Discussion:
Science and religious philosophy has been merged via complexity theory.
Add Reply
Jonathan
2021-06-01 14:55:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Science and religious philosophy has been merged via
complexity theory.

Or science has at last found 'God'.

It's a matter of properly relating the part to the whole.

Modern science has been based on reductionism for
centuries now, reduce-and-reduce to the ultimate
part or reduction.

With the logical conclusion or end-point the so-called
'God' particle.

Complexity theory is a form of systems theory where
one expands-and-expands instead, to ever greater
emergent systems or wholes.

With the logical conclusion or end-point the ultimate expansion
or ultimate emergent system, the so-called 'God'.

Relate the two endpoints, the ultimate part to the
ultimate global emergent property, and you have a
unified theory that connects science and religion
in a rational, testable and scientific way.

This merger is clearly seen in the definition of
Complexity theory which reads...


1.3 Definition of Complexity Theory

The main current scientific theory related to self-organization
is Complexity Theory, which states:


'Critically interacting components self-organize to form
potentially evolving structures exhibiting a hierarchy
of emergent system properties.'


Please take note of step 1, 'critically interacting components'
are related to the last step. 'emergent system properties'.

This theory relates the...parts to the...emergent whole.
The so-called 'God' particle to 'God'.



The elements of this definition relate to the following:


Critically Interacting - System is information rich, neither
static nor chaotic

Components - Modularity and autonomy of part behaviour implied

Self-Organize - Attractor structure is generated by local
contextual interactions

Potentially Evolving - Environmental variation selects and
mutates attractors

Hierarchy - Multiple levels of structure and responses
appear (hyperstructure)

Emergent System Properties - New features are evident which
require a new vocabulary
https://naturalorder.info/self-organizingsystems.html#1.3



And more importantly it does so via the process of
evolution we all know and love. However an evolutionary
process placed in entirely abstract mathematical terms
to allow *universal* application.

The Darwinian evolution we all know and love IS NOT LIMITED
to biology, but is now seen as a process universal to
all visible order in the universe, from the universe itself
to life and mind.

HOWEVER there is one particular difference between the
standard Darwinian ideas and complexity theory, and
this difference is not only crucial to understand
but explains MANY previously unanswered questions.

The main difference is that the idea of self organization
means that the creation of entities is an /internal process/
that DOES NOT rely or begin mainly on the interaction
with the environment via natural selection

It...self-organizes...

Meaning that creation or even speciation occurs spontaneously
and is an internal process. The environment or natural selection
plays a crucial role, HOWEVER that role is to...fine-tune
what self-organization HAS ALREADY CREATED.

This relates the internal to the external.
The part to the whole.

'God' would be the ultimate expansion, the ultimate
emergent system, or the ultimate wisdom.

The top-down global emergent force that, like any
emergent property, has the tendency to push the
lower systems to problem solve, to settle on
the better solution...to evolve.

This science conclusively shows WE DO owe our existence
to a force that is not only greater than ourselves
but also appears to by mysterious, just as any emergent
property appears mysterious, such as a tendency which
can't be seen in any part. An emergent tendency
that's the result of the critical interaction of
countless parts.

Religious philosophy had it intuitively right all along
only just now is science explaining exactly...why.

Science has found 'God' at long last. The concept
of emergence explains just why so many events
have been chalked up as 'Acts of God' since
Day One.


Emergence Taxonomy

"The process of emergence deals with the fundamental question:
“how does an entity come into existence?” In a process of
emergence we observe something (for instance the appearance
of order or organization) and ask how this is possible,
since we assume causality: every effect should have a cause.

The surprising aspect in a process of emergence is
the observation of an effect /without/ an apparent cause."
https://arxiv.org/ftp/nlin/papers/0506/0506028.pdf



Even dear Emily knew this over 150 years ago when
she intuitively defined complexity theory in this poem.

Please note she says several times that creation is an
internal process generated by the persistent competition
between opposites. Chaos theory is about the persistent
competition between the opposites of order and disorder.

And she states several times the environment
merely fine-tunes what this internal process
of growth has already created.

She nailed complexity theory 150 years before it's
discovery. And not only that she states the idea
in incredibly concise terms, and it even sounds nice
rolling off the tongue.

This is a level of genius difficult to match anywhere
or anytime imho.



"Growth of Man—like Growth of Nature [universal]
Gravitates within [power-law dynamics]
Atmosphere, and Sun endorse it [selection fine-tunes]
Bit it stir—alone [self-organized, independent]

Each—its difficult Ideal [edge of chaos criticality]
Must achieve—Itself
Through the solitary prowess
Of a Silent Life

Effort—is the sole condition
Patience of Itself
Patience of opposing forces [order-disorder dynamic]
And intact Belief

Looking on—is the Department
Of its Audience—
But Transaction—is assisted
By no Countenance." [again, environment only fine-
tunes]



Thanks for reading



Jonathan
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2021-06-01 16:05:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
What a load of shit.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Charles Packer
2021-06-02 02:45:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Science and religious philosophy has been merged via complexity theory.
Or science has at last found 'God'.
It's a matter of properly relating the part to the whole.
Modern science has been based on reductionism for centuries now,
reduce-and-reduce to the ultimate part or reduction.
With the logical conclusion or end-point the so-called 'God' particle.
Complexity theory is a form of systems theory where one
expands-and-expands instead, to ever greater emergent systems or wholes.
With the logical conclusion or end-point the ultimate expansion or
ultimate emergent system, the so-called 'God'.
The search for a transcendent reality goes on -- and on and on.
The main result of the quest is words. If Aldous Huxley was the
Neiman-Marcus of writers on the topic, you, alas, are typical of
the Walmart level. If you've decided that God equals emergence,
so what? Try telling that to my Baptist mother-in-law.
Titus G
2021-06-02 03:21:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Charles Packer
Science and religious philosophy has been merged via complexity theory.
Or science has at last found 'God'.
It's a matter of properly relating the part to the whole.
Modern science has been based on reductionism for centuries now,
reduce-and-reduce to the ultimate part or reduction.
With the logical conclusion or end-point the so-called 'God' particle.
Complexity theory is a form of systems theory where one
expands-and-expands instead, to ever greater emergent systems or wholes.
With the logical conclusion or end-point the ultimate expansion or
ultimate emergent system, the so-called 'God'.
The search for a transcendent reality goes on -- and on and on.
The main result of the quest is words. If Aldous Huxley was the
Neiman-Marcus of writers on the topic, you, alas, are typical of
the Walmart level. If you've decided that God equals emergence,
so what? Try telling that to my Baptist mother-in-law.
Frank Herbert has authored more than one documentary detailing how the
intermediate stage of a hive mind has been thwarted but these probably
aren't available at Walmart.
(Practising Paul Person Perspicacity.)
Ninapenda Jibini
2021-06-02 03:58:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Charles Packer
If Aldous Huxley was the
Neiman-Marcus of writers on the topic, you, alas, are typical of
the Walmart level.
You are far, far too generous. Walmart is the biggest reatailer in
the world, after all.

He's more the rat infested pawn shop the meth-heads take their stolen
goods to, hoping to get five bucks for another fix.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
2021-06-02 18:46:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Charles Packer
If Aldous Huxley was the
Neiman-Marcus of writers on the topic, you, alas, are typical of
the Walmart level.
You are far, far too generous. Walmart is the biggest reatailer in
the world, after all.
He's more the rat infested pawn shop the meth-heads take their stolen
goods to, hoping to get five bucks for another fix.
At this point, were I feeling like a hostile rejoinder, I could say something
like...

The reference was to the quality of Walmart's customers, rather than
the business acumen of its owners and managers. At least even
meth-heads have enough intelligence to vote Democratic.

...but, really, I don't feel like rooting for thieving drug addicts.

John Savard
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2021-06-02 20:33:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 9:58:14 PM UTC-6, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Charles Packer
If Aldous Huxley was the
Neiman-Marcus of writers on the topic, you, alas, are typical
of the Walmart level.
You are far, far too generous. Walmart is the biggest reatailer
in the world, after all.
He's more the rat infested pawn shop the meth-heads take their
stolen goods to, hoping to get five bucks for another fix.
At this point, were I feeling like a hostile rejoinder, I could
say something like...
The reference was to the quality of Walmart's customers, rather
than the business acumen of its owners and managers. At least
even meth-heads have enough intelligence to vote Democratic.
...but, really, I don't feel like rooting for thieving drug
addicts.
That you approve of the way theiving meth heads vote says a great
deal about you, and liberals in general. And none of it is
complimentary. Attitudes like yours are, literally, the biggest
threat to human civilization today.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Alan Baker
2021-06-02 21:08:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Charles Packer
If Aldous Huxley was the
Neiman-Marcus of writers on the topic, you, alas, are typical
of the Walmart level.
You are far, far too generous. Walmart is the biggest reatailer
in the world, after all.
He's more the rat infested pawn shop the meth-heads take their
stolen goods to, hoping to get five bucks for another fix.
At this point, were I feeling like a hostile rejoinder, I could
say something like...
The reference was to the quality of Walmart's customers, rather
than the business acumen of its owners and managers. At least
even meth-heads have enough intelligence to vote Democratic.
...but, really, I don't feel like rooting for thieving drug
addicts.
That you approve of the way theiving meth heads vote says a great
deal about you, and liberals in general. And none of it is
complimentary. Attitudes like yours are, literally, the biggest
threat to human civilization today.
I've seen lots of places more civilized than the US, Terry...

...and they all vote for things you call "threats".
Quadibloc
2021-06-02 23:54:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
That you approve of the way theiving meth heads vote says a great
deal about you, and liberals in general. And none of it is
complimentary. Attitudes like yours are, literally, the biggest
threat to human civilization today.
You do have a valid point here.

It certainly _is_ a threat to human civilization if the American people decide
to vote for an irresponsible party that is going to give free handouts to the
stupid and incompetent by taxing the rich and thus destroying the seed corn
on which the economy is based.

However, the Democrats are run by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, not Bernie
Sanders and Alexandria Occasio-Cortez. If any major party was led by a
demagogue who would run the United States into the ground in an attempt
to promises made to the ignorant... that would be the Republicans under
Donald J. Trump.

Yes, the threat of the United States going the way of ancient Rome _is_
now very real. But you're not helping to combat that threat by concentrating
on the "usual suspects".

John Savard
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2021-06-03 16:31:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 2:33:13 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
That you approve of the way theiving meth heads vote says a
great deal about you, and liberals in general. And none of it
is complimentary. Attitudes like yours are, literally, the
biggest threat to human civilization today.
You do have a valid point here.
It certainly _is_ a threat to human civilization if the American
people decide to vote for an irresponsible party that is going
to give free handouts to the stupid and incompetent by taxing
the rich and thus destroying the seed corn on which the economy
is based.
However, the Democrats are run by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris,
not Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Occasio-Cortez.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Biden doesn't know what day of the week it is. And Harris is a
party soldier to the point of being a sock puppet. The Democrats
are fun by behind the scenes bureaucrats who are, at heart,
fascists intent of a coup for personal profit and the power to kill
people they don't like.
If any major
party was led by a demagogue who would run the United States
into the ground in an attempt to promises made to the
ignorant... that would be the Republicans under Donald J. Trump.
You mean, promises like "you don't have to pay rent because we
won't let your landlord evict you" or the current bill being
consideredi n California to tax white people to give free money to
black people (and rmember, Harris is a party soldier for
*Calfiornia* Democrats).
Yes, the threat of the United States going the way of ancient
Rome _is_ now very real. But you're not helping to combat that
threat by concentrating on the "usual suspects".
When the usual suspects - Democrats - *are* the threat, that's
where you need to focus.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2021-06-04 18:30:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 03 Jun 2021 09:31:43 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 2:33:13 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
That you approve of the way theiving meth heads vote says a
great deal about you, and liberals in general. And none of it
is complimentary. Attitudes like yours are, literally, the
biggest threat to human civilization today.
You do have a valid point here.
It certainly _is_ a threat to human civilization if the
American people decide to vote for an irresponsible party that
is going to give free handouts to the stupid and incompetent
by taxing the rich and thus destroying the seed corn on which
the economy is based.
However, the Democrats are run by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris,
not Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Occasio-Cortez.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha
I would dispute you, Tired Trump Talking Point by Tired Trump
Talking Point, but the response above is /so/ appropriate that I
haven't the heart.
Being a well programmed sheeple, you will, of course, gobble down
whatever propganda you're spoon fed, but Joe Biden doesn't know
whether or not he has pants on, and Kamala Harris is a sock puppet
for backk room powers in the California Democrat Party who sold her
soul a long, long time ago.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Alan Baker
2021-06-04 18:45:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Thu, 03 Jun 2021 09:31:43 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 2:33:13 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
That you approve of the way theiving meth heads vote says a
great deal about you, and liberals in general. And none of it
is complimentary. Attitudes like yours are, literally, the
biggest threat to human civilization today.
You do have a valid point here.
It certainly _is_ a threat to human civilization if the
American people decide to vote for an irresponsible party that
is going to give free handouts to the stupid and incompetent
by taxing the rich and thus destroying the seed corn on which
the economy is based.
However, the Democrats are run by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris,
not Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Occasio-Cortez.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha
I would dispute you, Tired Trump Talking Point by Tired Trump
Talking Point, but the response above is /so/ appropriate that I
haven't the heart.
Being a well programmed sheeple, you will, of course, gobble down
whatever propganda you're spoon fed, but Joe Biden doesn't know
whether or not he has pants on, and Kamala Harris is a sock puppet
for backk room powers in the California Democrat Party who sold her
soul a long, long time ago.
BDS
Kevrob
2021-06-05 02:44:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 12:53:06 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:

[snip]
And the Republicans are ruled by the Koch brothers and the rest of their
ilk.
In 2016 the Koch brothers were not big for Trump.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/05/the-koch-brothers-were-supposed-to-buy-the-2016-election-what-happened.html

Nor were they behind him in 2020.

[quote]

The political advocacy group backed by billionaire Charles Koch* has seen
key policy victories under President Donald Trump, including regulatory and
tax cuts.

Yet, despite the president being at risk of losing the election to Democratic
nominee Joe Biden, and potentially jeopardizing another four years of Koch-
friendly policies, the network, which has often favored Republican candidates,
is staying out of the presidential election.

[/quote]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/29/2020-presidential-election-why-koch-network-wont-help-trumps-bid.html

* Only 1 brother is still alive. David K died in 2019.

I think you will have to target the ilk.
--
Kevin R
a.a #2310
Paul S Person
2021-06-05 16:08:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
[snip]
And the Republicans are ruled by the Koch brothers and the rest of their
ilk.
In 2016 the Koch brothers were not big for Trump.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/05/the-koch-brothers-were-supposed-to-buy-the-2016-election-what-happened.html
Nor were they behind him in 2020.
[quote]
The political advocacy group backed by billionaire Charles Koch* has seen
key policy victories under President Donald Trump, including regulatory and
tax cuts.
Yet, despite the president being at risk of losing the election to Democratic
nominee Joe Biden, and potentially jeopardizing another four years of Koch-
friendly policies, the network, which has often favored Republican candidates,
is staying out of the presidential election.
[/quote]
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/29/2020-presidential-election-why-koch-network-wont-help-trumps-bid.html
* Only 1 brother is still alive. David K died in 2019.
I vaguely recall reading something about all that.

It is truly frightening that Trump is so far to the right that the
Koch brother(s) (number depending on campaign year) would not support
him.
Post by Kevrob
I think you will have to target the ilk.
Unless the ilk felt the same way.

Perhaps groups unrelated to Koch in any way.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Kevrob
2021-06-05 18:03:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Kevrob
[snip]
And the Republicans are ruled by the Koch brothers and the rest of their
ilk.
In 2016 the Koch brothers were not big for Trump.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/05/the-koch-brothers-were-supposed-to-buy-the-2016-election-what-happened.html
Nor were they behind him in 2020.
[quote]
The political advocacy group backed by billionaire Charles Koch* has seen
key policy victories under President Donald Trump, including regulatory and
tax cuts.
Yet, despite the president being at risk of losing the election to Democratic
nominee Joe Biden, and potentially jeopardizing another four years of Koch-
friendly policies, the network, which has often favored Republican candidates,
is staying out of the presidential election.
[/quote]
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/29/2020-presidential-election-why-koch-network-wont-help-trumps-bid.html
* Only 1 brother is still alive. David K died in 2019.
I vaguely recall reading something about all that.
It is truly frightening that Trump is so far to the right that the
Koch brother(s) (number depending on campaign year) would not support
him.
Post by Kevrob
I think you will have to target the ilk.
Unless the ilk felt the same way.
Perhaps groups unrelated to Koch in any way.
--
It's not just that Trump is "far to the right." His policy mix contained
ideas that were out-of-tune with the "Goldwater right," "the Nixon right,"
"the Reagan right" and successors, so that what it means to be "right wing"
has changed drastically. A Reaganite Republican who would have voted for
the 1986 "Simpson–Mazzoli" Act....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986

...would be today hounded out of the party or challenged in a primary by
nativist supporters of immigration restriction.

Issues GOP conservatives used to support: spending restraint (if only
as lip service,) working closely with allies in NATO and other alliances,
"freer" trade with reciprocal lowering of tariffs on a bilateral and/or
multilateral basis, etc. Trump had objections to all of these.

I haven't been a Republican since the Jerry Ford administration, so
I'm on the outside looking in from a Libertarian perspective. I dislike
"crony capitalism"/"corporate welfare" and Trump reveled in it during
his private sector career. His groveling before so-called "pro-life" social
conservatives was a huge flip-flop in order to shore up a constituency
he needed in 2016. Previously, he had supported "pro-choice," until
he began to toy with running for office.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2011/02/trump_through_the_years_1.html

Of course, I'd welcome any pro-free market, pro-civil liberties Republican
to desert the Trumpified GOP and leave it a rump of cranky old white guys
who watch One America all day.
--
Kevin R
Paul S Person
2021-06-06 16:17:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Kevrob
[snip]
And the Republicans are ruled by the Koch brothers and the rest of their
ilk.
In 2016 the Koch brothers were not big for Trump.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/05/the-koch-brothers-were-supposed-to-buy-the-2016-election-what-happened.html
Nor were they behind him in 2020.
[quote]
The political advocacy group backed by billionaire Charles Koch* has seen
key policy victories under President Donald Trump, including regulatory and
tax cuts.
Yet, despite the president being at risk of losing the election to Democratic
nominee Joe Biden, and potentially jeopardizing another four years of Koch-
friendly policies, the network, which has often favored Republican candidates,
is staying out of the presidential election.
[/quote]
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/29/2020-presidential-election-why-koch-network-wont-help-trumps-bid.html
* Only 1 brother is still alive. David K died in 2019.
I vaguely recall reading something about all that.
It is truly frightening that Trump is so far to the right that the
Koch brother(s) (number depending on campaign year) would not support
him.
Post by Kevrob
I think you will have to target the ilk.
Unless the ilk felt the same way.
Perhaps groups unrelated to Koch in any way.
--
It's not just that Trump is "far to the right." His policy mix contained
ideas that were out-of-tune with the "Goldwater right," "the Nixon right,"
"the Reagan right" and successors, so that what it means to be "right wing"
has changed drastically. A Reaganite Republican who would have voted for
the 1986 "Simpson–Mazzoli" Act....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986
...would be today hounded out of the party or challenged in a primary by
nativist supporters of immigration restriction.
Issues GOP conservatives used to support: spending restraint (if only
as lip service,) working closely with allies in NATO and other alliances,
"freer" trade with reciprocal lowering of tariffs on a bilateral and/or
multilateral basis, etc. Trump had objections to all of these.
I haven't been a Republican since the Jerry Ford administration, so
I'm on the outside looking in from a Libertarian perspective. I dislike
"crony capitalism"/"corporate welfare" and Trump reveled in it during
his private sector career. His groveling before so-called "pro-life" social
conservatives was a huge flip-flop in order to shore up a constituency
he needed in 2016. Previously, he had supported "pro-choice," until
he began to toy with running for office.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2011/02/trump_through_the_years_1.html
Of course, I'd welcome any pro-free market, pro-civil liberties Republican
to desert the Trumpified GOP and leave it a rump of cranky old white guys
who watch One America all day.
Didn't Goldwater, at some point, note that, while not changing his
position one wit, he had moved from the extreme right of the
Republican Party in 1964 to the extreme outer fringe on the other
side?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Kevrob
2021-06-06 16:45:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Kevrob
[snip]
And the Republicans are ruled by the Koch brothers and the rest of their
ilk.
In 2016 the Koch brothers were not big for Trump.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/05/the-koch-brothers-were-supposed-to-buy-the-2016-election-what-happened.html
Nor were they behind him in 2020.
[quote]
The political advocacy group backed by billionaire Charles Koch* has seen
key policy victories under President Donald Trump, including regulatory and
tax cuts.
Yet, despite the president being at risk of losing the election to Democratic
nominee Joe Biden, and potentially jeopardizing another four years of Koch-
friendly policies, the network, which has often favored Republican candidates,
is staying out of the presidential election.
[/quote]
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/29/2020-presidential-election-why-koch-network-wont-help-trumps-bid.html
* Only 1 brother is still alive. David K died in 2019.
I vaguely recall reading something about all that.
It is truly frightening that Trump is so far to the right that the
Koch brother(s) (number depending on campaign year) would not support
him.
Post by Kevrob
I think you will have to target the ilk.
Unless the ilk felt the same way.
Perhaps groups unrelated to Koch in any way.
--
It's not just that Trump is "far to the right." His policy mix contained
ideas that were out-of-tune with the "Goldwater right," "the Nixon right,"
"the Reagan right" and successors, so that what it means to be "right wing"
has changed drastically. A Reaganite Republican who would have voted for
the 1986 "Simpson–Mazzoli" Act....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986
...would be today hounded out of the party or challenged in a primary by
nativist supporters of immigration restriction.
Issues GOP conservatives used to support: spending restraint (if only
as lip service,) working closely with allies in NATO and other alliances,
"freer" trade with reciprocal lowering of tariffs on a bilateral and/or
multilateral basis, etc. Trump had objections to all of these.
I haven't been a Republican since the Jerry Ford administration, so
I'm on the outside looking in from a Libertarian perspective. I dislike
"crony capitalism"/"corporate welfare" and Trump reveled in it during
his private sector career. His groveling before so-called "pro-life" social
conservatives was a huge flip-flop in order to shore up a constituency
he needed in 2016. Previously, he had supported "pro-choice," until
he began to toy with running for office.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2011/02/trump_through_the_years_1.html
Of course, I'd welcome any pro-free market, pro-civil liberties Republican
to desert the Trumpified GOP and leave it a rump of cranky old white guys
who watch One America all day.
Didn't Goldwater, at some point, note that, while not changing his
position one wit, he had moved from the extreme right of the
Republican Party in 1964 to the extreme outer fringe on the other
side?
--
I think you'd like this 1994 WaPo piece on AuH2O.

[quote]

Goldwater affects bemusement at the Sturm und Drang he seems
to have caused among those who once saw themselves as his ideological
descendants. As a good conservative should, he says, "I haven't changed
my outlook at all."

[/quote]

- https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater072894.htm

Reagan often claimed that he didn't move away from the
Democrats, they moved away from him.
--
Kevin R
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2021-06-06 22:51:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
I think you'd like this 1994 WaPo piece on AuH2O.
[quote]
Goldwater affects bemusement at the Sturm und Drang he seems
to have caused among those who once saw themselves as his ideological
descendants. As a good conservative should, he says, "I haven't changed
my outlook at all."
[/quote]
True.
Post by Kevrob
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater072894.htm
Reagan often claimed that he didn't move away from the
Democrats, they moved away from him.
Not true.

I mean, it's true that he said it, but it wasn't true.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Tom Derringer & the Steam-Powered Saurians.
Kevrob
2021-06-07 03:34:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Kevrob
I think you'd like this 1994 WaPo piece on AuH2O.
[quote]
Goldwater affects bemusement at the Sturm und Drang he seems
to have caused among those who once saw themselves as his ideological
descendants. As a good conservative should, he says, "I haven't changed
my outlook at all."
[/quote]
True.
Post by Kevrob
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater072894.htm
Reagan often claimed that he didn't move away from the
Democrats, they moved away from him.
Not true.
I mean, it's true that he said it, but it wasn't true.
RWR came under the influence of his father-in-law, Loyal Davis,
and the folks he worked for at GE.

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/32681

People either forget or don't know that Ronnie earned an economics
BA at Eureka College back in 1932, before Keynes became the rage.
Going from sports broadcaster, to film actor, to SAG head to TV
host to spokesperson for a large industrial firm might seem an
odd career track, but at the beginning and end were engagement
with enterprise as well as public policy. The link I posted makes the
case that his work for GE exposed him to various positions a hard-core
"New Dealer" would not have held.

I never became a Reaganite, but I understand how the so-called
"Reagan Democrats" could do so. My grandmother, living in Queens,
belonged to her local Democratic club. Her son, my Dad, was an
Eisenhower Republican living 60 miles from Times Square. I
might have been another GOPer, as I was in my high school days,
but I discovered Libertarianism, in no small part because I encountered
some of that issue set in SF stories.
--
Kevin R
Dorothy J Heydt
2021-06-07 15:43:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Kevrob
I think you'd like this 1994 WaPo piece on AuH2O.
[quote]
Goldwater affects bemusement at the Sturm und Drang he seems
to have caused among those who once saw themselves as his ideological
descendants. As a good conservative should, he says, "I haven't changed
my outlook at all."
[/quote]
True.
Post by Kevrob
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater072894.htm
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Kevrob
Reagan often claimed that he didn't move away from the
Democrats, they moved away from him.
Not true.
I mean, it's true that he said it, but it wasn't true.
RWR came under the influence of his father-in-law, Loyal Davis,
and the folks he worked for at GE.
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/32681
People either forget or don't know that Ronnie earned an economics
BA at Eureka College back in 1932, before Keynes became the rage.
Going from sports broadcaster, to film actor, to SAG head to TV
host to spokesperson for a large industrial firm might seem an
odd career track, but at the beginning and end were engagement
with enterprise as well as public policy. The link I posted makes the
case that his work for GE exposed him to various positions a hard-core
"New Dealer" would not have held.
I never became a Reaganite, but I understand how the so-called
"Reagan Democrats" could do so. My grandmother, living in Queens,
belonged to her local Democratic club. Her son, my Dad, was an
Eisenhower Republican living 60 miles from Times Square. I
might have been another GOPer, as I was in my high school days,
but I discovered Libertarianism, in no small part because I encountered
some of that issue set in SF stories.
Now, my parents were staunch Republicans. Since FDR died when I
was three, I can't dredge up any memories of what they said about
him. But one of my earliest memories is of what must've been the
first Monday in November,, 1948 (when I would've been four), of
my parents sitting up in bed marking their sample ballots to vote
for Dewey.

Time passed, and I got into high school and took a civics course
whose instructor assigned us all to go out and hand out posters
for one of the gubernatorial candidates, he didn't care which.

So I went to the local Democratic headquarters and got a fistful
of posters for Edmund G. Brown (Senior), known as "Pat," probably
with the sole motive of annoying my parents. Pat was the father
of Jerry, who spent some time as governor of California himself.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Paul S Person
2021-06-03 15:33:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Charles Packer
If Aldous Huxley was the
Neiman-Marcus of writers on the topic, you, alas, are typical of
the Walmart level.
You are far, far too generous. Walmart is the biggest reatailer in
the world, after all.
He's more the rat infested pawn shop the meth-heads take their stolen
goods to, hoping to get five bucks for another fix.
At this point, were I feeling like a hostile rejoinder, I could say something
like...
The reference was to the quality of Walmart's customers, rather than
the business acumen of its owners and managers. At least even
meth-heads have enough intelligence to vote Democratic.
...but, really, I don't feel like rooting for thieving drug addicts.
Myself, I would simply have noted that equating dreck showing no
knowledge of either science /or/ religion to Walmart, in any way, is
an insult to Walmart.

Just as calling Trump a "moron" is an insult to morons everywhere.

Some people require the invention of a new term to describe just how
bad they are.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Loading...