Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

** 25-Oct-2021 World View: Crisis war issues

Bob Butler wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 pm

> Meanwhile, what is understood about the crisis issues of America?
> What are the primary issues of the US Revolution, US Civil War,
> FDR’s time or today? What issues are supposedly good, true and
> honest? While I have identified some of the usual suspects, what
> issues do others consider important? Non-extant wars? The Big
> Lie? How confused is the conservative viewpoint?

> All I see are evasions, not attempts to explain what is really
> meant.

Revolutionary war: The conservatives were the loyalists who wanted to
remain with Britain. The revolutionaries wanted to split.

Civil War: The conservatives were the Democrats who wanted to assert
states' rights and continue slavery. The liberals were the
Republicans that ended slavery and granted freedom and equality to
everyone.

WW II: The conservatives were like Winston Churchill who wanted to
defend against the Nazis. The liberals were like Neville Chamberlain
who wanted ignore all dangers, and to continue relations with the
Nazis as usual.

Today: The consevatives want to defend against the Chinese Communists.
The liberals are corrupted by the Chinese, and want to ignore all
dangers, and to continue relations with the Chinese as usual.

Bob Butler wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 pm

the Republicans are fighting the popular Democratic agenda.

Add this to the list of delusion.

John wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:21 pm

** 25-Oct-2021 World View: Crisis war issues

Bob Butler wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 pm

> Meanwhile, what is understood about the crisis issues of America?
> What are the primary issues of the US Revolution, US Civil War,
> FDR’s time or today? What issues are supposedly good, true and
> honest? While I have identified some of the usual suspects, what
> issues do others consider important? Non-extant wars? The Big
> Lie? How confused is the conservative viewpoint?

> All I see are evasions, not attempts to explain what is really
> meant.

Revolutionary war: The conservatives were the loyalists who wanted to
remain with Britain. The revolutionaries wanted to split.

Civil War: The conservatives were the Democrats who wanted to assert
states' rights and continue slavery. The liberals were the
Republicans that ended slavery and granted freedom and equality to
everyone.

WW II: The conservatives were like Winston Churchill who wanted to
defend against the Nazis. The liberals were like Neville Chamberlain
who wanted ignore all dangers, and to continue relations with the
Nazis as usual.

Today: The consevatives want to defend against the Chinese Communists.
The liberals are corrupted by the Chinese, and want to ignore all
dangers, and to continue relations with the Chinese as usual.

John nailing it.

What's funny is that in terms of social decay, the conservatives clearly never conserved anything, since it is clear they were idle and never held a line. How else would you get all manner of Bob Bish delusion like transgenderism, or the multitude of lies akin to it?

Guys like Bish claim conservatives are responsible for XYZ but in reality they never stopped the decay, and yet everyone complains about how bad things are currently, which just shows how confused the Bish's of the world really are.

John wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:21 pm

Revolutionary war: The conservatives were the loyalists who wanted to
remain with Britain. The revolutionaries wanted to split.

Civil War: The conservatives were the Democrats who wanted to assert
states' rights and continue slavery. The liberals were the
Republicans that ended slavery and granted freedom and equality to
everyone.

WW II: The conservatives were like Winston Churchill who wanted to
defend against the Nazis. The liberals were like Neville Chamberlain
who wanted ignore all dangers, and to continue relations with the
Nazis as usual.

Today: The consevatives want to defend against the Chinese Communists.
The liberals are corrupted by the Chinese, and want to ignore all
dangers, and to continue relations with the Chinese as usual.

I find myself agreeing to a great extent. But…

Agreed. In the Revolutionary era, the revolutionaries wanted to split, the elites to avoid colonial imperialism, and everyone to get rid of privilege, to support democracy and equality. Do you find colonial imperialism and a privileged nobility as good, true and honest? Getting rid of them was certainly an attempt to get rid of the greatest problem in the culture. Independence was certainly progressive change.

Agreed, but you again are neglecting to mention that the major parties switched positions on race. LBJ allied with MLK, and the Republicans embraced the rural south in response. The Republicans were the progressives during the US Civil War. They wanted political power in the hands of the Robber Barons, to enable expansion and the Industrial Revolution, as well as to end slavery. Is slavery good, true and honest?

In World War II, FDR strove to end isolationism and embrace containment. Neville Chamberlain wanted to buy a few years to rearm. A bad policy, but perhaps prudent in his eyes. Your characterization might have some truth from the British perspective, but is backwards of what FDR was trying to do…. namely to get the US involved in the war. Not getting involved in Europe’s perpetual wars was the established pattern. Britain was never shy about getting involved in Europe’s wars, never had a policy of isolationism to get rid of. Containment was the change, a change embraced by Churchill with his Iron Curtain speech. Do you see dictators and communism as good, true and honest?

Today both parties are supporting the containment of China. The policy of sending the navy to that area of the world held throughout recent history regardless of who was in the White House. The glitch was that Trump did far less to contain and limit Russia, who actually did expand using violence. The CCP is more into brinksmanship and bluffing than actually invading people. They will threaten to invade Russia on one day, and ally with Russia to sail a combined fleet around Japan another. As a progressive I agree with FDR’s policy of containment, and agree China should be allowed to believe that financial games are much more profitable than war.

In the past you have been unable to respond to these obvious truths. It is necessary for you to lie and keep on lying to present your point of view. Really, familiarizing yourself with and keeping your theories consistent with history would be a good idea. However, you would have to become more caring about history than advancing your world view.

jdcpapa wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 02, 2021 11:46 am

"Man is a spirit with a body. Not a body with a spirit." ~The Master Key

Romans chapter 8 The flesh and the spirit 1-13: 9-but you are not in the flesh on the contrary you are in the spirit.

That might be some sort of answer to someone who believes the Bible is a source of absolute truth, someone with a religious world view of the right flavor. I does little to nothing for me.

In looking at conflicting worldviews, you can see an individual’s needs in the way he looks at the world. It is part of why you see a refusal to change worldviews, and so much rejection of a different perspective.

If you have a scientific worldview, you might assume and need causality. You learn from the world by observing the world.

If you have a religious worldview, you might need, want, or assume an omnipotent, all knowing and benevolent God, or that Truth is to be found in a particular holy text.

On this site, you bump into a lot of tribal thinkers who embrace superiority, prejudice, oppression and violence. I get a little confused by the frequent conflict between religious perspectives and tribal thinking. Simply, you can’t follow the commandments to love, or the social ‘shall not’ rules of the Ten Commandments while embracing tribal thinking’s superiority, prejudice, oppression and violence.

Each of these major worldviews finds Truth in a different way, satisfies a different need. An argument based on one worldview does not effect or touch someone who is into a different worldview. One often gets an assumption of stupidity. If someone has a different worldview, one does not get an attempt to understand, but rather an accusation of stupidity, an inability to think in any perspective but one’s own.

To me, a quote of what some consider to be an infallible text is next to nothing. It is at best the wisdom of the ages warmed over. It assumes man has not learned and grown.

And to me prejudice, oppression and violence are undesirable. They are the sort of feature of a culture that are removed in a crisis. But to some they are basic needs. They need to be superior. They suppose that because prejudice, oppression and violence always have been major traits of most every culture, so they always shall be.

The ’shall not’ commandments of the Ten, the shall love commandments of Jesus, are religious expressions of how to build a desirable culture. Over the years the same basic idea has been expressed by philosophy and law. How encouraging tribal thinking can be considered compatible with these expressions is the question.

The above post was originally in a Religious thread, before John got into Stalinist censorship.

Not censorship. Properly and judiciously moved and rightly so. Such a pile of disgusting rubbish by a hateful bigot... You should be thankful such blather is printed at all. With respect, I've seen Bob have moments of clarity and good insight. But when he get tribal it goes out the window...

FullMoon wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 02, 2021 10:56 pm

Not censorship. Properly and judiciously moved and rightly so. Such a pile of disgusting rubbish by a hateful bigot... You should be thankful such blather is printed at all. With respect, I've seen Bob have moments of clarity and good insight. But when he get tribal it goes out the window...

Pardon, but superiority, prejudice, oppression and violence are bugs not features. Some people currently need theses things. They are aspects of the culture which ought to be removed rather than celebrated. Working to celebrate and extend these defines the hateful bigot. They are certainly not compatible with the Ten Commandments or the Two Commandments. An inability to see this indicates an abhorrent reversion to Agricultural Age thought pattens.

jdcpapa wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 02, 2021 11:46 am

"Man is a spirit with a body. Not a body with a spirit." ~The Master Key

Romans chapter 8 The flesh and the spirit 1-13: 9-but you are not in the flesh on the contrary you are in the spirit.

Bob Butler wrote:That might be some sort of answer to someone who believes the Bible is a source of absolute truth, someone with a religious world view of the right flavor. I does little to nothing for me

The subject post was in response to Navigator's posts in the thread religion/theology. Some of what was referenced therein is in support of the quantum physics theoretical model also described within the subject thread. I accept your perspective. If it does not fit your narrative, just take it out of your reality.

As to absolute truths, here is the definition of said truths from one of the models supported by the quantum physics overlay: reality, color, tone, energy, vibration, reality creation, personality, consciousness, imagination, love, multidimensionality, essence, objective/subjective awareness.

Follow your bliss~Joseph Campbell

Regards,

Tom Mazanec wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 07, 2021 6:20 pm

Was Christ a man? If so, he was either a liar or a lunatic.

He created a religious based value and culture based set which became a major force through much of history.

Liar? I am doubtful that the events described in the parables and miracles took place. But at the time, if your religious values were gotten across by telling them through parable and miracle, you did. Would someone with a scientific world view demand more proof? Of course. But that wasn’t relevant back then.

The key lie is in disparaging someone whose values conflicted. If you disagree with someone’s values, do you insult and make up lies? Do you question his sanity? Altogether too many who disagree with a worldview make up lies to insult the worldview. It is easier for one who lacks intelligence to lie than to actually answer the worldview.

Now I’m not much into the religious perspective. Still, Christ provided an obvious path, create a meaningful set of values, effected history, and whose teachings were abused by many. Calling him names won’t do much.