Trump's German Heritage

[4est_4est_Gump]

That was normative for all societies of the time.



With a Republic, we were able to redress those circumstance through law and public opinion. In this you actually go from the understanding of history to the indictments and condemnations of the current liberal class that looks backwards with the 20-20 clarity of political correctness in order to enable and establish an oligarchy of the intellectual elite. That does not change the fact that a tyrant was overthrown in favor of a Republic.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Yes it was normal for all societies at the time. Republics were not a normal thing so the idea that you can predict what is going to happen to a Republic based on former trends is absurd. There simply are not enough cycles, certainly not under comparable circumstances to draw any meaningful conclusions.

First, we did not in any meaningful way redress those grievances via a Republic. The United States wasn't form until AFTERWARDS. whether or not George was a tyrant or not isn't actually particularly important to the point you are attempting to make here. Which is a cycle of Oligarchy, Strongman, and Republic. He could have been Santa Claus and our overthrowing him could have just been petty or he could have been Cobra Commander and the step afterward would be the same.

Yes we do have 20/20 vision when looking back and allows us a clarity those in the thick of it lacked for several reasons. In that clarity we know that in favor of a Republic wasn't really the goal. Washington turned down the option to be king as well as establishing the two term tradition that would continue unbroken until FDR. He could very easily have been dictator for life or King or whatever he chose with very little opposition. Which throws another hitch in your theory.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Republics were cyclically normative otherwise the Greeks and Machiavelli would not have written about them. Rare and hard to maintain?

YES!



We are seeing that now in the Trump of spades...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

In a way, they first established a Confederacy, the red-headed step-child of a Republic.

It was still a rejection of the monarchy and king.

It did not prove workable for national defense and economics, thus the brainchild that was our original Constitution. And our current society has no firmer a grasp on truth than theirs did when a man can declare himself a woman and we say, science be damned, he's a she!

 

[Sean Renaud]

Republics were cyclically normative otherwise the Greeks and Machiavelli would not have written about them. Rare and hard to maintain?

YES!



We are seeing that now in the Trump of spades...

Again, show me evidence of these cycles, not that one man (quite possibly writing a parody) decided to include it in a book along with a few others. Nothing that is RARE can be considered normal by the way.

and they are difficult to maintain because at the end of the day they aren't particularly great forms of government.

Since your choice or words is giving me pause what do you think teh difference is between a confederacy and a republic?

In a way, they first established a Confederacy, the red-headed step-child of a Republic.

It was still a rejection of the monarchy and king.

It did not prove workable for national defense and economics, thus the brainchild that was our original Constitution. And our current society has no firmer a grasp on truth than theirs did when a man can declare himself a woman and we say, science be damned, he's a she!

A government that doesn't work for a defense or economy really isn't a government at all. It's a mess, hence it's failure.

Our current society has a much firmer grasp on the truth than there's did regardless of how you feel about Cait Jenner. That's not even on topic in anyway shape or form.

So lets consolidate this.

You believe there is a cycle from Oligarchy to Strong Man to Republic. If this pattern is true you should be able to point to multiple cases in history of this loop happening, ideally with the same or at least culturally similar groups of people.

 

[Mr_Jon_Thon]

The Greeks, Italians, French, and English have all gone through the cycle more or less.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Pick one and show me some citation of these cycles. I hear a lot of people saying this but nobody seems to producing.

 

[ishtat]

Half my gene pool is Irish. Its been a trial...like being female or hunchback. I cant esteem or respect myself...knowing the truth. I lied to my wife, when she asked I said, HALF SCOTTISH AND HALF FROM HELL.

Considering the frequency with which the English raped, looted and pillaged Ireland, the real story is probably even more frightening. There are almost certainly one or two fine upstanding Englishmen in your Ancestry James.

 

[Mr_Jon_Thon]

Pick one and show me some citation of these cycles. I hear a lot of people saying this but nobody seems to producing.

Have Des read you Plutarch or Thucydides. It'll be a twofer for the both of you.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Nope.com. Tell me of these cycles or stop claiming they exist.

 

[Lancecastor]

Actually Canada rigorously enforces it's immigration laws, which is what makes Lances posts on the subject so ridiculous.

Oh, and done right 75% are going to self-deport. No bus/train/plane ticket required.

Ishmael

Our laws are lovely.

But we have no Trump

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Interestingly, 2 of his 3 wives weren't American Citizens when he married them.

His mother was a Scottish immigrant and his Grandparents were illegal German immigrants who were subsequently barred from returning to Germany.

<Ishmael mode on> But they were white so they're alright.

 

[Mr_Jon_Thon]

I gave you two. If you don't want to education yourself, I can't help you.

 

[Sean Renaud]

No you didn't, you gave two sources of information, not the information with in. IF you have even a basic understanding of it you should be able to sum it up quickly and if i disagree I can then research from there but currently you've given me shit all. Most likely because that is all that exists.

 

[Mr Noone]

http://www.blueinkfiction.com/Hogan/ShultzHoganKlink.jpg

Schultz was a sergeant!

Schultz? I thought that was Chris Christie!

I know nothing! Nothing about any bridges!

 

[Ishmael]

Again, show me evidence of these cycles, not that one man (quite possibly writing a parody) decided to include it in a book along with a few others. Nothing that is RARE can be considered normal by the way.

and they are difficult to maintain because at the end of the day they aren't particularly great forms of government.

Since your choice or words is giving me pause what do you think teh difference is between a confederacy and a republic?



A government that doesn't work for a defense or economy really isn't a government at all. It's a mess, hence it's failure.

Our current society has a much firmer grasp on the truth than there's did regardless of how you feel about Cait Jenner. That's not even on topic in anyway shape or form.

So lets consolidate this.

You believe there is a cycle from Oligarchy to Strong Man to Republic. If this pattern is true you should be able to point to multiple cases in history of this loop happening, ideally with the same or at least culturally similar groups of people.

I can't resist responding to that statement.

You are so incredibly wrong. The ancients had a much firmer handle on human behavior than most of today's society. If for no other reason that they had the time to actually observe human behavior without all of the superfluous distractions that today's technological society has.

Read the Bible, not as a religious work, but rather as a historical work on the observation of human behavior. You will find every facet of behavior in that book, the good, the bad, and the ugly. There is NO new behavior, it's all been documented in the past. Only Shakespeare comes close to such insightful observations.

Further, there is nothing new under the Sun with regard to man's relationship to his fellow man, or his government. All of that has been documented as well.

We are not smarter, nor are we wiser. (And there is researched evidence that, at least in Europe, the cumulative IQ is falling.) Neither you, nor anyone else, can provide any evidence that mankind has made any substantial advances in the past 3000 years beyond technological advances. To make the statement that somehow we are is nothing more than an unsubstantiated act of hubris.

Ishmael

 

[Conager]

I can't resist responding to that statement.

You are so incredibly wrong. The ancients had a much firmer handle on human behavior than most of today's society. If for no other reason that they had the time to actually observe human behavior without all of the superfluous distractions that today's technological society has.

Read the Bible, not as a religious work, but rather as a historical work on the observation of human behavior. You will find every facet of behavior in that book, the good, the bad, and the ugly. There is NO new behavior, it's all been documented in the past. Only Shakespeare comes close to such insightful observations.

Further, there is nothing new under the Sun with regard to man's relationship to his fellow man, or his government. All of that has been documented as well.

We are not smarter, nor are we wiser. (And there is researched evidence that, at least in Europe, the cumulative IQ is falling.) Neither you, nor anyone else, can provide any evidence that mankind has made any substantial advances in the past 3000 years beyond technological advances. To make the statement that somehow we are is nothing more than an unsubstantiated act of hubris.

Ishmael

One facet of human behavior that is timeless is that each subsequent generation believes it to be wiser than the ones before. Every generation believes itself to be the "modern" one. I laugh at how often the word 'evolved' is used incorrectly to describe changes in attitudes in one generation with zero biological changes.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

No you didn't, you gave two sources of information, not the information with in. IF you have even a basic understanding of it you should be able to sum it up quickly and if i disagree I can then research from there but currently you've given me shit all. Most likely because that is all that exists.

How was it that Einstein put it?
<paraphrasing>
If you cannot explain something simply, then you do not understand it yourself.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I can't resist responding to that statement.

You are so incredibly wrong. The ancients had a much firmer handle on human behavior than most of today's society. If for no other reason that they had the time to actually observe human behavior without all of the superfluous distractions that today's technological society has.

They had the time? Right there you're talking about absurdities. One of the biggest issues facing our current generation (and this has been true for everybody since the Industrial Revolution if not before with each passing generation of advancements) has been a surplus of time that we really have no good idea of what to do with.

Read the Bible, not as a religious work, but rather as a historical work on the observation of human behavior. You will find every facet of behavior in that book, the good, the bad, and the ugly. There is NO new behavior, it's all been documented in the past. Only Shakespeare comes close to such insightful observations.

That's not a point at all really. First the idea that there is no new behavior is simply incorrect. Plenty of new behaviors are popping up all over the place. The closest thing to what you and I are doing right here, right now in the ancient past was writing letters back and forth between individuals. So right there you're simply wrong.

Ultimately reading the Bible as a historical work however is simply the wrong approach because it is not a historical work. It's a religious one, you can can it psuedohistory if you like and that would be accurate. Some of it is historical but much of it is fiction. More to the point trash in trash out. If you think a meteor, earthquake, or whatever the current prevailing reason for Sodam and Gommorah's destruction was about their behavior and not just wrong place wrong time well everything you build on that bullshit can be nothing but bullshit.

Further, there is nothing new under the Sun with regard to man's relationship to his fellow man, or his government. All of that has been documented as well.

Of course there is that alters in many ways all the time. As you bring up technology that's actually a huge way in which man's relationship not just to his fellow man or his government has changed but literally his relationship with the planet itself. Want an example? Do I really need to explain to you how much things like refrigeration have changed our lives? And yes, when you change our lives it does change the nature of our interactions. As recently as ten years ago you could pull a fact out of your ass and if I didn't have a book on me I couldn't call you on it. Today everybody's got a reference to practically everything ever written chilling in their pocket.

If you're going to go as basic as "people have loved and lost, hated and struggled with equal measure throughout history" well I'd stop arguing because those goal posts aren't mobile, finding them is just slightly more difficult than knowing the location of an electron. I assume I'll never have to listen to you tell me about how I have it easier than you did at my age though?

We are not smarter, nor are we wiser. (And there is researched evidence that, at least in Europe, the cumulative IQ is falling.) Neither you, nor anyone else, can provide any evidence that mankind has made any substantial advances in the past 3000 years beyond technological advances. To make the statement that somehow we are is nothing more than an unsubstantiated act of hubris.

Ishmael

Of course we're smarter and wiser. Unless you're counting "education" as a technological advance then I might as well drop the mike now. For fucks sake reading wasn't even a common skill just a few centuries back. To quote the great chaos mathemetician Ian Malcolm "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." or as a man of our era would say "I didn't build that." I don't claim that I did, all I did was bring my soap box up here and now I'm the tallest man in history. And when I leave my soap box will remain so some kid who right now ain't but a twinkle in his daddy's eye will put his box atop mine and he'll be the tallest. That's just the nature of life.

One facet of human behavior that is timeless is that each subsequent generation believes it to be wiser than the ones before. Every generation believes itself to be the "modern" one. I laugh at how often the word 'evolved' is used incorrectly to describe changes in attitudes in one generation with zero biological changes.

And each generation is correct when they make that statement. It's also not an incorrect us of the word 'evolve' though it's cute you're attempting to pretend that it is. Evolve is defined as change or develop slowly often into a better, more complex, or more advanced state : to develop by a process of evolution. A biological change is not necessary. Now you could attempt if you please to claim that any given change has happened to rapidly to be considered evolution since speed is relative and all that jazz but otherwise you're simply wrong.

 

[LadyVer]

A customer today was wearing a "Voting for Trump" t-shirt that had a huge pic of Trump on it. I cringed. I wanted to run. I won't say what I was thinking.

 

[Ishmael]

They had the time? Right there you're talking about absurdities. One of the biggest issues facing our current generation (and this has been true for everybody since the Industrial Revolution if not before with each passing generation of advancements) has been a surplus of time that we really have no good idea of what to do with.



That's not a point at all really. First the idea that there is no new behavior is simply incorrect. Plenty of new behaviors are popping up all over the place. The closest thing to what you and I are doing right here, right now in the ancient past was writing letters back and forth between individuals. So right there you're simply wrong.

Ultimately reading the Bible as a historical work however is simply the wrong approach because it is not a historical work. It's a religious one, you can can it psuedohistory if you like and that would be accurate. Some of it is historical but much of it is fiction. More to the point trash in trash out. If you think a meteor, earthquake, or whatever the current prevailing reason for Sodam and Gommorah's destruction was about their behavior and not just wrong place wrong time well everything you build on that bullshit can be nothing but bullshit.



Of course there is that alters in many ways all the time. As you bring up technology that's actually a huge way in which man's relationship not just to his fellow man or his government has changed but literally his relationship with the planet itself. Want an example? Do I really need to explain to you how much things like refrigeration have changed our lives? And yes, when you change our lives it does change the nature of our interactions. As recently as ten years ago you could pull a fact out of your ass and if I didn't have a book on me I couldn't call you on it. Today everybody's got a reference to practically everything ever written chilling in their pocket.

If you're going to go as basic as "people have loved and lost, hated and struggled with equal measure throughout history" well I'd stop arguing because those goal posts aren't mobile, finding them is just slightly more difficult than knowing the location of an electron. I assume I'll never have to listen to you tell me about how I have it easier than you did at my age though?



Of course we're smarter and wiser. Unless you're counting "education" as a technological advance then I might as well drop the mike now. For fucks sake reading wasn't even a common skill just a few centuries back. To quote the great chaos mathemetician Ian Malcolm "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." or as a man of our era would say "I didn't build that." I don't claim that I did, all I did was bring my soap box up here and now I'm the tallest man in history. And when I leave my soap box will remain so some kid who right now ain't but a twinkle in his daddy's eye will put his box atop mine and he'll be the tallest. That's just the nature of life.




And each generation is correct when they make that statement. It's also not an incorrect us of the word 'evolve' though it's cute you're attempting to pretend that it is. Evolve is defined as change or develop slowly often into a better, more complex, or more advanced state : to develop by a process of evolution. A biological change is not necessary. Now you could attempt if you please to claim that any given change has happened to rapidly to be considered evolution since speed is relative and all that jazz but otherwise you're simply wrong.

And your response is exactly the reason you are on ignore. You had a chance to be taken off the list but you blew it sparky. You just can't quite form a complete thought.

Ishmael

 

[OjosMojo]

Qohlat (Ecclesiastes)

Qohlat 1

1. The oracle of Qohlat, son of David, King of Jerusalem.
2. "Vanity of vanities," said Qohlat, "vanity of vanities, all is vanity."*
3. What benefits the human being with all the work he does under the sun?
4. A generation* goes and a generation comes, and the earth remains* to the end of the universe.*
5. The sun rises and the sun sets and in the country that she sets, that is where she stays, so as she may rise from there again.
6. She goes to the south and she circles* to the north, and circling she goes around,* and there the spirit* goes, and in her travels there the spirit settles.
7. All the torrents empty out into the sea, and the sea does not fill up; to the country that the torrents go, that is where they are wont to go.
8. All the expressions have been belabored,* no one* wishes to repeat them, there is no eye that wishes to see them, nor an ear can bear* to hear them.
9. What there was, it is, and what had to be done, was done, and there is nothing new under the sun.
10. Whoever speaks and says, "Look, this is new;" perhaps it was forever from the beginning.
11. There is neither a memorial for the first ones, nor for the last ones who came later; there is no memorial for them together with the ones who came last.
12. And I, Qohlat, was king over Israel in Jerusalem.
13. And I gave my heart to seeking and clarifying wisdom, with respect to everything that is done under the sun, a bad travail that Maryah* has given humanity to struggle with.
14. I saw every act that was performed under the sun, and, behold, everything is vanity and the turmoil of the spirit.
15. The agitator* cannot be controlled and the loser cannot be contained.*
16. I spoke to my heart, who said that, behold, I have mastered and increased in wisdom, [more than] anyone that was in Jerusalem, and my heart came to see an increase in wisdom and knowledge.
17. I gave my heart to know wisdom, proverbs, and prudence, and I [came to] know that this too is the turmoil of the spirit.
18. Because with more wisdom, there is more anger, and whoever increases his knowledge, increases his grief.

Footnotes
*1:2 Lit. Aramaic: "Vain," or "empty."
*1:4.1 Lit. Ar. id.: Or: "Centuries."
*1:4.2 Lit. Ar. id.: "Stands."
*1:4.3 Lit. Ar. id.: "L'allam." or "forever."
*1:6.1 Lit. Ar. id.: Or: "Climbs."
*1:6.2 Lit. Ar. id.: "Circling she circles."
*1:6.3 Lit. Ar. id.: Also: "Wind."
*1:8.1 Lit. Ar. id.: "Overused."
*1:8.2 Lit. Ar. id.: "Man."
*1:8.3 Lit. Ar. id.: "Is filled."
*1:13 Lit. Aramaic retained: Reference is to Eashoa the Messiah.
*1:15.1 Lit. Ar. id.: "Confuser."
*1:15.2 Lit. Ar. id.: "Counted."

Aramaic Bible
Translated by Victor Alexander ©2013
http://www.v-a.com/bible/

 

[Magicscreen2]

There are so many other reasons to not support Trump.

Why would anyone care even minimally about his ethnicity.

 

[Ishmael]

There are so many other reasons to not support Trump.

Why would anyone care even minimally about his ethnicity.

So they can make the "Hitler" connection of course.

Ishmael

 

[Magicscreen2]

So they can make the "Hitler" connection of course.

Ishmael

Sigh.

The last time I was here, you were persona non grata. How did you get Laurel to put the mat out for you again?