|June 19, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Geo-strategic issues, Governance & control vs anarchy, Politics/policy and origins issues, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
A video lecture well worth pondering: embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt To clarify a point or two, let us observe a handy outline of Plato’s types of Government, where he — and IIRC he was once captured and enslaved, having to be ransomed — feared continual deterioration ending in enslavement under tyrants: and Aristotle’s six […]
|June 8, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Politics/policy and origins issues, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
In response to the current News post on Denton’s new book, Seversky raises the IS-OUGHT gap issue again in comment no. 2, casting it in terms of DERIVING ought from is. I think this is worth a discussion, but that would be off topic there. So, I responded at 3 and now headline for discussion: […]
|June 6, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Evolutionary materialism's amorality, evolutionary materialism's self-falsification, Politics/policy and origins issues, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
In the past few weeks at UD, we have seen abundant indicators on how: a –> we are in a time of obvious, deeply polarised ideological confrontation in our civilisation [in material part, driven by cultural marxist agendas and stratagems], b –> we are forced to give unwelcome counsel in the face of an obvious […]
|June 5, 2016||Posted by William J Murray under Ethics, Intelligent Design, Mathematics|
This is an expansion of a post of mine from another thread. Hat tip to HeKS for bringing the debate around to Ontology vs Epistemology. In another thread, Seversky rejects the objective nature of morality based on the fact you cannot prove its existence or specific values like you can, say, the speed of light […]
|June 3, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Evolutionary materialism's amorality, Politics/policy and origins issues, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
Let’s see, courtesy comment 469 in the WJM subjectivism thread: >>It seems we need to address as MSET 0, that there are moral truths. In steps of thought: 1 –> Let’s call this proposition, M0. M0 = there is at least one moral truth. 2–> Understand, truths are assertions that accurately describe aspects of reality. […]
|June 2, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Evolutionary materialism's amorality, FYI-FTR, Intelligent Design, Politics/policy and origins issues, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society||
As the WJM arguing thread continues, we can notice other concerns, here, extreme nominalism and its nihilistic consequences. Yes, nihilistic: might and manipulation make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘meaning,’ ‘law,’ and so forth. I responded to CF’s attempt to push principled objection to nihilistic, nominalistic, radically relativist, subjectivist homosexualisation of ‘marriage’ under false colour of law [cf […]
|June 2, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Evolutionary materialism's amorality, evolutionary materialism's self-falsification, FYI-FTR, Politics/policy and origins issues, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society||
In a recent exchange with BA in the WJM arguing thread, CF inadvertently revealed that he too knows or should know and acknowledge, that there is an oughtness towards truth. This is not unexpected, given the core moral self evident truths. For instance, we can see the first cycle: >>1] The first self evident moral […]
|June 1, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Evolutionary materialism's amorality, FYI-FTR, Geo-strategic issues, Politics/policy and origins issues, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society||
In WJM’s still very active Subjectivism privilege thread — and in response to my citing Plato’s warning on radical relativist amorality, factionalism and nihilism in The Laws Bk X, CF has recently gloated (cf 417): “Frankly, I am glad that the type of prurient, judgemental morality that you worship [–> yes, we catch the implicit, […]
CF’s objection to “we are inescapably under the government of ought . . . ” in WJM’s subjectivism privilege thread is revealing and worth headlining, as is the onward exchange, as it shows what we are dealing with. Remember, this is a live example of a now common mindset: CF, 251: >>KairosFocus: “Here is what […]
Overnight CF and Aleta threw down a gauntlet in WJM’s thread on subjectivism: CF, 148 : >>KairosFocus: “CF, again you are asserting when something you have consistently refused to address is on the table.” [CF:] the fact that you disagree with how I have repeatedly addressed the issue does not mean that I have “consistently […]
FYI-FTR: Is there such a thing as objective moral truth? (Or, are we left to the clash of opinions? Esp. as regards sex?)
In a current WJM thread on transgenderism, CF has been arguing that different cultures and religions take different views and each holds themselves to be superior — of course this overlooks for just one instance a key remark C S Lewis made in his essay, “Men Without Chests” on what he called the Tao, on […]
|May 19, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Geo-strategic issues, Governance & control vs anarchy, Politics/policy and origins issues, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
Following up from the FTR on the lesson of the failure of democracy in Athens, I have found a powerful 26-lecture series by Rufus Fears . . . a man imbued with the spirit of history; one that will well and long repay the time invested to view it and to ponder and discuss it. […]
Athens, the first great democracy — the city state and naval power that in company with the great Greek land power Sparta led Greece in its successful defense against Persian aggression — foolishly and arrogantly grasped for empire and wealth; so it fell due to its hubris. By march of folly [I add, cf vid […]
|May 16, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Evolutionary materialism's amorality, FYI-FTR, Governance & control vs anarchy, Intellectual freedom, Politics/policy and origins issues, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society||
As we continue to look at the issue of wedges used at watersheds to trigger slides down mutually polarised slippery slopes to ruin, D reminds us on the lesson of the White Rose martyrs . . . a movement that is now pivotal in some key ways to the modern self-understanding of the German people. […]
As discussion continues on the march of folly watershed and slippery slopes of wedging apart, polarisation and ruin, it is time to expose mass manipulation tactics. Aka, “brainwashing.” Here, I clip comment 771: ______________ >>>Can “mind control” techniques really rob us of ability to think, decide and act for ourselves? Are we really responsible, free, […]
FYI-FTR: The transgender school bathroom issue as a cultural marxist divide, polarise and ruin wedge
As debate has proceeded on the watershed, wedge-apart issue, real-time events have intruded to show who has read the dynamics accurately. Never mind the dismissive, denigratory accusations: bigot, hater, coward, apocalyptic, and worse . . . So, it is time to promote yet another comment in the still-in progress thread — no. 656 — as […]
|May 12, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, FYI-FTR, governance, Governance & control vs anarchy, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society||
As the ongoing exchange on watersheds and dual mutually polarised slippery slopes continues, 07 has been demanding: 07, 536: I am still waiting on my list of 10 self evident moral truths. If anyone else can help Phinehas out that would be appreciated! He now stands answered in the very next comment, which I headline: […]
FYI-FTR: On justice and rights as manifestly evident natural moral law principles (and the early modern era reform of governance)
|May 12, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, FYI-FTR, Governance & control vs anarchy, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society||
One of the themes that has come up in the ongoing exchanges on the perils of our civilisation (with homosexualisation of marriage under colour of law as a key case in point) is the issue of justice, rights and manifestly evident core principles of the natural moral law. Given current trends, this issue is well […]
|May 12, 2016||Posted by News under Culture, Darwinism, Ethics|
Richard Weikart’s radio debate with philosopher Peter Singer (infanticide supporter) and evolutionary psychologist Susan Blackmore He writes, “This debate came about because of my recent book, The Death of Humanity: And the Case for Life. Blackmore raises the issue of Darwinism to defend her position.” Here. See also: Darwin womb to tomb: Darwinism and abortion, […]
The perils of prolonged, march of folly-triggered crisis (of watersheds, slippery slopes and divide and ruin . . . )
|May 7, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Geo-strategic issues, governance, Governance & control vs anarchy, Politics/policy and origins issues, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
As I have pondered the current exchanges at UD and wider circumstances and trends with our civilisation, I have been reminded of the local prolonged volcano eruption triggered disaster and crisis that is now of over twenty years standing. Yesterday, I put up this visualisation of what I am thinking about — prolonged crisis with […]
Especially, as we ponder how the death toll from the US’s abortion holocaust under false colour of law now mounts up towards 60 millions, and how the global one (per numbers suggested by Guttmacher) is running at perhaps 40 – 50 millions per year.
Bloodguilt — especially mass bloodguilt such as this — is the most conscience-benumbing, heart-hardening, mind endarkening force I can think of.
If you need to explain our civilisation’s marches of folly,
. . . that would be a very good place to start.
Where also, as rights, sound governance, morality and natural law are pivotal concerns in the debate, allow me to share these thoughts again (as originally given in the context of attempts to homosexualise marriage).
Let me first remind of Masha Gessen’s let the cat out of the bag remarks:
Now, let me clip:
>>1 –> inescapably, we are morally governed as individuals and as communities.
2 –> on pain of immediate, patent absurdities, core moral principles are evident to conscience guided reason to certainty and are binding.
3 –> systems of thought that reduce morality to subjectivity, relativism or to illusion end in implying grand delusion and utter unreliability of our intelligence and conscience.
4 –> likewise, for things that undermine the premise that we have responsible, rational freedom and quasi-infinite worth and dignity; aptly captured in the traditional Judaeo Christan premise that we are equally created in the image of the good God and just Lord of all worlds.
5 –> Right to life, to liberty, to conscience and responsible expression, to innocent reputation, to the fruit of our labour and more flow from this, as say the US DoI of 1776 epochally acknowledges.
6 –> That document sums up this view in terms of the laws of nature and of nature’s God. It has far deeper idea roots and a centuries deep history behind it. Its legacy of liberty speaks for itself. Let me clip its first two paragraphs, noting the right of reformation and if necessary revolution in the face of a long train of abuses and usurpations (where the ballot box provides a peaceful instrument of audit, replacement, reformation and revolution but is critically dependent on an informed, responsible public cf the Ac 27 case here . . . a sobering lesson on the perils of manipulated democracy):
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
7 –> In this context, a core basic right is a binding moral expectation to be respected in regards to key aspects of our nature. That is, it is the mirror image and dual of mutually binding obligations imposed by our nature and its inherent dignity. That is rights are inherently matters of moral law connected to our nature.
8 –> As a consequence, a rights claim is a claim to be in the right and to be owed duties of care by others of like morally freighted nature.
9 –> You cannot have a right to the wrong, you cannot demand that others enable and support you in the wrong, such is to poison other souls with the taint of compulsion to do and to support the wrong. Such is monstrous and wicked.
10 –> Likewise, there are no rights to twist key institutions crucial to human thriving as individuals, families and communities. For the blessings of the civil peace of justice and liberty under legitimate law are key requisites of human thriving.
11 –> This holds for demanding that marriage be perverted through lawfare and agit prop, and the linked demand that sexual perversion be acknowledged on equal terms with the manifest order of nature stamped into our genes, organs, biology of reproduction and social- psychological- relational requisites of sound child nurture.>>
Ideas have consequences, and our civilisation faces sobering concerns and issues as we go through a prolonged crisis.
Walking a tightrope is not sustainable for a civilisation.
I think it is highly advisable for us to turn back, addressing both the prevailing worldviews climate and the agendas being imposed on us through the seven mountain commanding heights of a community or civilisation.
Where, also, we need to face the even more challenging question of our own degree of complicity in the problem. Ranging from being swept up in a march of folly, to becoming an activist enabler, to involvement in astro-turfed pseudo-grassroots front groups, to the rarer involvement as a strategic decision maker shaping radical, destructive agendas. In this, I must also . . . under the doctrine of fair comment, point to the rise of Cultural Marxism, the red- double green de facto alliance between the radical secularist left, radical environmentalists and IslamISTS. Clipping from the just linked:
In effect [in Cultural Marxism], we see neo-Marxist analysis transformed from the classic class war to an ideology for identity/minority group activism driven by a sense of oppression to be overthrown; which — per fair comment — can all too easily be manipulated into subversion of institutions, law, policy and community life, in the end demanding approval of evil in the name of true freedom and liberation. Activisim that can easily become pretty ruthless factionalism that may easily run the risk of pushing democracy into mob rule. And, when ruthless activists gain institutional power, a big problem is that they have not learned the habits of sound, balanced, mutually respectful governance, but instead those of ruthlessness.
This montage will help make my point (notice, the red star on the tee-shirt and the rainbow coloured umbrellas):
As a civilisation, we have some thinking and very carefully judged changing and reforming to do. In a very perilous situation where time is not on our side.
Let us begin to think, very, very carefully — while remembering Machiavelli’s warning on political hectic fever. END
PS: The Rick Rescorla story points out how to most people on Sept 10, 2001, the idea of what happened just a day later was unthinkable. But he had foreseen it with his informal security think-tank team all the way back to 1993. Notice, how hard it was to acknowledge the realities and trends. I add this, because it seems necessary — in light of dismissive comments below — to draw attention to the need to understand the risks that are being run with our civilisation (just as happened at Fair Havens in mid-October 59 AD):
PPS: It seems that in response to objections being made I should headline a summary of
>> . . . the agit prop employed by marxists of various stripes — including cultural marxists taking the long subversive march through the socio-cultural institutions — and by their ideological kissing cousins the fascists over the past 100 years.
I again cite the neo-Marxist Alinsky’s key tactics:
5] “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
13] “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
I summarise that agit-prop- activism- and- lawfare- as- an- agenda tends to:
a: sweep up alienated minorities or classes, proceeding onwards to
b: create a dominant narrative of oppression and proposed liberation under messianistic leadership/movements, thus
c: carries with it those who have been indoctrinated and polarised, bringing them under the influence of
d: enabling activists and front groups or issues movements, many of which are in fact
e: astro turf, i.e. pseudo grassroots, not genuinely spontaneous (or else have been infiltrated, betrayed and co-opted for the radical cause by agenda serving agit prop activists), being manipulated and controlled by
f: calculated strategies and cultural/policy agendas, created and sustained by
g: strategic level ideologues, planners and backers/funders. Where the game plan is
h: to seize dominant control of several key cultural institutions thus shaping the dominant worldview, and the cultural/policy agenda and the public discussion — cf the seven mountains analysis framework in the OP above. In so doing,
i: ruthless agit prop will routinely resort to distract, distort, denigrate, stereotype, demonise and scapegoat tactics in order to
j: secure advancement of an agenda that often cannot stand the cold light of day. Where,
k: it is often assumed or implied or even outright asserted that by and large people cannot think clearly and logically so they
l: must be given simplistic, dramatic agit prop narratives that stir their resentful emotions (giving them convenient targets) and these polarising myths also
m: secure their adhesion to the politically messianistic ideology, its top leadership and the local activists. Quite often,
n: The triple tactic advocated by Kirk and Madsen is used: desensitising, jamming out contrary message sources, conversion to toleration or enabling or participation.
o: Then, the radical nihilistic ill-founded agenda, through lawfare [I include subversion of parliaments, bodies of law and regulation and of the executive insofar as this operates under law], is entrenched. Ending in
These tactics I learned of in studying Nazism and in dealing with Marxists, and saw playing out in my native land to the point of triggering a mini civil war and permanently destabilising the nation through drug trade funded warlordism and politically connected gangs. I saw how the media and education were manipulated. I saw people lose rationality in crisis and go into Canetti’s the madness of crowds. I saw the stereotyping, scapegoating and targetting that Alinsky so cynically advocated.
And I saw the ruin such tactics create as communities go over the cliff and break their backs.
In the case of lawfare, I have seen how manipulation of the sword of justice and of laws can easily institutionalise evil and warp the proper functions of the state and community institutions. In particular, I saw the pernicious influence of evolutionary materialist scientism, linked amorality and institutionalisation of power in the hands of ruthless factions. And I saw the critical importance of a true understanding of moral governance and of responsible, rational freedom informed by insight into human nature and the laws of moral governance of that nature.
Which, I can see being foolishly discarded all across our civilisation as radical causes entrench themselves in the halls of power and impose marches of folly under false colour of law.>>
PPPS: The tone of objecting, dismissive commentary has taken such a stance that I have felt it necessary to remark as follows in comment 339:
>> . . . the religion card fails.
For, the issues at stake on the issue of the twisting of marriage under false colour of law are not religious but philosophical; having to do with the relevant patently, manifestly and even undeniably evident core principles of the natural moral law. That is, ethical and policy matters, having to do with foundations of justice, rights, freedoms and responsibilities of members of a free society.
(And yes, the reputation of freedom in the long term is most definitely in the stakes; the folly of our civilisation is not exactly commending the values of responsible rational freedom to rival civilisations bent on supplanting what they view as our decadent, dying, rotten civilisation. As in, let me add from the 1991 MB Explanatory Memo on the Civilisation/Settlement Jihad process:
“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ’sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions . . .” [–> cf here for more, including the relevant phased agenda]
Never mind their own problems of boy play — forgive the necessary reference. And when freedom is in the stakes, I must be very conscious of just who, historically, have been first in line to be reduced to chattel slavery. In a context where Africa is now obviously the global geostrategic pivot, the poorly garrisoned, deeply divided strategic resource rich continent ripe for plucking by those whose evil eyes are already on it. And the Nile valley and the Levant’s neighbourhood from the Sinai to the Bosporus is the land bridge that joins three key continents. We are clearly cursed to live in historically interesting times.)
That patently evident natural moral law is manifest in the complementarity of the sexes and the requisites of sound, stable child nurture.
Law, that we scant or disregard at grave peril to our civilisation.
Further, these issues pivot on our being morally governed, responsibly and rationally free . . . which is a premise of being sufficiently rational to debate matters on fact and logic.
Further to this the extreme nominalism being gleefully imposed to try to create as a novelty in law, homosexual marriage, thereby wrenching principles of equality and rights, raises the issue as to how such abracadabra words obtain meaning and force.
The answer is quite evident above: by might and manipulation make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘value,’ ‘meaning,’ ‘law’ etc.
So while preening yourself on openness to challenge of your religion by contrast with implied fundy ignoramuses (while by implication it is patent that you have disregarded challenges given to you and others of like ilk in response to your remarks, here on worldview foundations of ethical theism and here on the William G Perry error about truth that has unfortunately been embedded into educational curricula), you are opening the door to raw nihilism and oligarchic domination by ruthlessly manipulative factions.
That is how dangerous the matches being played with are.
I suggest to you, that you would be well advised to pause and think again.
The fire that is beginning to blaze out of control will burn up more than you realise.
PS: And I am very aware of the prevalence of catamites in the days of Plato and onwards in Greco-Roman culture, indeed in the Republic, the discussion of love was about diverse tastes in boys; we need not elaborate on what a Symposium was or easily became as the wine flowed with the conversation and the night wore on, at least by hinted reputation. That is part of what Rom 1 was denouncing, with Nero Caesar as deviant in chief — indeed he became the principal historical exemplar for attempted homosexualisation of marriage under false colour of law by way of — having kicked his pregnant wife to death — castrating and “marrying” a young boy who resembled her. Then, when he wanted more he manifested the inherently destabilising nature of this wrenching of marriage by “marrying” a man and mockingly imitating the cries of a virgin on her wedding night. I will not go further, into the details of public sexually tinged cannibalism (likely with Christians staked out in the Arena as targets). As, Suetonius’ Lives of the Twelve Caesars attests with horrific detail . . . just, do not read anytime close to mealtime or bedtime. I go this far as it is necessary to draw out that the sound lessons of history were paid for in blood and tears; those who disdain, neglect, ignore or reject them, doom themselves to pay the same price over and over again. Also, it is obvious that if I and others refrain from direct reference out of a sense of some things being unmentionable (indeed the first time I heard Rom 1 mentioned from the pulpit is was by way of saying that some things there were of that order, not to be discussed in public), the hints will not be taken seriously. As to connexions to religion, I will simply say that the Moon Ganymede is named after a catamite of the chief Greco-Roman god, Jupiter. Yes, this issue was literally written into our mapping of the skies.>>
. . . and this from 345 will help us address the issue of strategic subversion of our civilisation through 4th generation warfare; noting that usurping the law, law enforcement and security forces in service to a domineering agenda is perhaps even more effective (coming from within) than an attempted, obvious overthrow by openly external groups:
>>Just to make clear what a ruthless civilisation subversion agenda is like, let me further excerpt the translated MB 1991 Explanatory Memo:
“Phase One: Phase of discreet and secret establishment of leadership.
“Phase Two: Phase of gradual appearance on the public scene and exercising and utilizing various public activities (It greatly succeeded in implementing this stage). It also succeeded in achieving a great deal of its important goals, such as infiltrating various sectors of the Government. Gaining religious institutions and embracing senior scholars. Gaining public support and sympathy. Establishing a shadow government (secret) within the Government.
“Phase Three: Escalation phase, prior to conflict and confrontation with the rulers, through utilizing mass media. Currently in progress.
“Phase Four: Open public confrontation with the Government through exercising the political pressure approach. It is aggressively implementing the above-mentioned approach. Training on the use of weapons domestically and overseas in anticipation of zero-hour. It has noticeable activities in this regard.
“Phase Five: Seizing power to establish their Islamic Nation under which all parties and Islamic groups are united.”
EXERCISE: Substitute appropriate terms to see how this fits other movements associated with the red double green alliance. Ask what each member movement ultimately plans for the others and for the society at large.
Then ask yourself, first, do you want to go there, to when the diverse phases 4 and 5 begin to fully play out?
Then ask, what we should do as a civilisation in defense of ourselves as phases 3 and 4 overlap with phase 4 becoming ever more evident through lawfare.>>