals. We all know this, or full well should know this. Just as we know the difference between truth, falsity and deceit: truth says of what is, that it is, and of what is not, that it is not -- as Ari pointed out in metaphysics 1011b 2300 years ago now. --> Likewise, good journalism is proverbially, a first, fast, rough draft of history. So, it, too has sobering duties of care to truth, fairness, responsibility and more. --> The patent failures of ever so much of the media in our time, should deeply trouble us, if we are concerned for the future. --> I again suggest the straight vs spin grid in the OP as a start-point to de-spinning. Do we really want to go down the road we are again beginning to tread, with nukes potentially on the loose this time around? Are we insane? KF kairosfocus

F/N: Trump dresses down the media. The exchange is worth the pondering. KF kairosfocus

This Glazov discussion is also food for thought on the symbols being used (e.g. the kitty-ear pink beanies in the Jan 21 Feminist+ Women's march) and the driving forces and agendas they point to. KF kairosfocus

Are we beginning to get glimpses into the network behind the street agit prop and media spin? Cf here. KF kairosfocus

On how journalists repeatedly con people into being strawman caricature targets for their agit prop narratives (Level I character assassination): Here is yet another victim of a now almost routine con. Bottomline, unless you have excellent reason to trust that you will not be distorted into a grotesque strawman loaded with ad homs and set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the issue, do not grant media interviews, especially audio or video ones. if you do so, insist on an independent full tape with the right to release it as proof of strawman tactic slander. If there is any resistance to this, walk away and publish your reasons -- even refusal to be interviewed will be used against you. I think the counsel to build your own web presence and/or forum for whatever you care about is a good answer. Here is the clip (from some sort of alt-right case, I have not got the patience to try to parse): http://blackpigeonspeaks.com/2017/02/the-mainstream-media-a-lesson-learnt/ >>I have always been a little sceptical of the right wing’s opinion about ‘fake news’ – the ‘mainstream media’s agenda’. A lot of people in the right wing community completely distrust what the mainstream media report and believe that the companies that are part of it (BBC, CNN, Channel 4 to name a few) are using their left wing agenda to bring down the right. Honestly, despite seeing what they mean after watching a few videos and noticing bias in some areas, I thought that everyone was over reacting a little bit. Because after all, there are plenty of ‘right wing’ news sources now that pride themselves on looking at news from a neutral perspective. I’m now deciding to detract my original thoughts because of my personal experience with Channel 4, a popular UK news outlet. Just before Christmas, I was recommended by a friend to a production company who had been assigned by Channel 4 to film a short news piece focusing on young people in what the media calls ‘the alt right’. The filmmaker, G Harper got in contact with me and we soon discussed on the phone what my general opinions are and what work I do on the website (blackpigeonspeaks). Of course I was careful and conscious of the fact that this could all go very wrong. I’d like to mention at this point that I was assured that it was going to be a ‘fair’ piece to ‘get my perspective’. We arranged to meet to film soon after Christmas. We filmed for about 4 hours and I feel that I spoke very well and managed to share my thoughts on a range of topics. I like to think I’m quite clever and quite the blossoming businesswomen, considering my editor status at BPS so I did catch GH out on a few things she asked and refused to answer. I also made a special effort to not talk about anything I wasn’t completely knowledgeable about, so that it would minimise the chances of being used to make me seem dumb. After an afternoon filming we said goodbye and that was that. What I said was in GH’s hands now. Someone can be as nice as pie, but still show certain signs of tactics they use to get more information out of you. If you haven’t, please read my statement that explains the borderline misconduct on getting personal information out of me. The piece was quite frankly – a mess. From the warning beforehand from the news reader saying that there may be ‘offensive content’ I knew this. When I saw ‘Mein Kampf’ in the background of a dingy bedroom and when I heard my edited words to make me say ‘I’m a feminist’ I knew that there was no going back and I just had to roll with it. This is without mentioning the blatent setup to make Jack Buckby, the studio guest look like a complete [SNIP -- vulgarity] and the awful right wing news reader calling us ‘losers with laptops’. I feel compelled to write this to warn others that despite how much precaution you take, how clever you are and how nice the filmmaker is – you will get targeted. This is a confession that as a member of the right wing, I was made to look bad (as were my on screen counterparts). I was told that this would be unbiased, I was told that my words would not be cut and edited and I was told that I would have to sign release papers. Which for the record, I did not. I wasn’t shown the tape beforehand as promised, either. The mainstream media cannot and will not be trusted by many more after this. I have reached out to GH to ask her why lawyers needed my personal history and why I was edited so much but there has been no reply. I guess she is trying to wash the blood stains off her hands.>> --> To lie is to speak in disregard to truth, in hope that what is said or suggested will be taken as true. --> Too many journalists and editors are paid, amoral or nihilistic agenda activists who have no respect for truth, fairness or the need for soundness to guide a nation. --> We must not be naive, we must realise that "anything you say or do can and will be used against you." In extreme cases, some journalists will make things up out of whole cloth, not just twist what you have said. --> Again, cf the straight vs spin grid in the OP. --> Too often, by the time the journalist foot soldiers come to you, they have the agit prop play written, the roles and positions identified, and are just looking for faces and names to stick on to the strawman targets, to make them seem more authentic to the naive. --> They don't care about (or in many cases don't know/ understand) Kant's warning in his categorical imperative, that evils can be readily discerned by how were they to become the norm, society would become impossible. They are using powerful means in a context where their imagined utopia justifies any means they deem necessary. Or, worse, they may be cynical hired guns. --> And, oh yes, to dismiss anything that does not toe the preferred partyline as a "conspiracy theory" without regard to its substance and warrant is a case of selective hyperskepticism and arrogant closed mindedness. --> So is turnabout projection, a notorious propaganda technique. One favoured by Hitler. Jesus' counsel about specks vs planks in eyes still holds considerable force. --> So, too, is the old immoral equivalency, you hypocrite tactic. (FYI, to be human is to struggle morally and so we must acknowledge that fact while respecting the truth and the right enough to have courage to point to what we cannot in our own strength do. Then, seek God's help through penitent, patient endurance in the path of the good and the truth.) --> Beware of liars who come bearing cameras and tape recorders, promising to be fair and truthful. For, if they can get away with it, liars will . . . lie. --> All the way back to a certain snake in a famous garden. KF kairosfocus

A perspective on major retailers boycotting Trump family fashion businesses and onward concerns: We need to ponder the implications of the ever wider and deeper polarisation that embroils politics in the US and so also -- through the media amplifier -- the wider world. Whether or not one agrees with the following article as a whole this clip should give serious pause: http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/nordstrom-must-pay/ Gina Loudon: >>The large majority of productive, hard-working Americans are conservative. These are the people who have money to spend at places like Nordstrom. Money is power, and conservatives must wield that power wisely. Make these companies earn your money by either staying out of politics, or, even better, making pro-American business decisions. Nordstrom’s move [--> dropping the Ivanka affordable professional fashion line with items at US$ 200 or less on excuse of low sales in context of a political boycott and given top exec donations . . . ] was a shot across the bow of any successful American who would dare to run for office as a Republican. I’ve spent years trying to recruit good candidates for political office, but the best of the best will not run. They see how Republican candidates and their families and their livelihoods are attacked by the left. They see the reputation of good people dragged through the mud with insults of racist, sexist, homophobe, etc. Every patriotic American should use their pocketbooks to counter the attacks of the left. Send a message to the left that their attempts to hurt candidates and their families will not work and will be punished. We must no longer allow the attacks of the left to drive good men and women away from public service. [--> notice, this is now FAR broader than debates over the Trump family] Send a message to every great American thinking of tossing their hat into the political ring that we have their back. Your calls and letters to Nordstrom.com, and to your own local stores, are extremely helpful. They are paying attention.>> --> The politics of smearing comes at sobering cost to the community through driving out the kind of people a sound nation needs in political leadership and as policy advisors and spokesmen. --> If we let a Gresham's Law dynamic of bad driving out good prevail, such will be to the terrible cost of our civilisation. For only a suicidal political culture drives away wisdom and sound character. --> And, from personal experience, we should recognise that there are serious policy lags and barriers before particular advice or positions and decisions can take effect, so fallacious ill-informed post hoc assumpyions and assertions that do not reckon with natural policy lags and impacts of resistance, foot-dragging delays, willfully incompetent execution [to make initiatives seem to be foolish or failures] etc are ill-advised. --> We need a renewal of public policy discussion in our time, as well as a sound answer to agit prop street theatre and linked manipulative or outright slanderous media narrative spin or outright gaslighting Plato's Cave shadow show deceptions. --> And, we need such as of yesterday if not long before; indeed we are obviously on the crumbling edge of a cliff and desperately need to get back on safer grounds. KF PS: Notice, Loudon's open letter to Nordstrom:

Dear Mr. Nordstrom, I am so disappointed in your decision to cancel Ivanka’s line. I was a campaign media surrogate on all major national networks for President Trump’s campaign, and I wore products bought in your stores on most of my TV and speaking appearances. Your stores were my weekly go-to. I have to wear a different, solid dress every day on TV, so I gravitated to Ivanka’s brand long before President Trump was my candidate, and before I was a surrogate for him. I do daily commentary on the issues of the day, so I am very aware of your stated reasons for dropping the brand. But the facts do not add up, unless you can explain them better than my own research explains. Your statement only weeks before was telling, but your brother’s donations to Hillary are even more clarifying. I certainly respect your family’s right to support whomever they like in campaigns. I cannot understand the bullying of the child of a president, and attacking her business. Why would you remove my options as a customer based on someone else’s political ideology? Look what happened to Macy’s after they stopped carrying the Trump tie for their political reasons. This was a slap to loyal customers like me. We are more than half the country, and we are very loyal with the money we work to earn. I would like to know if you might reconsider this short sighted decision. I will include a copy of this letter in my national weekly column and will include any reply I receive from you in subsequent columns.

--> The battle for the citadels on Business Mountain and Media Mountain heats up (cf the 7 Mtns f/w in the OP) kairosfocus

Truth, going off a cliff is a tipping point (as the OP illustrates). I think we need to be turning back from the kind of raw polarisation I am seeing, e.g.: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/02/12/rob-reiner-we-cannot-allow-trumps-cancerous-presidency-to-spread/ >>Sunday on MSNBC’s “AM Joy,” actor and director Rob Reiner called Donald Trump’s White House “a cancerous presidency that we cannot allow to spread.” Reiner said, “What’s interesting here is that we really have a test, and we are being tested as to whether or not our democracy is going to survive. We have somebody who’s mentally unstable, who is a pathological liar. There’s no getting around that, who’s running our country.” “And if we can survive this, that will strengthen us in a strange way,” he added. “What you’re seeing all over the country with protests, I’ve been to many of them, is nothing like what I went through in the 60’s when I protested against the Vietnam War, this is everyone. It’s not just people worried about being killed in Vietnam, this is everyone. And so we’re looking at a cancerous presidency that we cannot allow to spread.”>> --> That sort of attitude and language we do not need as a civilisation; just put that alongside foolish talk of assassination. KF kairosfocus

The tipping point is getting closer. Be ready. Protect yourselves. Truth Will Set You Free

F/N: looks like the days of retiring outgoing US Presidents (as a part of peaceful, legitimate transfer of power) are over: http://nypost.com/2017/02/11/how-obama-is-scheming-to-sabotage-trumps-presidency/ -- obviously, part of the ratcheting up of polarisation, with potential danger that voters will perceive that their collective decision is disregarded by resentful power elites and ideologues. I do not think this is a healthy development, especially in the highly polarised atmosphere that has been pumped up. KF kairosfocus

Just what is Fascism/Nazism? This is a hard Q to give an A to, especially as there is a persistent confusion that it is a "right wing" phenomenon: the extreme form of Capitalism even as Communism is the extreme form of Socialism. Where of course, Fascism and Nazism have become catch-all terms of abuse with enough murkiness that they are just what the agit prop activists want, especially as there is a general feeling that such are beyond the pale of civil discussion. As in, shutting down discussion in a cloud of hostility, confusion and polarisation to the point where many thing of an accused fascist or Nazi as effectively a demonised heretic to be despised and driven out by any means deemed necessary. And of course, serious Bible Believing Christians are then tagged, Christo-fascists or the equivalent. We therefore need to put up some remarks that will begin to clarify the mess that is now being used to justify violence in the streets and destructive media narratives that use the street agit prop theatre as a platform to sow discord and undermine legitimate, peaceful transfer of power in accord with a lawful election. After all, everybody knows you must not surrender power to Nazis -- those right wing thugs being led by the ignorant, stupid, insane and/or wicked. Resemblance to what is currently going on is NOT coincidental. No wonder there was a warning that if fascism were to make a comeback, it would do so in the guise of opposing fascism. In short, the very name "Antifa" is a destructive lie. (As we can see from its resort to notorious brownshirt tactics and violent suppression of others, even as it projects patently false accusations against those it targets.) Now, in fact Fascism is a kissing cousin of Marxism-Leninism and Mao-ism, and arose from the rather noxious, tainted stew of trends and themes of the late C 19 as the Judaeo-Christian frame of thought was expelled from the mind-space of far too many intellectuals, artists and political figures. (Don't forget that that frame of thought had Eugenics as a major movement among the educated and aspirants, and that this was tied to both social darwinism and racism.) The first clue is the actual name of the Nazi Party: National Socialist German Worker's/Labour Party. Regardless of what the proto-fascist philosophers thought and wrote, real world fascism came out of in effect a split of the Socialist movement engendered by the first world war. Mussolini rejected the neutral stance of the socialist international and shifted to Italian Nationalism. His three-fold theme then shaped fascism: Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state -- the essence of totalitarianism. Statism was wedded to socialisation of all of life (including an implicit takeover of capital through cartels dominated by the state though nominal ownership remained in private hands), and was tied to nietzschean superman political messianism modelled on a mythical view of the Caesars, and more. This implied one party rule, the police state in some form or other and a militaristic mentality that regimented the ordinary person. And, forget genuine freedom, that was to be shorn of "unnecessary" or "useless" components and the individual was only valuable insofar as he was a stick bound up in the bundle that bore the axe-head. This movement spread across Southern, Eastern and Central Europe and to Latin America, with varying degrees of intensity. (And of course, there were always inconsistencies, Fascism like Marxism is an inherently incoherent ideology held together by force, emotions and agit prop, not any legitimate community consensus based on the state as guardian of the rights of the individual.) That is why I have put up this summary several times above:

FASCISM: At heart, it is the notion that in a day of “unprecedented” crisis that targets a large — locally dominant or pivotally influential — perceived victim group or class or religious or racial/national body, a super-man figure emerges to rescue the victims; one who is beyond ordinary human powers and limits (including those of morality and just law). A political messiah who stands as champion for the identity group to save it, defending it from the various scapegoated out-groups who are held to be to blame for the victimisation of the in-group. That super-man political messiah then seizes power and is widely recognised as a man of “destiny.” In an atmosphere of hysteria, slander and propagandistic deception that is usually multiplied by chaos and violence or at least riotous assemblies in the streets baying for blood, the power blocs, political, legal, military, corporate, religious, etc then align with him, giving him effectively unlimited power in the face of a crisis. We have now reached the threshold of tyranny. And because of the perceived unprecedented crisis, that super-man “people’s champion” figure is cheered on and supported in taking extraordinary measures; measures that sacrifice liberty and justice for the sake of the promised utopian order. And so reigns of terror and aggressive wars naturally emerge.

And if you think Hitler was not socialistic in his mindset, ponder his remark about the nazi Flag:

"As National socialists we see our programme in our flag. In red we see the social thoughts of the movement, in white the nationalist thoughts, in the hooked-cross the mission of fighting for the victory of Aryan man and at the same time the victory of the concept of creative work. [NB: The double S in the swastika was seen as not just an abstract racial symbol but as two intertwined S'es: one for Socialism and the other for Seig, victory in German. Creative refers more broadly than to artistic also, and the word for that also begins with S in German. Cf the discussion in an online briefing here.]

The Econ Library discussion is also helpful:

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism. Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions. Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics. Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of [ --> classical as opposed to current] liberalism . . .

Finally, Jonah Goldberg gives us words to ponder that we would do better to listen to and responsibly address rather than indulge in the now all too usual irresponsible rhetoric of mind-closing dismissal:

Angry left-wingers shout that all those to their right, particularly corporate fat cats and the politicians who love them, are fascists. Meanwhile, besieged conser-vatives sit dumbfounded by the nastiness of the slander. Bill Maher to the contrary, fascism is not “when corporations be-come the government.” Ironically, however, George Carlin’s conclu-sion is right, though not his reasoning. If fascism does come to America, it will indeed take the form of “smiley-face fascism”—nice fascism . . . . The historian R. A. H. Robinson wrote twenty years ago, “Although enormous amounts of research time and mental energy have been put into the study of it . . . fascism has remained the great conundrum for students of the twentieth century.” Meanwhile, the authors of the Dictionnaire historique des fascismes et du nazisme ?atly assert, “No universally accepted definition of the fascist phe-nomenon exists, no consensus, however slight, as to its range, its ide-ological origins, or the modalities of action which characterize it.” Stanley G. Payne, considered by many to be the leading living scholar of fascism, wrote in 1995, “At the end of the twentieth cen-tury fascism remains probably the vaguest of the major political terms.” There are even serious scholars who make a credible case that Nazism wasn’t fascist, that fascism doesn’t exist at all, and that it is primarily a secular religion (this is my own view). “[P]ut sim-ply,” writes Gilbert Allardyce, “we have agreed to use the word with-out agreeing on how to define it.” And yet even though scholars admit that the nature of fascism is vague, complicated, and open to wildly divergent interpretations, many modern liberals and leftists act as if they know exactly what fascism is. What’s more, they see it everywhere—except when they look in the mirror. Indeed, the left wields the term like a cudgel to beat opponents from the public square like seditious pamphleteers. [--> this was written c. 2008 and was likely meant metaphorically] After all, no one has to take a fascist seriously. You’re under no ob-ligation to listen to a fascist’s arguments or concern yourself with his feelings or rights. It’s why Al Gore and many other environmental-ists are so quick to compare global-warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers. Once such an association takes hold, there’s no reason to give such people the time of day. In short, “fascist” is a modern word for “heretic,” branding an in-dividual worthy of excommunication from the body politic. The left uses other words—“racist,” “sexist,” “homophobe,” “christianist”— for similar purposes, but these words have less elastic meanings. Fascism, however, is the gift that keeps on giving. George Orwell noted this tendency as early as 1946 in his famous essay “Politics and the English Language”: “The word Fascism has now no mean-ing except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.’ ” . . . . Particularly in the aftermath of World War I—but beginning much earlier—a fascist moment arose on the ashes of the old European order. It drew together the various strands of European politics and culture—the rise of racist national-ism, the Bismarckian welfare state, and the collapse of Christianity as a source of social and political orthodoxy and universal aspira-tions. In place of Christianity, it offered a new religion of the di-vinized state and the nation as an organic community. This international movement had many variants and offshoots and went by different names in different countries. Its expression in dif-ferent societies varied depending on national culture. This is one of the reasons it is so hard to define [--> BTW, one reason why I focus on the key aspect, political messianism tied to the notion of a charismatic man of destiny above law and whose ideas, words, wishes and personality become a licence to his followers to speak and act without regard to truth, respect for others, fairness and requisites of justice in a world where we are finite, fallible, morally struggling and too often ill-willed] . . . . Before the war, fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States; the horror of the Holocaust completely changed our view of fascism as something uniquely evil and ineluctably bound up with extreme nationalism, paranoia, and genocidal racism. After the war, the American Progressives who had praised Mussolini and even looked sympathetically at Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s had to dis-tance themselves from the horrors of Nazism. Accordingly, leftist in-tellectuals redefined fascism as “right-wing” [--> reflecting Stalin's propaganda] and projected their own sins onto conservatives, even as they continued to borrow heavily from fascist and pre-fascist thought . . . . [It was in the 1930's] that Stalin stumbled on a brilliant tactic of simply labeling all inconvenient ideas and movements fascist. Socialists and progressives aligned with Moscow were called social-ists or progressives, while socialists disloyal or opposed to Moscow were called fascists. Stalin’s theory of social fascism rendered even Franklin Roosevelt a fascist according to loyal Communists every-where. And let us recall that Leon Trotsky was marked for death for allegedly plotting a “fascist coup.” While this tactic was later de-plored by many sane American left-wingers, it is amazing how many useful idiots fell for it at the time, and how long its intellectual half-life has been . . . . [Also] it must be noted that scholars have had so much difficulty explaining what fascism is because various fascisms have been so different from each other. For example, the Nazis were geno-cidal anti-Semites. The Italian Fascists were protectors of the Jews until the Nazis took over Italy. Fascists fought for the side of the Axis, but the Spanish stayed out of the war (and protected Jews as well) [--> though, a Spanish legion was organised and went to Russia to fight]. The Nazis hated Christianity, the Italians made peace with the Catholic Church (though Mussolini himself despised Christianity with an untrammeled passion), members of the Romanian Legion of the Archangel Michael styled themselves as Christian crusaders. Some fascists championed “state capitalism,” while others, such as the Blue Shirts of Kuomintang China, demanded the immediate seizure of the means of production. The Nazis were of?cially anti-Bolshevist, but there was a movement of “national Bolshevism” within Nazi ranks, too. The one thing that unites these movements is that they were all, in their own ways, totalitarian [--> I add, and politically messianistic with a core narrative of rescue for the pivotal identity group]. But what do we mean when we say something is “totalitarian?” The word has certainly taken on an un-derstandably sinister connotation in the last half century. Thanks to work by Hannah Arendt, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and others, it’s be-come a catchall for brutal, soul-killing, Orwellian regimes. But that’s not how the word was originally used or intended. Mussolini himself coined the term to describe a society where everybody belonged, where everyone was taken care of, where everything was inside the state and nothing was outside . . .

Whatever one may choose to think about Goldberg's book, Liberal Fascism, this summary hits all too close to home. As we look in this ugly mirror, let us all take serious, sobering pause. Let us therefore stop, re-think and start afresh on sounder foundations of due regard for truth, fairness, accurate conceptions and a due appreciation of the price paid in blood and tears to bring us the lessons of sound history. KF kairosfocus

Truth, we did not just deal with riots, RRO is an authoritative guide to Parliamentary Procedure, formal order for meetings, as well as for committees etc. I recall a meeting of Graduate students in my faculty shortly after the Student's Union meeting in which radicals tried to create chaos. By using the RRO procedure for motions and amendments, we were able to craft a wonderful statement of counsel -- to the amazement of the radicals among us. There were enough with a respect for order that the radicals could not just pounce in that sort of setting. For a time, I was called "Point of Order" by many students who doubtless heard of the Union meeting in which I stopped a fair amount of rubbish from going through. It is also noteworthy that I had several informal arguments with students who were labouring under the notion that something like this was irrelevant to our circumstances -- never mind that across the Capital city, the parliament met under the British form of Parliamentary procedure; and in a building that literally bears my name. (Long story there -- family martyr's blood shed by a man who is a national hero who was kangaroo courted and hanged on one hour's notice to himself by a governor who managed to get away with this and many other stunts when he was tried in London; family tradition is, the Parliament sits on the site of his house, seized by the crown on attainting of blood of traitors, so called.) KF PS: I also bought and gave a copy of RRO to the Students' Union. kairosfocus

Why a copy of Robert's Rules of Order, KF? I know what it is, but can't imagine it helping in these types of situations. Truth Will Set You Free

Truth, the young man made several mistakes. First he walked with a potentially deadly weapon. Second, he was alone without credible security in the face of a hostile crowd. Third, he did not flee for safety the instant an attack sequence and swarm began. Fourth, he had a handy grab point that allowed him to be pulled in. Then, he went down, opening up mayhem -- notice kicks and stomps that looked like including to the groin. By the time I assume police called out stand down, he could easily have been dead, crippled or severely injured with life-long consequences. Next, see how the attack sequence was initiated: again, by a physically small woman, making what would be ineffectual punches. The real attack begins with the double envelopment, pull in and down. Very fast, faster than the OODA loop for someone who has to think before acting. If the bag had been rigged to pop off and the young man had then wielded the stick as a quarter-staff, breaking out to the police, he could have saved himself a beating but would likely have been charged himself. Note by contrast what happens in Ny city in the vid in the comments. A woman initiates the attack when "let the ladies through" leads an obvious blue collar worker to run through. He turns on her and hits her back hard. Then when a flag pole is brought in he races, deflecting it and goes for the wielder. He makes it plain he is an experienced brawler and dominates the protesters, who clearly aren't in his league. At some point he is spat upon -- by a woman -- and strikes hard in response. The you hit a woman (second time it seems) accusation is trotted out. The police officer in the yellow vest then intervenes, back off. Notice, the agit prop operators claim to be workers, try to accuse an obvious working man of being with the "bourgeoisie" and try to taunt him into initiating an attack. Meanwhile the rioter he put on the ground is handcuffed while lying on the ground, from his earlier blow I believe. In short, do not go and hang out with black shirts unless you are prepared and equipped, with serious bodyguards or can rapidly dominate them. BTW, a long time ago now, by the grace of God, an impromptu bodyguard stopped a similar attack sequence against me cold. Now, it was initiated by a dangerous agitator who was physically much smaller and shorter than I am, and I am a bit below average height. But instantly, he was flanked and warned. He -- and likely confederates -- backed off. I left the crowd. Only hours later, students could easily have been killed or severely injured when they -- manipulated by the agitators -- blocked the main road military reinforcements would have to use in my native land's capital city. Actually, in a student's union meeting a few weeks earlier, a radicalised student blurted out intent to provoke authorities into shooting students to trigger a revolution similar to Haiti and Philippines [it was 1986]. A lecturer and member of the Communist party literally grabbed him by the ear and dragged him out of the meeting. That was a meeting, BTW, where I used the point of order about a dozen times to stop nonsense. As a consequence, the slate of delegates elected to see the Minister of Education was not as the agitators planned. (Shortly after that I literally began to walk everywhere with a copy of Robert's Rules of Order in my bag, along with my usual Bible.) KF kairosfocus

PS: Before you go off and trigger a 4th Generation civil war, ponder what Breaker Morant's Rule 303 would look like when implemented by people making investments like this -- a reticle set up for 800m accuracy out of an AR10 or AR 15. kairosfocus

Berkeley stand down. Pathetic. https://twitter.com/bfraser747/status/830139497073422338 Truth Will Set You Free

Limbaugh's suggestion: https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/02/10/my-advice-to-trump-go-out-and-do-rallies-to-keep-your-supporters-energized/ >>RUSH: Again, when I boil all this down, the fact is, Trump doesn’t have anybody helping him. And I don’t mean to portray him as helpless; don’t misunderstand. Again, I’m sorry for the redundancy, but, you know, Obama can go out and say and do whatever he wanted, and the media is backing it up and supporting and making it look brilliant and normal all day long, all night long, all week long, all month. With Trump, whatever he does, it’s portrayed as insane, dangerous, risky, uninformed, stupid, or what have you. Who is out there countering that, other than some of us in the alternative media? But it’s never-ending, and there has to be a plan for this. That’s why I think Trump ought to continue to go out and do rallies. I think Trump ought to go out and continue to draw 20,000, 25,000, and demonstrate. Let the pictures show that the pictures the media is creating are bogus and not representative of public opinion. But that still puts the onus on Trump. If I were Trump, frankly, I’d be kind of ticked off that I have to do that. “What more do you want from me? I won.” Now he’s faced with people whining and moaning he’s not doing things fast enough or the Congress isn’t doing things fast enough. Folks, you gotta understand here: There is a lot that has been put in the way, and presidents are not kings, and they don’t just get to sign their name to stuff and have it happen. We now have been told it’ll take 3-1/2 years to build the wall. We are told that repealing Obamacare is not gonna happen in 2018. That’s Trump that said that, not the Republicans in Congress. They may be simpatico to it. But I think a lot of people were expecting the left to realize they had lost, to lay down and get out of the way, and I tried to tell everybody that wasn’t gonna happen . . . . These people in the grassroots that made this happen, they need to be nurtured, they need to be made to believe that what they did was real and matters and will continue to be and triumph if they do not jump ship, if they don’t go wobbly, ’cause that’s what the left is all about. You’re supposed to get so mad over this court ruling that you’re supposed to give up. You are supposed to think, “Huh, what’s the point? We can’t beat ’em. We beat ’em at the ballot box, they lose elections, they can’t stop anything in the House, they can’t stop anything in the Senate, and look, they’re stopping Trump in the courts, we can’t win!” . . . >> --> Limbaugh, whatever his faults, has some points worth pondering here. --> Some pointed concerns need to be put on the table about the peaceful legitimate transfer of power through lawful elections, and about the implications of consistently demonising the other. --> I have pointed out that in a constitutional democracy, rioting (just like terrorism) is never justified. --> Neither is slander or the stoking of hate. Which is exactly what ill-founded, insistent accusations of Nazism, Fascism, being a Hitler and the like do. Not to mention, the it's okay to punch a nazi talking point that has led to trying to justify sucker-punching (which may have been loaded with a concealed wrench) and spraying people daring to express a different opinion on a TV street interview with pepper spray (which could easily have been much worse -- assault with a potentially deadly weapon) --> Here's a thought: do you know the proper definitions of these terms, right-wing, fascist or nazi? [HINT: If you think the answer to such is simple, that is a proof you do not have a clue about the matter; for starters, try here (and someone please, please, please tell Ms Southern to mind her language!).] Have you personally, objectively verified that those you specifically accuse are such? On what basis, when, where and how that would stand up in court with say a $ 500+ K fine plus court costs on the line? If you cannot confidently answer this, you are doing little more than stoking hate to justify violence, through speaking in disregard of duty to truth and fairness. --> it is time to stop being part of the problem. KF kairosfocus

Who are the REAL Nazis, now? Let's compare UCB, two Wednesdays ago and another Wednesday in 1921 in Bavaria http://ww2timelines.com/leaders/hitler/hitler2power.htm >> Wednesday, September 14, 1921 Hitler, a substantial number of members of the Turn-und Sportabteilung, the paramilitary arm of the Nazi Party [ = SA], and other Nazi party adherents disrupted a meeting in Munich at the Lowenbraukeller of the Bavarian League. One Nazi, Hermann Esser, climbed upon a chair and shouted that the Jews were to blame for the misfortunes of Bavaria, and the Nazis shouted demands that Otto Ballerstedt yield the floor to Hitler. The Nazis proceeded to beat up Ballerstedt and shoved him off the stage into the audience. Afterwards both Hitler and Esser were arrested, and Hitler commented notoriously to the police commissioner, "It's all right. We got what we wanted. Ballerstedt did not speak." The Bavarian League was federalist organization that objected to the centralism of the Weimar Constitution, but accepted its social program. Ballerstedt, an engineer whom Hitler regarded as "my most dangerous opponent" was its leader.>> Wiki's summary: >>On 14 September 1921, there was a highly publicized incident, when Hitler, Hermann Esser, Oskar Körner (later to die in the Beer Hall Putsch) and some other NSDAP supporters stormed a Ballerstedt meeting in the Munich Löwenbräukeller in order to prevent him giving a lecture. Hitler achieved this goal by drastic measures: He reached Ballerstedt, then assaulted and injured him severely. Ballerstedt was then forcibly dragged out of the Hall. As a result, Hitler was on trial from 27 to 29 January 1922 on charges of a breach of the peace, public indecency and assault. He and Esser were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 100 days and payment of 1,000 Reichsmark. The prison sentence was served from 24 June to 27 July 1922 in Munich Stadelheim prison, where Hitler remained only a month.[>> --> Shouting down and silencing speaker through bully-boy tactics, check. --> Beating up people who dare to differ, check. --> Overly lenient policing of riots, check. --> BTW, the speaker disappeared on the night of the long knives and his body was later found with a bullet to the back of the head. --> Sounds familiar? KF PS: A note on the Canada Mosque attack, raising questions that need to be clarified: http://disobedientmedia.com/questions-remain-as-shifting-narrative-conflicting-testimony-indicate-cover-up-in-quebec-terror-incident/ kairosfocus

Back on the focal issue, MY has a few thoughts for the blackshirts and their enablers (including professors and college administrators by direct implication): http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/02/09/president-trump-heres-why-you-must-cut-federal-funding-from-uc-berkeley/ >> where are cultural values incubated? Colleges, of course! As long as campuses are churning out students who hate free speech and free markets, what hope is there for libertarian policy priorities? If libertarians want to live in a free society, they’d better get ready to tread on their opponents. At my UC Berkeley show last week, anti-fascists set college property on fire, smashed up bank windows and ATMs, jumped on people’s cars, and looted downtown stores, including the much-beloved liberal Starbucks. They also assaulted dozens of my fans, who were falsely accused of being “Nazis.” The San Francisco Chronicle reports that left-wing rioters caused around $600,000 in damages that night, with the riot starting at the college before spreading to downtown Berkeley. $600,000. That’s an awful lot of money for a communist tantrum. The day after, my tour bus was tracked and my hotel location was leaked online. Left-wing Berkeley activists took out the remainder of their frustration on the bus, which was vandalized with spray paint. Following the chaos, only one suspect was arrested, and celebrities, the mainstream media, the Mayor of Berkeley, and UC Berkeley administrators blamed the damage on me– a homosexual conservative who was unable to deliver a speech because students, brainwashed by their Marxist professors, decided to set their campus on fire. For decades, the university campus has been a hotbed of dogma, brainwashing generation after generation in the most fashionable and foolhardy leftist ideas of the day. From professors offering extra credit to attend anti-Trump rallies to courses on “The Problem of Whiteness,” leftists on campus are teaching younger generations how to hate. Is it any wonder that they then go around smashing windows and punching people in the face? And if that isn’t bad enough, these thugs are absolutely terrible at identifying their ideological enemies — according to the account of Malini Ramaiyer in the New York Times, one person called a “Nazi” and assaulted was a Syrian Muslim student. Oops! Who could have predicted training young people to attack instead of argue could turn out badly? And by the way, if you’re a NYT or Buzzfeed or CNN journalist ?reading this, you’re to blame too, for creating an environment in which it’s okay to call conservatives Nazis and white supremacists. What did you think was going to happen? The current atmosphere is also terrible for college students themselves. They’re paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend what are effectively progressive madrasas, turning them into little more than brainwashed street fighters. Today, a gender studies graduate seems more likely to end up in jail for destruction of property than in a stable job. Perhaps that is part of the plan — striking fear into the patriarchy one load of prison laundry at a time. It can end, and it must end, or America will face eight years of violence on its streets, and who knows what state the country will be in after that? all because public universities refuse to honor their first amendment responsibilities.>> --> Whatever his flaws, failings and sins, MY clearly has a point or a few here. --> The issue, then, is: will we wake up and act in good time? KF kairosfocus

PS: As thread owner, I think I should ask you, have you taken time to actually read the OP, and see the focal issue for the thread? Have you pondered the price I paid -- including, blood -- and my native land still pays for the lessons at its pivot? (That should give you a clue as to the focus for serious discussion in this thread and why this is a case where the price to be paid if we insist on ignoring the lessons of history on this matter will be dear indeed; dear beyond our comprehension.) kairosfocus

DD, the relevant questions have long since been answered on what is a tangent to this thread. Let me clip, just to give you a flavour of lessons hard-bought through blood and tears: http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/activists/william-wilberforce.html >> In the late 1700s, when William Wilberforce was a teenager, English traders raided the African coast on the Gulf of Guinea, captured between 35,000 and 50,000 Africans a year [--> more typically, they bought from African, Berber and Arab traders], shipped them across the Atlantic, and sold them into slavery. It was a profitable business that many powerful people had become dependent upon. One publicist for the West Indies trade wrote, "The impossibility of doing without slaves in the West Indies will always prevent this traffic being dropped. The necessity, the absolute necessity, then, of carrying it on, must, since there is no other, be its excuse." By the late 1700s, the economics of slavery were so entrenched that only a handful of people thought anything could be done about it. That handful included William Wilberforce . . . . two causes caught his attention. First, under the influence of Thomas Clarkson, he became absorbed with the issue of slavery. Later he wrote, "So enormous, so dreadful, so irremediable did the trade's wickedness appear that my own mind was completely made up for abolition. Let the consequences be what they would: I from this time determined that I would never rest until I had effected its abolition." Wilberforce was initially optimistic, even naively so. He expressed "no doubt" about his chances of quick success. As early as 1789, he and Clarkson managed to have 12 resolutions against the slave trade introduced—only to be outmaneuvered on fine legal points. The pathway to abolition was blocked by vested interests, parliamentary filibustering, entrenched bigotry, international politics, slave unrest, personal sickness, and political fear. Other bills introduced by Wilberforce were defeated in 1791, 1792, 1793, 1797, 1798, 1799, 1804, and 1805. When it became clear that Wilberforce was not going to let the issue die, pro-slavery forces targeted him. He was vilified; opponents spoke of "the damnable doctrine of Wilberforce and his hypocritical allies." The opposition became so fierce, one friend feared that one day he would read about Wilberforce's being "carbonated [broiled] by Indian planters, barbecued by African merchants, and eaten by Guinea captains." Prime minister of philanthropy Slavery was only one cause that excited Wilberforce's passions. His second great calling was for the "reformation of manners," that is, morals. In early 1787, he conceived of a society that would work, as a royal proclamation put it, "for the encouragement of piety and virtue; and for the preventing of vice, profaneness, and immorality." It eventually become known as the Society for the Suppression of Vice. In fact, Wilberforce—dubbed "the prime minister of a cabinet of philanthropists"—was at one time active in support of 69 philanthropic causes. He gave away one-quarter of his annual income to the poor. He fought on behalf of chimney sweeps, single mothers, Sunday schools, orphans, and juvenile delinquents. He helped found parachurch groups like the Society for Bettering the Cause of the Poor, the Church Missionary Society, the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the Antislavery Society. In 1797, he settled at Clapham, where he became a prominent member of the "Clapham Sect," a group of devout Christians of influence in government and business. That same year he wrote Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System of Professed Christians—a scathing critique of comfortable Christianity that became a bestseller. All this in spite of the fact that poor health plagued him his entire life, sometimes keeping him bedridden for weeks. During one such time in his late twenties, he wrote, "[I] am still a close prisoner, wholly unequal even to such a little business as I am now engaged in: add to which my eyes are so bad that I can scarce see how to direct my pen." . . . . When healthy, however, he was a persistent and effective politician, partly due to his natural charm and partly to his eloquence. His antislavery efforts finally bore fruit in 1807: Parliament abolished the slave trade in the British Empire. He then worked to ensure the slave trade laws were enforced and, finally, that slavery in the British Empire was abolished. Wilberforce's health prevented him from leading the last charge, though he heard three days before he died that the final passage of the emancipation bill was ensured in committee. Though some historians argue that Thomas Clarkson and others were just as important in the antislavery fight, Wilberforce in any account played a key role in, as historian G.M. Trevelyan put it, "one of the turning events in the history of the world.">> --> That, is what worked without bloody revolution and reigns of terror. --> It worked, because it was an extension of a spiritual awakening, and was part of recovering of sound conscience and moral thought in the teeth of entrenched economic, monetary and military interests (the Slave Trade was seen as the seed plot of the Royal Navy). --> It worked in the teeth of vicious slander and opposition of literally demonic ferocity. --> It worked so well in the end that latterly it has been wrenched into perverted forms to advance the worst holocaust in history, multiplied by every species of perverted behaviour and thought, even the undermining of the foundation of stable society, Creation Order marriage. --> It can and will work again; the real question is whether -- like the ship in Ac 27 -- our civilisation will stubbornly insist on folly until it is caught up in a storm of typhonic fury, doing grave damage. --> So, there is method to the madness of putting and insisting on facing the central evil first: the worst holocaust in history, a holocaust that taints our whole civilisation with the corrupting influence of mass blood guilt and enabling of such blood guilt. --> When the power of that corrupting influence is sufficiently broken, then we can move on to saner arrangements to address our problems, likely starting with reducing the intensity of over-sexualisation of our culture. KF kairosfocus

KF@134, if you don't want to answer my question, why don't you just say so. You obviously have no more idea on how to solve the abortion problem than I do. The difference between the two of us is I am honest enough to admit it and seek opinions from others in an attempt to find an answer. I will leave you alone. You obviously don't want a serious discussion. Darwins_downfall

DD, you are now insisting on a tangent, and in so doing are revealing your underlying problem. I suggest to you that you have become desensitised to a great evil due to the deliberate dehumanisation of the victims that has been carried out across several decades. We are in the face of the mass slaughter of 800+ million unborn children across 40+ years, and mounting -- per Guttmacher's numbers -- at another million per week. Until you and many others can wake up to the force of such an appalling circumstance and have a normal conscience responding appropriately to such a horror carried out under false colour of laws, rights, medicine etc -- amounting to a critical mass, there is no safe basis to go further. I simply point out to you that truth is the first hurdle to any solution, truth that appropriately pricks conscience. Life is patently the first right and innocents robbed of their lives can have no other rights; to try to deny this is to at once plunge into absurdity. Second, the all too common ploy of pretending that we are talking about women's rights to act as they will with their own bodies fails to recognise something so simple as that half the time the unborn child is not even the same sex as his mother -- again, something that is independent of "faith" or worldviews. Meanwhile, the tangents and distraction serve only to underscore that Wilberforce's approach in the first great successful civil rights campaign was right: reform starts when ugly truth is put on the table again and again through speaking truth to power and public alike until sufficiently many hitherto benumbed consciences awaken to duty; forming a critical mass that mobilises change. In Wilberforce's case, that started with five people. KF kairosfocus

KF@127:

So, when I find you — after several tangential comments — unable/unwilling to acknowledge that holocaust is happening, that is symptomatic of the underlying problem. It is this failure to see the path to justice that leads you to be projecting some of the nastiest insinuations of the abortionism agenda.

When have I been unwilling to acknowledge that a holcaust is occurring? You have never asked me the question. For the record, yes, I believe it is. All I have asked is what you think the first few concrete steps should be to move us along the path to a resolution. I ask because I have thought about it long and hard and and don't have the answer. Any solution that doesn't take into account human nature, differing moral value systems, and different faith beliefs is doomed to fail. We have already tried the criminalization approach and the shame approach, and the withholding of information approach, and the power of religion approach. In spite of these all being used, most at the same time, unwanted pregnancies and abortions still occurred at a high rate. Darwins_downfall

Apologists for the UCB Rioters try to justify what was done: http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/plurality-tactics-contributed-cancellation-milo-yiannopoulos-event/ --> The strained, stilted and patently fallacious argumentation speaks for itself: enabling behaviour. --> A clue, in a democratic, constitutional civil society RIOTING, like terrorism, is NEVER justified. --> a proof that the rioters themselves know this, is seen from how they tried to dehumanise their targets with slanderous epithetical clubs such as: Fascist, Nazi, Racist. KF kairosfocus

U/D Feb 10 HT BA77 -- Attkisson's TEDx on astroturfing and media manipulation has been added to the OP. KF kairosfocus

Meanwhile the Yazidis -- victims of genocide -- have som'at to say: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/08/yazidis-trump-protesters-islamic-state-genocide/ >>Outrage over President Donald Trump’s executive order prioritizing refugee claims by persecuted religious minorities has puzzled activists from Iraq’s Yazidi community, who note the lack of major protests against the brutal massacre of thousands of Yazidis and Christians by the Islamic State . . . . Breitbart News spoke to several Yazidi activists who expressed support for the executive order and argued that it does not amount to a Muslim ban, as critics argue. Echoing Iraqi Catholic Archbishop Bashar Warda, Mizra Ismail — a Yazidi activist with the Yazidi Human Rights Organization-International — told Breitbart News, referring to opponents of Trump’s executive order: My first question for those protesters is: where were they when ISIS was committing genocide against the Yezidis and Christians in Iraq and Syria? ISIS killed and kidnapped thousands of Yezidis, mostly young women, girls and children. The ISIS jihadists also beheaded many Yezidis and Christians openly in the most brutal way and posted their videos on social media. What were those protesters doing then? I believe when ISIS committed all those crimes against the Yezidis and Christians, those protesters were blind. Another Yazidi activist expressed support for Trump’s order, saying it is necessary to keep the U.S. safe. “As a Yezidi, I am supportive of any genuine effort and precaution meant to keep this country safe and prosperous,” Gulie Khalaf from Yezidis International, told Breitbart News. “If a 90-day ban on all refugees, including Yezidis, is what it will take to ensure that this country does not become full of residents who neither care for the values of this society nor its constitution, then let us have the 90-day ban. Hopefully, that time will be spent to figure out who is deserving of the opportunities and the rights this country offers.” The activist argued that the persecuted minority exception is necessary and does not subject Muslims to “discrimination” as many opponents of the order have claimed. “It is not breaking laws or going against any kind of values if Trump and his administration decide that endangered groups should be an exception to the ban,” declared Khalaf. A different Yazidi activist, Haji Hameka, stressed that the executive order is not a Muslim ban but rather an effort to keep America safe. “It is not a ban against bringing Muslim refugees to the United States. It is a security check to avoid the entry of terrorists from groups such as al-Qaeda, and ISIS,” he told Breitbart News.>> --> Why is it we have to resort to the despised Breitbart or the like to find out things like this? --> Could they -- gasp, fetch the smelling salts Gaston . . . -- be providing a counter-balance to the dominant narrative? --> In the teeth of the spiral of silencing? --> Perhaps, it is time for re-thinking on this and many fronts? --> What is a way to a credibly sound, balanced, prudent view in the teeth of agit prop street theatre and agenda driven spin-based narratives? --> And is it really the moral equivalent of a racist slur to -- even, sharply -- point out that too many in the media are grossly failing in duty of care to accuracy, material truth and fairness? KF PS: A genuine refugee is one fleeing credible threat of persecution or disaster posing a threat to life, or the like. kairosfocus

Looks like we will be seeing counter-rallies, much as how the 44th annual March for Life served as a counter to the "Women's" march: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/08/exclusive-spirit-america-conservative-grassroots-leaders-plan-massive-pro-trump-demonstrations-nationwide/ >>Conservative grassroots leaders are planning a series of massive pro-President Donald Trump rallies nationwide, Breitbart News has learned exclusively. On Feb. 27 and March 4, the rallies—dubbed the Spirit of America Rallies—will spring up nationwide in cities and towns across America. “These rallies are inclusive, non-partisan, and open to anyone supporting President Trump in his efforts to bring back manufacturing jobs to America, put the security of our nation ahead of political correctness, improve our infrastructure, revitalize the inner cities and secure our nation’s borders,” Debbie Dooley, a national co-founder of the Tea Party movement and a key organizer of the Spirit of America rallies, says in a press release obtained by Breitbart News ahead of its public release. Since President Trump’s election, during his time as president-elect and since his inauguration on Jan. 20, hardcore progressive leftists have been repeatedly protesting him in a sometimes violent manner. These rallies, organizers say, are meant to be a peaceful show of force from the “silent majority” that delivered Trump a landslide electoral college victory over failed Democratic president Hillary Rodham Clinton. Dooley told Breitbart News that since the anti-Trump women’s march in D.C. after the president’s inauguration, she has received so many calls from Trump supporters–including many, many women Trump supporters–urging her to organize a show of force among the silent majority nationwide in response–that she had to turn off her cell phone so she could get work done. The Spirit of America rallies are not Tea Party rallies, she adds, and she hopes that Democrat groups backing Trump–there were many of them nationwide, forming a collective called the “Trumpocrats”–will get involved and step up to help the president, too.>> --> I bet you will not be seeing riots from these counter-rallies (though we may see some blackshirts turning up to foment chaos as street theatre to grab the headlines) --> I bet the press will be underplaying them and their significance, and will take the approach of finding something to attack instead of being fair-minded. --> One of the worst implications of all this, is that the media -- which are critical for guiding discussion and helping us work together in large scale societies, are failing in their principal duties. --> let us remember, all of this is fundamentally driven by refusal to accept the legitimate results of an election and participate in a peaceful transfer of power. Let us never forget how this reflects a turning on a dime from the talking point of trying to pressure Trump to instantly accept a Clinton victory. (In short, there was a projection, turnabout tactic agenda there all the time, so one of our means of decoding is to hold up a mirror and infer from what comes out of the mouth what is in the heart.) KF kairosfocus

PS: Let us remind ourselves on the underlying dynamic, from Plato:

Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]

and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].

kairosfocus

DD, kindly read the OP. And it seems I need to specifically point you to the seven Mountains/citadels of influence model that Lance Wallnau has championed in recent years. Worldview drives institutions that dominate and influence culture, drives agendas that play out. Often, along a march of folly, due to our insistence on selfish and foolish paths, typically rooted in warped behaviour and benumbed consciences (out of which you can bet your last dollar, somebody is making a profit and accessing power, go read Ac 27 and Ac 19). Unless that issue is addressed at the level of worldviews and unless a critical mass to shift key institutions is built up, leading to community reform [i.e. a moral governance-driven approach not a state power might- makes- right in the end nihilistic approach], only radical impositions dependent on extreme force will half-work, and that much at the price of imposing tyranny. For historical reference, compare Wilberforce's reforms vs the French Revolution and its successors. For over 100 years now, our civilisation has been willfully, progressively warped in perverse ways by injecting evolutionary materialism dressed up in the lab coat, carrying radical relativism and amorality; thus, opening the door to outright nihilism. One of the results is the corruption of conscience, thought and institutions that has then enabled the worst holocaust in history, now mounting up at 1 million victims per week. This is embedded as BAU, backed up under false colours of law, medicine, government, education, journalism and more. That deadly consensus and its resultant march of folly need to be exposed for what they are before any sound answer can arise; that is the stage we are at now. So, when I find you -- after several tangential comments -- unable/unwilling to acknowledge that holocaust is happening, that is symptomatic of the underlying problem. It is this failure to see the path to justice that leads you to be projecting some of the nastiest insinuations of the abortionism agenda. I guess, indirectly, that in turn illustrates some of the themes in the OP, but it is fundamentally distractive on a side issue that comes up as a key case, not the main theme, agit prop street theatre that is used by the media -- one of the seven mountains/citadels -- to project the dominant agenda even when that is a march of folly. KF kairosfocus

KF@124, I don't see where it is off topic. You have raised the issue of abortion, something which I am not comfortable with either. But I admit that I don't see an easy path to reducing abortion without criminalizing the women who get them and the doctors who provide them. A tactic that history has shown has not worked. An approach, which if I am interpreting your comments accurately, you are not in favour of either. Given this, and given that different religions (and those with no religion) have differing views on abortion, not to mention the different values of individuals, how to you proceed from the current situation to the goal of no abortion, or at least a greatly reduced frequency of abortion? I am not trying to be difficult, but I have always believed that complaining without a feasible solution is just whining. I am looking for a feasible solution. As I believe you are. Darwins_downfall

Media-amplified agit prop helping to create an atmosphere of intimidation, and chaos: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/08/report-republicans-fear-safety-obamacare-protests-grow-violent/ >>Republican lawmakers held a closed-door meeting Tuesday to discuss protective measures and emergency exit strategies to safeguard them from growing violence and protests from progressives over their attempts to repeal and replace Obamacare. According to Politico, Rep. David Reichert (R-WA), a former county sheriff, presented lawmakers with protective measures they should have in place. These included such things as an exit strategy at town halls, backdoor exits in congressional offices, local police monitoring town halls, and replacing glass office doors with heavy doors and deadbolts. “It is toxic out there right now,” Republican Study Committee Chairman Mark Walker (R-NC) reportedly said. “Even some of the guys who have been around here a lot longer than I have, have never seen it to this level.” Walker reportedly reiterated the importance of honoring the First Amendment rights granted to all citizens, remaining engaged and being “nice,” but he warned the Republicans who gathered to “watch your back. And two, be receptive.” According to Politico, Walker later added, “For those of us who have children in grade school and that kind of thing, there’s a factor in all of this, saying: How far will the progressive movement go to try to intimidate us?” House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) was reportedly also present at Saturday’s meeting and expressed hope that demonstrations remain civilized. “Peaceful protests are something we honor in this country,” he said, according to Politico. “I just hope people keep it peaceful.” On Saturday, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) was escorted out of a town hall meeting in Roseville. He told the Los Angeles Times an “anarchist” group caused security concerns and the crowd turned angry against him. However, some Democrats have reportedly downplayed and even dismissed violence targeting Republicans . . . >> --> Who has been calling for assassinations, again? And, so, the attempts to dismiss and reinterpret to the denigration of those targetted manifest the tactic of blaming the victim. That is already a further problem. --> Had the parties involved been the other way around, you would have heard no end of wall to wall coverage and demands to deal with the sources of threat and anyone who could in the remotest degree be associated with them or tarred with the same brush. --> That also tells us something ugly about the state of the media and the public square in our civilisation. --> Rule 1: take threats of violence seriously, whether verbalised or by implication of menacing actions. --> In this situation, we are clearly looking at the need for law enforcement to step up to the plate so to speak, and for sober leadership on both sides to act and speak towards calming the situation. --> Victim blaming is not anywhere near what is necessary, and it raises some ugly questions. KF kairosfocus

DD, you are off on a tangent and are missing the main point: the continuation of the worst holocaust in history at the rate of a million further victims per WEEK, through our indifference and consciences benumbed by blood guilt and enabling behaviour. Such can only be stopped by facing the truth together then moving to reforms. Impositions by force are likely to only compound the problem. That is, policy is downstream from moral governance and the culturally dominant world views that drive the trajectory of such governance. When you show us appropriate response to the problem, then we can begin to make progress. KF kairosfocus

KF@114, Thank you for the response, but I'm afraid that I don't see a concrete proposal that would reduce the abortion rate. I see a lot of rhetoric about morality, virtue, chastity and the sanctity of marriage. All noble goals to be sure. But they are goals, not a roadmap or strategy to reach those goals. I am interested if you could provide me with what you think the first five concrete steps towards these goals should be. Do they involve legal restrictions? Real penalties? Regulatory changes? And, more fundamentally, how do you deal with the people who have different ideas about morality, virtue, chastity and the sanctity of marriage? Darwins_downfall

Powerline blog eviscerates Reich's musings and the media pickup: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/02/bob-reich-oops-never-mind.php Let me clip the conclusion (based on the same Sf Chronicle report clipped above) . . . you read the buildup: >>No comment so far from the contemptible Bob Reich, or from CNN’s Don Lemon, who ate up Reich’s “rumor” that the Berkeley riots were an inside job orchestrated by Milo.>> --> Don't hold your breath waiting for public admission of error or apology for slander. KF kairosfocus

Worth reading: http://alt-market.com/articles/3124-globalists-want-to-destroy-conservative-principles-but-they-need-our-help Truth Will Set You Free

PPS: Another, not spoiled by bad language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzB8sT1TVb4 --> BTW, an implication is the black shirts are in US and Canada, and it seems Europe too. How did we come to this pass? kairosfocus

PS: A food for thought commentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyC80feMcgU [NB: Language warning - on steroids, there is a widespread breakdown of standards, sigh. A good case is spoiled, almost forfeited.] kairosfocus

The organisers gloat about "success" at UCB: http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Anti-Milo-organizer-Window-smashing-Cal-protest-10915758.php >>Organizers of the anti-Milo Yiannopoulos demonstration last week at UC Berkeley that ended in $100,000 worth of window-breaking chaos declared it a “stunningly successful” protest — one they’ll happily repeat if the right-wing provocateur tries to return to campus. “We are happy with the results,” said UC Berkeley Law School alumnus Ronald Cruz of the group By Any Means Necessary, or BAMN. “We were able to meet Mr. Yiannopoulos’ fascist message with massive resistance.” An estimated 150 “black bloc” anarchists attacked police with rocks and fireworks and used barricades to smash windows at the student union Feb. 1, forcing the cancellation of Yiannopoulos’ appearance. “We are not affiliated with them, but were united in shutting down the Milo event,” Cruz said. “Everyone played a part,” he said. “Some engaged in breaking windows — others held signs and made sure that the fascists and the police did not attack anyone. “This was self-defense,” Cruz said. “Windows can be replaced. People can’t be.”>> --> The slanderous projection by namecalling held to "justify" rioting speaks volumes. --> Failure to condemn attacks that committed violence against people, too. --> Failure to repudiate unprovoked attacks against people culminating in mayhem. Mayhem that put two in hospital, one with concussion and broken ribs who was feared to have liver damage; another reported to be in IC battling for life. Of course, not headlined by the complicit media. --> As for pepper spraying a woman for the thought crime of speaking to the press out of line with the partyline, that is not just censorship but ugly intimidation by assault with a potentially deadly weapon. A similar spray bottle could easily have in it eye-destrroying caustic chemicals or even life-threatening poison "gas" [many poison gases so called are not actually gases]. --> The bully-boys speak and reveal their contempt for the lives and rights of the other. If we are wise, we will take due note and act accordingly. --> Of course, the good name of others and the duty of care to truth and fairness mean nothing to such, and if they think they can get away with it they will freely slander, lie and use such disrespect and deceit as a pretext to pounce on and bully or assault others, not hesitating at the mayhem threshold. Where the difference between mayhem and wounding with intent to kill or actual murder can be just one kick. --> As for contempt for the property of others built up through painful toil, that too speaks volumes: these are destroyers and would readily be thieves as they have no respect for others' rights to the fruit of their toil. --> Note also, the suppression of others' rights of free speech, association and assembly on grounds of slanderous use of a label. To correct, start from nazi being short for National Socialist German Worker's Party -- national vs international socialism, the socialist international having seen splits due to WW I; where in that day and age, darwinist associated racism was common and the idea of the nietzschean superman above "conventional" morality was common too. Political messiahs were and are a dime a dozen, being one of the commonest forms of idolatry. And yes, Hitler was a socialist, saw himself as such and was understood to be such, cf here. --> And of course Reich's talking point utterly collapses. --> Notice, how the media utterly fail to bring or hold these to account. Just imagine what would have happened if MY and/or the College Republicans instead had instigated a similar riot with arson, willful destruction of property, attacking spokesmen while speaking to the press, assault and mayhem culminating in hospitalisation . . . wall to wall attack-coverage and generalisation of blame against any remotely connected "right wing" person or movement. --> Now, look back again at how this riot and its evidence of agit prop tactics creating street theatre through violent rioting and complicit media narrative and spin or even outright gaslighting have played out in the actual world. --> Multiply by the black-shirts showing up across the continental mass of the USA from coast to coast and ask yourself what is and has long been going on. --> Remember, this clip is from the horse's mouth; this cannot be dismissed as ill-founded suspicion or speculation. KF kairosfocus

Nice work, KF. Truth Will Set You Free

F/N: Media manipulation of numbers of Christian refugees from Syria, in the teeth of genocide: http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/fake-news-on-christian-refugee-numbers/ As in, Walter Duranty's ghost is in Hell's visiting room, and he wishes to give you some advice on not following his fatal example. KF kairosfocus

DD, given disparity in raw military power, ponder the standard geostrategic counter to the USA since the Vietnam era: embroil in distractive, polarising, paralysing internal chaos and turmoil that surfaces ill informed isolationism in the US through media-amplified agit prop street chaos while geostrategic advances go on elsewhere. Then re-evaluate what we have been seeing in various forms since September 11, 2001, in those terms. DV, looks like once I can move some major local issues off the table for a bit, I may have to take that geostrategic theme up. KF PS: Have you read Plato's parable of the Ship of state yet? kairosfocus

DD, the first level of response is spiritual-moral, we need a reformation led by renewal movements. When we drive out the demonic strongmen who have us bound by lies and blood guilt, then we will be able to begin to think straight and act soundly. Mass or individual blood guilt is not a solution, nor is it excusable where innocent lives are concerned and we are not looking at loss of one life vs of two lives. Appropriate birth control is one level, the restoration of virtue and in particular chastity and fidelity as well as sanctity of marriage [which implies a spiritually motivated deepening of viewing and valuing of women and children], are on the cards. BTW, some birth control measures are too often tantamount to early abortions, preventing implantation e.g. evidently IUDs, some earlier forms of the pill. I think what we need at policy level is a truth and reconciliation commission, in the context of a great, morally tinged awakening. Then, we can begin to deal with our great guilt and corruption. Only then can we move law regarding sex, pornography, sexual abuse, family and marriage, divorce, medical and allied health profession ethics, ethics of journalism and education, ethics of law to a sound basis. It is in the context of such an awakening that we can begin to look at how to correct the evils now embedded in laws -- and I am highly confident (on the degree of tainting that has long since happened), that none of us is now sufficiently balanced to be able to posit the best forms and balances for reformed law, except: life should be regarded as the first right to be safeguarded in law from conception to natural death; with only such exceptions as would excuse homicide. And, medicine will have to be reformed, even as it had to be reformed after the impact of nazism; it is reformed medicine that can then best advise us on legal reform. But to energise all this, we must realise that we are in the midst of a holocaust. KF PS: The social welfare side of things has to face the problem of perverse incentives, as a result of shifting elasticities. I think we need to look to the transformation of the charity- non-profit sector as best means of reaching those in need. And BTW, that also holds for education, which is linked. PPS: I suggest you look up Crisis Pregnancy Centers -- which, per Google search, obviously "have the right enemies" (whose blood guilt fuelled rage and bigotry are obvious . . . BTW, why are attack sites at the top of Google search?) -- and then look up the long history of Christian, child oriented charities. Do not overlook that Sunday School started as school on Sunday when that was a breakthrough for those subjected to child labour in the early era of the industrial revolution. kairosfocus

DD, I am not sure about what the Quebec city attack is. It can be almost anything, ranging from inter sect Islamic violence -- "apostates" are under automatic death sentence so different sects exist in mutual violence e.g. Sunni-Shia (a long, bloody history) -- on up, or something personal. Least likely is a part of an organised campaign against Muslims. Please note, this is off-topic. KF PS: Many issues, for the moment have to wait until I can spare adequate time to write sensibly and adequately. A major one is the 1 million Chinese in Africa and the context at geostrategic levels. kairosfocus

KF, I am interested in what you think the solution to the abortion problem is. Would you prefer the criminalization of the women and doctors involved, or a combination of better sex education, availability of birth control, and substantial support (financial and social) for women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy? The reason I ask is that we have already tried the criminalization route. And it was miserably unsuccessful. Yet, many who oppose abortion (which I do) also oppose accurate sex education and birth control (which I don't). And, sadly, zip up their wallets when it comes to concrete support for women with unwanted pregnancies. I don't know what the answer is. But I am pretty sure that it is not turning back the clock to criminalizing teens or sending them off to live with their "aunts" for six months. Do you have any suggestions? Darwins_downfall

KF, thank you. That is a lot to try to take in. But I haven't heard your opinion on the latest terrorist attack in Quebec City. Do you have any thought? Darwins_downfall

Eugen, why not tell us the story of Yugoslavia? Start with being the first in the way of the armies of Islam moving up to Austria. Go up to the end of the Cold war and onward since. We deal here with naifs who do not know just how bad things can get, how fast. KF PS: The media by and large have failed us, have betrayed their trust. And we now need sound information and don't even know where to get it. kairosfocus

Truth, yup. And there are no former marines, only those on reserve duty. (I sometimes wonder about MacArthur's million ghosts in olive drab, brown khaki and blue and grey, and what they would do if the living were to fail.) Yes, the street toughs don't understand what would happen if things tip over, the same that led Yamamoto to advise the Japanese War Lords that there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. Breaker Morant's rule 303, but likely in 308, 30-06, 223, 6-5, 338 and 50 cal. Unfortunately, if things get to that level, or even to chaos well below that level, it will paralyse the USA geostrategically; the US being the world's main maritime power and guarantor of the world's trade routes. I have long since pointed out that Africa is the open continent today and that there are grabs on for it. The Persian Empire is back on the chess board. China is stirring, the Sunni Islamists are stirring, Russia is a wild card. The West is in a mood of appeasement or worse, save for this unpopular man, Trump. But then on June 10, 1940 a similarly unpopular leader often perceived to be a mad man, drunk and ne'er do well who failed at Gallipoli and did not win at Jutland, came to power the very day Guderian's seven Panzer divisionen began that fateful roll through the Ardennes; soon with Rommel's ghost division in the lead beyond reach of his own higher HQ's much less the Allies. Rommel was mostly armed with tanks taken from the Czechs, due to the Munich betrayal of 1938. That old functional drunkard and dubious pol who came to power because even though the govt won the Norway Debate on the Adjournment, it was at fatal price in political capital? Sir Winston Churchill. KF PS: I advise us to go get a read of his history of the second world war, again from the view point of a key eyewitness. kairosfocus

Ken, I first speak from direct knowledge due to having had to go through communist agitator driven unrest 30 - 40 years ago in my homeland. Including, costing me a beloved Auntie: murdered through slanderous accusation and call for street level vigilantism; the very same communist front group leader who set up the murder through incitement went on radio to pretend that what she had done had nothing to do with it. I know all too close to home just how bully-boy ruthless, deceitful, slanderous and murderous such agit prop operators and their backers are. Sometimes the women are the worst, taking full advantage of the cultural prohibition on hitting them. Well do I recall the one who falsely accused me of theft, then I took the item and had it signed over to the relevant party and took the signed book to her. I think she could see the colour in my face. Oh, you are too thin skinned she cynically replied as a parting shot. This one is now a professor and I pity the students who fall under her malevolent power. I could give much more. What is going on in the USA now through these black-shirts is nothing new, just we have not learned from a lot of ugly history in places like Germany, Russia, Italy, China and Japan 50 - 100 years ago. In the Caribbean, Cuba -- and I was appalled to see the whitewashing of that murderous dictator across this region on his recent death. No prizes for guessing why so many are so ignorant of history that cost so much of blood and tears. As for what it took to break those two leftist totalitarian ideologies, Fascism and Bolshevism, that too is not usually well taught. Part of my experience includes being in a student demonstration rally in 1986 that ended up in a march that blocked the road down which reinforcements would have to come in my native land's capital city to restore order. A Havana and Moscow trained operator -- now in a senior position for educating Journalists in this region! (That appalls me) -- tried to set the crowd on me like attack teams were set on that circle of people in UCB Wednesday last week, cf OP. I know what those people went through. Thankfully in my case, standing next to me was a very big hall mate who turned on the agitator, who then beat a hasty retreat. I left the crowd and went to my dept where I was a grad student. Then, on the radio, the report came about the blocking of the major axis road to the city, led by the same agitators. (And BTW that also meant blocking access to a major hospital attached to the Uni campus. The lack of respect for life, civility and decency speaks volumes.) The Police emergency mobile reserve was called out, and by the time I rushed to the scene 15 minutes or so later, the Israeli-trained paramilitary police had lined up, read the riot act, discharged a teargas volley, and fired off their M16's on full automatic over the heads of the students -- loaded with blanks. They then charged the students blocking the road and arrested the ring leaders of the riot. Much, much more happened than I can describe here, let us just say that my native land was a small scale theatre of operations in the real WW III, the Cold War. As a result I can "read" patterns that are all too ugly and familiar. Going beyond, I have studied Germany and to a lesser extent Russia. Much of what we see is coming out of the "handbooks" they "wrote." (Look, on my uni campus, students taken into the Commi party literally did courses and sat practical exams in selling the party newspaper. Oddly, the Commis brought some very good technical books to that country and I bought many of these. My Police intelligence unit watchers must have had a hard time figuring me out even after I had conversations with senior officers -- in that land, there are dossiers on every significant person. They told me I was on their books and was not viewed as a "moderate." The commis saw me as one of their strongest enemies on the campus who helped thwart several of their schemes. ) For a first level insight on that history of this sort of thing cf comments 3 - 7 above. Going further, you will see that I originally wrote a general article, as I have been concerned about the issue of agit-prop. That was Jan 30. Events caught up, and I fed in updates from UCB. Street events in today's day and age are just the first level, the key level that moves nations and civilisations is the media projection. For that, I start with Plato and his parable of the cave, which you should look at from this perspective. (The parable of the mutinous ship of state will also help. That stuff about throwing people overboard is NOT literary exaggeration.) You will see how I put up also the discussion in Ac 27 on manipulation of a democracy in miniature. In an earlier thread I clipped Ac 19, on how riots happen. That one was well handled, too many are not. And yes, there are such things as trained agitators and street fighters who use the stirred up citizens of workers or students as cover and cannon fodder for their hit and run teams. That is what happened at UCB. If the police do not stomp on riots hard so soon as a protest crosses the line, these will readily get out of hand. The media amplifier and destructive spin tactics, I have also had to learn first hand in the same context. The straight vs spin grid you see in the OP was developed a decade ago, to summarise my knowledge and teach citizens, journalists and editors how to deal with manipulative, deceitful dishonest media. I created it while I was a co-host of a radio talk show here in my wife's homeland. That can stand by itself and if you have a modicum of background you will readily see that there is a drastic deterioration of the quality of major media in our time. That is a terrible warning sign. (And yes, I did make a complaint to the BBC all the way up to the trust over anti-Christian bigotry. The views and experiences of others directly parallel my own. For me that is particularly sad, I grew up hanging on to BBC and listening to them on shortwave as the gold standard of world news.) And no, I do not expect many people to see eye to eye with what I am saying, on my say-so. I suggest, go do your own investigations, study on how we can be manipulated. Brace for a shock. I found Edgar Schein particularly insightful, including when I had to deal with people being manipulated by cult-like groups. If you doubt me on what Nazism and Fascism are, I suggest you go look through solid historical studies and testimonies of those who lived through an awful time. Go dig up Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, all three volumes -- I remember how eagerly I awaited the volumes and bought them as they came out, to read even as events were ramping up in my homeland. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is another eyewitness account. Those are not perfect but have a basic authenticity later studies cannot have. In our time, because we have not learned the lessons of history bought with blood and tears, we face much the same sort of troubles again. Not so much the street crazies, the media and political dirty games are where the key dangers lurk. And in all this, Guttmacher has pointed out the number of unborn children killed per year, over 50 millions. From this, with a simple 40 year conservative growth model we readily see that we are living through the worst holocaust in history being carried out under false colours of law, medicine, education, rights, media narratives etc. 800+ millions and growing at 1 million more per WEEK. The degree of personal and institutional corruption to sustain this has to be seen to be believed. Governance in our time is so corrupt, therefore, that almost anything is possible, any march of folly. This is not "conspiracy theories," it is painful reality. As for the agit prop cannon fodder you see on TV, I hope they wake up before they unwittingly trigger horrors on a scale not seen since the 1940's, through the shadow show plays of the major media and their backers. And BTW, it takes months or years to organise, recruit and train to get the level of street tactics we are seeing. We need to ask, what were these toughs in training for, given that up to late on the evening of Nov 8 2016, they expected their candidate to win the US Presidential Election. I am sure, it was not to help little old ladies cross the street. I hope this helps you see a bit of where I am coming from, why. KF kairosfocus

KF @ 105: "Leftists don’t merely disagree with you. They don’t merely feel you are misguided. They don’t think you are merely wrong. They hate you." Tipping point is getting close. These violent leftists will regret the seeds they have sown. As a former Marine (I know, there are no former Marines) I can assure you that these violent leftists have no idea what is coming their way. It will be brutal. Truth Will Set You Free

Main stream media lost credibility with their audience. They cry "sky is falling" too often. It's hard for them to hide their real purpose which is propaganda machine for left wing governments. http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx Eugen

Hate on the loose and on the march: Kurt Schlichter http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/02/06/the-left-hates-you-act-accordingly-n2281602 >>Leftists don’t merely disagree with you. They don’t merely feel you are misguided. They don’t think you are merely wrong. They hate you. They want you enslaved and obedient, if not dead. Once you get that, everything that is happening now will make sense. And you will understand what you need to be ready to do. You are normal, and therefore a heretic. You refuse to bow to their idols, to subscribe to their twisted catechisms, to praise their false gods. This is unforgivable. You must burn. Crazy talk? Just ask them. Go ahead. Go on social media. Find a leftist – it’s easy. Just say something positive about America or Jesus and they’ll come swarming like locusts. Engage them and very quickly they will drop their masks and tell you what they really think. I know. I keep a rapidly expanding file of Twitter leftist death wish screenshots. They will tell you that Christians are idiots and vets are scum. That normals are subhumans whose role is to labor as serfs to subsidize the progressive elite and its clients. That you should die to make way for the New Progressive Man/Woman/Other. Understand that when they call Donald Trump “illegitimate,” what they are really saying is that our desire to govern ourselves is illegitimate. Their beef isn’t with him – it’s with us, the normal people who dared rise up and demand their right to participate in the rule of this country and this culture. They hate you, because by defying them you have prevented them from living up to the dictates of their false religion. Our rebelliousness has denied them the state of grace they seek, exercising their divine right to dictate every aspect of our puny lives . . . . You wonder why the left is now justifying violence? Because they think that helps them right now. Today it’s suddenly OK to punch a “Nazi.” But the punchline is that anyone who opposes them is a “Nazi.” You wonder why they ignore the rule of law, why they could switch on a dime from screaming at Trump for refusing to preemptively legitimize a Hillary win and then scream that he is illegitimate the moment she lost? Because their only principle is what helps the left win today. That’s why the media gleefully, happily lies every single day about every single thing it reports. Objectivity? When that stopped being a useful thing, it stopped being a thing at all. They are fanatics, and by not surrendering, by not kneeling, and by not obeying, you have committed an unpardonable sin. You have defied the Left, and you must be broken. They will take your job, slander your name, even beat or kill you – whatever it takes to break you and terrify others by making you an example. Your defiance cannot stand; they cannot allow this whole Trump/GOP majority thing to get out of control. They must crush this rebellion of the normal, and absolutely nothing is off the table. We’ve seen them burn UC Berkeley and how the police controlled by the leftist state government of California stood by and watched as Americans were beaten by the mob. Why? Because the government of the State of California approves of the violence. Do you think it’s a coincidence that California is doing everything it can to disarm its normals? . . . . How to we respond? The first step is to end the denial. Open your eyes. See what is happening. Don’t allow yourself to be deluded by false nostalgia for a past period of cultural peace that existed only because, at that time, the Left was winning. They hate you. Look at Twitter. Look at Facebook. Try and tell yourself that leftists are just nice people who disagree with you on a few policy details. Stop fooling yourself. Understand that this must get much worse before it can get better. We may wish to stop the cultural/political struggle, but they can’t stop. Their religion tells them we are greedy, racist, sexist, homophobe morons who hate science and love Hitler. How could they tolerate us? How could they ever allow us power? >> --> Hard, hard words but words we had better ponder now. Before it is too late. --> Likely, most people are not like this, but there is a definite hard core the above all too aptly describes. --> This is also all too familiar to those of us who have stood up on the evidence of design in our natural world. --> The thing is, when reason and reasonable, civil means are driven out, we are forced to fight in an existential struggle in the face of a long train of abuses and usurpations pointing to tyranny. --> I think it is high time that reasonable, responsible people woke up to the crumbling cliff's edge we are on and back away to safer ground before things give way, plunging us into uncontrollable, civilisation-wide chaos. --> NB on local news I picked up just now, numbers going to ISIS from Trinidad, Brazil and Bahamas would in proportion put these regional countries high on Pres Trump's list as dangerous sources of terrorism. The T/dad security Minister confirmed 130 gone to ISIS. --> This is a bigtime wake-up call! KF kairosfocus

Instapundit on Conspiracy to stifle free speech: Glenn Reynolds highlights: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/02/06/time-end-leftist-impunity-glenn-reynolds-column/97521138/ >>They told me if Donald Trump were elected, voices of dissent would be shut down by fascist mobs. And they were right! At the University of California, Berkeley campus, for example, gay conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos had to be evacuated, and his speech cancelled, because masked rioters beat people, smashed windows, and started fires. Protesters threw commercial fireworks at police.

[--> I find a lot of people do not know this, the media narrative is on peaceful protests by the left with maybe a few incidents; worse, many are not open to balancing or corrective information, i.e. polarising indoctrination and manipulation work.]

According to CNN: “The violent protesters tore down metal barriers, set fires near the campus bookstore and damaged the construction site of a new dorm. One woman wearing a red Trump hat was pepper sprayed in the face while being interviewed by CNN affiliate KGO. . . . As police dispersed the crowd from campus, a remaining group of protesters moved into downtown Berkeley and smashed windows at several local banks. No arrests were made throughout the night.” According to CNN, the protests caused over $100,000 in damage. Yiannopoulous wasn’t the only victim of silencing efforts. At Marquette University, conservative speaker Ben Shapiro faced efforts by Marquette university employees to silence him. The Young Americas Foundation obtained Facebook comments by Chrissy Nelson, a program assistant for Marquette’s Center for Gender and Sexuality Studies, encouraging people — at the behest of “one of the directors of diversity” — to reserve all the seats for the hall and then not show up. The purpose of this was “to take a seat away from someone who actually would go.” . . . . Likewise, when conservative Gavin MacInnes (a founder of Vice.com) appeared to speak at New York University, he was met by an angry mob that forced him to cut his talk short, while a woman who identified herself as an NYU professor urged police, whom she said were “protecting the Nazis” by keeping the crowd away from MacInnes and his entourage, to "kick their ass” instead of protecting them. This stuff all looks terrible — so bad that Democrat operative Robert Reich was reduced to blaming “outside agitators” for the violence, a trope that, as law professor Ann Althouse noted, has unfortunate resonance with the Jim Crow era. . . . . there has evolved on our campuses a culture of impunity: Misbehavior on the part of lefty activists will get winked at, even as other groups (sports teams with sexist appearance rankings, say) get raked over the coals for minor misbehavior. This double standard is of a piece with many campuses openly taking sides over the election, treating Trump’s win like a terrorist attack, while investigating Trump supporters for racist allegations only to find no evidence that they had done anything except say “Make America Great Again,” as Babson College, a small school in Massachusetts, did. And as CNN's Marc Lamont Hill acknowledged, right-wing rioters are absent on college campuses. Whether or not Berkeley loses its federal funding over the Milo riots (and it won’t), I think it’s time for action to address this double standard. First, state and local law enforcement agencies need to target violent rioters who seek to silence speakers. It is a felony under federal civil rights law to conspire to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights, among which is free speech. In addition, many states have laws (generally called Klan laws) that punish people who engage in mob violence or intimidation while masked. These should be applied as well. Second, perhaps it’s time to have a Title IX-style law banning discrimination according to political viewpoints on campus . . . >> --> Double standards tied to polarisation and ostracism of those who dare differ with the progressivist narrative, reaching to the point of de facto outlawing. --> The irony is, those behaving like this project nazism to the despised other while failing to see that what they are doing shows fascist tendencies a lot closer to home. --> Reich et al are in fact using the turnabout accusatory projection form of Hitler's big lie, credible person propaganda technique. (As in, exploiting the perception that oh, such an august and/or credible figure "cannot" be lying about so serious a matter.) --> GR is also right to highlight that there is something inherently criminal in taking flimsy excuses to deny others their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of speech in that context, and freedom to petition for redress . . . as in what do you think it means when people pepper spray or sucker punch those acting as spokesmen for the other side? --> And, treating media interviews as occasions to carry out media ambushes through loaded editing etc, is little better. --> A lot is being exposed before our eyes, if we are willing to pay attention. --> It is high time for us to pull back and see where we are collectively taking our civilisation. KF kairosfocus

Roadblock riots & medical emergencies -- a case: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/connecticut/2017/02/04/anti-trump-protesters-shut-down-connecticut-highway-delay-ambulance/BzAw5QbbF1qVedvJE17yEO/story.html >>Protesters temporarily shut down a New Haven highway Saturday afternoon, delaying an ambulance that was on the road and forcing workers to perform an emergency medical procedure on a patient. More than 100 people protesting President Trump’s travel ban blocked Route 34 in New Haven, according to the New Haven Register. As protesters were being cleared from the road, state police say ambulance workers had to perform a procedure on a critically ill patient in the vehicle instead of at the hospital. State police say they found the leader of the protest, who immediately ran away, knocking over several of his supporters, before being caught. Authorities say they used pepper spray on Norman Clement, 66, after he resisted arrest. Clement faces numerous charges including inciting a riot. It’s unclear if he has an attorney.>> --> There are many ways to find blood guilt on one's hands, directly or through reckless or willfully enabling behaviour. What if the patient had died? What excuse could ever be given, whatever political debate points one wishes to make? (And indeed, in attitude, this behaviour is reckless hate, morally equivalent to murder [in the heart], by way of life-threatening breach of duties of care to neighbour.) --> We see here a predictable consequence of lawlessness and projecting accusations of being "nazis" to effectively outlaw those one disagrees with as beyond the pale of civil society and its protection, making it open season on them. --> All, in context of undermining peaceful transfer of power through a legitimate election. --> Predictably, this will not receive national headlines and breathless coverage by punditry. --> That is, a big part of the manipulativeness of the media narrative lies in what is highlighted, what is brought to major focus, and what gets minimal, local or no coverage. --> We have to be aware of the trajectory of the narrative and recognise the gap between what is true, what is representative of the truth . . . a half truth is one of the most destructive ways to deceive, and when we have the cluster of material truths adequate to guide decisions individually, institutionally and at community scale. --> This brings out the importance of balancing coverage. KF kairosfocus

Forgive me, but I have not read the entire thread. However, this seems a tad "conspiracy theory" to me. Can you provide me with a two or three paragraph as to why this is not so. Thank you, Ken Darwins_downfall

U/D Feb 6th: an interview with the pepper-sprayed woman, with further observations. KF kairosfocus

BBC caught out in implicitly anti-Christian false news -- in the teeth of genocide: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/02/05/bbc-accused-of-spreading-fake-news-with-report-on-trump-christian-refugee-policy/ >>The BBC has reported that a recent claim by U.S. President Donald J. Trump that under his predecessor, President Barack Obama, it was “almost impossible” for Syrian Christians to claim asylum in the United States was “without any factual basis”. But according to the Barnabas Fund, a charity working on the behalf of persecuted Christians worldwide, statistics on Syrian refugees in America suggest that Trump’s statement is evidence based. The charity has called upon the BBC to apologise for the misleading statement and issue a correction. So far the corporation has failed to do so. The BBC’s report was prompted by an interview President Trump gave to a Christian TV network, in which he confirmed that he will be altering the U.S. refugee policy to prioritise persecuted Christians. Trump told the interviewer: “They [Syrian Christians] have been horribly treated. Do you know if you were a Christian in Syria it was impossible, at least very, very tough to get into the United States? If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian it was almost impossible.” During the January 29 edition of News at 10, the BBC’s New York correspondent, Nick Bryant reported on Trump’s comments, saying: “In an interview with an evangelical television network [President Trump] claimed without any factual basis the old Obama policy favoured Muslims over Christians”. But a spokesman for the Barnabas Fund said: “This sweeping assertion broadcast by the BBC was not only wholly untrue, it was also potentially damaging to tens of thousands of Syrian Christian refugees.” The charity has pointed to figures showing that, of the thousands of Syrian refugees arriving in the USA last year only 56 people in total were Christians, equivalent to 0.5 percent of the total, while the vast majority – 99 per cent – were Sunni Muslims. This is despite Christians making up 10 per cent of the pre-war population in Syria, and the fact that in March 2016, then US Secretary of State John Kerry declaring that Christians were facing genocide in the region. Kerry also named Shia Muslims and Yazidis as groups at risk of genocide, yet only 20 Shia individuals and 17 Yazidis came to the U.S. in 2016. “Whatever one thinks of President Trump, it was wholly wrong for the BBC to make the sweeping claim that suggesting the previous administration’s policy disadvantaged Christians was “without any factual basis,” the spokesman said. The charity has called on the BBC to issue “an immediate correction”, writing to the BBC’s Director-General Lord Hall of Birkenhead to highlight “the damage such an erroneous statement could have for Syrian Christian refugees.” No correction has yet been issued. Further requests to the BBC for a response, again highlighting the potential for damage the statement held for Syrian Christians, were made by the Barnabas Fund in the following days, but according to the charity “the BBC repeatedly declined to comment.” The Barnabas Fund’s spokesman said: “These actions are deeply irresponsible and wholly unjustified. False news statements need to be corrected immediately, particularly when they come from a broadcaster of such international standing as the BBC. This issue is particularly glaring as the BBC has just set itself up as a fact-checking unit to vet what it calls “false news” posted on the internet.” The Barnabas Fund has confirmed it will be making a formal complaint to the BBC Trust.>> --> I have done so already several years ago in response to blatant anti-Christian bias and stereotyping of Bible-believing Christians, and was treated in ways that have led me to severely down-grade BBC's credibility. --> The Update is even more chilling as BBC has full and ready access to the facts:

A BBC spokesperson has told Breitbart London: “Nick Bryant’s report was informed by analysis from the Pew Center, which show that overall broadly equal numbers of Christians and Muslim refugees were admitted to the US in 2016. There is no evidence a disparity in the numbers coming from Syria has arisen because of actions by the United States.” Barnabas Fund refute this claim, saying: “There have been claims that the previous administration could not have been discriminating against Christians as the total numbers of Christian (44 per cent) and Muslim refugees (46 per cent) admitted to the USA were similar. However, this is a misuse of statistics because these totals primarily reflect which countries have crises causing refugee movements. “It is therefore almost impossible, using that kind of raw data, to say anything meaningful about whether Christians/Muslims are being discriminated against. However, where Christians are BOTH being specifically targeted as they are in Syria AND very significantly underrepresented in the number given entry to the USA then it is almost certain that they are facing significant discrimination.”

--> BBC's onward retort points to exactly the pattern of blowing off well founded concerns I saw several years ago:

The BBC spokesman added: “We stand by our journalism. There are established procedures that are open to Barnabus Fund to follow if they remain unhappy with our impartial journalism. Any correspondence we receive will of course receive full consideration and reply.”

--> Go through the steps for record, but don't expect an honest outcome. --> Back to the Plato's Cave shadow-show game. --> Gatestone Institute is chilling on the West's blind eye and deaf ear in response to persecution of Christians, e.g.:

"Unfortunately, the West has rejected the idea of solidarity with the Christians of the Middle East, prioritizing diplomacy based on oil interests and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Thus, the United States, Britain, and France have largely ignored the persecutions of the Christians of Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, and Sudan, while rushing to save the oil-rich Muslim states of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait..." — Hannibal Travis, Professor of Law, 2006. Indigenous Christians in Iraq and Syria have not only been exposed to genocide at the hands of the Islamic State and other Islamist groups, but also their applications for immigration to Western countries have been put on the back-burner by, shamefully but not surprisingly, the UN. When one brings up the issue of Western states taking in Muslim migrants from Syria and Iraq without vetting them for jihadist ties, while leaving behind the Christian and Yazidi victims of jihadists, one is accused of being "bigoted" or "racist". But the real bigotry is abandoning the persecuted and benign Middle Eastern Christians and Yazidis, the main victims of the ongoing genocides in Syria and Iraq. The German government is also rejecting applications for asylum of Christian refugees and deporting them unfairly, according to a German pastor. Nearly a third of the respondents said that most of the discrimination and violence came mostly from refugee camp guards of Muslim descent.

KF PS: A commenter -- FWIW -- adds: "Under a Freedom of Info request in 2013 I found the BBC upheld only 0.014% of the 1.2 Million complaints received since 2008. It therefore rejected 99.99%. Think about that." I cannot vouch for this, but my own experience would fall within this pattern. That cliff's edge looks ever more crumbly. kairosfocus

On naturally rooted grass roots vs agit prop ginned up astroturf: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/05/anti-trump-resistance-tries-fails-imitate-tea-party/ >>Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) faced a “raucous” town hall meeting in Roseville on Saturday morning, and had to be escorted out by police at the end of the meeting. McClintock later told the Los Angeles Times that there had been an “anarchist” group at the meeting that caused security concerns. He added, according to the Times: “The way to change the course of the country is not to shout people down, not to riot in the streets,” he said. “Talk with your friends and your neighbors and share your thoughts with them.” From all accounts, McClintock did rather well, faced with hostile questions and protesters who held up “RESIST” signs in the meeting. He defended President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting travel from terror-prone countries, for example. As he left, the Sacramento Bee reported, protesters chanted: “This is what democracy looks like.” Well — not exactly. In the summer of 2009, Democratic members of Congress faced vigorous opposition at town hall meetings as they returned to their districts to sell a specific piece of legislation — Obamacare — that few of them had read and that the public did not want. The Tea Party movement had begun earlier that year, in opposition to President Barack Obama’s stimulus, which sent nearly a trillion dollars to pet projects and state and local governments that had little prospect of creating new jobs. But the people showing up at town hall meetings were not there simply to protest or “resist,” though Democrats accused them of “carrying swastikas” and derided them as “Brooks Brothers” demonstrators. Most were not aligned with the Republican Party. They simply wanted answers about a policy they correctly feared would upend their health insurance and health care. Democrats and the left mocked the town hall protests, and cast the Tea Party as racist. But then they tried to manufacture their own grass-roots movements — first with Occupy Wall Street in 2011, then with Black Lives Matter in 2014. The new anti-Trump protests continue that pattern, with protesters besieging McClintock and other Republican members of Congress at town hall meetings. What the left has clearly failed to understand about the Tea Party movement, however, is that it was an authentic grass-roots effort in response to specific congressional legislation that had a broad effect on Americans in general. It was not a partisan effort to take down President Obama. Democrats have never been able to accept the Tea Party’s authenticity, which is why their anti-Trump imitation of the Tea Party will struggle: it is not built on broad popular opposition to Trump policies, but on the energies of committed partisans whose basic grievance is that Trump was elected in the first place. When left-wing activists hold up signs like “RESIST,” they are egging each other on, not broadening their appeal. The Tea Party succeeded, at least initially, because it adopted the opposite approach, appealing to people who felt abandoned by both political parties. The whole concept of the so-called “Resistance” is also farcical. It implies that the United States is a dictatorship that cannot be opposed through ordinary politics. It is a radical idea, one that lends itself to excess — such as the violent protests at the University of California, Berkeley last week . . . >> --> A telling contrast. --> And, let us remember how actual fascism (no, slanderous portrayals of a legitimately elected president as Hitler are not able to transmute slanders into truth) works:

FASCISM: At heart, it is the notion that in a day of “unprecedented” crisis that targets a large — locally dominant or pivotally influential — perceived victim group or class or religious or racial/national body, a super-man figure emerges to rescue the victims; one who is beyond ordinary human powers and limits (including those of morality and just law). A political messiah who stands as champion for the identity group to save it, defending it from the various scapegoated out-groups who are held to be to blame for the victimisation of the in-group. That super-man political messiah then seizes power and is widely recognised as a man of “destiny.” In an atmosphere of hysteria, slander and propagandistic deception that is usually multiplied by chaos and violence or at least riotous assemblies in the streets baying for blood, the power blocs, political, legal, military, corporate, religious, etc then align with him, giving him effectively unlimited power in the face of a crisis. We have now reached the threshold of tyranny. And because of the perceived unprecedented crisis, that super-man “people’s champion” figure is cheered on and supported in taking extraordinary measures; measures that sacrifice liberty and justice for the sake of the promised utopian order. And so reigns of terror and aggressive wars naturally emerge.

--> For just one reality-check, notice WHO are carrying out riotous assembles and who are consistently being assaulted up to the point of mayhem, with police obviously being ordered to stand down from carrying out proper riot measures. KF kairosfocus

F/N: Further u/d to OP, as ZH points to the CNN spin tactics as at Feb 2nd: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-02/fbi-allegedly-investigating-mayor-berkeley-ca-inciting-riot-and-ordering-police-stan >>Last night, domestic terrorists on the UC Berkeley campus successfully barred conservative gay Jew Milo Yiannopoulos from expressing his opinion, after Antifa-incited riots closed down a speaking engagement. CNN - by the way, is in full propaganda damage control mode over this. Check out the CNN app notification popup: . . . . And check out this headline: [cf OP] . . . . As fires raged and Trump supporters were assaulted with shovels and pepper spray by masked anarchists, the mayor of Berkeley, CA, Jesse Arreguin, allegedly ordered SWAT and campus police to stand down. Here's a picture from a redditor claiming to be 100 officers hanging out in the student union building while the violence was occurring (post): [cf OP] . . . . According to Mike Cernovich, Trump's FBI is investigating: Civil Rights section of FBI has opened an investigation into mayor @JesseArreguin, for inciting riots and ordering to police to stand down. pic.twitter.com/uy5EbgcvSm — Mike Cernovich ???????? (@Cernovich) February 2, 2017 Mayor Arreguin denies he ordered them to stand down: . . . . We shall see... Cernovich has put out the call for any victims of violence at last night's riots: If you were a victim of violence at the Berkeley riots, DM me. We are reaching out to lawyers for a civil rights lawsuit. — Mike Cernovich ???????? (@Cernovich) February 2, 2017 And there are still some heroes left in the world, extinguishing bullshit. MMA fighter Jake Shields helps man from ‘being jumped by thugs’ in the middle of UC Berkeley violencehttps://t.co/OhXwBPSz7Z — Mike Cernovich ???????? (@Cernovich) February 2, 2017 Meanwhile, the rabid left is calling for a military coup . . . . You're being ridiculous Sarah - and you're a moron if you think the military isn't with Trump. By the way: U.S. Code 2385: Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.>> As they say, we shall see. KF kairosfocus

U/D, Feb 5: we now have a picture of idled police in the UC Berkeley Student Union, while rioting, beatings and mayhem ere going on outside, added to the OP above. This raises pointed questions: http://rebrn.com/re/i-was-at-uc-berkeley-last-night-here-is-a-pic-i-got-after-the-sp-3131001/ >>I was at UC Berkeley last night. Here is a pic I got after the speech cancellation of nearly 100 SWAT and campus police sitting inside the student union building doing NOTHING while people were getting beaten outside. WHO told them to stand down?>> An exchange with a CA based peace officer: >> CA based officer checking in. This [snip] me off. I work in a predominately red county / city and when riots were threatened here, we were told to drop the hammer on them and enforce the laws. Guess what? They didn't riot. Our law enforcement doesn't tolerate this shit. You break the law, we enforce it. Don't hate the police for not enforcing the laws when they have to deal with a higher power who forbids it. Let's look at the Chiefs / Mayors of the town and hold them accountable . . . . Assuming this is legit, what time was the photo taken? I'm assuming civil litigation will be forthcoming against the city. Being able to show any indication of willful neglect is a game changer. Stuff like this is evidence (again, assuming true). Yes. All of that actually happened.>> --> Looks likely, there will be a serious investigation. Indeed: http://magafeed.com/fbi-now-investigating-mayor-of-berkeley-for-telling-police-to-stand-down-amid-riots-that-led-to-mass-assaults/ >>The FBI is now involved in investigating the Mayor of Berkeley, who allegedly told police to stand down amid mass riots led by Anti-Fa members and students that led to mass assaults and mass violence at UC Berkeley, in response to a Milo speaking event that was cancelled. Jesse Arreguin, the Mayor of Berkeley, [--> i/l/o at least one tweet] seemed to welcome the protests that saw many individuals face vicious attacks. Many were hospitalized and one person is in critical condition and may actually die. Arreguin is now facing an FBI investigation.>> --> Notice, the point about someone in critical, likely the second victim of mayhem . . . further reasonably likely, the one attacked by the rioter who was identified based on his online boasting; this may be the victim surrounding whom there were rumours of a possible death. (Let us pray he recovers.) --> This may be the way to begin to roll up the network. KF kairosfocus

F/N: Someone is suggesting that if blackshirts lunge to seize a hat or the like a co-ordinated team can grab and zip tie. If conflict is already in progress this MIGHT work. But we must never forget the media, edited video ambush joined to media lynching and lawfare, process is the punishment. Where, slanders trumpeted through the media until fixed in the minds of enough people can destroy your life. Instead, hold to your base. Let the first snatch happen, or the first unprovoked pepper spraying or whatever, WITH YOUR PHONE CAMERAS ROLLING. Then, use that to reverse the media ambush by exposing the real tape of ALL that happened. (Unfortunately, spitting on someone in a crowded situation is usually hard to catch on videotape. If that happens cry out and denounce the nasty act.) But once that has happened, call for the police or security to intervene with the disruptive. And BTW, I find it incredible that known likely to be unruly protesters have been allowed within arm's reach of people trying to access a facility or to leave it. That in the same jurisdictions where grand media circuses were used to force pro life objectors to ridiculous distances from abortion clinics. That failing alone speaks volumes. (What do we do when -- not if -- they start to target, say, churches?) If there is a police stand-down, move as a bloc, for the exit or for a safe point. If the attack-mob tries to attack again, defend yourselves on camera as a group; do not let anyone get isolated and if someone is knocked to the ground force your way in and form a protective ring while attention is given; if things are serious, insist on getting medical evac people to evaluate and evacuate the victim. All of this should be taped so if people protecting a person attacked and harmed are further attacked, it is obvious beyond what deceitful editing can do to create a misrepresentation. Make sure to be defending and make sure to not go overboard. The point is to establish proper authority and good order. Also, clearly document if/how civil authorities failed to protect citizens and their rights. (Later, administrative and legal redress should be sought.) Failing which, exercise the right of self defence, on tape which your group then uses with friendly media as a media base. I suggest using a magazine format discussion to introduce the video, with eyewitnesses and experts. As attacks are very fast, slow motion and callout frames will help, maybe large display cards or slides. Explain. But also, put up the raw feed for cross-confirmation. The point is to document the truth. Across time, a critical mass of opinion to restore good order will emerge as case after case hits home. KF kairosfocus

F/N: A plausible profile of blackshirts: https://www.oathkeepers.org/navyjack-operation-hypo-action-report/ >>The anarchists are by far the most dangerous of these groups. They are organized like militias. They actively train and practice their operations. They have discipline and zero tolerance for weakness. They have a number of former military personnel providing expertise to enhance security, logistics and martial arts capabilities. The majority are physical fit, military age males. They are primarily white with few minority members. Their leadership tends to be either former military, a proven leader from the occupy movement or a highly educated alpha-male. They are far more capable than their recent activities would demonstrate. They have formed community defense organizations and are idolized for their willingness to take action from the other groups discussed above. They are however anarchists that despise communism as much as they despise capitalism. They see patriots and constitutionalists as their primary enemy. To them, everyone is a NAZI or a fascist unless they are an anarchist. There is no debate allowed on these issues, ever. They operate under various names, but the vast majority identify with the anti-fascist movement. With the election of President Trump, their membership has increased exponentially. There are at least 50,000 nationwide. They have been able to assimilate much of the “occupy” and “black-bloc” movements. Most of what these organizations accomplish are classified as direct actions. They will participate in a protest or a march, but they are not big fans of passive resistance. For those of you that are not familiar with the term “direct action”, these are very precise coordinated operations conducted by small groups (4-6 members) that have very specific unit and overall goals. The planned smoke bombing of an Inauguration Ball is a good example of a direct action. Our team foiled this operation. We informed the DC Police Department, the National Press Club and the Inauguration Ball security team leaders of these plans on January 9th, 2017. Direct targeting of individuals and businesses are common direct action activities for the Anti-Fascists. Destruction of property (burning your car, damaging your house, busting the windows out where you work, etc.) are standard direct actions against targeted individuals of these groups. Ask James O’Keefe from Project Veritas or Milo Yiannopoulos from Breitbart News. They are both now having to deal with this.>> --> 4 - 6 sounds a bit light for a squad to me. --> Maybe, they are using "sections" and joining 2 - 3 together to form a co-ordinated action swarm, loosely comparable to hammer + anvil type maneuver and fire support teams for infantry. KF kairosfocus

Jake Shields saves a man from the mob at UC Berkeley -- while the police stand by: http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/02/02/exclusive-mma-fighter-jake-shields-saved-man-berkeley-violent-rioters/ >>Professional MMA fighter and UFC Veteran, Jake Shields, was forced to rescue a civilian who was being severely beaten by “anti-fascist” rioters in Berkeley, California, on Wednesday, after police officers allegedly refused to intervene. Realizing that law enforcement officers were not going to help the man who was being cornered and violently attacked, Shields took the moment into his own hands, and fought off the mob of rioters while he helped the injured and bloodied man to safety. “The show got cancelled so I was kind of checking things out,” said Shields in an interview with Breitbart Tech. “Obviously it was a rough crowd, so I didn’t want to walk in the middle of it, and all of a sudden I see this guy running out completely covered in blood and these guys were chasing him with sticks, trying to circle him.” “Mobs of people. Nobody helped, but people were yelling ‘get up, get up.’ Like fifteen people were trying to attack him and others were cheering them on,” he continued. “No one helped, no one had the balls to step in, so my reaction was to run in and start picking people off.” The aftermath of me helping a guy after being jumped by thugs. The police and 100's of civilians stood and watched. pic.twitter.com/7hN2iJ4kkf — Jake Shields (@jakeshieldsajj) February 2, 2017 [--> Video shows blackshirts including one armed with a stick, it more than substantiates the general description in the clip] “They came in trying to fight back, and I started backing off, but I helped grab the guy and shove him into a store,” Shields explained. “I got a few punches, I was probably hit like ten times, but I don’t have a single mark on me. They were like, ‘he’s a Nazi too!’ but this other guy was like, ‘I don’t think he’s a Nazi,’ while I was still fighting people off. I was like, do you just get to choose who’s a Nazi and who’s not?” The riot started at UC Berkeley on Wednesday after protesters against Breitbart Senior Editor MILO started to become increasingly violent outside of his show. “Anti-fascists” started several fires, smashed windows and ATMs, looted downtown stores, attacked cars, and assaulted dozens of MILO fans, who they falsely accused of being “Nazis,” however only one suspect was arrested. “I asked them ‘what did he say that made this guy a Nazi?’ and nobody knew,” said Shields. “They were like ‘oh, he said some racist stuff,’ and I asked, ‘what racist stuff did he say?’ and no one knew. They were just mindless… It was really insane.” “More chaos started happening, so I went up to the police and tried bringing them back, but they were just like ‘we’re not really going over there. You should just stay away.'” he concluded. “I don’t know if they were taking orders from someone or if they were just being lazy. I don’t know what the situation was, but it was pathetic to watch. Our police, who are supposed to defend the citizens of Berkeley. It’s a sad scene that they would allow that.”>> --> Notice, the swarm and beat down tactics; less than 10 seconds and you could be seriously hurt. --> Notice, the police standing down in the face of mob violence and advising the rescuer to leave. --> Something is seriously wrong, and it is a red warning flag that we see the policing failure and evident complicit silence [actually, now turnabout projection attempts] by progressive leaders with media power. --> This is what we have come to, weep with shame for our civilisation. KF kairosfocus

U/D: I have added an interview to the OP with a woman who was pushed up against a crowd barrier and assaulted during the riots at UC Berkeley. I gather her husband was beaten unconscious with several ribs broken. This is wounding with disregard to life and health. No wonder there is now a gaslighting attempt to project blame to imaginary right wing thugs orchestrated by the US Government or "fascist" interests -- or even Breitbart News -- carrying out a false flag operation; which has already collapsed as one of the bullies has credibly been identified, cf. above. KF kairosfocus

NYU next: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/02/02/4-arrested-gavin-mcinnes-event-violent-protests-erupt/ >>Four people were arrested at a New York University event where libertarian commentator and VICE co-founder Gavin McInnes delivered a speech, after “anti-fascist” protesters started to become violent and throw punches. Following a fight, which started after protesters started to assault McInnes as he entered the venue and ended in a stolen Make America Great Again hat being set on fire, protesters followed McInnes into the venue and attempted to disrupt his show with chants. Video of punches being thrown as Gavin enters NYU. Sound of glass breaking. Leading to arrests. pic.twitter.com/wSysx3inCG — The Current Year (@TheeCurrentYear) February 2, 2017 They stole a #MAGA hat and now they're burning it… @Gavin_McInnes #Antifa #NYU pic.twitter.com/mhKnzQmY3F — ghost of saturn (@bearzsmy) February 3, 2017 Here we go again: Antifa attack our people & set a stolen MAGA hat on fire #GavinAtNYU #GavinMcInnes pic.twitter.com/yXzii4wjaR — Lucid Hurricane™? (@Lucidx11) February 3, 2017 One attendee was also attacked by anti-fascists with water as he gave an interview on camera. Trump supporter getting splashed in face by Antifa. pic.twitter.com/ODDNwOfWWn — NYU Local (@NYULocal) February 3, 2017 “The NYU Anti-Fascists organized the event on Facebook titled ‘Disrupt Gavin McInnes at NYU’,” reported Pix 11, however unlike the riot that anti-fascists started during Breitbart Senior Editor MILO’s show at UC Berkeley on Wednesday, New York police intervened and managed to prevent a large-scale incident from taking place . . . . McInnes was able to finish his speech, which was interrupted throughout, without having to evacuate the building, and the crowd of protesters eventually dispersed after a warning from the police. Dispersal orders now at the Gavin McInnes NYU event pic.twitter.com/0ZBUSf5VJN — Jon Campbell (@j0ncampbell) February 3, 2017 Far-left “anti-fascist” rioters assaulted numerous attendees, started fires, smashed up shops and ATMs, and attacked people’s cars during the riot on Wednesday night in protest of MILO’s UC Berkeley show, forcing the event to be cancelled. Several celebrities and news outlets expressed support for the riot, including Hollywood director Judd Apatow, who deleted his tweet shortly after, and Fusion, who smeared MILO as a “Nazi,” before praising rioters.>> --> Notice, the police blocked widespread rioting from happening. --> This is at first level a policing matter and a firm hand is indicated. --> Notice the turnabout projection to justify violence and violation of the despised other's rights of speech and assembly:

Protesters made chants of “get out of here you Nazi scum,” at McInnes, and “hurled expletives at police,” and others who attempted to either enter the venue or keep students and attendees safe. “There’s a neo-Nazi speaking, so we’re here to protest,” said one protester who was holding a sign written in Arabic. “We have freedom of speech in this country, however if you’re going to promote something that is hateful and hurtful to our democracy, we have a right to come out and explain why our democracy exists,” said another. The protesters were seemingly unaware that McInnes is a libertarian, and has never been associated with neo-Nazism.

--> Believing and acting out the agit prop as useful idiots and potential cannon fodder for rebellion. --> As in, I smear you with an accusatory (and patently inaccurate) label; that then justifies sucker-punching you, shouting you down, interfering with people who want to hear you, invading your meeting and disrupting it by shouting you down. Somewhere in there spraying the speaker with pepper spray seems to be involved. Do you not see that this is mob rule and riot not legitimate democratic, lawful protest? [And BTW, where was security to remove the disrupters?] --> When will consciences wake up enough to be properly ashamed? --> And yes, that is part of what needs to happen, enough people have to strongly express outrage and disgust at lawlessness for the backers to realise they will pay a price at the polls, and for the cannon fodder to realise they are duped into shameful behaviour or enabling of shameful behaviour. KF kairosfocus

Thanks to Truth, looks like the rioting and attacks have been building up for 2 years: https://twitter.com/TweetBrettMac/status/827418352645709824 --> It cannot be a mere post election false flag scam kairosfocus

Coup, coop, coo . . . cuckoo? http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/02/ex-obama-official-suggests-military-coup-trump/ >>In a blog post for Foreign Policy magazine, Rosa Brooks, a former Obama administration official, outlined four ways to “get rid” of President Trump, including declaring him mentally unfit for command or carrying out a military coup. Brooks is a Schwartz senior fellow at the New America Foundation, which is funded by billionaire George Soros’s Open Society Foundations. She served from 2009-2011 as Counselor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and served as a senior adviser at Obama’s State Department. Her posting is titled “3 Ways to Get Rid of President Trump Before 2020,” although the piece actually outlines four ways. In what seems to be a deliberate tactic, Brooks repeatedly questions Trump’s mental stability, claiming that the president’s first week in office “has made it all too clear: Yes, he is as crazy as everyone feared.” Brooks, who is not a mental health professional, offered no evidence for her armchair psychological evaluation other than citing policies that she doesn’t like.

Remember those optimistic pre-inauguration fantasies? I cherished them, too. You know: “Once he’s president, I’m sure he’ll realize it doesn’t really make sense to withdraw from all those treaties.” “Once he’s president, surely he’ll understand that he needs to stop tweeting out those random insults.” “Once he’s president, he’ll have to put aside that ridiculous campaign braggadocio about building a wall along the Mexican border.” And so on. Nope. In his first week in office, Trump has made it eminently clear that he meant every loopy, appalling word — and then some . . . . Elect him out of office after his four-year term. “But after such a catastrophic first week, four years seems like a long time to wait,” she wrote. Impeachment. However, she lamented, “impeachments take time: months, if not longer — even with an enthusiastic Congress. And when you have a lunatic controlling the nuclear codes, even a few months seems like a perilously long time to wait.” Utilizing a claim of mental instability to invoke the 25th Amendment of the Constitution, which sets the path for the commander-in-chief’s removal if the “president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” A military coup. She writes: “The fourth possibility is one that until recently I would have said was unthinkable in the United States of America: a military coup, or at least a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders.”

>> --> Going off the deep end? Believing your own propaganda of denigration and dehumanisation of the targetted other? --> And yes, folks, this is really happening. KF kairosfocus

Leaks of phone conversations with foreign heads of govt reveal operatives deeply embedded in the US govt: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/white-house-investigates-leaks-trump-calls-australia-mexico-233219023.html >>The White House is looking into how embarrassing details of President Donald Trump's recent tense phone conversations with his counterparts in Australia and Mexico were leaked to news organizations, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said on Fox News Channel. "The president takes these leaks very seriously," Spicer said in an interview with Fox News Channel, which on Friday provided a transcript of a segment set to air on Saturday. Trump cut short a phone call with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull after an acrimonious discussion about a refugee swap deal, a conversation that threatened ties between the two allies after details appeared in The Washington Post. In an earlier call with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto about paying for a wall on the southern U.S. border, Trump said he might send the U.S. military to Mexico to stop drug cartels - details from a transcript obtained by a Mexican news organization Aristegui Noticias and the Associated Press. The White House later said the comments were meant to be lighthearted. "That’s troubling and I think the president has asked the team to look into this because those are very serious implications," Spicer said. Spicer described the conversations as "candid" but respectful, and has noted that both the Australian and Mexican governments have disputed some of the details. White House officials did not respond to requests for comment on the investigation into the leaks. Trump told politicians and faith leaders at a prayer breakfast that he was having difficult conversations with world leaders as he worked to overhaul immigration rules. "Believe me, when you hear about the tough phone calls I'm having - don't worry about it. Just don't worry about it," Trump told the leaders.>> --> This is a moles problem, not just a leaks problem. KF kairosfocus

PPS: Notice the blaring silence of the usual objectors? kairosfocus

JAD, great catch, let's keep compiling insights and facts as they come out. KF PS: It is time some folks began to understand and face the ugly truth on what they have been enabling. kairosfocus

Truth, Looks on first glance like a solid piece of investigation by Zero Hedge, these jokers want trophies to boast of their prowess. If the documentation holds up, the bully-boy who committed assault, battery and likely mayhem on a victim at Berkeley was an employee of the university. Back in 1980, on the govt radio station, there was a consistent pattern of blaming the opposition for violence. As for the Brigadistas, what Brigadistas. Nigh twenty years later, someone who grew up in a nearby town to my uni which provides much of its anciliary staff described the brigadistas. He saw units in battle dress with automatic weapons and carrying out camouflage drill, looking almost like Defence Force soldiers save for one thing: they were barefoot. He contrasted that at the early stage the big development for gun men on the opposition side was, they had got some Lugers. (The Luger is a very well designed semi auto pistol for c 1900.) I recall the shock of the massacre of people at a dance for the opposition party, where the M16 rifle made its first appearance. While I have never heard direct confirmation, it seems plausible these were captured Vietnam War era stocks transferred to Cuba and used to arm Brigadistas. I should note, shortly before the election there was an incident in which the governing [radicalised] party candidate for the area was assassinated up in the mountains behind the capital city. That night, early in the morning, we saw helicopters trying to go over that town near the campus with searchlights, only to be repeatedly driven off with automatic fire. Though, the fire did not have the distinctive 1/10 sec pop pop pop rhythm of the M16. (I first heard that from another direction, while studying for a Thermo-D exam, apparently a policeman walked into an ambush in a bar. He got off two 38 special revolver rounds then was cut in half by M16 fire. To date I have never heard serial numbers, which would confirm; doubtless, still state secrets.) I am not sure if a heavier machine gun was being used to drive off the helicopters. So, from this I infer there will be gaps in info, and there will be deliberate obfuscation and blame projection. Use common sense and trust sources that show credibility, integrity and substance. In that time and place, the most trustworthy medium was an independent radio station that now has a TV station, decades later. The dominant newspaper, though somewhat biased, was a key source also, especially a circle of very brave columnists. My conclusion was that a good newspaper and/or radio station can save a nation in the face of subversion and low grade civil war. Let's clip from Zero Hedge: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-03/berkeley-antifa-attacker-unmasked-uc-employee-cnn-and-young-turks-lookin%E2%80%99-so-dumb >>Today, propagandists on the left attempted to change the narrative over the violent "Antifa" riots, suggesting that Trump supporters were secretly behind the group's spate of violent terrorist acts since the election . . . . Of course, the ultra-liberal, Armenian Holocaust denying, TalcumX hiring, "better than you" elitists - also known as "The Young Turks," started furiously parroting these Alisnsky tactics to cast doubt on just who keeps co-opting student protests and turning them violent . . . . In a nutshell: A violent Antifa attacker bragged about beating up a Trump supporter over Twitter. In that user's profile, @PaveDarker found a link to the attacker's Facebook account with his real name [Note: This man is a suspect - name withheld from this post pending official investigation] . . . . And this $69,824K/year Antifa rebel appears to be a "Digital Comm Spec 4" at Berkeley . . . . The authorities have been notified, and the UC Employee is thought to be in New York right now. Developing>> --> I would get him, squeeze him hard for information with sedition charges and felony rioting, assault, battery and mayhem as a plea bargain. --> The issue is to get the cells, pick up the organisation and the financiers. --> Low level operatives should be looking at RICO, and the big sharks, sedition-treason if there is evidence. --> Doubtless, given Trump's track record already, flying squads from FBI, Homeland Security, NSA etc -- likely including Israeli contractors experienced in dealing with Intifada and suicide bombing networks -- are doubtless at work to identify, check and roll up the blackshirts and their associated groups. --> we will have to wait for details, given how leaky DC is, this one is probably being played very close to the chest. KF PS: This thread, I am treating as a growing reference base for understanding the agit prop- street theatre- subversion- media operations that are now so plainly at work. I remember how important it was 37 years ago to have credible, insightful columnists who let us connect the dots. Otherwise, we likely would have panicked into easily manipulable hysteria. Certainly, six years later, with a narrower campus-based crisis, hysteria and unchecked agit prop nearly got students shot dead by paramilitary police when a protest blocked the main road down which reserve troops would have to come if things went south in the Capital city during a crisis of credibility. kairosfocus

Peter Beinart, a progressive writer for The Atlantic, wrote in a newly published article:

Judging from my Twitter feed, not many progressives defend the violence, which appears to have been carried out by masked hoodlums who arrived from off-campus. But vast numbers said Berkeley should have peacefully denied Yiannopoulos an opportunity to speak on campus. In the words of one Twitter user, “Free speech [does not equal] every college has an obligation to give you an official platform for your speech.” The problem with this argument is that it was not Berkeley itself that invited Yiannopoulos. It was the Berkeley College Republicans, who are legally a separate entity. And as Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks explained, “long-standing campus policy permits registered student organizations to invite speakers to campus and to make free use of meeting space in the Student Union for that purpose.” So the issue is not whether Berkeley should have given Yiannopoulos a platform. It is whether Berkeley should have denied some of its students the ability to give him a platform. And “consistent with the dictates of the First Amendment as uniformly and decisively interpreted by the courts,” Dirks argued, “the university cannot censor or prohibit events, or charge differential fees…” Universities should establish rules for how they treat speakers… And they should not alter those rules depending on the ideas those speakers espouse, even if their ideas are hateful. (And yes, I’d apply that not merely to Milo but to a neo-Nazi like Richard Spencer).

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/everyone-has-a-right-to-free-speech-even-milo/515565/?utm_source=twb I agree with Beinart here. That is what freedom of speech has traditionally been understood to mean in the United States. Tolerance means tolerating speech, ideas and opinions of those with whom you disagree-- even if you disagree passionately. That kind of tolerance is lacking on the secular-progressive left. True they give a lot of lip service to "diversity" and "inclusion" but if it's the kind of diversity with which they agree. Indeed, it is clear that they want to suppress the free expression of those with whom they disagree. Some elite east coast universities have speech codes which censor language that someone (sometimes students, sometimes faculty, sometimes the administration) has arbitrarily decided is offensive-- sexist, racist, homophobic etc. These people are routinely described as liberal. However, liberal is something they are not. john_a_designer

This speculative conspiracy theory has already been debunked. More CNN fake news. See link below. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-03/berkeley-antifa-attacker-unmasked-uc-employee-cnn-and-young-turks-lookin’-so-dumb Truth Will Set You Free

Robert Reich's projection attempt: This patently falls of its own weight, aside from revealingt that there is a bigoted assumption on his part that paramilitaries must be right wing: http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/clinton-official-ties-breitbart-to-riots-against-own-editor/ >>A former Clinton administration official has made a stunning claim regarding who was responsible for the riots at UC Berkeley Wednesday night that forced cancellation of a talk by Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos. Robert Reich blames Breitbart News. Reich was secretary of labor under Clinton and now teaches at Berkeley. The conversation was noticed by Alex Griswold at Mediaite as well as Scott Johnson at Powerline. CNN’s Don Lemon responded incredulously when Reich made the suggestion. “You think this was a strategy by Yiannopoulos or right wingers?” Lemon asked. “That they put this on in an effort to show there’s no free speech on a college campus like UC Berkeley?” Reich confirmed his suspicion. “I wouldn’t bet against it, Don. Again, I saw these people. They all looked very – almost paramilitary. They were not from the campus. I’ve heard, I don’t want to say factually, that there was some relationship there between these people and the right wing and the right-wing movement that is affiliated with Breitbart News.” Reich explained: “I was there for part of last night, and I know what I saw and those people were not Berkeley students. Those people were outside agitators. I have never seen them before.” Sign the precedent-setting petition supporting Trump’s call for an independent prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton! He said there are “rumors that they actually were right-wingers.” “They were a part of a kind of group that was organized and ready to create the kind of tumult and danger you saw that forced the police to cancel the event,” he said. “So Donald Trump, when he says Berkeley doesn’t respect free speech rights, that’s a complete distortion of the truth.”>> --> Turnabout accusation, in short, similar to how the nazis dressed concentration camp prisoners in Polish uniforms, murdered them and pretended that Poland had attacked German radio stations at the start of WW II. --> The WND report clips Johnson of powerline:

Johnson wrote at Powerline that Reich “leads a sheltered life.” “He apparently missed the wave of left-wing violence to which we have been treated in the age of Obama. He apparently missed the violence sponsored by the left during the inauguration of President Trump. Reich might want to take in the new Frontpage pamphlet by John Perazzo on Left Wing Hate Groups.” [Cf: http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/sites/default/files/leftwinghategroups.pdf ]

--> However, when polarisation and hysteria stalk the land, people will believe such fabrications and attempts to explain away. KF kairosfocus

Berkeley Chancellor on blackshirt anarchists: http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/02/03/uc-berkeley-chancellor-riots-caused-armed-individuals-ninja-like-uniforms-using-paramilitary-tactics/ >>Following the riots that cancelled the final event of MILO’s “Dangerous Faggot Tour,” The Chancellor of UC Berkeley has released a statement claiming that rather than being caused by students, they were started by “armed individuals in ‘ninja-like’ uniforms using “paramilitary tactics.” The event was cancelled after left-wing rioters, who the university claim were not students, smashed ATMs and bank windows, looted a Starbucks, beat Trump supporters, pepper sprayed innocent individuals, set fires in the street, and sprayed the words “Kill Trump” on storefronts . . . . In an email to students, UC Berkeley chancellor Nicholas Dirks said that the university “condemns in the strongest possible terms the actions of individuals who invaded the campus, infiltrated a crowd of peaceful students, and used violent tactics to close down the event. We deeply regret that the violence unleashed by this group undermined the First Amendment rights of the speaker as well as those who came to lawfully assemble and protest his presence.” However Dirks adds that despite going to “extraordinary lengths to facilitate planning and preparation for this event,” the efforts were undone by “100 armed individuals clad in Ninja-like uniforms who utilized paramilitary tactics to engage in violent destructive behavior designed to shut the event down.” So-called anti fascists group have been known to infiltrate MILO events throughout the tour, with a marxist group as the “Freedom Road Socialist Organisation,” infiltrating protesters at the cancelled event at UC Davis and causing violence. President Donald Trump condemned the riots, threatening to take away the university’s federal funding if the university “does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view.”>> --> Looks like further confirmation of the picture that has been building up. --> But, let's go back to morning, Nov 8: the progressives expected to WIN the election, so why were street thugs in training? --> The ugly answer practically speaks for itself: they were most likely intended to be deployed in the aftermath of the expected victory to sweep away opposition to the radical agenda waiting in the wings. (surely, you don't train and organise street toughs to send them out to help little old ladies across the street.) --> Intended, by whom? For that, we need to follow the money and organisation trails. --> Some hard, pointed questions need to be asked and pressed home until there are cogent, clear answers. --> Brace for terrible shocks. KF kairosfocus

WJM @79, KF @80, What we are seeing is the reaction of a corrupt, self-serving, treasonous establishment responding to what they perceive to be a genuine threat to their strangle-hold on society and to their agenda -- which is the destruction of the traditional Western ethic, which had the blessing of our Judeo-Christian heritage. They are willing to engage in a vicious fight to the death. We need to get used to that fact. Another thing to remember is the spiritual dimension of this struggle. These people live in spiritual darkness. They are immune to the light of even merely human reason as well as supernatural light. We need to be begging the Holy Spirit to show us our place in His perfect plan, and to give us the willingness and grace to carry that out. I don't know yet whether that looks the martyrdom of the Early Church, or, like after two-thirds of Christendom had been destroyed by Islamic jihad, and the remaining third was under assault, it looks like the military response of Urban II, who called the first crusade. What say ye? harry

WJM, I hear your view; I think earning yourself a felony record and facing consequences of such a record at the low end [for rioting], and at the high end, facing RICO time and as appropriate criminalised asset forfeiture or the like should be enough for most things. A wise chess player holds back the queen move until it is really needed; don't forget Hitler faced trial and conviction for attempted coup but there was unwillingness to give the right scale of sentence, i.e. the case should be such that sedition and treason level penalties should be patently warranted. Could I suggest that it is perhaps time to re-look at how your libel and slander law have been gutted for those who are made out to be "public" figures? KF kairosfocus

KF, The left is using the majority's tolerance against them. The left is going to attack and attempt to undermine Trump relentlessly as long as he is in office, and there is no chance the violence and intimidation will decrease as long as there is no stiff penalty for lawless and seditious behavior. Fear of appearances and negative comparisons is a lot of what allowed them to gain this much ground in the first place - politicians afraid of being negatively characterized by the media. They're already calling the other side nazis, hitler, fascist, etc. They're already rioting and using and advocating violence. This is the time for serious consequences and a hard pushback. William J Murray

WJM, I hear you. I would still hold back from using a sledgehammer until it is clearly called for. Incitement to violence and the like lesser offences/ penalties should be good enough. KF kairosfocus

KF, Calling for the removal of a Democratically-elected President by force is sedition. Both Rosie O'Donnell and Sarah Silverman have publicly called for it by using military force.

18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, §?2, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 87–486, June 19, 1962, 76 Stat. 103; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §?330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

William J Murray

KF @ 75: "This is clearly beginning to unravel before our eyes and we need to go all the way back to the Peloponnesian war to understand the fire we are playing with so lightly." True indeed. Well said. Truth Will Set You Free

WJM, I think we are indeed seeing agit prop and orchestrated street theatre chaos to feed the manipulative media narrative. There are likely to be high level operatives in/around the US govt and other major govts, as well as the media, the academy etc. That said, I tend to be leery of using sedition and treason law save for those who are DEMONSTRATED leaders of an attempted coup, where the trial must not be a 1930's Stalin show trial kangaroo court sending people to the Lubyanka basement or the Gulag in job lots. Here in the Caribbean, "Viva Christo el Rey!" BANG dozens of times every night is chilling and too often unacknowledged history, from Cuba. Further to this, judicious and patently justified legislative investigations and something like RICO when conspiracies in violation of law are DEMONSTRATED by fair means, should be enough for most cases. For lower level useful idiots, agitators and junior operatives, administrative penalties for insubordination, disorder, rioting on campus etc are likely good enough and nowhere so dangerous. Rioting on the streets is a police matter. A protest is peaceful, orderly and respectful, a riot is lawless, violent and destructive. In Commonwealth jurisdictions, the police "read the riot act," instructing the participants in a lawless assembly to disperse forthwith. Beyond that, anti-riot action is taken. Hopefully, simple, non lethal measures are enough. Stubborn rioters can likely be dispersed with teargas, the harsher variety and/or pepper spray, water cannon and foams. Then arrests, trials and gaol time. But, when riot mounts up to armed rebellion [barricading key roads, armed assaults on radio/tv stations, attacks against police stations, shooting, molotov cocktails etc . . . ], a warning volley then the real deal followed up by a phalanx charge, with prisoners being tried for whatever is reasonable. This stuff is incredibly dangerous and destabilising; but that is the can of worms opened up when people arrogantly disregard the results of elections under law and begin to try to delegitimise and subvert the free and peaceful transfer of power in a constitutional democracy or republic of democratic character. You will recall, for years now I have argued here at UD and in my own blog about these things, stressing that democracy is inherently unstable and must be stabilised by a sound framework of laws lived out by a lawful people who live by sound principles of moral government. This is clearly beginning to unravel before our eyes and we need to go all the way back to the Peloponnesian war to understand the fire we are playing with so lightly. KF kairosfocus

On Cultural Marxism -- let me clip: http://kairosfocus.blogspot.com/2015/06/acts-27-test-14-andrew-breitbarts.html >> Andrew Breitbart's perspective on the rise of cultural marxist/ critical theory agendas & Saul Alinsky's community organisers movement in the USA Why would I here feature a controversial media figure and his often derided and dismissed views? Because I think they provide key food for thought on something a lot of folks out there obviously don't want us to be thinking about in a coherent connect-the-dots way . . . . In effect, we see neo-Marxist analysis transformed from the classic class war to an ideology for identity/minority group activism driven by a sense of oppression to be overthrown (cf. archive of Wikipedia's suppressed page on Cultural Marxism); which -- per fair comment -- can all too easily be manipulated into subversion of institutions, law, policy and community life, in the end demanding approval of evil in the name of true freedom and liberation. Activisim that can easily become pretty ruthless factionalism that may easily run the risk of pushing democracy into mob rule. And, when ruthless activists gain institutional power, a big problem is that they have not learned the habits of sound, balanced, mutually respectful governance, but instead those of ruthlessness. The sort of ruthlessness implicit in Alinsky's Rules for Radicals:

"A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism." p.10. [And let us note, Marxism has always been quite varied in form, so, the sort of cultural/institutional subversion strategy advocated by Alinsky is not sufficient to remove him from the general frame of thought, whatever differences he may have had with say the Moscow orthodoxy.] . . . . "The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. ... The real arena is corrupt and bloody." p.24 . . . . "The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displace by new patterns.... All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new." p.116 . . . . [The Rules, excerpted]: 5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." . . . . 13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. [NB: Notice the evil counsel to find a way to attack the man, not the issue. The easiest way to do that, is to use the trifecta stratagem: distract, distort, demonise.] In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'... "...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...' "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other."

This pattern should be all too familiar, if one has been paying attention to current political, social, activism and media trends. Such does not have to come directly from Alinsky, either as the pattern has now become diffused in the culture at large. In case you are dubious that Cultural [Neo-]Marxism exists or is significantly influential, here is the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The Frankfurt School, also known as the Institute of Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung), is a social and political philosophical movement of thought located in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. It is the original source of what is known as Critical Theory. The Institute was founded, thanks to a donation by Felix Weil in 1923, with the aim of developing Marxist studies in Germany. The Institute eventually generated a specific school of thought after 1933 when the Nazis forced it to close and move to the United States, where it found hospitality at Columbia University, New York. The academic influence of the “critical” method is far reaching in terms of educational institutions in which such tradition is taught and in terms of the problems it addresses. Some of its core issues involve the critique of modernities and of capitalist society, the definition of social emancipation and the perceived pathologies of society. Critical theory provides a specific interpretation of Marxist philosophy and reinterprets some of its central economic and political notions such as commodification, reification, fetishization and critique of mass culture. Some of the most prominent figures of the first generation of Critical Theorists are Max Horkheimer (1895-1973), Theodor Adorno (1903-1969), Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), Walter Benjamin (1892-1940), Friedrich Pollock (1894-1970), Leo Lowenthal (1900-1993), Eric Fromm (1900-1980). Since the 1970s, the second generation has been led by Jürgen Habermas who has greatly contributed to fostering the dialogue between the so called “continental” and “analytical” tradition. This phase has also been substantiated by the works of Klaus Günther, Hauke Brunkhorst, Ralf Dahrendorf, Gerhard Brandt, Alfred Schmidt, Claus Offe, Oskar Negt, Albrecht Wellmer and Ludwig von Friedeburg, Lutz Wingert, Josef Früchtl, Lutz-Bachman. More generally, it is possible to speak of a “third generation” of critical theorists, symbolically represented in Germany by the influential work of Axel Honneth. The philosophical impact of the school has been worldwide. Early in the first decade of the twenty-first century, a fourth generation of critical theory scholars emerged and coalesced around Rainer Forst.

That should be as clear a statement of powerful and widespread impact as we need for practical purposes. It is those who pooh pooh that impact, who need to justify their dismissal . . . . The Stanford Enc of Phil hints at much in its article on Critical Theory:

Critical Theory has a narrow and a broad meaning in philosophy and in the history of the social sciences. “Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School. According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human “emancipation from slavery”, acts as a “liberating … influence”, and works “to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers” of human beings (Horkheimer 1972, 246). Because such theories aim to explain and transform all the circumstances that enslave human beings, many “critical theories” in the broader sense have been developed. They have emerged in connection with the many social movements that identify varied dimensions of the domination of human beings in modern societies. In both the broad and the narrow senses, however, a critical theory provides the descriptive and normative bases for social inquiry aimed at decreasing domination and increasing freedom in all their forms.

The reality of this issue and its relevance through both activist politics and the impact of "X-studies" can be taken as established; where "X" can take many values depending on the particular minority group organised as an identity and brought under the umbrella of overthrowing real or imagined oppression. (Capital case in point today, homosexualism and its attempt to subvert marriage.) Beyond, the media microphones, amplifiers and transmitters will readily spread such far and wide.>> --> This is the academic muscle behind the agit prop and subversion of education and institutions. --> We need to ask, again, what a community organiser of the Alinskyite Chicago school REALLY is, and what practical distance is there between that and a commi-trained agit prop operator. --> Then, we need to think really big: who benefits from stirring up street chaos and media-amplified polarisation, confusion and panic that creates a perceived unprecedented crisis? (And why is it that the solutions favoured by the progressivists and fellow travellers are always the same: statist-globalist? Is it any coincidence that Brexit is a clear defeat and trigger for panic?) --> Why is it that this sounds a lot like the following, historically grounded summary:

FASCISM: At heart, it is the notion that in a day of “unprecedented” crisis that targets a large — locally dominant or pivotally influential — perceived victim group or class or religious or racial/national body, a super-man figure emerges to rescue the victims; one who is beyond ordinary human powers and limits (including those of morality and just law). A political messiah who stands as champion for the identity group to save it, defending it from the various scapegoated out-groups who are held to be to blame for the victimisation of the in-group. That super-man political messiah then seizes power and is widely recognised as a man of “destiny.” In an atmosphere of hysteria, slander and propagandistic deception that is usually multiplied by chaos and violence or at least riotous assemblies in the streets baying for blood, the power blocs, political, legal, military, corporate, religious, etc then align with him, giving him effectively unlimited power in the face of a crisis. We have now reached the threshold of tyranny. And because of the perceived unprecedented crisis, that super-man “people’s champion” figure is cheered on and supported in taking extraordinary measures; measures that sacrifice liberty and justice for the sake of the promised utopian order. And so reigns of terror and aggressive wars naturally emerge.

--> Maybe the fires in the cave are wafting intoxicating smoke that makes the shadow shows seem even more real. --> It is time to stop swallowing the picture being painted for us by the "consensus," to stop accepting who are set up as stereotypical straw bogeymen nazis, and ask some hard questions about how agit prop works and how it aligns with what is going on. --> Most of all, it is time to insist on getting and personally warranting true facts and checking out the logic that leads to conclusions. --> As a first step, the OP gives pointers on de-spinning. --> Last but not least, we must get rid of the "conspiracy theory" empty dismissive talking point. For, a conspiracy is a hidden, subversive strategy, so the question is not whether there are conspiracies about, but which ones. (BTW, as the White rose movement martyrs remind us, we also deal with demonic conspiracies that are transmitted into our domain through demoniacs of the ilk of a Hitler.) The next, is, how do we identify and properly warrant that identification of factional strategies and dirty tactics, so we speak confidently on well founded truth and fact, not rumour, slander and agit prop talking point. And since conspiracies thrive on deceit, slander, ignorance and the like, it is time to back off and take time to de-spin. KF kairosfocus

There is a great power struggle going on right now between two very real factions within both the government and the populace, which is why Trump had to fire senior officials at the state department, the acting A.G. and put freezes on communication and activities coming out of the executive branch. Obama left deep operatives in the government that are actively working against the implementation of his agenda. The fascist street armies of the left are now fully at war against, and trying to topple, a democratically-elected administration. The media, media stars and politicians are working in concert in an attempt to normalize and/or re-brand what can only be described as a deep, organized attempt at a coup. Several figureheads are calling for the removal of Trump by any means necessary. This is indeed a critical juncture in the history of the USA. Anyone calling for the removal of Trump by force should be arrested and charged with sedition. Those who use violence in protests should be charged with terrorism. Those who attempt to shut down free speech events by force or threat should be at least charged with felony rioting. William J Murray

F/N: We have a name for some at least of the blackshirts, "antifas," short for anti-fascists. Even the name is a big lie and a turnabout projection. This is in effect Stalin's propaganda claim that anyone right of him is a "fascist," which has been ill-advisedly taken up and used to project a general identification of fascism and/or nazism with the right wing. (This has been addressed above.) As the proper name for nazi gives us a clue, fascism is left wing and socialist-statist with an injection of nietzschean superman above law political messianism. Namely, national socialist german workers/labour party. The black shirts of today are the junior varsity to the brownshirt SA of the 1920's and 30's. And of course Hitler's mentor and SA leader, Ernst Roehm, was a militazristic homosexual. Which is exactly the faction of homosexualism that had riddled the German Officer Corps and the militaristic industrialists such as the second Krupp. For example, Krupp II committed suicide over a scandal in which his importing boys from Italy was exposed. (It was the pacifist femmes that the Nazis attacked and put in concentration camps.) When Hitler cooked up the SA plot to give an excuse to kill off the SA leadership and those who he did not like on the night of the long knives, the homosexuality -- which he knew about all along -- was a handy excuse. In short the history is a lot murkier and dirtier than we have been led to believe. As at now, we can be pretty sure the antifas are in effect SA lite -- or, in Castro-ite cuban terms, "brigadistas." (The historic SA was also the crypto reserves for the Post WW I German army, reflecting their roots in the Freikorps.) And we must put 2 + 2 together, they are characterising anyone to their right as nazis and are pushing the talking point that this is in itself provocation that justifies personal violence -- sucker punches etc, and riots with arson and mayhem. That is extremely dangerous agit prop there. KF kairosfocus

PS: Todd Starnes summarises:

Hundreds of liberals rioted at the University of California Berkeley Wednesday night -- burning stores, throwing Molotov cocktails and clashing with police. The rampaging mob forced the university to shut down an event featuring gay conservative firebrand and Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos [--> who is a notorious, publicly admitted homosexual preferring relationships with black men]. “I’m outraged that Milo has been given a platform at UC Berkeley, and there should be no place for him here,” visiting assistant art professor Samara Haplerin told the Daily Californian. “He should be scared that people aren’t going to stand for this.” Ironically, Milo had planned to deliver remarks defending free speech. “One thing we do know for sure: the Left is absolutely terrified of free speech and will do literally anything to shut it down,” he wrote on Facebook. The British conservative journalist called the violence a “horrible spectacle and very humiliating for American higher education.” The crowd hurled fireworks at police officers and smashed windows at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Student Union. They also damaged buildings in downtown Berkeley – including a Starbucks and a number of banks. The bloodthirsty mob targeted several supporters of President Trump. One young lady wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat was attacked during a television interview. An unknown man sprayed some sort of liquid in her face. The Daily Californian reports another Trump supporter was grabbed by a crowd of agitators and thrown to the ground. He escaped, but they grabbed his red hat and set it on fire. And police had to rescue another man who was bloodied and beaten. The university released a statement blaming the violence on outsiders who they allege came to the campus to cause mayhem. They also affirmed Milo’s right to speak on the liberal campus. “Chancellor Nicholas Dirks made it clear that while Yiannopoulos’ views, tactics and rhetoric are profoundly contrary to those of the campus, UC Berkeley is bound by the Constitution, the law and the university’s values and Principles of Community, which include the enabling of free expression across the full spectrum of opinion and perspective.” Those are very nice words – but they are meaningless – unless they are enforced. According to the university, not a single person was arrested. Not a single arrest, folks.

That failure to have an arrest is telling. The police were obviously told to stand down. The effect of this was to enable the blackshirts. One of the commenters observed:

It's so strange...the media couldn't shut up about Tea Party rallies having "a tone of violence" and that there was such a "tense mood" or whatever other language they could use that implied violence was about to break out. It never did, but to listen to the MSM you'd never know it. I have friends who called Tea Party rallies "riots" and genuinely believed black people and gay people were being beaten. But Occupy Wall Street, Ferguson, BLM, "Women's" March and anti-Trump protests...that's all purely peaceful. Just watch the serene glow of the burning police cars and listen to the delightful twinkle of the shattered windows, the doleful tones of people being beaten and pepper-sprayed..

--> Revealing of the shadow show agit prop game and what agenda is being served. --> The bad thing is, sooner rather than later, a mobbed victim will either be murdered [a knuckleduster will be over-effective, or a beating victim will have a condition that triggers bodily shut-down] or some intended victim will bite back. In the former case, predictably it will be toned down. In the latter it will be headlined as proof of how wicked the other side is, especially if someone goes for a gun or a knife. Or even if someone mobbed in a car guns the engine. --> There already was a case where a man blocked from going to work was apparently hit and struck back. An altercation with a female protester and her boyfriend ensued during which the man was more than willing to go for a street fight, especially after he evidently was spat upon. --> Others, will have an old fashioned sense of honour and may well retaliate with extreme force to breaches of honour. (Advice: back off from slander and false accusation, there are men out there who will treat such as the verbal equivalent of a knuckleduster-loaded sucker punch. And they have a point, if you destroy someone's credibility, career, life savings or the like, or do the same to someone they feel obligated to stand up for, you have asked for it. Of course, many agit prop dupes or operatives imagine they are so clever that they can turn about retaliation. They have not seen or imagined the sort of clan defense berserker rage fuelled by adrenaline surges I am talking about in action. Beyond a certain level, only death can stop it; and you would not believe the level of damage a man in that sort of altered state of consciousness killing fury will do even after he is fatally wounded. Celtic, Scots-Irish heritage, as one instance, is strongly associated with this. Vikings were also noted for Capital-B Berserkers. There are whispered rumours of what single Japanese officers armed with ancient high-quality katana swords did when they broke into US lines during WW II. ) kairosfocus

U/D: looks like events at UC Berkeley are illustrating my point about agit prop as street theatre that is then used to feed media narratives live. Accordingly, I have put up some clips. I trust it is quite evident how dangerous such incitement is. KF kairosfocus

sorry, busy, cultural marxism on the morrow. kairosfocus

More agit prop, but a new sheriff is in town: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/02/donald-trump-threatens-cancel-federal-funds-berkeley-riots-shut-milo-event/ >>President Donald Trump reacted to the massive rioting at UC-Berkeley in response to a scheduled campus speech by Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos. “If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view – NO FEDERAL FUNDS?” Trump wrote on Twitter early Thursday morning. News of the rioting made cable news last night as students smashed ATMs and bank windows, looted a Starbucks, beat Trump supporters, pepper sprayed innocent individuals, and set fires in the street. Others spray painted the words “Kill Trump” on storefronts. The speech was canceled by UC-Berkeley police as security failed. Yiannopoulos was evacuated from the area. “The left is profoundly antithetical to free speech these days, does not want to hear alternative points of view, and will do anything to shut it down,” Yiannopoulos told Fox News host Tucker Carlson in an interview on Wednesday night. “My point is being proven over and over and over again.”>> --> this issue is deadly serious; note the calls for presidential assassination. KF kairosfocus

Eyewitness X speaks: https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/an-eyewitness-report-on-the-44th-annual-march-for-life/ --> Note the vid clip, starting with when does a new human life begin and what the significance of the commandment, you shall do no murder, is. PS: Exod 20:

Exodus 20English Standard Version (ESV) The Ten Commandments 20 And God spoke all these words, saying, 2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 3 [1st:] “You shall have no other gods before[a] me. 4 [2nd:] “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands[b] of those who love me and keep my commandments. 7 [3rd:] “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. 8 [4th:] “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. 12 [5th, proper:] “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. 13 [6th:] “You shall not murder.[c] 14 [7th:] “You shall not commit adultery. 15 [8th:] “You shall not steal. 16 [9th:] “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. 17 [10th:] “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.” 18 Now when all the people saw the thunder and the flashes of lightning and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking, the people were afraid[d] and trembled, and they stood far off 19 and said to Moses, “You speak to us, and we will listen; but do not let God speak to us, lest we die.” 20 Moses said to the people, “Do not fear, for God has come to test you, that the fear of him may be before you, that you may not sin.” 21 The people stood far off, while Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was.

kairosfocus

rvb8

we live in a country that still considers care and compassion for its citizens, a virtue

My own country has a woeful record on accepting Middle Eastern refugees,

You have care and compassion and a record of refusing refugees. Well, it's a good enough place for you and your friends to want to live there. The important thing is that you skipped over my question about your own professed belief system. I'm left to guess that you either don't actually believe it, or you're embarrassed by it. Silver Asiatic

RVB8 (et al): WJM has taken time to reply point by point here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/rvb8-admits-to-being-a-useful-idiot/ I believe you need to pay close attention to his points of correction and to his overall point that the astroturf agit prop street theatre tactics that have been in use for decades create movements of the deluded who join in marches of folly on the assumption that the "consensus" they see represents reality. DV, a bit later, I will headline a report on the 2017 March for Life, which will show by contrast the sustained work -- 44th annual -- of a well-informed, lawful and essentially sound but often despised civil rights movement (as in, right to LIFE for the ultimate voiceless, posterity in the womb)of conscience and reformation. I clip WJM on a series of points that though implied above and brought out in the videos [have you followed the link to the Melanie Philips interview? watchhed the Plato's Cave parable animation?], are perhaps not sufficiently explained in my remarks above in the OP and its extension in the thread:

In [reacting to] KF’s expose on agit-prop history and techniques, rvb8 attempts to draw an [immoral?] equivalence between what the progressive left is doing in taking to the streets in “protest”, and KF’s stated views and groups that advocate for those views. He asks:

You see, I fail to see why the Soviet agit-prop is wrong, and your own right. I know your ‘right’ is self evident, but not to me, and not to millions like me; what in your opinion is to be done with mine, and others dissent?

Let’s draw the distinction clear; agit-prop is the process of removing rational discourse and civil debate from the equation and conditioning a populace psychologically to react en masse in intimidating, destructive and violent ways in order to achieve an agenda the population is largely ignorant of. Anyone who uses this technique is by definition attempting to avoid rational debate and intimidate or physically remove the opposition and avoid a fair debate and a fair election. Even as an atheistic evolutionist, surely rvb8 understands that the above, as defined, is wrong. If not, we simply don’t have grounds for a meaningful debate. rvb8 then says:

For me, as an enlightened atheist, I say all power to you, your ID position is basically dead, so continue with your agit-prop, for all it’s worth; little!

To be taken seriously, rvb8 needs to show where ID advocates have used agit-prop techniques comparable (in principle if not scope) to what the progressives are using now when they (progressive politicians and public agitators) use polar opposite characterizations when they describe action X by Obama, and then virtually the same action X by Trump. There is no rational reason to characterize the travel restriction under Obama as good and necessary and reasonable, and then then a slightly broader temp travel restriction on the same 7 countries under Trump as fascistic, xenophobic, islamophobic, racist and unconstitutional. Obama endorsed the protests against the ban even though the list of countries and travel restrictions originated in his administration (and in other actions, total bans against Iraq and later, Cuba). Reason dictates that if one supported it under Obama, one should support it under Trump if there has been no appreciable decline in world terrorism or in the political nature of those countries. This is classic agit-prop exposed for all to see: it’s not about the actual executive order, it’s about an entirely different agenda – weaponizing millions of people into an intimidating, threatening mob by employing over-the-top, aggressive and dehumanizing terms to characterize Trump regardless of what he does, even if it is the same thing Obama did and the same thing they supported a few years prior. Obama comes out and, incredibly, endorses protests against the very temporary immigration ban his administration created. If the protesters were operating from informed, rational consideration, how could they justify calling this temporary ban against these countries a “muslim ban”, when 86% of all muslims worldwide are not even affected by it? More on agit-prop: anyone that shows any support for Trump whatsoever becomes the target of progressive intimidation tactics. Performers who were going to be involved at the inauguration were intimated into backing out. Trump could not even show up at one of his rallies because of the threat of violence. Clinton operatives incited violence at his rallies. There were several plans by left-wing organizations to disrupt many Trump rallies and the Republican Convention itself. Covert operatives were inserted into Trump events to interrupt and disrupt as he spoke. Are there any activities like this that are comparable from the ID camp or from Trump?

My own focus is of course far wider than Mr Trump and the shenanigans that have been let loose to create havoc and confusion in the aftermath of his surprise election as President of the USA. But, this is indeed a live case study. When it comes to the ugly turnabout, immoral equivalency projection that tries to taint the ID movement as an agit-prop operation, the truth is obvious to those not swept up in the sort of hysteria and polarising indoctrrrination in defiance of truth and responsible duties of care that mark real agit prop. For, the heart of the design theory movement is a scientific argument backed up by literally trillions of directly observed examples: functionally specific complex organisation and associated information [FSCO/I] is a strong, readily recognised, quantifiable sign of intelligently directed configuration as credible material cause of entities showing FSCO/I. To overturn this, simply provide credible counter examples. Where also, the configuration space search challenge provides analytical context as to why that result is so, namely, search challenge on sol system or =observed cosmos scale. 500 - 1,00+ bits marks a threshold where it is simply not plausible that an entity exhibiting FSCO/I could have come about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. This is objected to, but not because it is empirically or analytically fatally flawed, never mind the many attempts to create a false impression to that effect. When confronting such a claim, simply demand to see several credible examples of directly observed origin of FSCO/I where there is not implicit loading of intelligently directed configuration. Where, the issue is to FIND islands of function, not to climb hills of improved function in such an island. Where also, search for a golden search is exponentially harder than direct search as searches are subsets and the set of subsets for a given set of cardinality N is of order 2^N. RVB8, you have been directly challenged with this many times, for many months. You and ilk have never given a cogent reply on the merits of fact, logic and sound analysis. Your resort to turnabout false accusation is therefore a case of the big lie tactic. (This, we will discuss later in this reference discussion thread, DV.) So, while this thread is not directly on ID, the attempt to drag in a false, turnabout accusation to taint the ID movement shows yet again how the agit prop game works: delegitimise and demonise the targeted scapegoat groups, by erecting strawman caricatures, soaking in ad hominems and igniting to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere. You have failed, failed in an instructive way that illustrates how those caught up in agit prop movements are swept up in shadow shows confused for reality and used to polarise and drive the attack agenda. KF kairosfocus

Orwell, politics and the English Language: http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/ >>In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them . . . . Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.>> --> To lie, is to speak with disregard to truth in hope that what one says or suggests will be taken as true; that is, calculated deception. KF kairosfocus

RVB8, this thread is not about Mr Trump's or Mr Obama's immigration policy, a secondary thread has spoken to that. I suggest you take up the issues there; other than that I note here that settlement-/civilisation jihad are real and are discussed by the Islamists in captured documents. Jihad by bands, aka Islamist terrorism, is actually the oldest form going back to Mohammed's raids on Meccan merchant caravans plying trade routes in Arabia. This thread, has far more serious work in hand, addressing agit prop. DV, on the morrow, a bit on cultural marxism. KF kairosfocus

SA, I know this regularly comes as a surprise to certain parts of US society, but I feel after reading your comments at #58 that you should be informed of a rude truth: Migrants from parts of the world undergoing revolutions, religious wars and confrontations, are actually pleased just to get out of those conflicts. Althought they may indeed have the US as their first choice, they happily settle down in any part of the world that is ruled by LAW! Alas Mr Trump is attacking that particular US attraction! You must get out of your peculiar world view that everyone is on a Bee-line to the States. I'm not, my friends aren't, none of my relatives are, mainly because we live in a country that still considers care and compassion for its citizens, a virtue; I believe in the States you consider this State supported care and compassion, as Communism. The millions, yes I know millions, who are trying as we speak to leave Africa, and the Middle East to get to Europe, don't have the US as their first hope, that remains Europe. And despite all of the European backlash, Europe still offers these individuals considerably more hope than the US. The persecuted Rohingya Muslims of Burma are trying to get to Australia via Malaysia, where their fellow Muslims despise them. I believe these people couldn't point to the US on a world map, they do however know where Australia is. My own country has a woeful record on accepting Middle Eastern refugees, and I and friends constantly try to raise this issue. Unfortunately we have a leader Bill English, who like Trump is an avowed anti-facts populist. rvb8

In his post @ 49 mike1962 cited, Federal immigration law Section 1182(f) which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”. According to Andrew C. McCarthy: “Section 1182(f) plainly and sweepingly authorizes the president to issue temporary bans on the entry of classes of aliens for national-security purposes. This is precisely what President Trump has done. In fact, in doing so, he expressly cites Section 1182(f), and his executive order tracks the language of the statute (finding the entry of aliens from these countries at this time “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States”).” Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444371/donald-trump-executive-order-ban-entry-seven-muslim-majority-countries-legal I said above @ 50, “that the only question in this debate over Trump’s executive order (EO) is whether it is constitutional (it is) or whether it is lawful (it is). He is the new President he has the right and authority to put his own policies in effect. That is what elections are for…” Who is Andrew McCarthy? According to his bio, “Andrew C. McCarthy III is a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. He led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and of planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks. He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.” Who is rvb8? Who is more knowledgeable when it comes to the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Federal law or the war on terrorism? Clearly rvb8 has no clue what he(?) is talking about. Personally, I am not here to have mindless and pointless debates. Rvb8 has yet to begin his “argument” with a factually true premise. McCarthy begins with the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Code both of which have specific and factual things to say about the authority of the U.S. President and immigration. john_a_designer

rvb8, the way you write in general, and your reply to me in particular, reminds me of these nincompoop semi-drunk "sovereign citizens" I converse with from time to time. You fulfill a sort of "village idiot" function around here and I'm glad your here. Thanks for the reply. Simply not worth a response beyond that. mike1962

The "gaslighting" tactic as a facet of agit-prop is also relevant: http://townhall.com/columnists/timothydaughtry/2017/01/04/gaslighting-and-the-lefts-war-on-reality-n2267154 >>gaslighting is a far more insidious tactic than political spin. Spin merely attempts to shift the interpretation of a real situation by presenting it in a different light. Gaslighting presents a completely false alternative to reality and is intended to erode the confidence of the target in his or her own perception. Imagine two people standing outside in a severe rainstorm. SPIN: “You say this is a downpour? It looks more like a heavy sprinkle to me.” GASLIGHTING: “You say this is a downpour? What are you talking about? It’s sunny and pleasant. Are you feeling OK? You’re acting a little strange.” Because it presents a false picture of reality, two elements are especially important for gaslighting to succeed. First, those doing the gaslighting must display confidence and audacity in pushing their view of reality and must persevere boldly in the face of evidence that contradicts their claim. Second, the target must be psychologically isolated and denied validation by others who see the same reality. The left’s dominance in the cultural institutions of education, news, and entertainment has given them both elements. Consider the video by the Family Policy Institute of Washington in which Seattle University students were asked if there’s a difference between men and women. Instead of answering, “You’re kidding me, right?” these students actually took the interviewer’s question seriously and, even worse, they struggled to answer it. Some went so far as to parrot the far left’s narrative that the distinction between male and female is merely a social construct imposed on people by society and that it has no real significance otherwise. Has news about who has the babies not reached Seattle? Or have those students been so browbeaten by the gaslighting of their leftist professors and the leftist culture on campus that they are hesitant to admit publicly to what their own eyes, their own bodies, and their common sense tell them? That is the power of gaslighting, and the left’s institutions have been audacious in using it against those who question their agenda. In the left’s alternate reality, the police are threats to law and order and rioters are victims of the system. Mainstream Americans who supported Trump are ridiculed as “anti-immigrant” even though we made an immigrant our next First Lady. The belief that refugees should be carefully vetted in order to keep more terrorists from exploiting our generosity is attacked as “xenophobic.” And leftists casually use both “homophobic” and “Islamophobic” to attack their opponents without even a moment’s reflection on Islam’s position on homosexuality. After all, in gaslighting, it is the effect of words on the intended target that counts and not the truthfulness or logical consistency of those words. If the target is isolated, demoralized, and fearful of opposing the left’s agenda, the tactic has worked. >> --> Think of how "gender" as a social construct has been used to push out the sex stamped into every cell of our bodies. Ponder how "marriage" has been perverted, how what sexual intercourse is or even what is is have all been manipulated in shadow shows --> If you disagree with the PC agenda's ever more bizarre twists and turns, or -- worse -- are a supporter of the historic Judaeo-Christian values and vision of Christendom you are suddenly a fascist or a nazi to be sucker punched with a fist loaded with a steel wrench, or to be chased down and clubbed unconscious by a mob . . . to the gleeful rejoicing of those who put up cartoons of nazis being punched --> Then, following Stalin's agit prop, nazi has been transmuted into a "right wing" ideology; never mind the obvious starting with that defunct party's name: National Socialist German Labour Party --> But those are just some of the metastases, the motherlode has been the dehumanisation of our posterity in the womb, in support of the ongoing holocaust of posterity in the womb. 800+ millions since the 1970's and mounting up at a million per WEEK For shame! It is high time we woke up from shadow shows and refused to go along with the intimidation that seeks to redefine reality and morality in pursuit of agendas that if unchecked will ruin our civilisation. It is time for reformation rooted in repentance. And yes, they have been trying to make the very word "sin" disappear from our consciousness too. Let us wake up. KF kairosfocus

rvb8 I would greatly prefer it if you wrote from an evolutionary perspective instead of from a theist one. In other words, why is it a problem for evolution that some people cannot come to the United States? They want to come to America, but America is a bad place because we elected Donald Trump. So, they're upset that they cannot come here and be ruled by the dictator Trump. He must be a very mean man. In other countries, people are dying (literally) to leave. Here, they're trying everything they can to come in. Even some Hollywood stars actually said they were going to leave, but somehow they think it's better living under the tyrant Trump than going to a place of socialist freedom and happiness - like North Korea. They didn't even want to go to Canada - but probably the Canadians didn't want them. Silver Asiatic

Well, Pindi - it takes two to tango. I think there should be a lot around here for you to disagree with. Or why not tell us why you're an atheist? Do you think all the theists here should give up belief in God and also become atheist? If so (or not), why? Silver Asiatic

F/N: A warning from 2000 years ago, complete with bought and paid for -- astroturfed (as in fake grassroots) -- riot:

Ac 19:21 Now after these events Paul resolved in the Spirit to pass through Macedonia and Achaia and go to Jerusalem, saying, “After I have been there, I must also see Rome.” 22 And having sent into Macedonia two of his helpers, Timothy and Erastus, he himself stayed in Asia for a while. 23 About that time there arose no little disturbance 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,

“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,[e] who were friends of his, sent to him and were urging him not to venture into the theater. 32 Now 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, 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?[f] 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,[g] 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.” 41 And when he had said these things, he dismissed the assembly. [ESV]

The lessons of history were bought with blood and tears. If we ignore them today, we doom ourselves to pay much the same coin over and over again. Notice the Asiarchs -- who ran the Temple among other duties and the Town Clerk in action. The first may have differed with Paul, but were on friendly terms with him. The latter laid down the law on riotous assembly, pointing out that there are proper means for torts if such happened. I am struck by the sharp differences to what we are seeing and how ever so many voices are failing to uphold community order. Big warning signs. KF kairosfocus

RVB8, I suggest that you are beginning to side track this discussion; I note that I do not like Mr Trump esp after his grabbing remark, but that some respect and acceptance of the democratic mandate he has won is appropriate -- aka peaceful transfer of power per results of an election, or a trend will be fed that you will not want to see play out. Playing with fire. I further note that with the USA you are dealing with a federal republic. Contrary to the delegitimisation narrative -- part of the dirty agit prop now playing out -- the USA does not have a single election, but fifty in parallel, and the electoral college assures that the one chosen as president is broadly acceptable across the states. That is actually a stabilising factor. It is also quite obvious that radical islam and jihad by bands are running amok, so that the undoubted executive power to act to secure borders is an appropriate response, never mind the patently twisted media narratives and whatever mis-steps are happening. But it seems that there is a death wish that is playing with the fire of undermining stabilising supports to constitutional democracy under rule of law. I suspect, on history going back to the Peloponnesian war, that the consequences of such destabilisation will not be pretty or beneficial at all, if unchecked. Agit prop is utterly destructive and ruinous. It is high time for a reality check, and to step back before things really go over the cliff. KF PS: when "protesters" start to torch vehicles, injuring drivers, and mobs start to run down and criminally assault and batter victims, the proper term to use is RIOT. I only mention the ongoing agenda of sustaining the ongoing worst holocaust in history, 800+ millions. kairosfocus

mike1962, I'm flabbergasted, and j_a_d, you say to mike, "well said"!? Firstly mike1962, Trump was not 'hired', he was elected, and by the peculiarities of your 'electoral college', not even popularly elected; whatever, he was elected. Secondly, he was not elected (hired), to 'protect' the American people, he was elected to, 'defend the Constitution of the US', did you not learn this in elementary civics classes. You see the idea of the framers was that by strictly defending the Constitution, and Bill of Rights the government would then be directly defending the people; difficult notion to grasp I know, but makes perfect sense to me, why do you find it so difficult to grasp? And judging by his weird reading of that document, he is at present ignoring it willfully. The protestors you loathe, are actually expressing a notion far nearer the intentions of the authors of that wonderful piece of clear thinking; Trump is at present plastering IT, with muck. rvb8

F/N: Street stabbing rampage in LA: http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20170131/lapd-officers-fatally-shoot-man-after-stabbing-rampage-near-cnn-hollywood >>A man wielding a butcher knife stabbed three people along Sunset Boulevard and inside a Jack in the Box restaurant in Hollywood before police shot and killed him Tuesday afternoon, Los Angeles Police Department officials said. The attacker, who went on a rampage along Sunset about 2 p.m., also tried to enter a nearby coffee shop, but a customer held its glass door shut, witnesses reported. Korbyn Gomez, a student at the L.A. Film School near Sunset and Ivar Avenue, said he watched as the attacker approached with a ‘big ... bloody knife.” “He was 15 feet away from me,” Gomez said. “I got away. You could tell he was going to give it to anyone who was near.” Police responding to an assault-with-a-deadly-weapon call confronted the suspect inside the Jack in the Box, “at which time an (officer-involved shooting) occurred,” said LAPD Officer Sal Ramirez. “The suspect went down and was taken into custody.”>> I doubt this is a knife jihad attack (as recently was happening in Israel and that the man was reportedly black is probably not relevant either, but this shows just how lethal being close to rioters can be even when they do not have firearms. And please don't try oh we need knife control. FYI, kitchen knives are not going away and even a car leaf spring can be turned into a truly lethal Kukri-style knife using common tools and techniques. KF PS: My earlier call for creation of a civilian marshal corps is looking more and more sensible. But I have little confidence that common sense will prevail in today's world of dirty faction politics. kairosfocus

PS: Let me clip from 21 above, Wm S Lindh, on 4th gen war:

Characteristics such as decentralization and initiative carry over from the Third to the Fourth Generation, but in other respects the Fourth Generation marks the most radical change since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. In Fourth Generation war, the state loses its monopoly on war. All over the world, state militaries find themselves fighting non-state opponents such as al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the FARC. Almost everywhere, the state is losing. Fourth Generation war is also marked by a return to a world of cultures, not merely states, in conflict. We now find ourselves facing the Christian West’s oldest and most steadfast opponent, Islam. After about three centuries on the strategic defensive, following the failure of the second Turkish siege of Vienna in 1683, Islam has resumed the strategic offensive, expanding outward in every direction. In Third [--> 4th] Generation war, invasion by immigration can be at least as dangerous as invasion by a state army. Nor is Fourth Generation warfare merely something we import, as we did on 9/11. At its core lies a universal crisis of legitimacy of the state, and that crisis means many countries will evolve Fourth Generation war on their soil. America, with a closed political system (regardless of which party wins, the Establishment remains in power and nothing really changes) and a poisonous ideology of “multiculturalism,” is a prime candidate for the home-grown variety of Fourth Generation war – which is by far the most dangerous kind. Where does the war in Iraq fit in this framework? I suggest that the war we have seen thus far is merely a powder train leading to the magazine. The magazine is Fourth Generation war by a wide variety of Islamic non-state actors, directed at America and Americans (and local governments friendly to America) everywhere. The longer America occupies Iraq, the greater the chance that the magazine will explode. If it does, God help us all.

kairosfocus

RVB8 & Pindi et al: 30+ years ago, I lived through a mini civil war and its aftermath, largely triggered through Commi agit-prop, on a marxist-dominated uni campus. I had to deal with agitators, front groups, useful idiots, slander games and ruthless counter-moves. I saw street tactics far more up close and personal than I wish on anyone. The process also cost me an aunt, murdered in her shop by a gunman moved by slander and calls for vigilantism -- I can never forget my rage when the same front group agitator went back on radio to blandly deny responsibility for murder . . . that taught me a lot. So did observing Grenada as a case of successful radical subversion and coup molly-coddled by the usual run of pols, journo's and educators until it blew up in a bloody murderous coup that triggered an invasion. When you sit across from a man on a death list who is alive because of the invasion that you saw roundly despised in the same circles that cossetted murderous radicals year after year and hear his story dovetail with your own experiences and observations, it changes you. (And along the way, due to my lifelong interest in history, I studied Hitler and context. Then, there is a lot of deeper history and thought that used to be taught but is of course now despised by those who imagine they know better than what was bought at bitter price of blood and tears over 3000 years of history of our civilisation and its roots in Jerusalem, Athens and Rome, with Germanic injections.) In short, I know the fire that is being played with in our civilisation far more up close and personal than you want to know. Far too much of what I am seeing today rings all sorts of warning bells. Our civilisation is heading over a cliff and there are forces and folk out there playing with fire that they do not begin to understand. Agit prop was pioneered by the bolsheviks, with innovations added by the National Socialist German Labour Party [I deliberately use a 1930's translation] and Mao et al, multiplied by ruthless Western marketing tactics. Let me again clip my summary from the OP:

it is worth the while to pause and unpack the old Soviet/Bolshevik term, agit prop. Namely, it strictly/narrowly . . . per current dictionary definitions . . . speaks to twisting the theatre, arts, literature and the like into propaganda. However, on both the history and the inherent dynamics as work it readily extends to the mob-ocracy game, in which the streets and news media or institutions of intellectual leadership and education — notice the appeals to “consensus” on matters of controversy or where something is patently wrong with the dominant and too often domineering schools of thought . . . — are turned into a grand theatre projecting shadow shows confused for reality. Often, such shadow shows are sponsored by governments, sometimes by powerful factions. And of course, such theatre too often becomes bloody, creating a horrific escalating spiral of chaos, confusion, retaliation and polarisation. Under certain circumstances, if becomes not just rioting but rebellion and guerilla war — these days, 4th generation war [think of how the Palestinian Arab uprisings and declaratively genocidal terrorism campaigns have come to be viewed as “liberation” struggles by many across the world . . . ] — or even radical revolution.

Agit prop, linked front group and issues street theatre shading over into fifth column subversion and with fourth gen war lurking in the wings backed by rising nuke powers cossetted by feckless -- or outright cynically traitorous pols -- are collectively exactly what I am highly confident that I am seeing. I am seeing a global geostrategic meltdown developing, with particular foci on the triangle across the ME from Sinai to the Bosporus, and along the Nile Corridor ranging into targetting Africa's strategic minerals as an unfortunately open continental target. I am seeing -- first saw it online 01- 09-11 -- a 100 year Islamist global subjugation plan now in progress, I am seeing settlement-/civilisation subversion jihad in action, I am seeing a West that is willfully blind. I am seeing the implications of evolutionary materialism warned against by Plato playing out on the ground. I am seeing an untoward generation that is deeply implicated in the ongoing holocaust of 800+ million unborn children, mounting up at another million or so every WEEK. I am seeing the corrosion of the supports needed to stabilise the precious but inherently unstable framework of small- c, small- d constitutionally stabilised democratic self-government. In the case of the USA, I am seeing factions willing to burn down that framework in the context where they narrowly lost what they obviously imagined was the final tipping point election. And, who is to deny them that, the last two election cycles put in power a trained agit prop operator who has utterly corrupted through false colour of law, the number one stabilising factor for civilisation, marriage. So, there is a lot for the progressives to answer for. And, don't even try to plaster the right wing nazi slander on me. Just the blunder of allowing Stalin's propaganda to shape political thought eighty years later speaks volumes about how much we have failed to understand Fascism and its associated states and ideologies. I point out, Mussolini was an Internationalist Socialist turned Nationalist in the context of the onset of WW I, and Hitler's Party -- for cause -- bore the name: National Socialist German Labour Party. Fascism is at root an ideology of statist political messianism, coming from the Left in an era when even the conservatives thought socialist-marxist views were fundamentally correct; which is part of why they struck the sort of deals they did with Fascists, Nazis and Bolsheviks alike and in the post depression, post WW2 era moved to socialist influenced welfare states. That consensus collapsed across the 1980's as the great stagflation broke the consensus then the closing act of the cold war . . . de facto WW 3 . . . played out to a financially ruinous victory as we passed into the 1990's. Then, starting with the Watermelon environmentalists and involving Frankfurt School Cultural Marxist strategies [critical studies driven politically correct astroturf movements fed by shadowy financiers and identity group agit prop are diagnostic signs], internationalist socialism has begun to rise again and has struck deals with the Islamists as it obviously sees the West as what is wrong with our world. So, they let the civilisation-/ settlement jihadists in the door and want to keep them coming in under whatever excuse. Refusing to recognise jihad by bands for what it is. I again clip my in a nutshell on that:

FASCISM: At heart, it is the notion that in a day of “unprecedented” crisis that targets a large — locally dominant or pivotally influential — perceived victim group or class or religious or racial/national body, a super-man figure emerges to rescue the victims; one who is beyond ordinary human powers and limits (including those of morality and just law). A political messiah who stands as champion for the identity group to save it, defending it from the various scapegoated out-groups who are held to be to blame for the victimisation of the in-group. That super-man political messiah then seizes power and is widely recognised as a man of “destiny.” In an atmosphere of hysteria, slander and propagandistic deception that is usually multiplied by chaos and violence or at least riotous assemblies in the streets baying for blood, the power blocs, political, legal, military, corporate, religious, etc then align with him, giving him effectively unlimited power in the face of a crisis. We have now reached the threshold of tyranny. And because of the perceived unprecedented crisis, that super-man “people’s champion” figure is cheered on and supported in taking extraordinary measures; measures that sacrifice liberty and justice for the sake of the promised utopian order. And so reigns of terror and aggressive wars naturally emerge.

Where what happens on the streets etc is likely to be like:

[blackshirts] at the airports etc sucker-clubbing those they mob . . . or loading a hidden wrench up the sleeve to crack the skull of who they sucker-punch [or . . . ], to be online playing at cyber-trolling and stalking, too. Or, maybe, too busy enabling the black-shirts. [BTW, all of these and worse are known or suspected street agitator tactics; the danger zone for an attacker with a possibly concealed arm’s-length body contact weapon like a knife or a club or knuckleduster or a length of metal pipe or a bottle is 20+ feet. Keep away from such blackshirts unless prepared to use lethal force on a 1/2 second response time, AND to back yourself up in Court from King’s Attorneys and false witnesses out for your neck or life’s savings or career. This is now low grade civil war. And, on what was done to people in Pizza Parlors and bake shops, do not speak to them off mike beyond a standard script. Advisable, I need to call my supervisor or the like. This is now deadly serious, why on God’s earth did the USA elect a trained “Community Organiser” as President, this is his legacy.]

In my homeland there is a folk saying, fire deh 'pon mus-mus [= mouse] tail, but him tink seh a cool breeze deh deh. Fatal misunderstanding of fire. KF kairosfocus

Well said Mike1962. Let me add that the only question in this debate over Trump’s executive order (EO) is whether it is constitutional (it is) or whether it is lawful (it is). He is the new President he has the right and authority to put his own policies in effect. That is what elections are for. As Barack Obama said after he won his first term for President in 2008, "Elections have consequences – and at the end of the day, I won." We do not create laws in our country by mob rule. People in the U.S. do have the right to petition the government and peacefully demonstrate. But if they want to change the laws they need to do so through Congress who are elected to represent the people. If they are unhappy with Trump's EO they can petition congress to change the law. That’s how it is done. (Good luck getting the law changed with the Republicans in control of both houses of Congress.) What is of concern is why the mainstream media is using factually inaccurate reporting (propaganda) in an attempt to delegitimize a lawfully elected President and actively incite angry demonstrations in the streets and airports etc., which have already lead to violence against Trump supporters. That is not a responsible use of their freedom, nor does it serve the greater good of the country. john_a_designer

rvb8: Trump is at present plainly using the Constituion of the US as something that can be molded, or ignored, depending upon how he feels at any given moment...I’ll give you a hint it rhymes with Shmuslim. Is this a religious test of citizenship? Is this constitutional? Should US citizens be worried about Trump’s cavalier approach to the use of the Constitution? Nothing cavalier about it. He was hired to do a job, to protect the American people first, and he's doing it legally. 86% of muslims worldwide are not affected by the temporary 90 day freeze on immigration from the Seven Countries while Trump makes sure our immigrant vetting is strong enough. This is sensible given there is a high degree of radical Islamist terrorists in these countries who have vowed to kill Americans, take over the USA, and use the holes in the immigration vetting process to get terrorists inside. Expect more countries to be added to the list soon. 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. At any rate, nothing un-Constitutional about any of this. Carter did it. Obama did it. Bizarre that anyone would take exception to this. I, for one, am glad to see Trump is fulfilling his campaign promise to put American safety first. He is not the president of Syria. He is the president of the USA. mike1962

Excellent quote, J-Mac, amply demonstrated by the partisan press and the rioters! I'm also an immigrant to the U.S. and I favor faster legal immigration--something that the Democrats failed to fix in the eight years when they were in power. Maybe the Republicans will fix it now. Or not. We can only hope. -Q Querius

"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success." - "War Propaganda", in volume 1, chapter 6 of Mein Kampf (1925), by Adolf Hitler J-Mac

'Q' I'm not a US citizen, but I do understand the right of protest. Many times as a student in the 80s I would see abunch of my fellows marching and protesting, and would join, only to later find out what the protest was about; I did this many times, and strangely, not once was the protest by the students I joined counter to my own sensibilities, both then and now. Your last sentence beginning, 'Supposedly..', is extremely sad to read, and makes me question whether you understand what 'Democracy' even means. There is no 'honeymoon' period where an elected leader is given the benefit of the doubt, at least not in my democracy, this appears to be a peculiarly American concept; where elected officials are off limits until a certain period has passed by; how absurd. Democratically elected officials are on the backfoot from day one, and if your democracy demands respect for these officials for a certain period of time, may I respectfully suggest your concept of democracy falls woefully short of the ideal; to hold elected officials accoutable for their policies and decisions. Trump is at present plainly using the Constituion of the US as something that can be molded, or ignored, depending upon how he feels at any given moment. Seven countries, besides the fact that all of these countries are emotional defalt countries, (Libya, and Iran, stand out), can anyone else, in the ID community see a connecting factor amongst this group of countries? I'll give you a hint it rhymes with Shmuslim. Is this a religious test of citizenship? Is this constitutional? Should US citizens be worried about Trump's cavalier approach to the use of the Constitution? And worse, he, Trump, is using really effective agit/prop. rvb8

Sorta reminds me of the drunk cowboy who loses at poker, and then draws his gun and accuses the winners of cheating. There are some people, powerful people, who won't tolerate a peaceful transition of power. They whip gullible idiots into a frenzy of hatred and violence. So, the cowboy draws his gun. "If I can't be happy, nobody can be happy," he slurs. Taking pictures, the reporter for the Tombstone Epitaph eggs him on, telling the cowboy that he really was cheated, The schoolteacher loudly demands that the cowboy be made sheriff of the town to stop the violence. Then, the reporter and the schoolteacher start lighting fires in the town, and the cowboy starts firing wildly into the confused crowd. Me? I don't hold much hope for politics, but I'd rather have my say with ballots rather than bullets. The people who want to escalate political disagreement into physical violence are traitors to the democratic process regardless of their views! They have learned nothing from history. They would love a totalitarian government over a pile of smoking rubble as long as they can be in charge. Supposedly, we have elected representatives to convey the will of the people, and we don't need to assemble massive mobs for every decision. What a concept! -Q Querius

j_a_d, the op is about the effectiveness, or otherwise of street protest, and its reporting by the media, Kairos explains; 'where manipulators keep trying to push/pull our window of acceptability through deceipt, poison, accusation, polarising, and more.' I'm not a troll, I was simply astounded at the accusation of supposed bias,(by the left orientated media I suppose), to manipulate; who exactly? A vulnerable ill informed public? Perhaps that public should become involved, educated on subjects that effect it. At present Trump has declared seven Muslim countries to be persona non-grata, in the US. Do you accept this policy? If you do, you are ill-informed. None of these seven countries have produced jihadis that have in any way been effective in harming US interests, or citizens. However, the citizens of Saudi-Arabia, the U.A.E, and Egypt and their associated jihadis have killed thousands of US citizens and remain off the Trump list; some have been as nasty as to suggest that this is because Trump has property investnents in these basket case countries. Kairos talks about agit/prop, and fails to point out the use by the Commander in Chief, of all his Executive power to agit/prop himself, and his absurd predjudices. Pindi's 'echo-chamber' observation is a sound criticism, indeed agit/prop works best within echo-chambers, albeit in ones considerably larger, and attracting far more contributors than this particular echo-chamber. rvb8

an enlightened atheist

There is no such thing. There is no such thing as an atheist at all. There are only bags of meat making noises. Andrew asauber

Trolls and the drive-by interlocutors who show up here never provide anything that is required for a substantive debate because apparently they don’t understand the need to start with factually grounded or even plausibly true premises. Personally I think it is pointless to argue with someone over their uniformed (and sometimes vacuous) personal opinions. john_a_designer

Kairos, one line cought me, out of the hundreds; 'speaks to twisting the theatre, arts, literature and the like into propoganda.' I know you are referring to old Soviet, 'Agitation/Propoganda', but I have to ask; "What is your preferred message?" Is it a Christian one, that denies evolution, is it one that denies the right to a safe abortion for women? Is it one where Donald Trump's immigration plan is sensible? You see, I fail to see why the Soviet agit-prop is wrong, and your own right. I know your 'right' is self evident, but not to me, and not to millions like me; what in your opinion is to be done with mine, and others dissent? For me, as an enlightened atheist, I say all power to you, your ID position is basically dead, so continue with your agit-prop, for all it's worth; little! As Pindi rightly points out, agit-prop works best with an audience, not within the limited arena of ten or twelve posters. rvb8

KF @34 - no. Serious comment. I used to enjoy the debates. Now there are no more debates here. Pindi

JAD @ 37: The silence is deafening. Truth Will Set You Free

JAD cf 33 above, and the OP, esp the straight or spin grid. All part of the grand shadow show game. KF PS: When mobs start chasing and attacking people giving them concussions we are dealing with riots and potential lynch mobs not protests. kairosfocus

What has the mainstream media been reporting on this?

Protesters at Portland International Airport in Oregon attacked a Donald Trump supporter on Sunday, knocking him unconscious after repeatedly hitting him in the head.

http://freebeacon.com/culture/trump-supporter-unconscious-protesters/ I haven’t seen anything. What would the coverage be if it was the other way around? (A Trump supporter attacking an anti-Trump protester). Is that what we mean by unbiased News reporting? Or, is it an example of a double standard? Of course, maybe the MSM is just being careful-- double checking their sources. Yeah, right. john_a_designer

SA, yup. Had a conversation recently that went down just that line. Years ago, you seemed to be talking outlandish things, but now I see and that makes a difference. KF kairosfocus

The journey from the emptiness of atheism to the union of mind, heart and existence with God ... has to begin with sincerity, and with taking serious issues seriously. Silver Asiatic

Looks like a drive-by troll strike meant to support gloating elsewhere. kairosfocus

F/N: I decided to augment my above at 31:

(Mebbe, some are too busy at the airports etc sucker-clubbing those they mob . . . or loading a hidden wrench up the sleeve to crack the skull of who they sucker-punch [or . . . ], to be online playing at cyber-trolling and stalking, too. Or, maybe, too busy enabling the black-shirts. [BTW, all of these and worse are known or suspected street agitator tactics; the danger zone for an attacker with a possibly concealed arm’s-length body contact weapon like a knife or a club or knuckleduster or a length of metal pipe or a bottle is 20+ feet. Keep away from such blackshirts unless prepared to use lethal force on a 1/2 second response time, AND to back yourself up in Court from King’s Attorneys and false witnesses out for your neck or life’s savings or career. This is now low grade civil war. And, on what was done to people in Pizza Parlors and bake shops, do not speak to them off mike beyond a standard script. Advisable, I need to call my supervisor or the like. This is now deadly serious, why on God’s earth did the USA elect a trained “Community Organiser” as President, this is his legacy.])

A word to the wise; earned the hard way 30+ years ago when I dealt with commi agit-prop experts trained in Havana and Moscow. KF kairosfocus

Pindi

what’s happened guys? This place has turned into almost a total echo chamber. Most of the comments on this post are by the author. Are there any active dissenting voices on UD? Must get boring huh?

I don't know what happened. But with KF maybe the dissent was more like hatred and obfuscation. And others, years ago thought this was an easy target. Spread some ridicule and walk away untouched. But it's not like that. We might have lost some agitators on our side also. It does get a little boring at times (for someone like me who likes encountering the opposition's view) - but that could be a good thing. Some very good work is being done pro-ID and it doesn't need to be a war-zone here for more of that to continue. Silver Asiatic

Pindi, the run-away is obvious and reveals by the co-ordinated cutoff that we were facing co-ordinated abusive trolling for YEARS. (Mebbe, some are too busy at the airports etc sucker-clubbing those they mob . . . or loading a hidden wrench up the sleeve to crack the skull of who they sucker-punch [or . . . ], to be online playing at cyber-trolling and stalking, too. Or, maybe, too busy enabling the black-shirts. [BTW, all of these and worse are known or suspected street agitator tactics; the danger zone for an attacker with a possibly concealed arm's-length body contact weapon like a knife or a club or knuckleduster or a length of metal pipe or a bottle is 20+ feet. Keep away from such blackshirts unless prepared to use lethal force on a 1/2 second response time, AND to back yourself up in Court from King's Attorneys and false witnesses out for your neck or life's savings or career. This is now low grade civil war. And, on what was done to people in Pizza Parlors and bake shops, do not speak to them off mike beyond a standard script. Advisable, I need to call my supervisor or the like. This is now deadly serious, why on God's earth did the USA elect a trained "Community Organiser" as President, this is his legacy.]) Now, there is a positive and serious discussion in progress on a current and vital matter of interest. Do you have something significant to say about agit-prop games? The floor is yours to say something: ________________ (If you are here to troll and distract, that, too will be duly noted.) KF kairosfocus

Pindi, You are free to offer an opinion about the content of the OP, if you didn't realize it yet. Andrew asauber

what's happened guys? This place has turned into almost a total echo chamber. Most of the comments on this post are by the author. Are there any active dissenting voices on UD? Must get boring huh? Pindi

JaD, Trump had a manifesto/platform, which was voted into power by the longstanding terms of the US Constitution, however he is the 4th not to win a global popular majority, thanks to NY and CA (with questions on numbers of illegal votes swirling). Every step has been taken to create a perception of illegitimacy and of tyranny and/or irrationality. This has led to ugly, riotous agit prop street theatre and linked media narratives/spin. Those who are playing these games are pretending that they only can form a legitimate majority and so are undermining the civil peace and stability. Even more ugly, enabling of the ongoing slaughter of 800+ million unborn children is a part of this. Such need to take pause and ponder not only the precedents they are setting but the nature of a federation and why the president is selected by an electoral college, forcing fifty in-parallel elections rather than one grand overall one. The strategists behind these shadow shows clearly do not have the best interests of the American people (and the wider world) in heart. If there is not a wake-up now, there will be disastrous consequences soon. I suspect these want chaos and contention to set the platform for a new order but have misunderstood the real -- or at least the anticipated -- balance of forces. Bluntly, those who make government by laws and votes impossible force us back to Mao's dictum that in the end political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. They need to ask themselves where the balance of firepower lies, and just who are the rank and file of the police and armed services. KF PS: It is not just propaganda but agitation working with it. kairosfocus

The hysteria, fueled by the mainstream media, over Trump’s so-called “travel ban,” which temporarily inconveniences travelers entering the U.S. from seven radicalized Islamic countries, should give us pause, since it is complicit in fanning the radical demonstration we are seeing at our airports As the following article points out Trump’s actions are both lawful (based on existing law) and constitutional. In the U.S. the President-- the executive branch-- are charged with enforcing the law.

Trump’s executive order is so modest that the foundation of it is essentially existing law. That law was passed unanimously by both bodies of Congress in 2002. In fact, it garnered the support of 16 Democrat senators and 57 Democrat House members who are still serving in their respective bodies! Following 9/11, Congress passed the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, which addressed many of the insecurities in our visa tracking system. The bill passed the House and Senate unanimously…

- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/01/these-73-sitting-democrats-voted-to-ban-visas-from-some-muslim-countries-that-law-still-exists#sthash.KPjQ7nl2.dpuf As a new President, Trump also has the right and power to change the policies of the previous administration. This is why we have elections! Trump clearly told the electorate what he intended to do, didn’t he? This is all U.S. civics 101, something I learned in high school-- but that was before our education system was subverted by the left. Part of the problem is that these things are no longer being taught in our public schools. Ignorance is the main breeding ground of political extremism, both on the left and right. It is the responsibility of the news media to objectively, accurately and honestly inform (and if need be, educate) people about how the government works. That tragically is no longer taking place in the U.S. What we have instead is advocacy journalism, which is blatantly pushing a secular progressive agenda. That is not news, it is propaganda. john_a_designer

Havel, power of the powerless: http://www.vaclavhavel.cz/showtrans.php?cat=eseje&val=2_aj_eseje.html&typ=HTML kairosfocus

"Fools who march to win the right to justify their sins; every nation that has fallen has fallen from within" --> Was that Dylan or whoever? --> Marches of folly predictably end in ruin --> Primary ignorance can be corrected with a teachable spirit but secondary ignorance due to the follies of closed minded indoctrination will require a breaking. --> Again, let us see what it took Germany to think again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5i9k7s9X_A --> this is perhaps even more disturbing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2vLZqU_kIQ --> do we really want to go down that road again? (And no, Trump is no Hitler; if you think that you have proved that you simply do not know what you are talking about while playing with very big matches. [I say that as someone who quite frankly does not like him -- and 501c3 Gestapo, that is a PERSONAL view, not endorsed by UD's management. For just one reference on why I say this, consider his grab them remark. I pray that God's grace will open his eyes, and many eyes.]) --> not, if we are sane. --> but right now, that is in question. KF kairosfocus

I do what I can to inform and educate, and I've managed to at least get a couple of relatives to see some of the more blatant stuff; the problem is that people are often committed to their worldviews as being an intrinsic aspect of their identity. That's why the left is committed to identity politics. It relieves them of having to make a rational, evidenced-based case for their views and against any other view. Virtue-signalling and PC conformity is literally all some people have to base their identity on. That's why they end up being "feminists" at marches orchestrated by Sharia-law advocates; they are virtue-signalled into marching even though they have no idea what they are marching for or who is organizing it or for what ultimate goal. They don't care, as long as they have fulfilled the required signal of virtue at the appointed time and place. William J Murray

SA: All too true:

Bible reading is an important aspect of culture that seems to be falling away

And of course in our smug and supercilious ignorance we disbelieve those who connect the dots to the consequences. Consequences, that are all too evident all around. KF PS: Let me get very, very explicit, with a pivotal text:

Rom 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation [from His wrath and punishment] to everyone who believes [in Christ as Savior], to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed, both springing from faith and leading to faith [disclosed in a way that awakens more faith]. As it is written and forever remains written, “The just and upright shall live by faith.” Unbelief and Its Consequences 18 For [God does not overlook sin and] the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who in their wickedness suppress and stifle the truth, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them [in their inner consciousness], for God made it evident to them. 20 For ever since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through His workmanship [all His creation, the wonderful things that He has made], so that they [who fail to believe and trust in Him] are without excuse and without defense. 21 For even though [d]they knew God [as the Creator], they did not [e]honor Him as God or give thanks [for His wondrous creation]. On the contrary, they became worthless in their thinking [godless, with pointless reasonings, and silly speculations], and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God for [f]an image [worthless idols] in the shape of mortal man and birds and four-footed animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their own hearts to [sexual] impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them [abandoning them to the degrading power of sin], 25 because [by choice] they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading and vile passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural [a function contrary to nature], 27 and in the same way also the men turned away from the natural function of the woman and were consumed with their desire toward one another, men with men committing shameful acts and in return receiving in their own bodies the inevitable and appropriate penalty for their wrongdoing. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God or consider Him worth knowing [as their Creator], God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do things which are improper and repulsive, 29 until they were filled (permeated, saturated) with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice and mean-spiritedness. They are gossips [spreading rumors], 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors [of new forms] of evil, disobedient and disrespectful to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful [without pity]. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree and His judgment, that those who do such things deserve death, yet they not only do them, but they even [enthusiastically] approve and tolerate others who practice them. [AMP]

--> Sounds familiar? It should, and this is no "obscure epistle by Paul," it is the cornerstone of Christian, gospel-based theology and has been on record since 57 AD. PPS: This morning, I am just a bit giddy as I was just able to find and download Savylev's General Physics and Theoretical Physics at archive.org kairosfocus

KF

Why modern, representational democracy depended on the rise of printing, the widely available Bible, increasing literacy, the reformation this triggered, the daily newspaper and revolutions fought out at great cost?

Bible reading is an important aspect of culture that seems to be falling away. A culture is formed around its sacred text and words -- and this provides the mental formation of the people. With the rise of printing, the same was probably true as today - a flood of various texts came in for people to absorb. But more popular fiction (Dickens, for example) was founded on Bible-principles. Today it's not a flood of print but etexts of all sorts. Literacy is probably growing, but much of it is used for distractions and the fragmentation of news cycles and social media communication (even just texting by phone). That's what tends to balkanize society - fracturing unity. Silver Asiatic

F/N: I have cleaned up and slightly updated the OP on agit prop:

it is worth the while to pause and unpack the old Soviet/Bolshevik term, agit prop. Namely, it strictly/narrowly . . . per current dictionary definitions . . . speaks to twisting the theatre, arts, literature and the like into propaganda. However, on both the history and the inherent dynamics as work it readily extends to the mob-ocracy game, in which the streets and news media or institutions of intellectual leadership and education — notice the appeals to “consensus” on matters of controversy or where something is patently wrong with the dominant and too often domineering schools of thought . . . — are turned into a grand theatre projecting shadow shows confused for reality. Often, such shadow shows are sponsored by governments, sometimes by powerful factions. And of course, such theatre too often becomes bloody, creating a horrific escalating spiral of chaos, confusion, retaliation and polarisation. Under certain circumstances, if becomes not just rioting but rebellion and guerilla war — these days, 4th generation war [think of how the Palestinian Arab uprisings and declaratively genocidal terrorism campaigns have come to be viewed as “liberation” struggles by many across the world . . . ] — or even radical revolution.

KF PS: William S Lindh, on 4th Gen War:

Characteristics such as decentralization and initiative carry over from the Third to the Fourth Generation, but in other respects the Fourth Generation marks the most radical change since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. In Fourth Generation war, the state loses its monopoly on war. All over the world, state militaries find themselves fighting non-state opponents such as al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the FARC. Almost everywhere, the state is losing. Fourth Generation war is also marked by a return to a world of cultures, not merely states, in conflict. We now find ourselves facing the Christian West's oldest and most steadfast opponent, Islam. After about three centuries on the strategic defensive, following the failure of the second Turkish siege of Vienna in 1683, Islam has resumed the strategic offensive, expanding outward in every direction. In Third Generation war, invasion by immigration can be at least as dangerous as invasion by a state army. Nor is Fourth Generation warfare merely something we import, as we did on 9/11. At its core lies a universal crisis of legitimacy of the state, and that crisis means many countries will evolve Fourth Generation war on their soil. America, with a closed political system (regardless of which party wins, the Establishment remains in power and nothing really changes) and a poisonous ideology of "multiculturalism," is a prime candidate for the home-grown variety of Fourth Generation war – which is by far the most dangerous kind. Where does the war in Iraq fit in this framework? I suggest that the war we have seen thus far is merely a powder train leading to the magazine. The magazine is Fourth Generation war by a wide variety of Islamic non-state actors, directed at America and Americans (and local governments friendly to America) everywhere. The longer America occupies Iraq, the greater the chance that the magazine will explode. If it does, God help us all.

Do we begin to understand the fire we are playing with? kairosfocus

WJM: Do people you deal with realise how many warning signs are in something like:

People are being triggered and pushed to action and near hysteria not be the facts of Trump’s executive order, but by the televised and reported reactions by figureheads and by actual instigators within these groups that push for reactive protests and other actions in an attempt to bully Trump (and the majority who agree with his E.O.), if not actually get someone to harm him, and undermine the legitimacy of his administration. They characterized the actions of Obama one way, in an acceptable manner, and reacted to it with support and agreement, while they characterize the exact same action by Trump as something racist, xenophobic, fascist and dangerous. People who do not do their homework do not even realize they are being triggered to react to X in a highly charged, emotional way not because of X itself, but because of how trigger words are used to characterize X by people using them for other goals.

Do we realise the fire we are playing with? That vultures are already circling and more are coming? KF kairosfocus

WJM, do your interlocutors know what agit prop is, how it works, where it ends -- and what are the signs that point to it having been let loose? (Dismissive, mind-closing talking points are most ill-advised.) Have they taken time to carefully study Ac 19 and Ac 27 to see how fast things can spin out of control? Do they know the history of the Peloponnesian war and the collapse of Athenian democracy? Why modern, representational democracy depended on the rise of printing, the widely available Bible, increasing literacy, the reformation this triggered, the daily newspaper and revolutions fought out at great cost? (And yes, this means what we have is inherently unstable, has to be stabilised from the Judaeo-Christian tradition that so many are wont to sneeringly dismiss today, and so was not feasible until C17 - 18. We don't know the fire we are playing with.) KF kairosfocus

WJM, I lived through a mini civil war in my native land. What I am seeing is all too familiar, all too chillingly familiar. The next level is, gun-play will come in and/or bombs -- perhaps Molotov cocktails. Just think, if a mob is chasing you down and hitting you with hard blunt objects, how do you defend yourself? A mob is attacking your vehicle and is breaking into it to seize you, what do you do -- knowing several cases of lynchings like this? Guns again, or gunning the car and knocking down people. The agit prop operators know this and want it as they want chaos. it is beginning to look like the BLM attacks on the police to passivate them in the face of mobs was a preliminary move. The agit prop media who will then use the street events to push a media narrative to the next level actually are enablers of what is beginning to happen. When that begins, I can see someone applying rule 303 and sniping reporters on the street who are enablers, live on camera. We are at the crumbling edge of a terrible cliff here. KF PS: I begin to think the same mobs were being mobilised and organised in any case to be the storm troopers of the new order, to attack holdouts against the progressivist agenda. What happened is, the Midwest working classes voted down the programme. But the thing is, if this plays out further, people are going to learn the hard way why it is important for the USA to have a 2nd Amendment. And, disciplined police as well as national guard units. These urban mobsters forget that there are millions of veterans, hunters and present military (not to mention police), who are largely based in the zones that pushed Trump over the top to victory; someone has failed to correctly calibrate the correlation of forces and factors at work, and that includes the media who think the mike and cam and pen or keyboard are stronger than what their irresponsible behaviour may well finally let loose. Unfortunately, if things get really out of control, you may well get a much more authoritarian state in the end, when all of this comes out in the wash. I STRONGLY ADVISE, STAND DOWN FROM THIS AGIT-PROP RUBBISH, IT WILL ONLY LEAD TO HORRORS THAT WE SCARCE DREAM OF IN OUR WORST NIGHTMARES. kairosfocus

as to: "they will only get more violent because that is their ultimate recourse to all opposition." Humorously, most of the radical left shun owning guns whilst conservatives are fairly well armed. As one commented noted, "Seriously. Conservatives own 200+ million guns, 12 trillion rounds of ammo. If we were violent, you'd know it." https://twitter.com/bob_owens/status/671150044784013312?lang=en bornagain77

One of the problems I run into when talking to others about this is the quick dismissal of "conspiracy theories" by people that haven't taken the time to do the investigative work in uncovering the current and historical documentation that blatantly reveals the goals and methodology of those working to undermine Western civilization - bot from the socialist/progressive/communist front, and from the Islamic front. Nobody wants to believe that the particular causes they identify with and are emotionally attached to are being used for an entirely different ultimate purpose. That's what makes it so hard to have a rational discussion about touchy subjects; these people have been trained to react emotionally to certain topics as if there is no room for debate or discussion. The have been equipped with memes that endorse these modes of thought (and behavior) by Academia, politicians and the media. A rather large percentage of the population has been primed to take disruptive action instead of to discuss and debate. For example, there are several figures of authority, academia and media in the USA today (and in other countries) proliferating and endorsing the idea that assassinating Trump would be an acceptable act. The same people and groups who now are protesting and threatening and having a meltdown over Trump's temp immigration and refugee ban from a few countries were utterly silent when Obama did exactly the same thing. People are being triggered and pushed to action and near hysteria not be the facts of Trump's executive order, but by the televised and reported reactions by figureheads and by actual instigators within these groups that push for reactive protests and other actions in an attempt to bully Trump (and the majority who agree with his E.O.), if not actually get someone to harm him, and undermine the legitimacy of his administration. They characterized the actions of Obama one way, in an acceptable manner, and reacted to it with support and agreement, while they characterize the exact same action by Trump as something racist, xenophobic, fascist and dangerous. People who do not do their homework do not even realize they are being triggered to react to X in a highly charged, emotional way not because of X itself, but because of how trigger words are used to characterize X by people using them for other goals. As KF points out, this is a dangerous situation being brought to a head, unfortunately, by the election of someone who simply will not capitulate to such threats and intimidation. As the progressive left and Islamist faction more fully realize that Trump will not back down no matter how much they lie, protest, manipulate, threaten and bully, they will only get more violent because that is their ultimate recourse to all opposition. William J Murray

Looks like we need a reasonable definition of what Fascism is, here I clip from my discussion here: >>FASCISM: At heart, it is the notion that in a day of "unprecedented" crisis that targets a large -- locally dominant or pivotally influential -- perceived victim group or class or religious or racial/national body, a super-man figure emerges to rescue the victims; one who is beyond ordinary human powers and limits (including those of morality and just law). A political messiah who stands as champion for the identity group to save it, defending it from the various scapegoated out-groups who are held to be to blame for the victimisation of the in-group. That super-man political messiah then seizes power and is widely recognised as a man of "destiny." In an atmosphere of hysteria, slander and propagandistic deception that is usually multiplied by chaos and violence or at least riotous assemblies in the streets baying for blood, the power blocs, political, legal, military, corporate, religious, etc then align with him, giving him effectively unlimited power in the face of a crisis. We have now reached the threshold of tyranny. And because of the perceived unprecedented crisis, that super-man "people's champion" figure is cheered on and supported in taking extraordinary measures; measures that sacrifice liberty and justice for the sake of the promised utopian order. And so reigns of terror and aggressive wars naturally emerge.>> --> not that the mobs care to be accurate or fair -- part of the problem KF kairosfocus

Scott Adams -- Dilbert -- on the cognitive dissonance triggered by projecting Fascism and "next Hitler" etc to Trump: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156540315831/be-careful-what-you-wish-for-especially-if-it-is >>As a trained persuader, I’m seeing a dangerous situation forming that I assume is invisible to most of you. The setup is that during the presidential campaign Trump’s critics accused him of being Hitler(ish) and they were sure other citizens would see it too, thus preventing this alleged monster from taking office. They were wrong. The alleged monster took office. Now you have literally millions of citizens in the United States who were either right about Trump being the next Hitler, and we will see that behavior emerge from him soon, or they are complete morons. That’s a trigger for cognitive dissonance. The science says these frightened folks will start interpreting all they see as Hitler behavior no matter how ridiculous it might seem to the objective observer. And sure enough, we are seeing that. To be fair, Trump made it easy this week with his temporary immigration ban. If you assume Trump is Hitler, that fits with your hypothesis. But of course it also fits the hypothesis that he’s just doing his job. We’re all seeing what we expect to see. But lately I get the feeling that Trump’s critics have evolved from expecting Trump to be Hitler to preferring it. Obviously they don’t prefer it in a conscious way. But the alternative to Trump becoming Hitler is that they have to live out the rest of their lives as confirmed morons. No one wants to be a confirmed moron. And certainly not after announcing their Trump opinions in public and demonstrating in the streets. It would be a total embarrassment for the anti-Trumpers to learn that Trump is just trying to do a good job for America. It’s a threat to their egos. A big one. And this gets me to my point. When millions of Americans want the same thing, and they want it badly, the odds of it happening go way up.>> --> the agit prop turnabout projection joined to street theatre violence and media projection and spin does in fact push authorities into clampdowns which are then readily perceived as "proving" the accusations --> this is a hard challenge to answer, and this leads to a need to be very restrained and yet firm and just in dealing with disorderly and wrongful behaviour --> as a case in point [and again, I am forced to use Infowars without approving Mr Jones et al, I am simply documenting a fact], consider this attack against a man (cf fuller video and telling blame the victim of a mob rush and attack comment discussion at infowars . . . ) on Sunday at an airport (during protests against the anti-terrorism country temporary travel ban) and punching -- or possibly clubbing -- him out cold:

The clip shows anti-Trump protesters pushing and shoving their way into the airport aggressively as they yell “peace! peace!” A confrontation then quickly arises before one of the anti-Trump radicals punches a man from behind, knocking him out cold. The footage appears to show two anti-Trump protesters taking a swing at the same victim. It subsequently emerged that the victim, 39-year-old Grant Chisholm, a member of the Bible Believers group, was hit with “something metallic”. “They almost killed me tonight,” Chisholm told the Oregonian. While some of the anti-Trump protesters appear shocked at the violence and denounce it, others are heard quite clearly celebrating the attack. “That’s how you talk to a Nazi! That’s right!” screams one, before gloating, “Your boy got knocked out!” “Don’t lose the propaganda war!” shouts another, presumably aware that the attack makes anti-Trump demonstrators look bad. “Wooo! Hunt the Nazis!” screams another man in celebration of the vicious assault. “That’s right Nazi boy! Where’s your f***ing fuhrer now bitch!” yells another. To add insult to injury, the demonstrators then began chanting “peaceful protest!” as the victim lay prostrate on the floor of the airport. It seems probable that the legitimization of the attack was fueled by the mainstream media’s veneration of the violent attack on alt-right leader RIchard Spencer, who was punched in the face during an unprovoked attack at the inauguration.

--> Oregon Live -- and note the difference in how the incident is reported:

One of the counter-demonstrators was assaulted just after 5 p.m., Port of Portland spokesman Steve Johnson said. Grant Chisholm, 39 of Portland told The Oregonian/Oregonlive that he was at the airport with three other members of the group Bible Believers for a counter-protest when a Trump opponent hit him in the head three times with something metallic. Chisholm dropped and drifted in and out of unconsciousness, he said, while vomiting as other protesters kicked him in the head. "They almost killed me tonight," Chisholm said. A thee-minute video posted on a Facebook site called "Women for Trump Movement" shows a man falling to the ground inside the terminal after another man punches him in the head. People immediately circle the man on the ground and appear to keep the shouting crowd at bay. Police eventually arrive to control the throng. The man stirs and raises his hand for help as some people chant: "Peaceful protest."

--> likewise, consider the torching of Lance Wallnau's Limousine in Washington DC on the day of Mr Trump's inauguration --> contrast the reality of what fascism and nazism were, with the reality on the ground and the rhetoric we are seeing --> ask, just who are the street thugs? --> observe the over-wrought, hysterical, angry, over-excited, polarised, violent behaviour we are seeing --> we need to ask serious questions as to where we are going as a civilisation KF kairosfocus

Q, utopias -- as the name suggests -- do not and cannot exist. Where also, if one builds on lies, one is building on falsehood, error and fantasy, not reality. As Aristotle pointed out in Metaphysics 1011b, truth says of what is that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. Building on lies thus becomes unsustainable, in many ways and to try to sustain falsehood in the face of increasingly evident reality will require exertion of oppressive power which feeds chaos. The very act of institutionalising lies and backing them with power also corrodes the basis of communication and cooperation in an institution or community. Thus, building on utopian lies and demanding approval of lies ends in undermining society itself. Agit prop may help attain power and it may strengthen such power in the short term, but in the long term it is self defeating and ruinous, a march of folly. Unfortunately, it is increasingly evident that this sort of pattern is increasingly manifest in our civilisation. KF kairosfocus

A lie spoken to advance a greater cause is still a lie, and a willingness to obscure the truth for an ideal contains the seeds of its destruction. This is why Utopian movements quickly resort to the expediencies of coercion and force, and usually end in some form of genocidal catastrophe. Can anyone think of any exceptions? -Q Querius

Recall: to lie is to speak with disregard to truth in hope that what is said or suggested will be taken as true. This raises serious questions about the whole ethos of agit prop. KF PS: "Fascism" is being tossed around as a verbal grenade just now, and is implied often even when not directly stated. I suggest a look here as a start to balancing our view, including of the National Socialist German Labour Party. (And yes, strange as this seems to many, Hitler was a Socialist; also Mussolini was at one time a leading Italian Socialist and was involved with the Socialist International. He was later expelled, it seems over his national fervour as opposed to the socialist decision to be neutral relative to the first world war. Note, at about that time the Social Democrats of Germany voted to join the war effort, earning the Kaiser's praise. Mussolini founded fascism post WW I. We should realise that at that time, even many conservatives believed the socialists were essentially correct and that socialism was the future. ) kairosfocus

Lenin, in What is to be done (1902), regarding creating a central, regularly issued widely distributed party newspaper that serves as a tool of indoctrination, training and organisation -- directly echoed in the Struggle newspaper that I saw eight decades later in Jamaica: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/v.htm >>Unless we train strong political organisations in the localities, even an excellently organised all-Russia newspaper will be of no avail. This is incontrovertible. But the whole point is that there is no other way of training strong political organisations except through the medium of an all-Russia newspaper. The author [of a critique] missed the most important statement Iskra made before it proceeded to set forth its “plan”: that it was necessary “to call for the formation of a revolutionary organisation, capable of uniting all forces and guiding the movement in actual practice and not in name alone, that is, an organisation ready at any time to support every protest and every outbreak and use it to build up and consolidate the fighting forces suitable for the decisive struggle” [--> notice the integration of street activism, protests and uprisings etc]. But now after the February and March events, everyone will agree with this in principle, continues Iskra. Yet what we need is not a solution of the question in principle, but its practical solution; we must immediately advance a definite constructive plan through which all may immediately set to work to build from every side. Now we are again being dragged away from the practical solution towards something which in principle is correct, indisputable, and great, but which is entirely inadequate and incomprehensible to the broad masses of workers, namely, “to rear strong political organisations”! This is not the point at issue, most worthy author. The point is how to go about the rearing and how to accomplish it. It is not true to say that “we have been carrying on our work mainly among enlightened workers, while the masses have been engaged almost exclusively in the economic struggle”. Presented in such a form, the thesis reduces itself to Svoboda’s usual but fundamentally false contraposition of the enlightened workers to the “masses”. In recent years, even the enlightened workers have been “engaged almost exclusively in the economic struggle”. That is the first point. On the other hand, the masses will never learn to conduct the political struggle until we help to train leaders for this struggle, both from among the enlightened workers and from among the intellectuals. Such leaders can acquire training solely by systematically evaluating all the everyday aspects of our political life, all attempts at protest and struggle on the part of the various classes and on various grounds. Therefore, to talk of “rearing political organisations” and at the same time to contrast the “paper work” of a political newspaper to “live political work in the localities” is plainly ridiculous. Iskra has adapted its “plan” for a newspaper to the “plan” for creating a “militant preparedness” to support the unemployed movement [--> what is happening among say the 95 million not in the US workforce?], peasant revolts, discontent among, the Zemstvo people, “popular indignation against some tsarist bashi-bazouk on the rampage”, etc. Anyone who is at all acquainted with the movement knows full well that the vast majority of local organisations have never even dreamed of these things; that many of the prospects of “live political work” here indicated have never been realised by a single organisation; that the attempt, for example, to call attention to the growth of discontent and protest among the Zemstvo intelligentsia rouses feelings of consternation and perplexity in Nadezhdin (“Good Lord, is this newspaper intended for Zemstvo people?”—The Eve, p. 129), among the Economists (Letter to Iskra, No. 12), and among many practical workers. Under these circumstances, it is possible to “begin” only by inducing people to think about all these things, to summarise and generalise all the diverse signs of ferment and active struggle. In our time, when Social-Democratic tasks are being degraded, the only way “live political work” can be begun is with live political agitation, which is impossible unless we have an all-Russia newspaper, frequently issued and regularly distributed. [--> remember, this is one of the all-time most successful radical revolutionaries writing as he laid the basis for what would happen in 1917.] Those who regard the Iskra “plan” as a manifestation of “bookishness” have totally failed to understand its substance and take for the goal that which is suggested as the most suitable means for the present time. These people have not taken the trouble to study the two comparisons that were drawn to present a clear illustration of the plan. Iskra wrote: The publication of an all-Russia political newspaper must be the main line by which we may unswervingly develop, deepen, and expand the organisation (viz., the revolutionary organisation that is ever ready to support every protest and every outbreak). Pray tell me, when bricklayers lay bricks in, various parts of an enormous, unprecedentedly large structure, is it “paper” work to use a line to help them find the correct place for the bricklaying; to indicate to them the ultimate goal of the common work; to enable them to use, not only every brick, but even every piece of brick which, cemented to the bricks laid before and after it, forms a finished, continuous line? And are we not now passing through precisely such a period in our Party life when we have bricks and bricklayers, but lack the guide line for all to see and follow? Let them shout that in stretching out the line, we want to command. Had we desired to command, gentlemen, we would have written on the title page, not “Iskra, No. 1”, but “Rabochaya Gazeta, No. 3”, as we were invited to do by certain comrades, and as we would have had a perfect right to do after the events described above. But we did not do that. We wished to have our hands free to wage an irreconcilable struggle against all pseudo-Social-Democrats; we wanted our line, if properly laid, to be respected because it was correct, and not because it had been laid by an official organ. >> --> update the technologies and see if this is not still highly relevant. --> BTW, this is more or less the birth of the notorious Pravda. --> Bring to bear the agit prop strategy and much more swims into clear focus. --> Battle for media, message dominance and for hearts and minds becomes clear. --> The agit prop trains and ships came later and used audio-visual technologies to dazzle and reach semi-literate or illiterate peasants. --> Again, the point here is that we need to understand the roots of what we face. KF kairosfocus

WJM, yes it speaks volumes. There is also video evidence of smug refusal to discuss the facts of Islamist oppression of women (not to mention the centuries-long apartheid-like oppression of dhimmis under Sharia), backed up by hostility and dismissive, loaded -- and ill-founded -- talking points. We are dealing with indoctrination, closed mindedness, polarisation and failure to discern a dire threat due to ideologically induced blindness and willful ignorance. KF kairosfocus

I noticed that some of the leaders and speakers of the so-called "women's march" were Sharia law advocates. When self-identified "feminists" will allow Sharia law advocates as event leaders and sponsors but refuse pro-trump and pro-life women's groups the same, you know something is rotten. William J Murray

A key sign is when people are whipped into a polarised hyper-intense hysteria and/or panic; this is the state of mind in which manipulation becomes easiest and power moves are most likely to attract blind support. This is plainly going on now, and many major media houses and institutions of thought, analysis and education as well as policy-making across our civilisation are guilty of making the move from news to agitprop and shadow shows. I note, the abortion problem is a key indicator of what is going on, indeed for cause elsewhere I have called it the mother cancer that is sending out metastases across our world. kairosfocus

slide show https://prezi.com/5excgzvimigo/stalin-and-lenins-propaganda/ kairosfocus

Enc Brit online: https://www.britannica.com/topic/agitprop >>Agitprop, abbreviated from Russian agitatsiya propaganda (agitation propaganda), political strategy in which the techniques of agitation and propaganda are used to influence and mobilize public opinion. Although the strategy is common, both the label and an obsession with it were specific to the Marxism practiced by communists in the Soviet Union. The twin strategies of agitation and propaganda were originally elaborated by the Marxist theorist Georgy Plekhanov, who defined propaganda as the promulgation of a number of ideas to an individual or small group and agitation as the promulgation of a single idea to a large mass of people. Expanding on these notions in his pamphlet What Is to Be Done? (1902), Vladimir Lenin stated that the propagandist, whose primary medium is print, explains the causes of social inequities such as unemployment or hunger, while the agitator, whose primary medium is speech, seizes on the emotional aspects of these issues to arouse his audience to indignation or action. Agitation is thus the use of political slogans and half-truths to exploit the grievances of the public and thereby to mold public opinion and mobilize public support. Propaganda, by contrast, is the reasoned use of historical and scientific arguments to indoctrinate the educated and so-called “enlightened” members of society, such as party members. The term agitprop originated as a shortened form of the Agitation and Propaganda Section of the Central Committee Secretariat of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. This department of the Central Committee was established in the early 1920s and was responsible for determining the content of all official information, overseeing political education in schools, watching over all forms of mass communication, and mobilizing public support for party programs. Every unit of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union, from the republic to the local-party level, had an agitprop section; at the local level, agitators (party-trained spokesmen) were the chief points of contact between the party and the public. The word agitprop is used in English to describe such departments and, by extension, any work, especially in the theatre, that aims to educate and indoctrinate the public. It typically has a negative connotation, reflecting Western distaste for the overt use of drama and other art forms to achieve political goals.>> --> This is serious stuff, and we can no longer afford to be ignorant or naive and trusting -- aka, gullible. KF kairosfocus

More: http://www.apparatusjournal.net/index.php/apparatus/article/view/2/75 >>Using art for propaganda and agitation was an expressed wish of Soviet political leaders at the beginning of the 1920s. While the first agit-trains, on which Vertov worked, were meant to support the Red Army forces at the front lines during the Russian Civil War (1917-1923), Aleksandr Medvedkin’s film train ten years later had a quite different goal. In both cases, however, the State power and the Communist Party sent trains and steamers to the periphery of the vast Soviet territory to spread their political message and to educate the (mostly) illiterate populace as well as children. The trains had many uses. For example, political leaders like Lev Trotskii often travelled in them to inspect the front lines. At every station along the tracks, propaganda material was distributed to civilians and soldiers of the Red Army. Agitational stations (agitpunkty) were established at major railway stations, where libraries, lecture halls and often theatres were opened. The Hungarian writer Arthur Holitscher for example noticed such agitation stations in his report from 1921: In the hall of the railway station – in every train station hall, even in the smallest village – the door of a wooden shed is open, and above this shed one can read the word agitpunkt. In this shed a man sells and distributes agitation brochures, leaflets and the official newspapers. The hall is, like the walls of all cities, plastered all over with posters and newspapers (Holitscher 2012: 55). While the political section drew up itineraries and organized the work, the information section was responsible for organizing lectures, distributing brochures, and it also controlled the film projector (Kenez 1985: 60). Cinema was considered a very powerful instrument in agitational work and films were even produced just to be shown in agit-trains. The Soviet People’s Commissar of Enlightenment responsible for culture and education, Anatolii Lunacharskii, wrote in 1919: Furthermore, the main task of cinema in both its scientific and feature divisions is that of propaganda. Generally speaking, every art, as Tolstoy once remarked, is above all a means of instilling the artist’s emotions into the masses. Education in the wider sense of the word consists in the dissemination of ideas among minds that would otherwise remain a stranger to them. Cinema can accomplish both these things with particular force: it constitutes, on the one hand, a visual clarion for the dissemination of ideas and, on the other hand, if we introduce elements of the refined, the poetic, the pathetic etc., it is capable of touching the emotions and thus becomes an apparatus of agitation (Taylor and Christie 1988: 47). Also the newspaper Kommunar reported on November 3, 1918: Films with a revolutionary character will also be widely used at the Front. The Committee is organizing ten special trains, named after Comrade Lenin, three of which will be leaving for the Fronts at the beginning of November. The trains will have a mobile camera, set up in a car. Film Material will also be sent to the provinces (Anonymous 2004: 38). The trains were equipped with a so called “polit office”, a complaints office (this office was very important and used extensively by the population, most of the complaints were dealt with on the spot), an information office, an editorial office, a newspaper office, a print shop, a cinema, etc. These offices were staffed by agitators who had been sent from the Central Committee, as well as People’s Commissars, who served as instructors. The 16 to 18 car long trains carried a radio station and even had their own internal telephone system. Although there are rumours about mobile film labs on the trains, to date there is no evidence of this (MacKay 2015). The raw film was usually sent to larger labs in the cities. There is also no proof that films freshly shot by agit-film cameramen were presented on the journey. On average a train carried about a hundred people, of which only 15-20 were engaged in practical agitation, the rest were support staff (Kenez 1985: 59).>> --> Where it started. --> What do you think mass print magazines, newspapers, radio and television would do? --> How do "street theatre" protests and riots, fifth column agitation, the manipulation of front groups and movements, community organising etc fit in? --> What about Internet media? --> How are the radical activists and agendas seeking message dominance and marginalising/ discrediting/ silencing of what lies beyond the pale of where they want the Overton Window? --> What are ways to move beyond the shadow shows game? KF kairosfocus

Federation of American Scientists: https://fas.org/irp/world/russia/su_glos.html >>Agitprop (Otdel agitatsii i propagandy) Agitation and Propaganda Department, established by the Central Committee of the party in 1920. Absorbed by the Ideological Department in 1988. The term agitprop means the use of mass media to mobilize the public to accomplish the regime's demands.>> --> This brings out the media connexion. kairosfocus

Forgot the Wallnau connexion -- added. kairosfocus

Let us not be taken in by sponsored agit prop shadow show games pretending to be reality or truth, street theatre and pseudo-consensus of "experts" pundits and the like. kairosfocus