Originally Posted by Mikebert

I think he means thinking "the ends justify the means" which violates the second formulation of Kant's categorical imperative: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end."

What I was referring to was the Great Power Saeculum's idea that it's better for war to be brutal and horrible so that people will get tired of it quicker and want to avoid it. The old President Truman idea that dropping two atomic bombs will save more lives in the long run than they take. That's what I was referring to. It was a big idea to come out of the WWI - WWII era in an effort to make war so horrible future generations would be loathe to turn to it again... or at least that wars would not last as long as they had in the past--better to have a quick & concentrated war than a long and drawn out conflict, being the mentality.

Good Podcast on the subject: Logical Insanity.

~Chas'88

ETA: Question for JDW, how would you interpret that line of thinking? The end of the line for the Moral/Dionysian/Atonement ideas of the Civil War Saeculum, or something else?

Originally Posted by JDW

That's interesting, Odin, because what you are describing is intellectual diversity but moral conformity. Contrast that with the GIs, whom it could be argued had intellectual conformity but moral diversity. (Clearly, the Republican generation had it.)

You can really see the conformity in Millie-dominated sites like Reddit. Despite where they are on the political spectrum you see us collectively hating the same things and damning them to the depths of Hell, so much so that in the /r/news and /r/politics Sub-Reddits if you go against the "Reddit Hive-Mind" you will be downvoted to Hades by people from across the political spectrum.

Since we are in an Atonement saeculum, the question is, what are we atoning for, exactly? My thinking is that the world wars caused Western Civ's "breakdown" in the sense Toynbee used. All the angry rhetoric about oppression by straight white men and the mainstream rejection of old Western cultural traditions in favor of stuff like Eastern spirituality symbolize the schism of Western Civilization into a Dominant Minority, which rules but does not lead, and an Internal Proletariat that which thought is "in" society no longer feels it is "of" that society. We as a society seem to have a gut feeling that the horrible events of the Great Power Saeculum have wounded Western society in some fundamental way and feel a need to atone for the evils done, as Chas would say, we are searching for Catharsis, we want to destroy whatever evil has put our civilization into it's current malaise, whether it be corporate greed, or consumerism, or secularism, or the welfare state, etc. And that wound is seen as self-inflicted.

Originally Posted by Anc' Mariner

Bwahaha :-) Nah Eric, I dig ur POV. Apollonian is just regurgitating some cultural muck from the last few turnings. Cleaning out the good old saecular gutters in a way. Can be kathartic but a little messy.

Some gutters might as well be buried. Holocaust denial is a prime example.

Anyway I'm hoping some Elders of Zion care enough about their grandkids to think about how we might find new, creative chances for healing. With deeds and real sacrifices----you might be surprised who is willing to make them. As far as young Jewish people go, well----the future needs good, capable people with a feeling for community.

One way to imagine how the world would be if the Jews really ruled it. It would likely be a more erudite world, less receptive to bigotry of any form, and probably on a sounder basis of the economy. Just think of a world in which financial panics no longer happen. Popular culture? Just think of the movies in the 1930s, when Jews really owned the studios. One can watch just about any American film from the time without fear of being insulted or having one's values offended. One might miss such cinematic masterpieces as A Clockwork Orange, Midnight Cowboy, Chinatown, or Bonnie and Clyde. But movie-going or movie-watching would still have the potential as a family activity.

The Jews obviously lack the numbers for ruling the world -- but on the whole they are worthy of emulation on things other than religion, and the religion simply isn't for everyone because it is so closely linked to cultures hard to penetrate.

What comes naturally for some people (patience, kindness, humor) others have to strive for or find an outer "religious" framework to get their heads around. Just one of the limitations of the nations. Some people are lucky enough to have a temple inside ---- others of us spend our whole lives searching for it as something a little beyond the social horizon. Just a little out of reach.

Humor? We are losing it as Silent comedians -- and humor will likely be their greatest cultural contribution that outlasts them -- die or do something other than comedy. People in their seventies rarely have the comedic timing that one associates with comedians in their prime. Just as we find things getting deadly serious about things not worthy of such seriousness we lose the people who can remind us of how wrong we can be without getting in our faces.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

ETA: Question for JDW, how would you interpret that line of thinking? The end of the line for the Moral/Dionysian/Atonement ideas of the Civil War Saeculum, or something else?

I'll have to give that one some thought. From the Spanish American War (or maybe even the Indian wars) to the first Gulf War, there was either a doctrinal basis for going to war, such as "Manifest Destiny" or the "Domino Theory," or there was an attempt to control war itself. either through atomic power or the UN. W. changed that, with his "for us... or against us" approach.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't think he's a troll; he's a member of the T4T lunatic club

(I know, some people think I'm a member too..... I wasn't going to mention that.... )

You're referring to the joke that I made and withdrew. No, Eric, I think too much of you to lump you in with that.

Originally Posted by JDW

For advancement to work, there has to be a good moral foundation.

Absolutely. based on Chas's and your replies I think I misconstrued things and withdraw my comment.

Originally Posted by apollonian

http://birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

I saw no reference to the governing Supreme Court opinion. The Supreme Court has by long-established custom and precedent as having the role of interpreting the constitution, not the opinions of an individual, no matter how erudite writing three decades before the constitution. It would seem, based on your citation of Vattel as opposed to the applicable Supreme ruling, that there IS no applicable Supreme court ruling.

The Legal Information Institute says this:

A phrase denoting one of the requirements for becoming President or Vice-President of the United States. Anyone born after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 must be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States to constitutionally fill the office of President or Vice-President. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1; id. at amend. XII.
Some debate exists as to the meaning of this phrase. Consensus exists that anyone born on U.S. soil is a "natural born Citizen." One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person's parents.

Since no Supreme court rulings are cited, I believe that confirms their absence. In the absence of such a ruling, there can be no settled legal definition. In matters like this custom rules until challenged by an appropriate suit. The definition above also states that consensus is what I said, a citizen who became a citizen automatically at birth, usually (but not necessarily always) by being born in the United States, and not at some later date.

Here's a longer text. After a long discussion it concludes:

But, from the fact that originalism is inescapable, it does not follow that originalism answers all constitutional questions. Grasping the original meaning of the natural born citizen clause may lead us to the conclusion that the constitutional text does not provide the answer to all of our questions about eligibility for the office of President. Constitutional practice may require both interpretation and construction: The original public meaning of the natural born citizen clause may not suffice to answer the question whether John McCain is eligible for the office of President of the United States.

This example suggests that custom has drawn no absolute definition of the term. These two examples show that your assertion that Vattel's opinion = definition of natural born citizen is a settled matter is not correct.

It is not a settled matter. It could become one through a court ruling (this is what courts are for). Why would those who believed that Obama is not a natural born citizen not bring suit in Federal court. A ruling in favor of the plaintiff would be appealed and quickly work it was up to the Supreme Court and we would have a ruling on this matter by now. That this has not happened is further proof that this is anything but a settled matter and that most of the big players on both sides of the aisle just want to let sleeping dogs lie.

I believe a more logical inference (supported by your citation) is that those who do believe this are a minority self-referred to (on that website at least) as Birthers, who are a minority (see below). And furthermore it is a minority that those wielding influence on that side of the aisle only wish to placate rhetorically, not substantively.

And so the Law remains silent on this matter. Custom too is silent: it is not simply not an issue that commands sufficient attention in the minds of most people to warrant settling the matter.

This leaves politics, which in the extreme trumps all: there was well-established English law and custom that defined the sovereign rights of the King which American politics overthrew in 1776. Politically the issue is clear, Obama was elected by a majority twice. Were he truly illegitimate in the minds of a majority of the citizens who voted this would not have happened. As I cannot see a Birther failing to vote against Obama, this must mean they are a minority, like Marxists or Traditionalists.

Please note my new signature line.

Originally Posted by apollonian

Regarding MacDonald, note he wants to play Jews' game, MacDonald stirring up the whites against the non-whites, MacDonald willing to make the Jews honorary whites. MacDonald's expo upon Jews is they act collectively for their collective self-interest, rather affirming the ethic of self-interest, in a way, but he emphasizes the success of the Jews in maintaining their collective interests at expense of the other races and interests, most successfully keeping them fighting one-another, Jew pretending to ally first w. one, then w. another ethnic group.

MacDonald makes the Jewish people sound very intelligent and honorable in caring for their collective interests. Other than that, he tries to outline two points of view of types of society: one tribalistic/ethnocentric---which he claims, wrongly it seems to me, is "Jewish" and the other a non-ethnocentric open society bound by rule of law----which he claims is "Gentile European."

He might be sort of right in some sense, that Talmudic law favors the in-group. But he doesn't know how much of European society going back to Roman times has been influenced for the better by Jewish people who studied Torah (maybe in private, depending on openness of the period) and applied that logic and modes of analytical thinking to Roman law, Anglo-Saxon-Norman common law, etc. Not to mention medicine, philosophy, science, all kinds of things.

The one thing MacDonald says that's insightful is that from a Darwinian standpoint, you don't need a "conspiracy" with passwords and meetings and secret protocols. Any more than fish need a conspiracy to swim or birds need a conspiracy to fly. Natural beings follow their nature according to their altitudes and genetic endowments, with very little inducement.

You can try to force a naturally athletic and aggressive Pit Bull to be quiet, but all you will get is a miserable being. Same if you deny companionship to a loving and loyal Golden Retriever. You can force a Beagle never to chase birds, etc. All of that goes against nature.

Truth means looking within and at others cut from the same cloth, getting in touch with that collective aspect of being. There is no wisdom in attacking people for being analytical or oriented towards material things, even if it seems strange to you. Or for being too athletic or finding pleasure in adhering to simple rules that benefit everyone in a decent and orderly way, or favoring a certain amount of ascetic self discipline or personal austerity. People follow their inner nature, which is partly personal and influenced by life events and education/society, and partly shaped by their ancestral / biological heritage. Just like any other natural beings.

Some people find churches, hymns, collective ceremonies beautiful and inspiring --- other people hate the idea of sacred collective ceremony or poetic/semi-metaphysical doctrines or un-pragmatic rules. Some people associate flavors, sweet like honey or bitter like vinegar, with spiritual dimensions of life---others might find that kind of olfactory / gustatory association with morality strangely earthy or carnal, preferring instead more sensorily transcendent visual or auditory or conceptual representations of holy things.

Some people find beauty in iconic forms that we all can aspire to emulate in different ways, and some people balk at the idealized physicality of Orthodox saints or Greek icons - even finding that kind of icon offensive or even somehow immoral or irritating.

Some of these things just are. Some is individual, some has patterns that relate to larger trends of culture. Denying these things is counterproductive -- better to get in touch and seek balance at a higher level. If one cultural collective tends to be too Chesed like, another group of people might tend to be too Geburah like. Yet together, bound by a law in a shared project, the two poles can harmonize.

Partly by learning got the others and absorbing something from their existential "opposites," and partly by outwardly making up for the others' flaws or shortcomings. Weak or physically less courageous or less self sacrificing people need physical protection. Obedient people require a logically consistent and compassionate yet judicious framework to adhere to and protect. Etc.

Originally Posted by apollonian

Okay Mike: interesting analysis and expo. Fact, such as facts are, is Obama is GROSS usurper and NOT "natural-born" as required.

No, that is you belief, supported by no actual evidence but rather another persons belief whose opinion is no more authoritative than yours. This is an example of what I call a skyhook, a belief existing outside of yourself "up there somewhere" upon which your framework is built. No matter how sound your framework, it can never be more sound than the hook you hanged it on.

I think some people think that Obama is a "gross usurper" because the President is supposed to be white. The birth certificate thing and all that , I believe, is the result of cognitive dissonance.

Originally Posted by apollonian

Mike, u just fool urself--u have the facts.

No just a bunch of assertions from you made on your own personal authority as arbiter of truth. Who died and made you King?

Originally Posted by apollonian

Well Timmy-tim, USA started out as country for white Christians--it was then utterly destroyed by "Civil War" and made a putrid empire--which yet pretended to retain the original const. w. other illegally-added amendments, esp. the 14th amendment.

Blacks were already here in great numbers before the Revolution, and not all slaves either; in fact slavery increased in more-recent times due to changes in technology, according to PBS docs.

Oh, and Native Americans don't count in your mind. And lots of immigrants were already here before the Civil War, despite " Know-Nothings " like you.

But it's nice you disagree with the Mexican War ("empire"). At that time we also conquered Spaniards (and more Natives) who were already there in the lands conquered. Uh, that was also before the Civil War.

Originally Posted by Anc' Mariner

Some of these things just are. Some is individual, some has patterns that relate to larger trends of culture. Denying these things is counterproductive -- better to get in touch and seek balance at a higher level. If one cultural collective tends to be too Chesed like, another group of people might tend to be too Geburah like. Yet together, bound by a law in a shared project, the two poles can harmonize.

I like your kabbalah approach

Originally Posted by apollonian

What's pt. to these latest ravings of urs? Do u dispute original USA (1787) was for white Christians? Disagree w. Mexican (1846-8) war?--I didn't say that at all.

You said the empire was "putrid," or do you take back your words?

U're such a pathetic, brainless, little Pharisee, feigning "morality," w. ur moronic inferiority/guilt -complex--and LOOK!--he learned a new catch-phrase, the "know-nothings," by golly.

You said the Civil War screwed things up for white America; I refuted your contention. Know Nothings is not a catch phrase, it is historical fact; but it does catch YOU in its net, that's for sure; ho ho ho!

--as if the little shallow-minded air-head knows anything about "kabbalah," ho ho ho ho

I DO, in fact . You can read about it here, and learn about it if you choose to:

http://philosopherswheel.com/tarot.html

Originally Posted by apollonian

No eric: u didn't refute diddly--u rebutted, or attempted to rebut, that's all. Civil War was destruction of USA and Constitutional rule--which u essentially admitted when u agreed southern states had right to secede. Logic, eric--try to get a clue about it, eh?

No, u said the Civil War was the destruction of a country for white America.

Do u dispute original USA (1787) was for white Christians?

It never was that, although the original 1787 constitution only allowed white male landowners to vote.

But guess what, the constitution provides for amendments, which become part of it. Or didn't you know that, u brainless fool?

Was Jefferson a Christian?

No, the founding fathers were deists and masons.

Originally Posted by apollonian

Eric: believe me, it's tough talking to a psychotic schizoid like u. U said, "No, u said the Civil War was the destruction of a country for white America." This by u is a re-phrasing, but I'll go along w. it--"Civ. war" was destruction of the original white republic of USA made for white Christians--I think this is fair statement.

"It never was that [made for white folk], although the original 1787 constitution only allowed white male landowners to vote." This by u is just another of ur idiotic lies and assertions.

Whoever it was "made for," blacks, Native Americans and soon immigrants and Spaniards were there within it. And amendments were built in to this country that was "made," so that others also became who it was "made for." And, who "made it?" You might get dispute from people if you claim that white Christians "made it."

And yes, Jeff. was Christian, though not of any specific denomination. And all the founders were Christians who belonged to churches and congregations. Only Franklin was known as AGNOSTIC, and maybe Tom Paine, who was not "founder," strictly speaking, was deist.

Jefferson was a Unitarian by himself, according to himself.

Eric: u're a Jew, aren't u?--at least of race, for sure.

Well, being schizoid, I'm not sure what I am. But I'm pretty sure I'm not a Jew

I don't have anything to add right now, but when I do it will be about the theory. In the mean time, once again, please note my signature.

Originally Posted by apollonian

This story is two yrs old, fool: http://www.infowars.com/national-sec...en-fraudulent/

U can google for the other info

So now I am supposed to take a conspiracy site seriously? Who died and made them King?

Originally Posted by JDW

I don't have anything to add right now, but when I do it will be about the theory. In the mean time, once again, please note my signature.

I was about to post: poor JDW, having his thread hijacked. Well, I'll look forward to your next post.

Thanks for hanging in there, Chas. Back to your post:

Originally Posted by Chas'88

What I was referring to was the Great Power Saeculum's idea that it's better for war to be brutal and horrible so that people will get tired of it quicker and want to avoid it. The old President Truman idea that dropping two atomic bombs will save more lives in the long run than they take. That's what I was referring to. It was a big idea to come out of the WWI - WWII era in an effort to make war so horrible future generations would be loathe to turn to it again... or at least that wars would not last as long as they had in the past--better to have a quick & concentrated war than a long and drawn out conflict, being the mentality.

Good Podcast on the subject: Logical Insanity.

~Chas'88

ETA: Question for JDW, how would you interpret that line of thinking? The end of the line for the Moral/Dionysian/Atonement ideas of the Civil War Saeculum, or something else?

I think you are onto something, here. Advancement appears to be about mastery: Reformation/mastering theology; Revolution/mastering government; Great Power/mastering peace. Atonement takes what has been "mastered" and tries to use it for a righteous result: Puritan/constitutional monarchy; Civil War/abolition; Millennial/(okay, big fail on the UN ).

Chas, didn't the notion of war to be brutal and horrible start with U.S. Grant's belief in total war in the US during the Civil War? Sherman said War is Hell. Perhaps because it was a civil war, it was believed it had to be total. Truman, having lived through WWI, saw the horrors of trench stasis and that probably affected his decisions about the atomic bomb.

But what do you and JDW think about the US's prolonged skirmishing wars that have happened in the 2T and late 3T? Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan? Is the 4T about a different kind of peace? Or are we in the last gasps of this saeculum?

PS. I have no opinion on this.

Originally Posted by annla899

Chas, didn't the notion of war to be brutal and horrible start with U.S. Grant's belief in total war in the US during the Civil War? Sherman said War is Hell. Perhaps because it was a civil war, it was believed it had to be total. Truman, having lived through WWI, saw the horrors of trench stasis and that probably affected his decisions about the atomic bomb.

But what do you and JDW think about the US's prolonged skirmishing wars that have happened in the 2T and late 3T? Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan? Is the 4T about a different kind of peace? Or are we in the last gasps of this saeculum?

PS. I have no opinion on this.

Actually, "mastering peace" (my words), though the stated intent, is Orwellian. In reality, it was mastering war, with the UN becoming a tool for the politically powerful to control the outcome of war. (The "military industrial complex" and communist interests during the Asian wars come to mind.)

Note that during the Civil War saeculum, making government work efficiently was not the goal. Rather (as one breaks in a book or a pair of shoes) the institutions were weakened to make room for a moral agenda. Likewise, there an agenda to bring about "fairness" regarding healthcare, immigration, etc. There is absolutely no effort to do any of this efficiently or consistently. Not until the next saeculum would there be an effort to fix the logistical problems (which is way too long to wait).

Originally Posted by apollonian

See http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...ter-is-certain.

We're un-questionably in "last gasps," period, ho ho ho. Problem is the satanic, psychopathic mass-murderers who rule the West, the oligarchs of Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Trilateralists, and Bilderbergers are not likely to give-up without war--which is what they're trying to gin-up in Iran, Ukraine, and anywhere else.

US Dollar is kaput, we about to enter hyper-inflation, collapse of economy, food-shortages, riots and civil un-rest, martial-law, calling-in UN troops, including Musselmen and Chinese, who will gladly slaughter white and Christian Americans, and anyone else too. Observe oligarchs arming "homeland" forces to the teeth, w. BILLIONS of bullets, militarizing local police w. tanks/armored vehicles, already w. police-state laws, like NDAA, etc.

Welcome to my ignore list, fascist pig.