Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Liberalism causes terrorism

Re: Liberalism causes terrorism
May 09, 2013, 09:12:22 PM
We're just getting a lot of typical progressivist semantic distortion. Grounded, sober and realistic to a progressivist is redefined as rolling back the clock. Falsely redefining terms is equated with changing (your personal) reality. The counterfeit positivism itself probably accounts for all of the suicides and depression among these folks: happy thoughts + awful world + denial = cognitive dissonance.

I prefer the idea of a sine wave history, even as it is equivalent to cyclical history.

Re: Liberalism causes terrorism
May 10, 2013, 05:05:50 PM
Quote
Students fear that combining two Memphis high schools will set off a turf war between rival gangs. The Unified School Board wants to merge George Washington Carver High School and Booker T. Washington High School to save money, but some students warn that will put their education, even their lives, at risk.

http://www.abc24.com/news/local/story/Fear-of-Gang-Wars-if-Memphis-High-Schools-Merge/VdydCcnDBkS9Joqgj8ZOjg.cspx

So we increase public spending to add schools which then eventually busts the budget. Then we have to close one and consolidate to fit the budget resulting in "there will be blood". Modern progress does not work.

Re: Liberalism causes terrorism
May 14, 2013, 03:04:36 AM
I don't know anything about reversing history. That's your strawman and not what I'm predicting.

So you don't care to even entertain the hypothesis i've presented? (After entertaining it, it might show it's credibility). To ask the question, now with it's contents fleshed out: So you don't think forms of social assoication [i.e. those of liberal democratic socities: rational, atomised, non-particularlist] are caused by the needs of underlying, structural factors [industrial then post-industrial economies]? If you do, then something like a 'character shortage' is not going to roll back liberal forms of social association to traditional ones... get it (unless these character shortages are so massive that they undermine the underlying economic base)? One can keep asking for people who you are discussing with to engage with you, but sometimes it can get to be like pissing into the wind.

You argued:

Quote
But its essential leadership model, the bureaucratic or transactional one, will prove impractical for demographic reasons: lack of available character and intellect for all the staffing needed, widespread normative corruption and complete loss of public confidence because of the foregoing.

...in response to my asking you to observe that your former statements of liberalism being in some way unsustainable have (to my mind) been empirically falsified by the last 100 years of history which has seen, not liberalism being selected out of the process of cultural selection, but every viably popular competitor to liberalism being selected out.

I'm asking you to clarify why the observations in the above quote, which seem to me to be of minor significance, will roll back the direction history as it is empirically and theoretically (see my first post) headed.

Essentially, only economic roll back is going to lead to social roll back, unless i'm wrong. Then the lack of character and intellect would have to be big enough to lead to economic contraction back to pre industrial revolution stages to result in traditional forms of association (ethnicity, local community, clan) being realised again on a population level.

See also: http://bev.berkeley.edu/ipe/readings/RobertNisbetArticle.pdf

Nisbet has been important to the paleo-conservative movement in the USA, so this is not more theory from 'neo-conservatives'.

Re: Liberalism causes terrorism
May 14, 2013, 03:52:29 AM
People are at liberty to engage, or not, wouldn't you say?
A decision not to engage does not necessarily mean what it is so often taken to mean, either.
You may choose to go to the trouble of making a huge case to present, but nobody is obliged to honour it.
Or, in fact, even read it.

It would be great, for sure, to always have someone on tap, to run your thoughts by, and get some kind of feedback from. This is one good use for a wife, or a close friend. But the internet is neither one.

I - luckily - happen to have a wife, three cats, and a rabbit, all of whom are good for bringing me back to the actual important stuff pertaining to living. Which reminds me: bath-time for the rabbit...


Squawk!

Re: Liberalism causes terrorism
May 14, 2013, 04:00:43 AM
People are at liberty to engage, or not, wouldn't you say?
A decision not to engage does not necessarily mean what it is so often taken to mean, either.
You may choose to go to the trouble of making a huge case to present, but nobody is obliged to honour it.
Or, in fact, even read it.

It would be great, for sure, to always have someone on tap, to run your thoughts by, and get some kind of feedback from. This is one good use for a wife, or a close friend. But the internet is neither one.

I - luckily - happen to have a wife, three cats, and a rabbit, all of whom are good for bringing me back to the actual important stuff pertaining to living. Which reminds me: bath-time for the rabbit...

Formiddable! Then perhaps you would like to run YOUR thoughts by them more often, instead of us? I thought not! Not everyone cares about your personal life, and I now wonder why you always seem to feel the need  to bandy about your domestic habbits while throwing around baseless accusations relating to our personal lives. There is something just as defunct about talking about your wife, rabbit and cats in the context of this thread as the content of your allegation.

This happens to be a debate about ideas presently, and a common occurance, whether intentional or not, is to fail to engage with your interlocutor and to put forward an objection that doesn't trouble the ediface of his argument at all. Scourge DID choose to engage with me, but without considering what I was trying to say in the first place. In fact, even you chose to engage with me on a point or two, and didn't bother to continue the conversation. But I must capitulate, as, evidenced by your obvious real-world zeal and hemmingway-like authenticity, this hesitance on your behalf was surely based on a clear comparitive abundance in the department of domestic attachments, as opposed to mere intellectual flakeyness. For the former, I must humbly admit, is a department in which you positively outdo myself and I'm sure everyone else on.

I loath personal drama, so my apologies to others, but as is all too common that's the only occasion of contact with you Crow.

Re: Liberalism causes terrorism
May 14, 2013, 04:30:35 AM
I was entirely sure you would respond as you did.
What I wonder is what makes you do it.
Squawk!

Re: Liberalism causes terrorism
May 16, 2013, 02:09:09 PM
...unless these character shortages are so massive that they undermine the underlying economic base...

I think that was the point...

Re: Liberalism causes terrorism
May 16, 2013, 02:57:34 PM
Quote
Buena Vista schools have been closed for five days already, and on Monday, the district's website stated that the school would be closed until further notice. For good reason, this decision has parents, and the community, up in arms.

The problem in Buena Vista is that the school district, educating approximately 450 kids, is out of money. All the teachers have been laid off and a financial emergency has been declared. The district has suffered from declining enrollment, which, in turn, has led to a loss of $3 million in state funding since 2010.

In an effort to keep schools open, teachers said they would work without pay. This is not possible under Michigan law so educators have been left in limbo. To make matters worse, the staff has also lost their health insurance.

http://news.yahoo.com/michigan-district-fires-teachers-closes-every-school-012040117.html

That's typical daily news we've had for years now.

Re: Liberalism causes terrorism
May 18, 2013, 12:35:07 AM
Cochran on collapse: http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/sustainability/

Quote
There have been societies that functioned for a long time, thousands of years. They had sustainable demographic patterns. That means that they had enough children to replace themselves – not necessarily in every generation, but over the long haul. But sustainability requires more than that. Long-lived civilizations [ones with cities, literacy, governments, and all that] had a pattern of natural selection that didn’t drastically decrease intelligence – in some cases, one that favored it, at least in some subgroups...

...Modern industrialized societies are failing on all three counts. Every population that can make a decent cuckoo clock has below-replacement fertility. The demographic pattern also selects against intelligence, something like one IQ point a generation. And, even if people at every level of intelligence had the same number of children, so that there was no selection against IQ, we would still be getting more and messed up, because there’s not enough selection going on to counter ongoing mutations.

The problems are so fundamental, so pervasive that it is easy to wallow in pessimism. The trough of the sine wave (thanks for this scourge) has approached before though and will again. America survived the civil war, but it may not survive social justice. Something will survive though.