The shape of the violence to overcome
On December the 29th last year I remarked à propos the units of transcendence that a pattern of violence was emerging, namely that
The time has come to consider this à propos in greater detail.
Bush. The violence in the Bush years was the result of real and perceived blasphemy. 9/11 was an affront that allowed Bush to declare a new era of righteousness based on military supremacy, the result of which was public cynicism.
Obama. The violence in the Obama years was the result of real and perceived betrayal. ISIS was a tool to destroy neighbourly relations, the result of which was public mistrust.
Trump. It becomes increasingly clear that we're supposed to subscribe to either of two international brands of lunacy*, i.e. two factions that consider each other to be lunatic and that are hence immune against criticism from the other side and under a mandate to achieve results any which way. This is a form of deprivation and deprivation is the logical next step after blasphemy against God and betrayal of social relations as directed against our world itself. So, the violence we have to be wary of is the result of real and perceived deprivation and if it takes its course it will certainly result itself in public lawlessness.
This would be rather bad, but at least internationally this phase doesn't appear all that successful to me so far, but then again, who knows what deprivation looms ahead and what it will do to people. In any case, this phase cannot pass unresisted, it will be stopped one way or another and will force every moral person to check his morals, if only because outright evil was able to manifest itself up to this stage, but likely we'll have more reason than that.
* It is true that if one faction is lunatic the other could be utterly sane and would still be considered to be lunatic. For the pattern of violence that emerges this is irrelevant. However, the way this is actually worked is by making sure that symptoms of lunacy are sprinkled in sufficient measure over both factions in order to reassure the respective other faction of its assessment, not only through skewed reporting, but also through ill-advised initiatives.
- Bush went after established ideas of rightfulness and reliance on God,
- Obama after established social relations and
- that under Trump we see an attempt to redefine the very shape of the world we live in.
The time has come to consider this à propos in greater detail.
Bush. The violence in the Bush years was the result of real and perceived blasphemy. 9/11 was an affront that allowed Bush to declare a new era of righteousness based on military supremacy, the result of which was public cynicism.
Obama. The violence in the Obama years was the result of real and perceived betrayal. ISIS was a tool to destroy neighbourly relations, the result of which was public mistrust.
Trump. It becomes increasingly clear that we're supposed to subscribe to either of two international brands of lunacy*, i.e. two factions that consider each other to be lunatic and that are hence immune against criticism from the other side and under a mandate to achieve results any which way. This is a form of deprivation and deprivation is the logical next step after blasphemy against God and betrayal of social relations as directed against our world itself. So, the violence we have to be wary of is the result of real and perceived deprivation and if it takes its course it will certainly result itself in public lawlessness.
This would be rather bad, but at least internationally this phase doesn't appear all that successful to me so far, but then again, who knows what deprivation looms ahead and what it will do to people. In any case, this phase cannot pass unresisted, it will be stopped one way or another and will force every moral person to check his morals, if only because outright evil was able to manifest itself up to this stage, but likely we'll have more reason than that.
* It is true that if one faction is lunatic the other could be utterly sane and would still be considered to be lunatic. For the pattern of violence that emerges this is irrelevant. However, the way this is actually worked is by making sure that symptoms of lunacy are sprinkled in sufficient measure over both factions in order to reassure the respective other faction of its assessment, not only through skewed reporting, but also through ill-advised initiatives.
Labels: 28, formalisierung, geschichte, gesetze, institutionen, sehhilfen, wahrnehmungen, zeitgeschichte, ἰδέα, φιλοσοφία
Eingetragen Am/um
20:20
