Darwinist rhetorical tactics Evolutionary materialism's amorality Geo-strategic issues governance Lessons of History Politics/policy and origins issues

William S Lind (yes, 4th gen war) vs cultural marxism

Spread the love

. . . and of course, the long subversive march through the institutions that dominate culture.

As in, we need to understand some of why a self-falsifying and inherently amoral ideology of evolutionary materialistic scientism has so much traction in our day, and why so many bizarre agendas are being pushed so hard by the narrative shapers, manipulators and spin doctors working in the information battle-space, to what effect. Let us never forget that if we are led to judge the true and straight by the false and crooked, we will unavoidably end up in conflict with reality; to our detriment.

(And yes, this follows up on the current Wikileaks revelations about the long term manipulation of the public through the media, education, agit prop and more, drastically undermining the stability of our civilisation, especially democratic self-government by a free,well-informed, soundly thinking people.)

H’mm, “long subversive march through the institutions . . . ”  rings a bell right off, and that brings back up the seven mountains/ gate-ways/ spheres of influence that are the commanding heights of community:

seven_mountains_culture_agendaSo, too, it brings up the change issue that our current objectors are ever so eager to duck, a march of folly over a cliff:

change_challWe need to ask some pointed questions on what has been going on for a long time, given the lesson of Acts 27 on how Mr Moneybags and his bought and paid for technicos can manipulate us into marches of ruinous folly.

Not to mention, why is it that by and large we — our whole civilisation — are not keyed in on our geostrategic peril as a top priority item:

geostrat-picDidn’t former media darling and the last leader of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev, now 85, just come out of retirement to warn us about three pivotal issues that we should focus on?

As in:

“I think the world has reached a dangerous point,” Gorbachev, 85, told state news agency RIA Novosti . . . .

“It is necessary to return to the main priorities. These are nuclear disarmament, the fight against terrorism, the prevention of an environmental disaster,” he said.

“Compared to these challenges, all the rest slips into the background.”

So, why are these NOT the top headline issues?

Where of course, the first two — Islam-IST terrorism and nukes — are directly tied together, especially now that the USA seems to have paid the Mullahs up to US$ 1.7 billions in cash [yes, three plane-loads it seems], effectively as ransom and given the global geostrategic picture. For the third, I suggest we would be well advised to think of “environment” as “surroundings” that we interact with, involving three inextricably intertwined domains: the bio-physical/ natural, the socio-cultural and the econ-policy. With those adjustments, I agree with Mr Gorbachev.

Where also, political and policy decisions are effectively made “downstream” of where society and culture are, especially as filtered through dominant media narratives. So, if we are to survive and thrive in a highly adverse situation, we need to understand how our civilisation is being ruthlessly manipulated.

Okay, here is an eye-opener documentary hosted by Lind:

[youtube _w0TOJspijA]

(He has a lecture from 1998 here, there is an interesting article here, and this may also help.)

It seems to me that a sober-minded assessment of where we are and where we are heading in light of key trends in the world just does not seem to grab attention or tickle our itching ears.

But in the end reality, not shadow shows, will prevail.

Speaking of, here is that Plato’s Cave video animation again (for those who don’t want to read — itself, a very bad sign):

[youtube d2afuTvUzBQ]

Now, let us think together about our civilisation, its trends and what we need to do. Before, it is too late to avert going over the cliff. END

39 Replies to “William S Lind (yes, 4th gen war) vs cultural marxism

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    Folks,

    Is it not time to stand?

    If not now, then when?

    If not here, then where?

    If not us, then who?

    KF

  2. 2
    john_a_designer says:

    Here is a recent article, by a PhD student (classics, history, and literature) named Moses Apostaticus, which does an excellent job briefly describing the history and cultural influence of the so-called Frankfurt school of Marxism:

    Marxism is always cloaked in high-sounding utopian rhetoric. This is a ruse. What cultural Marxists seek has nothing to do with true diversity, social harmony or universal tolerance. They don’t want the races getting along. They seek power. The solution for the perceived injustices that Cultural Marxists have manufactured is radical social engineering. The power to carry out this social engineering must be given, of course, to a politically-correct elite determined to remake society along ideological lines.

    This is why cultural Marxists always seek to enter government, academe or influential positions in the media. In the process of remaking society, unsurprisingly, these Cultural Marxists gain enormous wealth, status and power. This is how careers and fortunes are made in the industry of grievance. It is also why Marxism is so appealing to the ambitious and unscrupulous.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09.....z4NGiQSI3t

    Remember the free speech movement? Growing up in the sixties, I do. The truth about free speech movement: it wasn’t about free speech; it was about using dirty words. It was an attack the sensibilities of people who adhere to traditional values. I can guarantee you that some of the same people who were advocating “free speech” in the 1960’s as students are now backing politically correct speech codes as tenured professors. But, of course their students are still free to use dirty words.

    The so-called social agenda (issues concerning race, class, gender etc.) of secular progressive left is not really about solving problems; it’s about using these things to gain power and dominate society. In other words, these are wedge issues designed to provoke dissent, not really address the issues, which are indeed legitimate issues. That’s why exploiting them can be so powerful.

  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    Seven mountains dominionism sounds a whole lot like a Christian version of the worldwide caliphate to which the whole of Islam allegedly aspires.

  4. 4

    Don’t be so stupid, Seversky.

  5. 5
    Querius says:

    Regarding Dominionism . . argh!

    What is it about Jesus telling his disciples

    “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

    – John 18:36 (NIV)

    that some people don’t get?

    Why is this so hard to understand?

    Does one need an advanced degree in theology to understand that Jesus said:

    My . . . kingdom . . . is . . . not . . . of . . . this . . . world.

    Read His lips.

    The words are all one syllable long except for “kingdom,” which consists of king and domain (Old English).

    This world and its struggles, ambitions, greed, lust for power, subversion, lies, murders, hatreds, slanders, oppressions, abuses, corruptions, arrogance, robberies, collusions, perversions, and brutalities is ALL going to hell in a hand basket.

    Jesus made it possible to escape the judgment to come to anyone who is willing to be saved. He didn’t command Christians to control the world, make it peaceful, or to punish sin, but to save individuals from it all–to set them free from this slavery.

    Judgment is reserved for God alone:

    And the nations were enraged, and Your wrath came, and the time came for the dead to be judged, and the time to reward Your bond-servants the prophets and the saints and those who fear Your name, the small and the great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth.”

    – Revelation 11:18 (NASB)

    This is authentic Christianity.

    -Q

  6. 6
    Laszlo says:

    john_a_designer

    Well said!

  7. 7
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev,

    Lessee, from the direction of Khorasan, there shall arise an army of the black flags and Mahdi shall be among them; if you must crawl across ice and snow, join the all conquering army.

    It subjugates the ME and from a ME base Mahdi (the last Caliph) shall dominate the whole world to the E and the W. Somewhere in there the gharqad tree massacre of Jews written into the Hamas covenant is to happen. There is the Mahdi’s sidekick, prophet Isa who is to destroy all pigs, break all crosses and convert all Christians (presumably, at sword point).

    And so forth.

    Is that what you really think the Christian faith and gospel (including the Lordship of the Risen Christ) are about in some weird mirror-image of the hadiths I just summarised?

    That’s a ridiculous strawman caricature.

    Contrast, Daniel’s revelation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream:

    Dan 2:31 “You saw, O king, and behold, a great image. This image, mighty and of exceeding brightness, stood before you, and its appearance was frightening. 32 The head of this image was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its middle and thighs of bronze, 33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. 34 As you looked, a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.

    36 “This was the dream. Now we will tell the king its interpretation. 37 You, O king, the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, and the might, and the glory, 38 and into whose hand he has given, wherever they dwell, the children of man, the beasts of the field, and the birds of the heavens, making you rule over them all—you are the head of gold. 39 Another kingdom inferior to you shall arise after you, and yet a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth. 40 And there shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron, because iron breaks to pieces and shatters all things. And like iron that crushes, it shall break and crush all these. 41 And as you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom, but some of the firmness of iron shall be in it, just as you saw iron mixed with the soft clay. 42 And as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly brittle. 43 As you saw the iron mixed with soft clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage,[c] but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay. 44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever, 45 just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure.”

    The dominant and domineering kingdoms of man wax and wane in dreary succession, eventually becoming a strange mix of iron and clay — patently, Rome and its heirs in the W and the E in a strange disunity. At that time, God shatters WITHOUT HUMAN HANDS and establishes his own eternal rule.

    Messiah is the first shock-wave of that shattering, and the church is called to peaceful witness to the nations about the gospel, calling us to repentance, renewal, revival, reformation, thus also salvation, discipleship, blessing and transformation from the heart in accord with the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount. Where men and nations have a choice and a responsibility as to what they will do with that Messiah, of whom Paul spoke:

    Ac 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

    In short, your strawman caricature/ conflation of chalk with cheese manifestly fails. Fails, in a way that is revealing, especially given the significance of the central evil of our time, the worst holocaust in history of 800+ millions of our own posterity put to death under false colour of law and reflecting the moral bankruptcy and corruption of the key institutions of influence in society. And yes, it is entirely apt to use the seven mountains model to see these key spheres of influence together and to highlight that a community at a given time will have a dominant worldview and cultural agenda.

    In the mostly apostate West at this time, in the main, evolutionary materialistic scientism and linked secular humanism. Which, is manifestly both self-falsifying and utterly amoral. As Plato warned of so long ago in The Laws Bk X: “the highest right is might.”

    And so, the call goes forth from Sophia (a lovely Jewish girl, obviously) in grim warning. She has gone to the streets and markets, she has stood on the city walls to herald her speech. Now, she stands in the gates where the elders and wheeler-dealers sit, the decision making and influencing classes.

    She has somewhat to say to a city gone amiss at the hands of naive and foolish leadership, inclined to mock rather than listen to correction. She announces the iron judgement of the consequences of a ruinous march of folly:

    Prov 1: 20
    Wisdom cries aloud in the street,
    in the markets she raises her voice;
    21
    at the head of the noisy streets she cries out;
    at the entrance of the city gates she speaks:
    22
    “How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple?
    How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing
    and fools hate knowledge?
    23
    If you turn at my reproof,[a]
    behold, I will pour out my spirit to you;
    I will make my words known to you.
    24
    Because I have called and you refused to listen,
    have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded,
    25
    because you have ignored all my counsel
    and would have none of my reproof,
    26
    I also will laugh at your calamity;
    I will mock when terror strikes you,
    27
    when terror strikes you like a storm
    and your calamity comes like a whirlwind,
    when distress and anguish come upon you.
    28
    Then they will call upon me, but I will not answer;
    they will seek me diligently but will not find me.
    29
    Because they hated knowledge
    and did not choose the fear of the Lord,
    30
    would have none of my counsel
    and despised all my reproof,
    31
    therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way,
    and have their fill of their own devices.
    32
    For the simple are killed by their turning away,
    and the complacency of fools destroys them;
    33
    but whoever listens to me will dwell secure
    and will be at ease, without dread of disaster.”

    This, sadly, is the story (and likely fate) of our willfully foolish civilisation today.

    Enough of strawman caricatures and distractive, dismissive rhetoric.

    Our civilisation is in peril due to a march of willful, apostate folly and we had better wake up and turn back fast, before the cliff’s edge gives way underfoot.

    If we have two sensible neurons left to rub against one another.

    Sophia has spoken.

    KF

  8. 8
    EDTA says:

    KF,

    >Is it not time to stand?
    >If not now, then when?
    >If not here, then where?
    >If not us, then who?

    I agree, but just want to ask this additional question: “If us, then how?”

    Reason I ask is that as an individual, my influence is too small to be heard. In groups, my influence is lost, because leaders skim off the money and fail to have the influence they should. Or if sincere, they are unable to be heard because we do not control the media.

    Unless you have a means by which we can disproportionately amplify our influence, then it seems to me that we are simply being carried along by the torrent of history to our ultimate collective downfall.

  9. 9
    kairosfocus says:

    EDTA, notice Sophia, who gives a model. Compare, what it took to break slavery in the British Empire. One converted man and a small circle who stood with him; forming a surprisingly small critical mass. He spoke, they smeared. He spoke and moved, they smeared and voted down. He spoke year after year, eventually they could no more deny, so they delayed. Then even delay failed. By the time his life came to an end, he was a national hero and sponsor of seventy or so movements of reform energised by godly principles. If you want more, I have put on the table that we need a complementary Associate programme, with emphasis on reform-oriented prophetic discipleship-based Christian service and leadership, using web techs and the vast network of churches as micro campus centres. Tentmaking skills starting with digital tech, too. Build a broad base. Reach back down to the primary and secondary levels. Build thinktanks that can do what the Frankfurt school did — address the seven mountains of influence at top level with scholarship and outreach that provides leadership, only, for the good. (UD is a germ cell for one such — part of why we are hated.) Influence by service, life, witness, sound citizenship and leadership. Let God snowball the four R’s as he has promised — his weakness is infinitely stronger than our strength. A morally bankrupt civilisation will either wake up and turn back, or else it is going to need help after falling over the cliff and breaking its back (as is so with my native land and my adoptive land: the one is 40 years in, the other, 20). Of course, in a web era, the censors can no longer utterly lock out our voices, though obviously they try to smear and discredit. We must speak up prophetically, consistently. (Cf. a comment here and read the critical analysis of the “Catholic spring” agit prop suggestion by Pecknold that is linked just above it.) Read also, Ac 27 (cf here); Paul needed to speak up before the storm to be the good man in the storm. KF

  10. 10
    vjtorley says:

    Querius,

    One does not need to be a Christian, Jew or Muslim in order to recognize that something is badly amiss with the laws we currently live under. See here, for instance:

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....03204.html
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....03193.html
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....00541.html

    Natural law is binding on humanity. The Seven Laws of Noah are a traditional expression of this law. Every devout Jew in Jesus’ day would have regarded these laws as binding on the entire human race, and would have regarded it as a ruler’s duty to impose these laws on his/her subjects.

    Attempts to impose natural law should not be equated with attempts to impose Christ’s kingdom by force. The latter is forbidden to us; the former is obligatory.

  11. 11
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: I think I also need to focus the fullness of Christ theme, from Eph 4:9 – 24:

    Eph 4:9 (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he [= Christ] had also descended into the lower regions, the earth?[b]

    10 He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)

    [–> Christ came to transform everything, as an integral part of the gospel and the commission of the church]

    11 And he gave the apostles [–> cf Ac 17 for how an apostle challenges the elites of our civilisation] , the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds[c] and teachers,[d] 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood,[e] to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.

    [–> notice the power of gospel truth to free us, put us on sound footing and immunise us from deceit and manipulation, no prizes for guessing why it is hated in so many quarters. Notice, it is by the pure teaching of truth and the grounding in life and service to do those good works God has set out in advance for us to do, that we grow up into the fullness of Christ. Starting with the church in a community as an embassy of the Kingdom of heaven.]

    15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,

    [–> Notice the Sermon on the Mount ethical frame, truth in love; truth surrendered to in response to the God who loves and gave Messiah, and as the overflowing of his indwelling Spirit]

    16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

    [–> under Messiah as Lord of the Kingdom, we work in harmony to build one another up through the truth in love. A challenge to the churches, much less the community at large!]

    17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.

    [–> note the endarkening, the alienation from God, which we are to cease from following. Those who live by truth in love are not like those who live in darkness of mind masquerading as enlightenment and benumbed conscience]

    19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity.

    [–> an apt indictment of a world system catering to the addictive and ensnaring lusts of the flesh and under the dominion of evil. The real dominion-ism in the world.]

    20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self,[f] which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

    [–> a call to transformation]

    That is what true discipleship looks like, and that is how it transforms people, families, businesses, schools and communities through

    — repentance (metanoia)

    –renewal (true enlightenment)

    — revival (as the Spirit is poured out in seasons of refreshing)

    — reformation (as the first three R’s attain to critical mass)

    Such then leads to spreading salvation, discipleship, blessing and transformation.

    Which is of course a threat to those committed to the ways of darkness, evil, addiction and impurity.

    Whose first weapon is to lie, calling darkness light and light darkness.

    But Sophia gave full and fair warning 3000 years ago.

    KF

  12. 12
    kairosfocus says:

    VJT, it is great to hear from you. And yes, there is a naturally evident moral law that to reject and subvert, there has to be active suppression, en-darkenment and benumbing. That is part of why I am pointing to the global abortion holocaust as the central evil of our time, as I have seen up close how blood guilt corrupts the leadership of a nation. The moaning of 800+ million ghosts of our innocent unborn children slaughtered in the womb indicts the elites and leading institutions across the world, yes those seven mountains that it seems some fear that we just list them, much less point to the obvious fact that communities have cultures with dominant worldviews and agendas. Which are open to challenge on the said natural law of which no man is ignorant, as Canon Hooker memorably said. KF

  13. 13
  14. 14
    john_a_designer says:

    vjtorley @ 10,

    Natural law is binding on humanity. The Seven Laws of Noah are a traditional expression of this law. Every devout Jew in Jesus’ day would have regarded these laws as binding on the entire human race, and would have regarded it as a ruler’s duty to impose these laws on his/her subjects.

    Attempts to impose natural law should not be equated with attempts to impose Christ’s kingdom by force. The latter is forbidden to us; the former is obligatory.

    However, it is not beyond the purview of progressive-secularists to co-opt the idea of natural law and use it as a bait-and-switch tactic to further their own agenda. What after all is natural law but a law above the law? That by itself creates a basis to make some powerful and compelling arguments. Theists believe that natural is God’s law and is the source of the moral conscience endemic to of all mankind (see Rom. 2: 12-16). However, that hasn’t prevented the U.S. Supreme Court from making what is for all intents and purposes a counterfeit natural law kind of argument to find new rights in the U.S. Constitution. The landmark cases that illustrate this perverse abuse of “natural law” are the 1973 Roe v. Wade case legalizing abortion and the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges case legalizing same-sex marriage. Where are abortion or same sex marriage mentioned in the U.S. Constitution? They aren’t anywhere. These were “rights” that were created whole cloth by five ideologically driven lawyers pretending to be fair and impartial jurists. Nevertheless, these so-called “new rights” are not transcendent God-given rights, they are arbitrary man-made rights– protestations to the contrary.

  15. 15
    kairosfocus says:

    JAD, you illustrate how the blood guilt of the abortion holocaust warps and distorts institutions and their guideline principles, leading to might and manipulation make ‘right’ as operating principle. So we should not be surprised to see darkness called light and light, darkness. But that’s the point, at some level we are dealing with denial of the self-evidently true and clinging to absurdities deemed favourable to relevant powerful factions. But the absurd is still the absurd. However, “if it succeed, none dare call it treason.” KF

  16. 16
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Note, the consistent failure to soberly address the global geostrategic picture and the linked question of a civilisation on a march of patently suicidal folly.

    Sophia’s warning obtains: the simple too often refuse to address the complexities of the real world, there are those ever willing to resort to mockery to dismiss unwelcome truth, there are those committed to wrong and folly who despise well warranted insights of truth that point where they would not go. The simplistic ends in failure and the wise in one’s own eyes complacency of fools leads to destruction. When that is manifest to all, it is then too late to be wise.

    In this context, I again draw attention to the focal issue in the OP, the roots, manifestation and increasingly obvious rotten fruit of cultural marxism as a strategy for subversion in our civilisation. Part of what has been going ever so wrong.

    For one current instance, it is no surprise to see that those who firebombed a party HQ in North Carolina seem to have left a graffiti announcing their vigilantism: Nazis. The irony is doubtless lost on them. Mr O’Keefe’s “bird dogging” confession, of training agit prop activists to set up apparent incidents for the cameras is another sign for those willing to wake up to what is going wrong.

    Both of these factors are quite evident in the rash of recent cases that have targetted Christian small business people to drive them out of a livelihood if they will not approve manifest evil.

    Likewise, seemingly there is no willingness on the part of powerful factions to face the implications of setting up conditions under which men can freely go into ladies’ public restrooms. (The original “safe spaces.”)

    And, consistently, the major media refuse to acknowledge what such things and many more cases mean for where our civilisation has reached.

    It increasingly looks like we may have to go over the cliff and break our backs to shatter the bewitchment of the Plato’s Cave shadow shows.

    Which, of course, is also not being seriously addressed, though it is central.

    But then, Paul in Ac 17 and 27, lays out a powerful example.

    The lesson of the near collapse of Rome in the 200’s, then the struggle to come back leading to the fatal collapse by 476, then 1000 years of utter breakdown before something worth having could be restored is a sobering lesson of history paid for in rivers of blood and tears.

    What shakes me to my core this time around is level of weaponry: nukes, chem weapons, biological agents that need only the equivalent of a micro brewery.

    We are playing with fire, and seem to be by and large bewitched into obliviousness.

    My homeland has a saying: fire deh ‘pon mus-mus tail, but him think seh ah cool breeze deh deh.

    That is, a fire is kindled at the mouse’s tail but the poor confused complacent beastie imagines it a refreshing cool breeze.

    KF

  17. 17
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: I do not endorse Mr Buchanan, generally speaking, but I think he here has some choice words relevant to the OP that we would be well advised to ponder as we contemplate the current election cycle in the leading country of Western Civ:

    “Remember, it’s a rigged system. It’s a rigged election,” said Donald Trump in New Hampshire on Saturday.

    The stunned recoil in this city suggests this bunker buster went right down the chimney. As the French put it, “Il n’y a que la verite qui blesse.” It is only the truth that hurts.

    In what sense is the system rigged?

    Consider Big Media – the elite columnists and commentators, the dominant national press, and the national and cable networks, save Fox. Not in this writer’s lifetime has there been such blanket hatred and hostility of a presidential candidate of a major party.

    “So what?” They reply. “We have a free press!”

    But in this election, Big Media have burst out of the closet as an adjunct of the regime and the attack arm of the Clinton campaign, aiming to bring Trump down.

    Half a century ago, Theodore White wrote of the power and bias of the “adversary press” that sought to bring down Richard Nixon.

    “The power of the press in America,” wrote Teddy, “is a primordial one. It sets the agenda of public discussion; and this sweeping power is unrestrained by any law. It determines what people will talk about and think about – an authority that in other nations is reserved for tyrants, priests, parties and mandarins.”

    On ABC’s “This Week,” Newt Gingrich volunteered on Sunday that, “without the unending one-sided assault of the news media, Trump would be beating Hillary by 15 points.”

    On this one, Newt is right . . . .

    Is the system rigged? Ask yourself.

    For half a century, the U.S. Supreme Court has systematically de-Christianized and paganized American society and declared abortion and homosexual marriage constitutional rights.

    Where did these unelected jurists get the right to impose their views and values upon us, and remake America in their own secularist image? Was that really the court’s role in the Constitution?

    How did we wind up with an all-powerful judicial tyranny in a nation the Founding Fathers created as a democratic republic?

    There are more than 11 million illegal immigrants here, with millions more coming. Yet the government consistently refuses to enforce the immigration laws of the United States . . . .

    If there is an issue upon which Americans agree, it is that they want secure borders and an end to trade policies that have shipped abroad the jobs, and arrested the wages, of working Americans.

    Yet in a private speech that netted her $225,000 from Brazilian bankers, Hillary Clinton confided that she dreams of a “common market, with open trade and open borders” from Nome, Alaska, to Patagonia.

    That would mean the end of the USA as a unique, sovereign and independent nation. But the American press, whose survival depends upon the big ad dollars of transnational corporations, is more interested in old tapes of the Donald on “The Howard Stern Show.”

    As present, it appears that in 2017, we may get a government headed by Hillary Clinton, and an opposition headed by Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell.

    Is that what the people were hoping for, working for, voting for in the primaries of 2016? Or is this what they were voting against?

    Big money and the media power of the establishment elites and the transnationals may well prevail.

    And if they do, Middle America – those who cling to their Bibles, bigotries and guns in Barack Obama’s depiction, those “deplorables” who are “racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic,” who are “not America” and are “irredeemable” in Hillary Clinton’s depiction – will have to accept the new regime.

    But that does not mean they must love it, like it or respect it.

    Because, in the last analysis, yes, Virginia, the system is rigged.

    If he is wrong, why and how specifically is that so — substantially, not clever insubstantial, emotive rhetoric or attack the man and distract from the issue.

    I raise this, frankly, because from the 1950’s the Royal Navy retired from its historic job of guarding the sea ways and particularly the choke points (with the exception of the Panama Canal). Coming on 1 1/2 million Empire, Commonwealth and homeland dead in two world wars and linked debt and loss of leadership . . . pounded to death or cut to ribbons on the Somme and other places of horror, broke Britain’s spirit forever. [Don’t ever forget the stunning, devastating impact of 20,000 dead and 40,000 wounded in a summer morning Pickett’s charge on July 1st 1916 because “someone had blundered.” I can never forget the first sight I had of Harrison College’s cenotaph on Crumpton Street in Bridgetown Barbados (population, 1/4 million and the dead from that war on that list in that school were for certain in the main the sons of the elites), with its list of the dead from 1914 – 18. The losses since then were almost a post-script, but the message was plain. And yes, another generation later, 100 years after that horrible battle (and the tactical loss but strategic win at Jutland May 31st 1916 . . . three Battlecruisers blowing up after catastrophic hits — and nearly a fourth too, speaks volumes . . . ), the Kolij Cadet Corps is for sure even now preparing for the annual school memorial parade.]

    For sixty to seventy years, the task of guarding the sea-ways has fallen to the USA, a continental scale country with a maritime tradition and a navy to match, after the 2nd World War.

    The geostrategic peril in light of the issues in that infographic in the OP, are obvious.

    If the USA falls into follies and chaos, there are serious consequences in coming decades.

    A lot is at stake.

  18. 18
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: It is worth putting back on the table (and notice how it is consistently tip-toed around), Plato’s warning in The Laws, Bk X:

    Ath [in The Laws, Bk X c. 360 BC, 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].

  19. 19
    kairosfocus says:

    PPPS: Ask yourselves how the generation coming up since 1992 are — by poll — tellingly ignorant about the dark, bloody, murderous history of Communism. Note the clip (bearing in mind that China, rising global power, is communist as is the madman god-emperor led, nuke-armed half-starving No Ko):

    Of the 2,300 Americans polled by YouGov, 80% of baby boomers and 91% of the elderly agree with the statement that “communism was and still is a problem” in the world today. Millennials? Only 55%. . . . . almost half of Americans between the ages of 16 and 20 said they would vote for a socialist, while 21% would go so far as to back a communist.

    Capitalism, on the other hand, is viewed favorably by 64% of those over the age of 65, compared with only 42% of millennials.

    In fact, more than half of millennials say the economic system works against them, while four out of 10 call for a “complete change” to ensure that the highest earners pay their fair share.

    Ponder the principle that the lessons of sound history were bought with blood and tears, and how those who are ignorant of that irreducibly complex past doom themselves to make the same old blunders and pay the same old price. Then, scroll up and watch the video on Plato’s Cave of shadow shows. Then, ponder this earlier post on the Wikileaks revelations on “an unaware and compliant citizenry.” Then, ponder why these things are not the focus of public attention across the world. Then, look at the geostrategic issues and BAU march of folly over the cliff infographics in the OP. Then, tremble for our likely future.

  20. 20
    kairosfocus says:

    P^4S: Van Creveld and a 4th gen war view of where we may be heading, and I think cyber war building on or retaliating against media agit prop and loss of legitimacy of government, may be the C21 equivalent of the shot heard around the world, April 19, 1775 . . . we are already seeing an ugly fusion of cyber agit prop and street mob violence and intimidation:

    war-making entities will no longer be restricted to a specific territory. Loose and shadowy organisms such as Islamic terrorist organizations suggest why borders will mean increasingly little and sedimentary layers of tribalistic identity and control will mean more. “From the vantage point of the present, there appears every prospect that religious . . . fanaticisms will play a larger role in the motivation of armed conflict” in the West than at any time “for the last 300 years,” Van Creveld writes. This is why analysts like Michael Vlahos are closely monitoring religious cults. Vlahos says, “An ideology that challenges us may not take familiar form, like the old Nazis or Commies. It may not even engage us initially in ways that fit old threat markings.” Van Creveld concludes, “Armed conflict will be waged by men on earth, not robots in space. It will have more in common with the struggles of primitive tribes than with large-scale conventional war.” While another military historian, John Keegan, in his new book A History of Warfare, draws a more benign portrait of primitive man, it is important to point out that what Van Creveld really means is re-primitivized man: warrior societies operating at a time of unprecedented resource scarcity and planetary overcrowding.

    Van Creveld’s pre-Westphalian vision of worldwide low-intensity conflict is not a superficial “back to the future” scenario. First of all, technology will be used toward primitive ends. In Liberia the guerrilla leader Prince Johnson didn’t just cut off the ears of President Samuel Doe before Doe was tortured to death in 1990—Johnson made a video of it, which has circulated throughout West Africa. In December of 1992, when plotters of a failed coup against the Strasser regime in Sierra Leone had their ears cut off at Freetown’s Hamilton Beach prior to being killed, it was seen by many to be a copycat execution. Considering, as I’ve explained earlier, that the Strasser regime is not really a government and that Sierra Leone is not really a nation-state, listen closely to Van Creveld: “Once the legal monopoly of armed force, long claimed by the state, is wrested out of its hands, existing distinctions between war and crime will break down much as is already the case today in . . . Lebanon, Sri Lanka, El Salvador, Peru, or Colombia.”

    If crime and war become indistinguishable, then “national defense” may in the future be viewed as a local concept. As crime continues to grow in our cities and the ability of state governments and criminal-justice systems to protect their citizens diminishes, urban crime may, according to Van Creveld, “develop into low-intensity conflict by coalescing along racial, religious, social, and political lines.” As small-scale violence multiplies at home and abroad, state armies will continue to shrink, being gradually replaced by a booming private security business, as in West Africa, and by urban mafias, especially in the former communist world, who may be better equipped than municipal police forces to grant physical protection to local inhabitants.

    Future wars will be those of communal survival, aggravated or, in many cases, caused by environmental scarcity. These wars will be subnational, meaning that it will be hard for states and local governments to protect their own citizens physically. This is how many states will ultimately die. As state power fades—and with it the state’s ability to help weaker groups within society, not to mention other states—peoples and cultures around the world will be thrown back upon their own strengths and weaknesses, with fewer equalizing mechanisms to protect them. Whereas the distant future will probably see the emergence of a racially hybrid, globalized man, the coming decades will see us more aware of our differences than of our similarities. To the average person, political values will mean less, personal security more. The belief that we are all equal is liable to be replaced by the overriding obsession of the ancient Greek travelers: Why the differences between peoples? . . .

    With nukes etc increasingly in play . . .

  21. 21
    kairosfocus says:

    P^5S: Actress Scarlett Johansen in Variety, inadvertently showing how the language of rights has been willfully corrupted, perverting law in service to the holocaust of posterity:

    “As most of you know, Planned Parenthood has been under attack for many years now for another service they thankfully offer — providing a safe place for legal abortions,” Johansson said. “A women’s right to choose what to do with her body shouldn’t just be a women’s rights issue — it’s the year 2016 and this is a human rights issue. A women’s right to choose is a deeply personal one and should not be a part of anyone’s political platform. It has nothing to do with politics in the slightest. It is about honoring and respecting women and upholding the law. … It is time we all stand united so this conversation is taken off the ballot, so to speak, and out of the mouths of politicians.”

    First problem, once a woman has participated in a procreative act leading to conception, a new somatic human life has begun in her Fallopian Tubes. Thus, there are two human lives directly involved — mother and child — and a third also, the father. Language about choice and rights that tells half truths, as above, is in disregard to truth in hope of profiting at the expense of others. Including taking the LIFE of an unborn child.

    Such is corrupt and destructive of the first of all rights, life. The one that guards all other rights.

    Next, a core human right is inherently a moral claim to be respected in virtue of being a human being, with the intrinsic moral worth involved. Such claims are exerted on others who would have correlative duties.

    But, no-one can have a duty to do what is wrong, or to enable or encourage another to do the wrong.

    That is, a right may only be legitimately claimed if one is in the manifest right.

    And that is exactly what is not the case in respect of the worst holocaust in history, the slaughter of 800+ millions of our posterity in the womb under false colour of law.

    So, indeed this matter is not an issue of mere political opinion or power to manipulate rules under colour of law; there is an underlying premise of justice and of the first of all core rights, life.

    In that hard light, Ms Johansen’s talking points — they are hardly original to her — stand exposed as utterly indefensible.

    And they expose why the holocaust of 800+ millions and counting at another million per week, is the central evil of our time. The evil that has benumbed our consciences, endarkened our minds, perverted our laws and corrupted our states, as well as the major professions.

    This, then, is where we must start, to first recover moral sanity and soundness.

    With our blood guilt.

    Yes, blood guilt.

  22. 22
    Querius says:

    Consider that Jesus had to live under Roman rule, and told his disciples not to sweat the politics.

    As for me and my family, we will obey government and serve God. When they legislate against Christianity, I’ll be there in prison with you.

    Of course government will brutalize anyone who they can’t control. And then the nation will fall as happened dozens of times in history. Lessons are never learned and always repeated. According to Heinlein, the inevitable consequences are explained away as “bad luck.” This is not strange. We constantly see the same rationalizations on this forum from people suffering from ideological poisoning.

    My advice to authentic Christians is to consider the corruptions protected and promoted by government and society in the category of “let it not be named among you.” Live in the peace, joy, love, and the sure hope provided us by our one and only, genius God.

    Incidentally, a former acquaintance of mine who managed to leave the former Soviet Union told me one time that under communist rule, I would be among the first to be arrested.

    “Why,” I wanted to know. He told me that thoughtful but compliant people were considered a greater threat than emotional, angry ones.

    I took that as a great compliment.

    -Q

  23. 23
    Seversky says:

    kairosfocus @ 21

    First problem, once a woman has participated in a procreative act leading to conception, a new somatic human life has begun in her Fallopian Tubes. Thus, there are two human lives directly involved — mother and child — and a third also, the father. Language about choice and rights that tells half truths, as above, is in disregard to truth in hope of profiting at the expense of others. Including taking the LIFE of an unborn child.

    Although we differ on many issues, on this point we are in agreement. I believe the right to life should be presumed to apply to the whole of a human individual’s physical existence. Whenever an unborn human being is detected, however early the stage of development, it should be so entitled. Thus, if the question of abortion arises – and there are situations where it will – there are three rights to consider, those of mother, father and child.

    The problem for opponents of abortion in the United States is that the law as it stands does not agree. To change that law means changing peoples minds. Opponents of abortion need to carry with them a majority of the electorate sufficiently large that their representatives in the legislature will be compelled to draft a bill to end abortions, except in certain carefully defined cases.

    In my view, the best and proper approach is not stings on Planned Parenthood and certainly not the bombing of abortion clinics or the killing of their personnel. That will only harden hearts on both sides. Rather, it would be far better in the long run to try and reach the hearts and minds of those seeking abortions and somehow make them feel for the unborn as they would for the child they can hold in their arms. If that happened on a sufficient scale then abortions would end because the demand would simply dwindle to nearly nothing.

  24. 24
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev,

    The problem is, there are two senses of law; often reflected in the word, lawful.

    There are decrees under colour of law indeed, that establish an iniquitous system that has cost 800+ million unborn children their lives over the past generation.

    That does not make such decrees lawful.

    Just.

    Protective of the civil peace of justice.

    And, it points to the need for reformation.

    KF

    PS, overnight: Journalistic style investigative reports and exposes, if sound, are reasonable given how much is being hidden. They are not to be grouped with the extremely rare and widely condemned incidents of violence against abortion clinics and their staff. It strikes me as very unfair to see that juxtaposition.

  25. 25
    kairosfocus says:

    Q, I pretty much think we are going over the cliff, again. With a significant chance of being comparable to 476 AD. We are talking folks who sat in high command over the “Roman” army here . . . oops, German soldiers collecting Roman pay (never mind a badly debased currency). The post Christian barbarians are really coming, are sitting there nearby just waiting to pounce — if you think the forces that overthrew the last W Roman Emperor had to fight their way in from the Rhine or even Gaul or Spain, think again. With nukes on the table. Where, we are not ready for the kind of assault that is coming, starting I think with a massive surge of media scandals and slanders targetting church leaders and prominent Christians. With all sorts of attempts to discredit the gospel and scriptures as well as leaders, after that. The vestiges of Christendom in Common Law and in Civil law are to be purged, and the post Christian brave new world is to be set up. Only, such will not work as advertised, not least because geostrategic time bombs will also begin to go off, bang — weakness of the W invites adventurism by strongmen. KF

  26. 26
    john_a_designer says:

    I find it extremely ironic when an avowed atheist, who rejects the idea that moral values and human rights have any kind of objective or transcendent basis, begins making “arguments” which appear for all intents and purposes to tacitly assume that such a basis does exists. For example, you can’t make an argument that abortion is either right or wrong without such an objective moral basis. For any kind of morality to work on a societal level, you have to assume that objective moral obligations are interpersonal, objectively real and binding. Otherwise, you just have arbitrary non-binding opinions and personal preferences. Of course this point has been made here over-and-over again, many, many times. We can only assume that someone who doesn’t understand that is either deluded, dishonest (with himself and others) or daft. That’s something I have called elsewhere the atheist trilemma. If nothing else it demonstrates the absolute absurdity and foolishness of atheism. It mystifies me why any sane, rational person would choose to become one. There is definitely something wrong with their thinking somewhere.

  27. 27
    Querius says:

    kairosfocus @25,

    I’m in complete agreement with your assessment.

    The same forces that existed then, have broken out in the U.S. and will indeed briefly triumph through lies, collusion, coercion, and ultimately force with the usual result of massive human suffering.

    Again, it will be falsely attributed to “bad luck,” or some hated group. Or they will claim it would have been much, much worse had it not been for them.

    The lies flow like a river that never ends. Sadly, some people never wake up to realizing that they’ve been totally conned once again!

    -Q

  28. 28
    Querius says:

    john_a_designer,

    Good points all! I attribute the blindness and delusion that you described to ideological poisoning.

    To put it another way, they’ve eaten the forbidden fruit and have become like gods defining good and evil. But it ends in death.

    -Q

  29. 29
    john_a_designer says:

    Or at least they’ve been drinking the Kool-Aid.

  30. 30
    john_a_designer says:

    Up at # 14 I wrote that “it is not beyond the purview of progressive-secularists to co-opt the idea of natural law and use it as a bait-and-switch tactic to further their own agenda.” A perfect example of this is original Marxism which starts by adopting a Hegelian view of history which had a very progressive concept of human history. In other words, economic Marxism sees the defeat of capitalism as the “natural” outcome of historic change.

    Probably no world view has a more linear view of history than Jewish-Christian theism. Hegel accepted the J-C linear view of history but cast it in more pantheistic terms, where there were no timeless transcendent truths only evolving ever changing kind of “truths.” Hegel saw the flow of history as a constantly changing yet a naturally improving one.

    Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes it this way:

    History, according to Hegel’s metaphysical account, is driven by ideological development. Ideological—and therefore historical—change occurs when a new idea is nurtured in the environment of the old one, and eventually overtakes it. Thus development necessarily involves periods of conflict when the old and new ideas clash.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/progress/

    While modern progressives probably don’t see themselves as Hegelian, through Marxism and various forms of socialism and progressivism, Hegel’s ideas have had a profound influence on modern thought.

    Both Hegel and Marx saw that at times violence (even war) would be needed to achieve societal change. You can readily see why the progressive PC left thinks nothing of employing bullying tactics to bring about their ideas of social justice– and be forewarned they are willing to go further. You can perhaps also see how they can hold to positions that are on one hand culturally relativistic yet implemented years or even month later as new moral absolutes. Think, for example, about how quickly same-sex-marriage has been adopted. BTW as is the case of SSM they are not beneath using coercion, even the force of law, to force you to accept their beliefs. And as I said, it could get worse.

  31. 31
    Seversky says:

    john_a_designer @ 26

    I find it extremely ironic when an avowed atheist, who rejects the idea that moral values and human rights have any kind of objective or transcendent basis, begins making “arguments” which appear for all intents and purposes to tacitly assume that such a basis does exists.

    I don’t need divine guidance or values dispensed from some transcendent domain to know that I do not want to be raped or killed, that I do not want family or friends to suffer such a fate or to assume that most other people in society feel the same. If you want an “objective” basis for atheist morality why not in our common interests as human beings?

    For example, you can’t make an argument that abortion is either right or wrong without such an objective moral basis.

    I can make an argument either way and without appealing to an “objective” morality. What is more difficult is getting proponents of objective morality to explain on what basis morality can be considered objective other than in the sense of inter-subjective agreement. What is apparent is that, more often then not, the authority of objectivity is being claimed for the proponent’s own morality. When a Christian talks about objective morality they mean Christian morality. They certainly don’t mean Muslim or Hindu or Native American moralities. In other words, it’s a blatant attempt to annexe the moral high ground.

    For any kind of morality to work on a societal level, you have to assume that objective moral obligations are interpersonal, objectively real and binding. Otherwise, you just have arbitrary non-binding opinions and personal preferences. Of course this point has been made here over-and-over again, many, many times.

    No, all you need is for human beings in society to acknowledge that they have common interests in securing the necessities for life, water, food, a secure environment in which to live and raise a family – “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” if you like. It’s not hard. If I want others to respect my interests I must respect the same of others. It’s called inter-subjective agreement and it has also been explained before. It’s a more than adequate basis for morality.

    If nothing else it demonstrates the absolute absurdity and foolishness of atheism. It mystifies me why any sane, rational person would choose to become one. There is definitely something wrong with their thinking somewhere.

    We’re atheist because we see no compelling reason to believe in the existence of a god, other than the “opium of the people” rationale.

  32. 32
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky, why should anyone so value your opinions on the matter that they take such into concern, absent might and/or manipulation make ‘right,’ ‘justice,’ ‘value,’ ‘duty’ etc? As in, so-called inter-subjective agreement is NOT an adequate basis for morality, rhetorical declamations to the contrary notwithstanding. Such become little more than putting lipstick on the snout of the pig, of in the end amoral nihilism . . . which is oh, so convenient for those willing to play the cultural marxist “critical theory” agit prop subversion and manipulation game in the academy, in the media, or in the long march through the seven mountain institutions of cultural influence. We need instead a world-foundational IS truly capable of bearing the weight of OUGHT. The problem you have, is that the only serious candidate is not what you wish to hear about. KF

    PS: JAD at 26, has a serious point much along the same lines:

    For any kind of morality to work on a societal level, you have to assume that objective moral obligations are interpersonal, objectively real and binding. Otherwise, you just have arbitrary non-binding opinions and personal preferences. Of course this point has been made here over-and-over again, many, many times. We can only assume that someone who doesn’t understand that is either deluded, dishonest (with himself and others) or daft. That’s something I have called elsewhere the atheist trilemma. If nothing else it demonstrates the absolute absurdity and foolishness of atheism.

  33. 33
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: For you and your ilk, this, from 2350+ years ago, always lurks:

    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].

  34. 34
    kairosfocus says:

    PPPS: The Marxist, oh religion is the opiate of the people dodge and the “we see no reason/evidence” to believe in a god — common g duly noted — is little more that clever ill-founded talking points rooted in dismissive selective hyperskepticism; a lot of serious and responsible, educated and thoughtful people of the first rank of minds have found ethical theism sound as a worldview and the Judaeo-Christian tradition solid as a well founded frame for life and community, indeed historically such is foundational to our civilisation. So, your personal opinion and/or that of your circle of like-minded selectively hyperskeptical atheists, expressed in commonplace talking points long past sell by date is of but little weight and certainly does not shift the burden of worldview warrant. Likewise, there is a lot of good evidence that the ongoing radical secularist de-christianising agenda is leading our civilisation along a march of ruinous folly. I suggest that the real issue is, first, worldview foundations, and suggest here on in context as a start point. Then, we can examine how we have come to the sad pass of standing on the crumbling edge of a cliff while denying that reality and pretending that all is well.

  35. 35
    john_a_designer says:

    It’s one thing to try to have a discussion with an honest skeptic (I wish a few would show up here.) It is quite another trying to interact with an incorrigible scornful cynic. I am afraid that most of our atheist interlocutors are the latter not the former. You have to wonder, what is the motivation?

    I have no arguments to present to the incorrigible cynic. I really doubt they are genuine truth seekers interested in honest reasoning and dialogue. In my opinion it would be better if they would find something else, move on and stop wasting our time.

    Of course what we might be dealing with here are cultural Marxists who aren’t really interested in rational debate. Rather, they are here to undermine any thinking that has given support to the traditional ideas, beliefs and values that have been foundational to the success of western civilization and culture. What matters to them is not truth but their own unwarranted beliefs and prejudices. They believe they are right because of what they believe. (Yes, that is circular.) They accuse religious people of making a “leap-of-faith” when actually that is what they are doing. Their obsessive persistence here rivals the fanaticism and dogmatism of any religious believer I have ever encountered. Someone here recently said that atheism was a religion. There is some truth to that.

  36. 36
    kairosfocus says:

    JAD, you have a serious point. And meanwhile, as it seems like almost everyone is bewitched by Plato’s Cave shadow shows,

    (if broadcasts or search engines or encyclopedias are “free,” has it dawned that it’s not just soap powder that is paying for the messages . . . ? that, WE (or at least, our habitual visits . . . ) are the product being sold . . . ? that, a lot of news, views, punditry, public debates and street activism — as well as in too many cases, likely, elections — are as scripted, orchestrated and “rigged” as pro wrestling matches? and more — horrifically more? [cf. here on Ac 27, Mr Moneybags, his bought- and- paid- for technicos and how democracy can become a manipulated march of folly to ruin. Too often, Mutabaruka is right: de system, de system, de system is a FRAUD!])

    . . . our patent geostrategic peril tantamount to standing on the crumbling edge of a cliff is not going away. One of the things that gives me waking nightmares is asking myself what going over the cliff implies. Here, in the voice of Sophia speaking to a complacent city. KF

    PS: Every worldview of consequence necessarily has unproved, perhaps unprovable, first plausibles. Infinite regress is not capable of traversal, question-begging circularity and/or incoherence is not sensible, we need to look at first plausibles of alternatives on factual adequacy, coherence, explanatory balance & power. Ethical theism in Judaeo-Christian form is reasonable and well grounded but utterly unpalatable to many who wish to exclude God from knowledge. And yet, the only serious candidate IS that grounds OUGHT is the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, root of reality, worthy of loyalty and of the reasonable, responsible, freely given service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. That’s what our civilisation was built on, and now we are learning the hard way about what happens when a civilisation saws off the branch on which we sit.

  37. 37
    john_a_designer says:

    I was wondering what would Jesus do if he had encountered a troll. Then I discovered he had. Obviously, they weren’t internet trolls. However they were interlocutors who exhibited what appears to me to be very modern troll-like behavior when they engaged Jesus in the open public forums of his day.

    For example, in Matthew 22 Jesus is approached by a group of Pharisees who have planned “to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. ‘Teacher,’ they said, ‘we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax[a] to Caesar or not?’

    18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, ‘You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?’” (Matthew 22:15-22Open in Logos Bible Software (if available))

    The same day, we are told, (verses 23-33) some other first century trolls, the more liberal minded Sadducee’s, approach Jesus using the same kind of tactics. Then the Pharisees come back and try again (verses 34-40)

    That certainly sounds troll like to me. Not only were these ancient trolls not motivated by an honest quest for truth, but apparently they could not defend their own position without resorting to tricks or traps. As Solomon said, “there is nothing new under the sun.” I guess there really isn’t.

    I must confess I do not understand this side of human nature. If you are certain that your position is the true and reasonable one, why would you have to resort to dishonesty and deceit to defend it? I don’t have to resort to those kind of tactics to defend my position.

  38. 38
    kairosfocus says:

    JAD, the game is to discredit by making someone look like a fool, or to reinforce counter-programming, or in Jesus’ case to trap to death. If he said yes pay taxes, he would be lynched, if he said don’t he would be subject to Roman execution. He took occasion to teach about the relationship between God and Caesar, with hints at, oh, you love to denounce his idolatry but hang on to his silver. Some Trolls are actually cyber-stalkers and bullies, thus in one sense fascist thugs — as the penumbra of hate sites around this one demonstrate to any responsible person. KF

  39. 39
    Querius says:

    JAD,

    Good point.

    To me it seems that Jesus had love, mercy, and patience with people who were honest and genuine—but he had no patience at all with trolls. For example, in John chapter 8, Jesus has some sharp exchanges with the pharisees.

    -Q

Leave a Reply