Saturday, September 16, 2017

Words at odds: compatibilist and incompatibilist

   The “incompatabilist” sees a world that can be logically determined and is totally at odds with the non-logical “compatibilist.”

   This 21st century has so far produced a world of major powers with philosophical beliefs at odds with the silent majority of individuals, who are increasingly thinking of pursuing an illogical sense of freedom to act in favor of their motives, without regard for the direction dictated by the established institutions.
   Thereby guaranteeing the anti-establishment “compatibilist” at odds with the institution bound “incompatabilist” globalist, at least until mid-century. 

   In 2015, the UK was struck with a “Brexit” vote of “compatibilist” individuals with the freedom to vote for their motives.
   Then the 2016 US Presidential election was another win for “Compatabilist” free spirits, who were intuitive when it came to chose the kind of candidate with a team to scour for voters in the states needed to win the Electoral College vote.
   Enough individuals with “free will to act according to one’s motives without arbitrary hindrance from individuals or institutions” resided in the states where the voters elected a Presidential candidate the polls predicted as the certain loser.

   *Wikipedia’s definition of the “compatibilist” provides the reason why the 2016 election result is still such a shock.

   At odds with the US 2016 result, now the bi-coastal elite class who have the money to fund their “inconpatabilist” beliefs are into the fall of 2017, and they have spurred the minority political party loser to empower “incompatabilist” voters to resist and protest.
   There are plenty of California silicon valley “determinedly incompatabilist” donors to fund seminars created to lure “incompatabilist” individuals who will gather others to secure a 2020 landslide electoral College vote for the “incompatabilist” candidate in addition to the popular vote.
   Other wealthy donors like George Soros fund “incompatabilist” groups like, and others like-minded also fund paid organizers who specialize in gathering all “incompatabilists” in the 1-party majority states where the losing candidate won the popular vote—these organizers pay social media experts to post an “incompatabilist” calendar of protest marches providing information about the time, date and place.
   As well, the losing political party has rich “incompatabilist” donors who are funding groups that specialize in uncovering the kind of evidence that will sour “compatibilist” voters, and convert them to voters who vote for "incompatabilist" candidates.

   The “incompatabilist” major newspapers have hired teams of reporters to dig into every uncovered nugget of grounds for impeachment—the stories produced  quote “unnamed sources” but provide fodder for the “incompatabilist” agenda major TV networks to endlessly pick at with glee.
   However, even when personal opinion becomes the basis for headlines, nine months into the first term of POTUS 45, evidence proves elusive for an indisputable impeachable offense that will drive the nation’s 2016 legally elected POTUS out of office.

   The results of all of the above have yet to prove any of the suppositions presented in great detail.

   Perhaps the 2018 US Congressional and Senatorial elections will determine whether free will versus dogmatic logic can win enough votes  to change the balance of power in a nation divided.

Saturday, August 26, 2017

Words within a certain context

   My interest in words and meanings extends to the times we live in.
   And events of the day can influence how certain words become cultural reality.
   For instance, “economic insecurity” and the word “precariat.”
   In the coming years the words “conspicuous consumption” may describe “prosperity.” 
 Or, in a world joined by global interests “economic disparity” is lexicon for “redistribution.”

   Now let’s reexamine history within the context of redefined words.
   The year 1916 in the USA was the beginning of last term of an ill President Woodrow Wilson lurching toward disaster. As *reformer Amos Pinchot bitterly observed:  “President Wilson had put his enemies in office and his friends in jail…”
   In 1917 the new and unusual clashed openly with the conventional and the commonplace, like the red scare fermented by rebels in the progressive wing of the Democratic party was overtaken by radicals who encouraged a USA inspired Bolshevik revolution.
   The nation voted in 1918 for a GOP congress openly against a “progressive” POTUS who was ill and suspicious of all dissension.
   However, the election of 1920 signified the nation wanted a return to the “normalcy” promised by President Harding.
   Yet the year 1921 ushered in renewed “civil unrest” even bombings by “radicals.”

   You can’t extrapolate the election of 1916 to the election of 2016.
   In 2016 the country was no longer in full step with 8 years of “progressivism.”
   Nevertheless, with a claim that the popular vote count didn't mirror the Electoral College victory, in 2017, “social progressives” encourage “social unrest” with help from a Hearst inspired “opinion”  main stream media. 
   Will the 2018 vote add more POTUS supporters to roll back “social progress” and promote “conspicuous consumption”?
   Or does 2018 mean the return of  the progressives to limit constitutional guarantees for those who aren’t “socially progressive”?    

  Regardless, the "contextual" words redefined for 2018 will depend on whether history may have back stepped, or leapt ahead.

Saturday, July 15, 2017

ethos values parables beliefs: ERA

Time and place determines how words and meanings effect events and slant opinions.

   The “era” of “parables” mythologizing national “ethos” is upon us.     
   Before this era of terror no stories were told in connection with the noun word “belief” or the noun word “values.”
   It used to be that the noun word “beliefs” indicated religious affiliation, and those with like “values” congregated together in the same social circle.
   At one time both the national and international media published stories about some of the “values” social circles that celebrated their wealth.
   Back then, mostly US media published stories about religious groups citing themes about “beliefs” that made national news. 

   Now during moments of terrorist inspired attacks, the noun word “values” binds the leaders of the Western world in the Eurozone.
   During the recent London Bridge atrocity, Prime Minister May utilized national “ethos” to cite “parables” about “values” and “beliefs” that bring everyone together.        
   However, the “globalism” of a world intertwined by a variety of “values” and “beliefs” are bringing cultural shift splits in the “values” that bind the Eurozone Western collective espousing open free borders.

   In the USA the “parable” of “values” is assigned to politicians who tell stories of what the “ethos” of America is all about.
   Even the Johnny come lately POTUS 45 used the “values ethos” to “parable” for his recent speech to the Polish people.

   In 2017 the use of “values” and “beliefs” can legitimize a politically inspired solution to invalidate the US 2016 election.
   Those who hunt for “parables” to tell stories now use the “ethos” of America to tell the “values parable” for the purpose of finding corroborating evidence. 
   And for the purpose of determining whether “treason” or “collusion” has a “beliefs parable,” now the political party that lost the 2016 election claims impeachment is applicable for taking down a lawfully elected POTUS.