I Shall Not Live by Lies

_{Barry Arrington
June 19, 2020

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A man is not a woman, and anyone who says or implies otherwise is a liar.

On June 15, 2020, this lie prevailed in the Supreme Court of the United States of America. This lie is now the law, and it will be enforced with all of the terrible power of the government.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn said this about lies:

Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.

And he said this about refusing to surrender one’s soul to a terrible lying government:

It will not be an easy choice for a body, but it is only one for a soul. And if we get cold feet, even taking this step, then we are worthless and hopeless, and the scorn of Pushkin should be directed to us:“Why should cattle have the gifts of freedom? Their heritage from generation to generation is the belled yoke and the lash.”

This day I vow to defy this lie that has become law. I will never participate in the lie. I will never say a man is a woman, and I will never imply it by using feminine pronouns to refer to him. I call on you to join me. And if you refuse? Solzhenitsyn again:

And he who is not sufficiently courageous even to defend his soul — don’t let him be proud of his “progressive” views, Let him say to himself: I am in the herd, and a coward. It’s all the same to me as long as I’m fed and warm.

Comments

Kairosfocus: evolutionary materialistic scientism notoriously explains events in the end on Monod’s chance and necessity, in that context reducing mind to computation on a substrate. Dynamic-stochastic systems is a short description of that: mechanical necessity with chance, stochastic processes of varying character. Where GIGO limitation is equally well known. I'd like to see a proper mathematical model if that's your assertion 'cause otherwise that's just all hand waving. Beyond that, enough has already been said, the further talking points simply play out as predicted. Let me know when you hit rock bottom and hard, needless pain causes a change of mindset amenable to a fresh start. Right so, for some reason, you think you have already answered the question of whether or not men should be allowed to wear what is traditionally considered womens' clothing. And I think your answer is no, they should not be. If that's not correct then please state so clearly and unambiguously. If that is correct then can you please elucidate your legal grounds (we'll stick with the US for that) for that opinion. And can you also please state your moral grounds, Biblical is good, for that opinion. Remember I am just talking about clothing choices. Would you consider it appropriate for men to wear codpieces as they used to do? How about wigs (as judges and lawyers in England still do)? Also, are you asking us to lie when we defer to referring to you by your forum name when we know your true name? Is that still a sin?JVL_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

EDTA: They have the toughest choice of all then. We (collectively) have tried to re-order society around these other groups, and it is turning into a large fail. Remember the angry incels and what they fantasize about. I must be being stupid but: what/who are incels? Give up a bit, or give up everything? The angry incels are giving up major life opportunities. Some are also suicidal. What about them? I guess 'incels' are genetically normal men? What major life opportunities are they giving up? Incels are being denied the chance at normal marriage, family, etc. Again, not all, just an angry enough demographic group to want to band together and cause quite a bit of trouble for society as a whole. Have you lurked in their forums much? Again, not being exactly sure of who incels are how are they being denied the chance of normal marriage and family? I'm missing something here clearly.JVL_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit, >From what little I’ve seen, they appear to be about 99% Trumpers. Why do you say that the progressive left created them. Were we supposed to give them a bath and brush their teeth or something? We used to have a society that--while leaving the fringes somewhat ragged--did have the time/knowledge/wisdom to see that a large core set of people successfully carried society from one generation to the next. The "social fabric" got successfully woven at one end as people were passing away at the other. Social capital was continually being built. I saw it in action. That is no longer happening with enough frequency to keep things going. Yes, we've always had problems. But we need to not create new bigger ones. If they're mostly Trumpers, then maybe they do see how it happened. It started before the Sexual Revolution of the 60's, but for practical purposes, trace it there. It was a perfect storm of waning influence of Christianity, left-moving politics, enlarging gov't which thought it could solve every problem, social engineering, increasing numbers of people going off to college, urbanization, and other things. But spearheaded by liberals, those who supported the Sexual Revolution and pushed it forward. It wasn't conservatives, who would not ask for revolution, but rather slow change to make sure things didn't break faster than they were being improved. The proof is that the Left never saw the incel movement coming. They had no idea. They did not predict it in the slightest. They don't care that it is happening now. (OK, some do--it's the next problem they will try to solve. God help them.) The leftist agenda is truly an unplanned, (largely) uncontrolled plunge into the unknown. Thanks a bunch. And yes, a lot of people all around the political spectrum don't seem as mature as they should be. Try incels dot net. I haven't made it to the reddit forum yet, but I hear it's even more popular.EDTA_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

Thanks Acartia Eddie @ 150. It looks like discrimination is alive and well. Be assimilated or be cast out!ET_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

JVL, evolutionary materialistic scientism notoriously explains events in the end on Monod's chance and necessity, in that context reducing mind to computation on a substrate. Dynamic-stochastic systems is a short description of that: mechanical necessity with chance, stochastic processes of varying character. Where GIGO limitation is equally well known. All of this, as an educated person you full well know so I reject the attempt to pretend that I have raised some dubious novelty that requires particular specification. Further to this, it is manifest that you don't get to responsible, rationally free mind on that so the challenge is to see how ever a properly functioning rational, knowing mind could arise from such. In fact, more than that, the view is manifestly, multiply self-referentially incoherent and necessarily false, taking down fellow traveller accommodationist views with it. So, you do not get to a rational, responsible, sane mind, much less one that -- as we inescapably are -- is under government of first duties of reason. Rationality and sanity as well as responsible freedom go poof, so there is no base to assess sanity much less insanity, much less MORAL-intellectual debasement aka the reprobate mind. Indeed, there is no genuine who to do a freely rational assessment. The whole project of intellect crashes down in self referential incoherence. The reasonable conclusion is that we are more than such substrates, as say Haldane long ago pointed out:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]
Beyond that, enough has already been said, the further talking points simply play out as predicted. Let me know when you hit rock bottom and hard, needless pain causes a change of mindset amenable to a fresh start. KFkairosfocus_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

JVL, >So true hermaphrodites should do what exactly? They have the toughest choice of all then. We (collectively) have tried to re-order society around these other groups, and it is turning into a large fail. Remember the angry incels and what they fantasize about. >I guess the question is: how do we decide on the lesser-of-many-evils choice. Doesn’t everyone have to give up a bit for a greater consensus? Give up a bit, or give up everything? The angry incels are giving up major life opportunities. Some are also suicidal. What about them? >Intended by whom? God. >What is that exactly that men are being denied? Incels are being denied the chance at normal marriage, family, etc. Again, not all, just an angry enough demographic group to want to band together and cause quite a bit of trouble for society as a whole. Have you lurked in their forums much?EDTA_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

Sev, >"That boys engage in outdoor physical activities and girls stay indoors and practice domestic skills is not biologically determined. That men become engineers or scientists while women become nurses or teachers is not biologically determined." Not absolutely determined, but is there a biologically-based _tendency_ to prefer one over the other? If you think not, how do you know?EDTA_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

Vivid, Plato's Cave shadow shows mistaken for reality. I suppose a key factor is, to accuse or question is to be a Racist or an Uncle Tom Oreo (or in my native, a roast breadfruit). Truth forfeited, sound conscience forfeited, justice forfeited. It is also easy to see that things don't add up with Antifa. The very claim Anti-Fascist is an obvious turnabout projection. One of Herr Schicklegruber's favourite techniques. KFkairosfocus_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

“Then, why were they handed the keys to the kingdom, complete with a protected ride on the media magic carpet? That is deeply revealing. “ BLM is the name no one can mention. It is suicide for anyone to report on its origin, its self avowed Marxist founders, it’s connections to Freedom Roads Socialist Organization now called Liberation Road. My God a coach that wore a t shirt to go fishing in was forced to publicly apologize. Now we are into the modern day equivalent of book burning. “I know already that the dominant narrative on the Ferguson incident is propagandistically falsified. “ I remember reading the full transcript of the file and the eyewitness testimony, African Americans all, afraid for their lives. Michael Brown went for the gun, hands up don’t shoot never happened. Vividvividbleau_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

Vivid, okay, it moved from the fringe to the mainstream riding piggyback on "never let a crisis go to waste," never mind that such misanthropic folly should have utterly discredited a group advocating such. Then, why were they handed the keys to the kingdom, complete with a protected ride on the media magic carpet? That is deeply revealing. I know already that the dominant narrative on the Ferguson incident is propagandistically falsified. There is a pattern here, so where do backing resources and connexions come from. KFkairosfocus_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

Vivid, we are seeing Red Guard tactics and the sort of corrupting intimidation Havel described in his greengrocer parable. The parable clipped in 14 above that objectors so studiously side stepped. We have forgotten, or never learned just how much use Marxist subversion makes of front groups and issues that involve people who don't see the strings going behind the curtain. I would expect that culture form critical theory oppression metanarrative marxists and their community organiser operatives will do much as the classical Leninist/Stalinist and Maoist ones did. KFkairosfocus_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

“In less than one week the demand to defund and abolish the police came from seemingly nowhere to 24/7 media coverage. “ Not out of nowhere BLM has demanded this for years. Vividvividbleau_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Vivid, the issue is of course design detection. I assert that 4th gen insurgency operations do not come from nowhere nor are such going to be organised without plans and heavy logistics backing. That requires planners with difficult to achieve capabilities backed by enough economic clout to channel serious resources, where we already see strong signatures of Alinsky style tactical doctrine and clear parallels to the Red Guards. For serious level operatives, we are looking at years of training. For those using protest infiltration and swarm tactics (notice how often the first confrontation is with a female backed by a swarm), months. I see where a captured arsonist was posted as a missing person about a year ago, fully across the US from where she was caught. Even then, she habitually wore red and black, telling colours. The operations also seem to track the Arab Spring and E Europe uprisings. But then we know we deal with those utterly unwilling to see signs of inconvenient design, even as we have seen a long parade of conspiracism and linked lawfare trumpeted all over major media. That selective filtering is itself a clue. KFkairosfocus_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

“In fact, I agree that I do not think anyone should be forced to address someone by that person’s chosen pronoun; in fact I really, really like ET’s excellent suggestion: just call them ‘you’ or by their name.” I am not sure about this but I think some teacher lost their job because they would not use the correct pronoun. Regardless using correct pro nouns will be required not just the name. Found it. Plaintiff Nicholas K. Meriwether. Vividvividbleau_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: Your basic problem does not start with mental or moral aberrations etc, but with rising above computational substrates to rational, responsible mind. As von Hayek was oft heard to say, the problem is not so much what is wrong but how could things ever have gone right in the first place. If you could explain how all this answers the questions we have put to you I'd appreciate it. You pride yourselves on clever intelligence (and not a few belittle those dumb IDiots), but the first challenge is that a computational substrate is utterly non-rational. It is a You pride yourselves on clever intelligence (and not a few belittle those dumb IDiots), but the first challenge is that a computational substrate is utterly non-rational. It is a GIGO constrained, dynamic stochastic system that could never freely make a ground consequent inference or worse a judgement of inductive cogency. "[A} GIGO constrained, dynamic stochastic system that could never freely make a ground consequent inference or worse a judgement of inductive cogency. A stochastic system? Really? Please spell that out mathematically. That is, without freedom, rationality goes poof. And freedom is not in the gift of blind mechanical forces and equally blind chance. So . . . men do have the freedom to wear womens' clothing? What a relief! You say a lot of things but you continually avoid answering some basic and simple questions. Why I cannot say but it makes it hard for some of us to avoid thinking you are somewhat narrow minded. I'd rather give you the chance to answer for yourself but you seem unwilling to do so. Or should I just assume your answer? It is patent from the genetically stamped complementarity of the two sexes and linked requisites of stable society much less sound upbringing, that our sexuality is ordered as between the sexes in stable responsible bonds, marriage. That which disorders such, is inherently deranged, morally as well as intellectually. Not that this day and age is inclined to acknowledge the obvious. Including, that a man is a man and a woman a woman, from the genes up; never mind nonsense on 112 so called genders as psycho-social constructs. The consequences of our irresponsibility and folly are all around, regardless of willingness to be led to the sound. What about hermaphrodites? And besides, I was just asking you about clothing choices. You can surely answer that question easily. Seversky, that a man is a man and a woman a woman is biologically, genetically driven and decisive. Truth says of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not. To try to use colour and ceremony of law to force people of integrity to lie is manifestly evil. We will not yield to it, nor will we assume that we can change naturally evident creation order for man, woman, marriage, family as we will. Period. But, does that mean a man cannot wear a skirt/kilt?JVL_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

“Perhaps these ‘shadowy warlords’ don’t exist, and you have just been reading too much WND.com?“ Then again perhaps they do, do a deep dive on BLM which has little to do with Black Lives. Vividvividbleau_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

EDTA @ 38: "#2 will suck for some people. But life sucks now for many millions of incels, and they are ready to rape and kill. Just visit their forums where they encourage each other and discuss what they want to do in their anger. The progressive Left had no idea they were creating such a dangerous demographic group." I agree that #2 is the right answer, but I'm puzzled by your remark about INvoluntary CELibates. I haven't monitored incell forums, but I've seen some of their screeds published after their crimes. Everything I've seen about them has portrayed them as uber geeks who sit around and complain about how every single woman in the world discriminates against because they can't even get a date, let alone get laid, and who are so mad about their pathetic condition that they're ready to rape and kill because of it. From what little I've seen, they appear to be about 99% Trumpers. Why do you say that the progressive left created them. Were we supposed to give them a bath and brush their teeth or something? Also, could you give us some URLs for these incel forums? I like to keep track of people who are pro rape and murder.MatSpirit_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

JVL, the disordered are not the yardstick of order. We may indeed pity and seek how to help, but it is manifest that we must first understand how things could ever have gone right if we are to set in order what has gone wrong. The modernist preoccupation with the odd and the attempted counter-example mislead us by tending to make a crooked yardstick our standard to judge what is straight and upright. KFkairosfocus_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

I have a close American friend who’s company has an employee who informed him that he was transitioning to a women. He asked my friend if that would cause a problem with his job. My friend told him that it absolutely would not but asked his permission to have a meeting with the rest of staff so that it wouldn’t come as a surprise. During this meeting my friend asked if any of them would have an issue with this. One staff member essentially said what Barry said in the OP. My friend told him that he had a choice to make. Either respect the transgendered employee and call her by her new name or seek alternate employment. That person no longer works for my friend’s company.Ed George_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

EDTA: 2) Try to approximate the intended state as much as possible. Since God originally (pre-fall) intended that we be distinctively male and female, we can try to approximate that as best we can. That means those at the fringes of the male/female bell curves should pick the closest sex/gender, and live that way. So true hermaphrodites should do what exactly? Life is a continuous series of lesser-of-many-evils choices. I’m not happy that we can’t accommodate everyone, but it looks like the attempt to do so is failing badly. I guess the question is: how do we decide on the lesser-of-many-evils choice. Doesn't everyone have to give up a bit for a greater consensus? You are correct that women have been moving in the direction of men as far as dress goes for some time now. But as I said above, the sexes/genders were intended to be distinct and special in their own ways. Intended by whom? Men in particular can see that they are being denied something they easily obtained a few gen’s ago. What is that exactly that men are being denied?JVL_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

JaD, let's work together to draw this out further. I suggest many principles are evident to sound, conscience guided and guarded reason, tracing to creation order. In particular, even our rationality is morally governed. This sets a context for true justice in community, the due balance of rights, freedoms and duties. KFkairosfocus_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

DS, WND has essentially nothing to do with the matter. The agit prop street insurgency is all over the news, in recent days the misanthropic call to abolish the police came out of nowhere to instant prominence despite patent folly, the media amp and orchestrated singing from a common hymn sheet are obvious, the lawfare has been going on for years. I am simply connecting dots as one who lived through such a civil war already. BTW, ten years later the fading USSR sent a delegation of public apology that actually hired a conference centre to publicly, formally apologise for what it had done. Those who pooh-pooed KGB/GRU involvement a decade earlier were publicly refuted. Familiar patterns are playing out, echoing also, say, the Chinese Cultural Revolution. There is smoke of arson, literal and metaphorical, so who is lighting things up? KFkairosfocus_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

As I have already written here and elsewhere when it comes to morality and human rights there is a long natural law tradition in the west that moral obligation and human rights are based on something objective and transcendent. Cicero understood this when he wrote, “Neither the senate nor the people can give us any dispensation for not obeying this universal law of justice. It needs no other expositor and interpreter than our own conscience. It is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens; one thing today and another tomorrow; but in all times and nations this universal law must forever reign, eternal and imperishable.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/how-the-warren-debacle-demonstrates-the-insanity-of-the-progressive-war-on-reality/#comment-666474 Saint Paul and Aquinas also appealed to moral natural law. For example, in Romans 2:13-15 Paul writes, “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 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…” I couldn’t find a comprehensive Aquinas quote. However I did find a good summary of Aquinas’ thinking by someone who wrote his PhD dissertation on Natural Law.
I wrote my PhD dissertation on Natural Law (Titled: “Thomas Aquinas on Natural Law and the Twofold End of Humanity), and I hope to publish it in the next few years. Until then, here’s the short version in just 5 easy points: *God designed natural law so that humans participate in God’s eternal law. As rational creatures we can determine and seek that which is good and avoid that which is evil. *According to Thomas Aquinas, the first precept of natural law is “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” Every subsequent moral precept is based on this “first precept of natural law.” (By the way, you should memorize the underlined quote and never forget it. It is very useful and it will strengthen your understanding of natural law). *The #1 mistake people make about natural law is that they assume that natural law is secular and non-religious. Not true according to Saint Thomas Aquinas. Saint Thomas teaches that the virtue of religion, sacrifice, holidays, and even a natural priesthood pertains to the natural law. Moreover, avoiding idols and worshipping the Creator are derived precepts of the natural law. *Natural law is common to all the nations. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Daoist, animist…natural law applies to you. This means that the testimony of natural law leads one to have a true religion. Thomas Aquinas would say that natural law in the heart of man would argue against idolatry, polytheism, atheism, etc. Hence, the idolatry of, say, Hinduism is banned under natural law. *Natural law is insufficient for human beatitude and salvation. Thomas Aquinas is really clear about this. He teaches that natural law is not enough. A human person can never erase natural law from his heart, but he can mitigate its force in his life. And even if a human person followed natural law perfectly, he would not attain to Heaven, because sanctifying grace is needed to enter the Beatific Vision (vision of God). So then, God gave “Divine Law” in the form of the Old Testament but perfectly in the New Testament. The New Law of the New Testament is really the Holy Spirit who communicates mercy, grace, and love to our souls and body. Hence, the human person after Adam and Eve needs Divine Law to perfect what natural law cannot do. (The heresy of Pelagianism holds that humans can be saved by perfectly following natural law – a big no-no for Catholics!)
https://search.proquest.com/openview/b0ae2ecddcddfdb392fb3580d4275e54/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y In other words, morality and human rights are not something that were invented or made up by human beings. Moral thinking and beliefs are intrinsic to human nature. So somehow it just evolved or, more logically, human beings were purposely created with a moral nature. And as I have also conceded, the natural law view of morality doesn’t mean there aren’t disagreements about natural law. There have been, there are and there will be disagreements. However, what can’t be argued is the historical fact that the natural law view has been foundational to western thinking about morality and human rights for the last 2500 years. And again, its roots go all the way back at least to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.john_a_designer_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

KF, Perhaps these 'shadowy warlords' don't exist, and you have just been reading too much WND.com? People are very angry and restless at the moment, and have lots of extra time due to lockdowns and unemployment. That's enough to explain the current happenings.daveS_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

Seversky, that a man is a man and a woman a woman is biologically, genetically driven and decisive. Truth says of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not. To try to use colour and ceremony of law to force people of integrity to lie is manifestly evil. We will not yield to it, nor will we assume that we can change naturally evident creation order for man, woman, marriage, family as we will. Period. KFkairosfocus_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Folks, Yesterday, I raised some pointed questions in answer to DS, first at 102:
street theatre insurrection points to those who want to use that theatre to advantage, as was highlighted through the living memory example of the Cultural Revolution that convulsed China for ten years. So, no, such questions are relevant and material. Riot, rapine, looting, arson and attack on culture symbols have moved ahead apace, duly media amplified through singing off the same hymn sheet. Linked lawfare is trying to take the police off the chessboard, despite how obviously insane that is. That has to make sense to somebodies, somebodies who by this alone are misanthropic. Where, admissions indicate that 2 years back candidates were being asked about abolishing the police . . . 4th gen war, nevertheless points to 4th gen Generals, warlords backing them and logistics to back same. So, what is going on? Who hopes to benefit?
A little later, 104 :
I am putting up facts from the Cultural Revolution so that we can look at a major power with its longstanding civilisation and how it was brought to its knees through a 4th Gen, low kinetic intensity civil war using street theatre as a key arena of struggle. The history is there, now witnessed by the dupes used in that street theatre decades before as they try to make peace with themselves. While history does not simplistically repeat itself and while 50 years of technological advance have happened (so the Arab Spring and Revolutions in Ukraine etc are also relevant) we can get a more frank admission here. Then, let us familiarise ourselves with patterns so we will not be blinded by the fog of war closer to home. And yes, I repeat, it has been obvious to me for years that the US has been in low grade 4th Gen civil war . . .
I ask these again: we see the operations playing out on streets, in the media, in courts and legislatures as well as local and federal executive offices. But operations are not self-explanatory as spontaneous disconnected random events. Operations point to strategy, strategic goals, logistics setting the framework. Planners, organisers, operators, decision makers, generals are involved. In China, 54 years ago, Mao and his faction were the answer. Today, who are behind the curtains, pulling the strings? And no, this is not empty conspiracism. Recognisable, continent scale Alinski style agit prop street theatre operations, with singing off the same hymn sheet media amplification and even censorship are playing out. Lawfare is associated. In less than one week the demand to defund and abolish the police came from seemingly nowhere to 24/7 media coverage. This alone, is a crossing the Rubicon event, marking something that is ruthlessly misanthropic and anti-civilisational. This is therefore an existential event. But as everything else with 4th Gen war, it is in the shadows and fog, working by manipulating and polarising a critical mass. Brick pallets were being pre-positioned. Frozen water bottles were in use as projectiles, all leading to hundreds of police casualties, which were suppressed as not fitting the metanarrative. Suddenly, we realised that skateboards were turned from toys into seemingly innocuous but deadly war hammers. Civilisational icons are being attacked with impunity, with police etc obviously told to stand aside. So bad is it that Spain has had to send a diplomatic message. You have to search far and deep to pick the pattern up, the anchors, guests and pundits ring false. All of which is strongly parallel to things we have seen before. So, what geostrategic agenda is at work, who are the generals and funders, where do the shadowy warlords lurk? This is all existential, we had better get some good, well warranted answers and act on them urgently, in defence of civilisation. Today's Red Guards and their backers must not win, for the common good. KFkairosfocus_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

Yes, genes determine whether a human being develops as a man or a woman and there are obvious physiological differences between the two. But the convention that blue is for boys and pink is for girls is not biologically determined. That boys wear pants and girls wear dresses is not biologically determined That boys engage in outdoor physical activities and girls stay indoors and practice domestic skills is not biologically determined. That men become engineers or scientists while women become nurses or teachers is not biologically determined. There is the physical sex which, in most but not all cases, is clear at birth and there is gender which are the socially-acceptable and culturally-determined roles played by each sex in society. That some may be discomfited by the undermining of their unwarranted certainty that these gender conventions were somehow laws of nature, the fact that some men prefer to dress and behave like women or vice versa is not going to bring human civilization crashing down in ruins, even if, for some, that is apparently a "consummation devoutly to be wished".Seversky_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

EG & JVL et al: Your basic problem does not start with mental or moral aberrations etc, but with rising above computational substrates to rational, responsible mind. As von Hayek was oft heard to say, the problem is not so much what is wrong but how could things ever have gone right in the first place. You pride yourselves on clever intelligence (and not a few belittle those dumb IDiots), but the first challenge is that a computational substrate is utterly non-rational. It is a GIGO constrained, dynamic stochastic system that could never freely make a ground consequent inference or worse a judgement of inductive cogency. That is, without freedom, rationality goes poof. And freedom is not in the gift of blind mechanical forces and equally blind chance. This is one reason why evolutionary materialistic scientism is a self-referential, self-defeating self contradictory necessarily false scheme of thought. One, that takes its fellow travellers down with it in self-falsifying ruin. Of course, you will never acknowledge it, but that makes utterly no difference to the self-ruin. To have rationality, one has to have freedom (a strong sign of our spiritual nature, but let's not go there in detail), which means we face the gap between IS and OUGHT, starting with the first duties that govern reason. As I have been noting:
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law.
Yes, duty governs rationality, we are inescapably morally governed creatures. A point observed by Cicero when he noted that “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in [our] nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary.” Which means that bridging the IS-OUGHT gap is central to rational life. Moral government is inseparable from rational, responsible mindedness. In turn, that gap can only be bridged in the root of reality, on pain of ungrounded ought. We have known this since Hume. That means, the root source of reality must bridge the gap, if we are to account for ourselves as responsible, rational creatures. This requires that that root source is inherently good and utterly wise as well as awesomely powerful and of course truly independent -- i.e. necessary -- in being. A familiar figure, one far more reasonably to be acknowledged than ever those in the grips of today's fashionable but self-defeating ideologies will acknowledge. So, the question of derangement is deeper than ever you would credit. So, let us write for record as a witness against an age of utter moral and intellectual, suicidal folly. It is patent from the genetically stamped complementarity of the two sexes and linked requisites of stable society much less sound upbringing, that our sexuality is ordered as between the sexes in stable responsible bonds, marriage. That which disorders such, is inherently deranged, morally as well as intellectually. Not that this day and age is inclined to acknowledge the obvious. Including, that a man is a man and a woman a woman, from the genes up; never mind nonsense on 112 so called genders as psycho-social constructs. The consequences of our irresponsibility and folly are all around, regardless of willingness to be led to the sound. This derangement does include the attempt to join what is patently contrary to nature and is manifestly destructive as we see the increasing consequences of trying to reorder society in its image. Obviously, we are so stubbornly determined to rush ahead on this civilisational march of folly that we will only wake up, shattered and broken, at the foot of the cliff. That is how great a folly it is to turn our backs on the source and governor of our being. But all of this is elaboration that predictably you will pay not a moment's heed to save to snip, strawmannise, stigmatise and scorn. See you at the foot of the cliff, where awful, needless pain might just make for a more amenable mindset. In the meanwhile, it remains demonic, blasphemous tyranny to try to force people of integrity to lie under threat of coercion appealing to colour and ceremony of law. Even as they make mockery of the solemn duty of justice, There are those of us that will never yield to such blasphemous folly, learn that for sure and know that if you carry forward with force under false colour of law, you simply prove that you serve anything but the civil peace of justice. In my case, that is literally written into my name. KFkairosfocus_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

JVL, >Are you okay with men or women dressing like the opposite sex, work and job requirements aside. Is that being deceitful? ... (Of course, women have been dressing like men for decades so the real issue is men wearing dresses, skirts, nylons and makeup.) You are correct that women have been moving in the direction of men as far as dress goes for some time now. But as I said above, the sexes/genders were intended to be distinct and special in their own ways. Women were not intended to be just like men, nor men llike women. Mixing them up confuses the hell out of most people. Few know how to handle the world the progressives have created in just a few generations, so they revert back to their instincts, and that results in a lot of hatred and anger coming out. Men in particular can see that they are being denied something they easily obtained a few gen's ago. We are in a very precarious time.EDTA_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

Caitlyn Marie Jenner (born William Bruce Jenner; October 28, 1949) won the men’s decathlon at the 1976 Olympic Games. Does “she” still have the gold medal? If so shouldn’t she give it back because she isn’t/wasn’t really a man?john_a_designer_{June 21, 2020
June
06
Jun
21
21
2020
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply