That is interesting. Where can a person get more information about this?

How do you deal with political parties that have risen up in arms against the country and lost? It's actually easy, if after defeat they change their ways, they can be accepted back. That's how you get past civil wars. The leftist party that started our civil war and then luckily was defeated, is now at present in the government here. And nobody, neither the prime minister or any other member of the party, is thinking about a bolshevik revolution as they did in 1918. — ssu

It is my understanding some states in the US are more highly identified with military prestige than others. They are more inclined to believing the US represents the Power and Glory of God. This seems at odds with a growing sense of guilt and our notions of national destiny and what this has meant to those who are not White Anglo Saxon Protestants. As Israel is for Jews, the US has been for White Saxon Protestants and neither nation embraces equality. Their commitment to democracy is questionable, and perhaps both nations are divided by the hypocrisy of standing for a limited democracy that is not all-inclusive

There two concerns in that paragraph. Both sides of the Civil war believed God was on their side and people who believe they are doing the will of God are much more committed than those who don't think they are doing the will of God. Some of us are godless peaceniks. We are more in line with Quakers who have always opposed war. Where do you stand on the issue of God and war?

The other issue is how inclusive or exclusive are you? A major force behind the racism in the US was Southern Bells who used media and education to assure their elitist position in the south would be culturally protected at the expense of people of color. This is very much with us today, with a Black man being killed by police after a White woman reported she felt threatened. This prejudice is part of people's identities just as military prestige is part of some people's identities. "I am important because you are not and as the police officer kneeling on a Black man's throat I am gloating with my sense of power". I am a southern bell. I am a southern gentleman who serves God and country. We go together like a right hand and left hand. That is so much better than being a dirty hippie, at a love-in with people of all colors, right?

↪Athena
You make a good point about the humanities being pushed aside after Sputnik. I'm surprised this thread is languishing. :chin: — jgill

I am not surprised. My concerns are known as conspiracy theory and the belief that Eisenhower's warning should be ignored, and the lack of interest in looking into the details is powerful! It is like Trump using fear and anger and making us distrust everyone but him, just as the Nazi's did when they came to power. Those who are unaware of what is done to control the masses are in the dark and I think they want to stay there.

However, the eruption following watching a police officer gloat as he has his knee on a man's neck until the man is dead, has been as a major earthquake to our understanding of reality. I am hoping this earthquake continues to awaken our consciousness.

No argument there. The USAF even funded one of my minor research projects that had no military applications. The Cold War has had a profound effect on society. — jgill

Could you please provide more information? What was that research about?

A major branch of research is public opinion and how to influence it. When I was young, I loved taking part in surveying people until I finally realized the purpose of the research was increasing the ability to manipulate them. This, also being a main part of how the Nazi party came to power and some of the best research coming from Germany before the US realized the value of it. Did your research have anything to do with the behavior of crowds?

I at odds with those who managed the cold war. Having us duck under our desk and putting our hards over heads, would not have been adequate protection in a nuclear war, so it was pointless unless the point was to cause fear and control the sheep.

The war on communist as though they could have no values that could be acceptable was a bit insane. The association of the US with God, was very powerful and I believe very much part of the problem we have today. Trump standing in front a church he has never entered and holding up a Bible as though to assure us he has God's authority, is something that should not have happened and is very much a part of the cultural conflict don't you think?

Our national destiny to spread from coast to coast is not as popular today as it once may have been, and taking this destiny to having military control of mid-east, associating it with the Power and Glory of God, following the Vietnam war division between those of us who support war and those of us who do not, heats up our cultural conflict doesn't it?

Thanks for the input. Though I’m thinking after being on this forum, I am reminded that Philosophy asks questions that other subjects have done away with. And I can think/believe anything I want on these matters, including religion. Because nothing in Philosophy has been proven so there will be pros and cons on any view. Seems like a waste of time. Thanks all. — Maya

I think our religious heritage has lead us down the wrong path. It appears we have forgotten what philosophy has to do with science, and what science has to do with right reasoning.

Western Physics (with its particles and forces in 'Space Time' ) has never correctly understood the wisdom of ancient philosophy (All is One and Interconnected / Dynamic Unity of Reality). It is also important to understand that the ancient philosophers did not actually know how the universe was a dynamic unity, what matter was, how the One Thing caused and connected the many things.
Recent discoveries on the properties of Space and the Wave Structure of Matter (Wolff, Haselhurst) confirm that we can understand Reality, 'the true nature of the gods' and the interconnection of all things from a logical / scientific foundation. (As Cicero, Leo Tolstoy and Albert Einstein ask for, a rational explanation of religious faith.) We hope you enjoy the following biography and quotations of Cicero. https://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Cicero-Philosopher.htm

At the bottom of that link is this quote:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. (Max Planck, 1920)

Philosophy brings us to science and science brings to new truths and changed consciousness.

If at the end of a decision you feel good, you have made the right decision for you. Doing what society views as the right thing might make you feel good, it might not. You might have your own views of right and wrong and feel amazing fighting for them. I would agree if you went to prison however or had a criminal record, that would make you feel rubbish because it’s like society is being mean/punishing you. — Maya

So if ignoring the coronavirus and the need to wear a mask and practice distancing makes us feel good that is what we should do?

Oregon Public Broadcasting has been focusing on the causes of racism and has been broadcasting explanations of the different movements and the actions of people in power that made racism such a terrible problem. I have purchased DVD's of the programs and hope to share them in my community.

A program about the fight for women's suffrage explains what women of color did in the fight for the right to vote and what White women did to exclude them because they did not want racism to be a competing issue.

We could all contact our schools and our school boards requesting updated history books that include the efforts made by native Americans and people of color to manifest a better reality that is compatible with the values of democracy. By working together we can have a stronger democracy than the one we have now.

value — Kev

It is a mistake to assume what someone else thinks.

But civilization existed for thousands of years before that gold and oil was of any value? Why? Because nobody had done the work to find it, drill it/mine it, and transport it. Non-renewable resources are such only as long as they are 1. resources and 2. non-renewable. Like I said, the actual material does not disappear. We don't know if oil will ever be renewable, although it most likely won't be a resource by the time we had such technology. But when you pay for gold, you aren't just paying for a raw material. You are paying for all the work that went into delivering you that raw material. — Kev

I am having a hard time following your reasoning. When a gold mine is closed the businesses close, and then everything including real estate has no value. We recentedly experienced this in a big way when the banking/housing crisis crashed our economy. All that property lost its value. Lives and futures were destoyed. Now where is the happiness?

Happiness is not measured monetarily, who would say such a thing? But does that mean you wouldn't spend money on something that makes you happy? You probably take trips/vacations that make you happy, and there is a lot of human labor, other than yours, that goes into that. Money represents human value, so you will trade value for value. Now if you disagree with what other people value, do your feelings dictate reality? Are you always correct? And I'm not saying that you're never correct, or that the trend you see isn't there. But you seem to be tracing back the causality to people's freedom to choose (money).

I don't have time for anymore right now, but I'll come back to this.[/quote]

Okay, I am gone. I doubt if anyone questions more what they think than I do and I am not interested in defending myself. Have a nice day.

Why the year 1958? — ssu


The impact of Sputnik.

We replaced our liberal education that was addressing political and social problems through education from the first day a child entered school, — Athena


I graduated high school in 1954 and college in 1958, but I don't remember that kind of instruction. In the 1960s the civil rights movement affected school curricula in that way. — jgill

What do you mean you don't remember that kind of instruction? I can not give a better reply until I know what you are talking about. But I was in high school when the 1958 National Defense Education Act was enacted and I vividly remember that day, because we were afraid of a nuclear war and were doing drills of getting under our desk and covering our heads with our hands. Like that would do any good in a nuclear war. Anyway my teachers were walking about like they were in a state of shock. It was really frightening so I remember that day.

In the afternoon a male teacher announced the purpose of education had been changed. We were now educating for a technological society with unknown values and we should prepare for the day when automation took our jobs. He was right, and now what he was talking about is obvious.

My grandmother was a devoted teacher and because her generation was defending democracy in the classroom, I began researching what that meant when the US began having serious social problems and declared a national youth crisis. I have done this research by collecting old books about education and text books. I will verify what I say with quotes if I am asked to do that.

PS the classics used to be required reading. Now they are not found in school libraries because kids would rather read Captain Underwear, a story of a school principal who is in underwear. I would ban many books in school libraries and put the classics back in, because books equal culture or the culture of lack of culture.

Add things mentioned here alreadt: de-escalatory tactics, use of other officials than just the police in every occasion, a wide variety of methods that have been seen successful in reality, not emerging from some ideological agenda. Yet I really would not put the issue of the police using excessive force into being part of the culture war. Is wearing a mask and combating the pandemic part of "the culture war[/quote/

Welcome to the police state we defended our democracy against. Sometimes force is not the best idea. The police officer who took the side of the demostrators and lead through town, was the most successful because he won the hearts of the protestors. Instant peace and fulfilment of our American right to protest.
— ssu

Why the year 1958? The National Defense Education Act that radically changed public education, the new government relationships with media and reserach. That was a busy year for President Eisenhower in establishing the Military Industrial Complex that he later warned us against.

I think the "culture war" and the ongoing polarization have made the discourse highly contemptuous. And unfortunately, on purpose. To discuss values and morals in elections is good, yet things normally ought to be far more palpable to the voter concerning real issues. Because now the duopoly of the two ruling political parties use the "culture war" card in my view as a distraction. Both democrats and republicans seeks to use the culture war to their advantage.

Only in the US is it an insult to call someone liberal. The rest of the world retains the original meaning of the word as it is associated with "liberty". There is so much that could be said. I think meaningful discussion must begin with knowledge of the change in education. We adopted the German model of education and at this point ended education for good moral judgment and left that to the Church as Germany did. We now have reactionary politics as Germany had and our elected officals are doing as poorly as the German elected officals who all about power plays not reasoning. And our media is no longer doing the investigation and reporting of the past, but is sensationalized and appealing more to our emotions than our intellect. And our president was a Wrestlemania star before he became our president. Seriously you can watch Trump in the Wrestlemania ring on youtube. Our leader and a leader of Germany share much in common as the masses in both nations have shared the same eduction for technology for military and industrial purpose. By the way, Evangical Christians are very much a part of this change in education and political matters.

I mean stop for a while to think about it: is really a nationwide topic of uttermost importance which toilets can transgender people use? For transgender it might be important, but I do think this is quite a small minority. Before it was burning the flag. Now it's tearing down statues of George Washington and people talk of "a cultural revolution" taking place in the US. In my view which statues deserve to come down and which to stay is not important compared to things like what to do about unemployment as the pandemic induced global economic downturn is a big problem... not to mention the thousands that still will die from the pandemic.

The gender issues are a national issue, and Evangical Christianity is in step with this. Such issues are extremely important to religious people and determine who they for vote or against. As you indicated perhaps not everyone cares about gender identy issues, but us secular people are no longer united by education for democracy, and the Evangicals are united! To assure the vote of the largest, united. God motivated voting block, it is very important to appeal to them. They don't know, voting about who gets to use a toilet or not, is not a politically important decision. While they get hysterical over such issues, they are clueless about the really important political decisions being made for them and without their awareness. Thanks to the 1958 National Defense Education Act, few people realize they no longer have meaningful political power. They think voting over who gets to use a bathroom or against abortion rights, is the meaning of political power. The New World Order/Military Industrial Complex doesn't need them, only their votes. Those in the seats of power will be Havard or Yale graduates properly prepared to be among the ruling class.

As for tearing down statues and oh my god allowing women to vote and making it law they can not be discriminated against, some good things did come out of no longer transmitting our culture. There were good things about that culture and bad things.

Oh, I'm one of those conservatives who believe in representative democracy, even with it's failures and defects, and believe that changes can happen through consensus, mainly when the at first opposing side finally takes the agenda as it's own too. — ssu

For sure what is happening today is amazing. I don't think we have had such unity since the early days of unions. Unions succeeded because we all supported them, unitl Ronald Reagan destroyed them and our industy moved over seas, while us tax payers have been paying for the military might to defend our over seas industry. That might not seem philsophical but it is the same as Athens history when Athens philosophers determined logos is the controlling force of the universe, not the gods, and democracy was born with a growing middle class.

I suspect right now Black Lives Matter is succeeding because when we saw a police officer gloating while he took a man's life and we identified with the man saying "I can't breath". This is what the establishment is doing to us. More and more of us are realizing what Ronald Reagan started is not in our best interest and we are still furious about what the bankers did to our economy and our lives. The rich and powerful are gloating and we are finally waking up to our reality is not what we fought two world wars to defended.

Among other things we want back our industrial base and an acceptable standard of living for hard working people. We want human values to come back and we aren't buying over priced designer things in a competition to be better than others any more. US is coming back! And we are going to take down the controllers who stold our national wealth and put it in their pockets. We are mad and glad to be united again.

May I help you with the explanation that someone is controlling the dismantling of the Industrail base of the US and promoting the Military Industrial Complex that the UYS has become?

Search Results
Web results

Bilderberg Conference 2019: What happens in the secretive ...
www.businesstoday.in › OPINION › Columns
Jun 6, 2019 - ... of the Western world's 100 most powerful people, has been meeting in ... happens in the secretive meet of the world's most powerful people? — business today

Bilderberg meeting - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Bilderberg_meeting
The Bilderberg meeting is an annual conference established in 1954 to foster dialogue ... Various popular conspiracy theories describe the Bilderbergers as the most powerful group of men in the history of the planet. ... OCLC 2359663. anybody who has ever been to a Bilderberg Conference should be able to feel that he ...
‎List of Bilderberg participants · ‎Henri de Castries · ‎List of Bilderberg meetings — wikipedia

In 1958 the US replaced its domestic education with education for a technological society with unknown values. There are huge social, economic and political ramifications to this change. And yes, culture wars have followed this education for a technological society with unknown values.

There has been an argument for strong leadership. Will anyone end our cultural war and tell us what values we are defending?

I will argue the autocratic model of industry has resulted in dysfunctional families, and serious economic and political problems. All of which would be resolved with education for democracy and using the democratic model for industry. The most successful high tech industries followed the democratic model. The failure of the American auto industry has been the result of autocratic industry.

Do you have culture wars? We sure do and I hope we talk about this more.

The economy does run on human labor, though. "Resources" are not measured by weight or volume. Resources are anything required to produce human value. Without human labor there are no resources. We can run out of raw materials (technically we can't, because the physical material does not just disappear), but the existence of raw materials is not the most important condition in the creation of human value. — Kev

Do you mind if I ask how old you are? I don't think we share the same memories of reality. For sure we have read the same books. Do you know what a non renewable resource is? I grew up in California and we went to ghost towns. Towns that were once thriving economies because of gold. Then there is oil. Have you heard of an oil well going dry? Do you know for awhile our national wealth depended mostly on being the world's supply of oil? The US was an exporter much more than it was an importer. Our national wealth was built on a labor intense industrial economy. I don't think there was anything not made in the US. What happened?

How do we measure "good" in "good lives"? Who decides what is good? There is a non-arbitrary way to measure value, and that is based on what people are willing to pay for.

Not that long ago I don't think anyone would have measured happiness monetarily. For sure hippies did not. In the past people thought happiness was about friends, family and social prestige that could be attained by entertaining people or volunteering. We lived in a truly different culture than the one we have now. A career choice was about self fullment more based on being service to others than monetary reward. Especially for women, we nursed and taught, because doing those things made us feel good about who we are.

If people want to live like the natives did, or adopt certain aspects of that culture that they think is good, they can do that. But the design of power structures is a completely different issue, unless you want people to live in small tribes.

Oh yes, I do wish we adopted the human values of the past. Yesterday something went wrong with my car that I had just driven out of the shop after have the engine rebuilt. It stopped at a stop light, and would not go any further. I called the shop that is run by Japanese and immediately they sent a mechanic to resolve the problem. He could not easily resolve it so we agreed to have it towed to their shop. The mechanic insisted on staying with me and then his boss showed up and had the mechanic drive me home, and he stayed with my car until the tow truck driver hauled it away. I kept assuring them I was fine and they could go home, but they insisted on being sure I was home safe. I felt like a queen with their focus on protecting me and pleasing me. I remember when that was normal. Do you hear me? I remember when people treated each other much, much better than people are treated today. There is nothing money can buy that is better than that.

Do we have culture war? I think so. I think technology that is extremely impersonal and prevents us from getting to a real human being, and putting a monetary value of everything has made our lives hell! What you said about resources is horrifying to me. You do not seem to have a good understanding of reality and I suggest you read something like Youngquist's "GeoDestinies".

We live on a finite planet and perhaps our understanding of reality should take that into consideration. It helps us understand things such as why we now think our national goal should be having the most advanced and expensive military force of earth, forgetting before WW our nation was known for resistance to war and military spending. What we are today is not what made us an international leader. Our industrial base made us great not our military might.

Well, my point was that the consensus that people have in things like "something has to be done to police brutality" is obviously important was responded with the following answer.

Wellcome to the new PF:

Why this obsession with consensus? Consensus is not a political value. It is completely agnostic as to whether things remain terrible, or whether things improve. Actually it's worse: insofar as the material situation is terrible, the call for 'consensus' is a call to stall change, to compromise on it, and to continue the shitty way things are. I mean it when I say: consensus is poison. Forget about it. Nobody wants 'consensus' with a society that kills black people at outrageous rates. Nobody but those brought up on Disney movies want that. Hell, even Disney movies kill their bad guys. Consensus is anti-political crap. — StreetlightX — ssu

Wow it appears PF knows nothing about democracy! Are you supporting what was said or agruing against it?

The place to end police brutality is through cultural means, education and media. Unfortunately in 1958 we lost our wisdom and focused excessively on the rapid advancement of technology. We replaced our liberal education that was addressing political and social problems through education from the first day a child entered school, with education completely focused on advancing technology. That meant leaving moral training the church, and only brute force to maintain social order because not everyone goes to church nor can believe the biblical ,and those who do, do not agree on God's truth nor do they have a better way of resolving religious differences than killing people who disagree with them. This change in education has serious, social, economic, and political ramifications.

What change should we want?

I believe there is truth in what you said, but that is a limited truth. The truth would be more workable when there are more resources than people and the economy is dependent on human labor. Neither of those conditions are so today.

There are groups of indigenous people who have done well with a different organization of people. They did not develop technology as we have, but they had good lives. It might be time to know the truth of these people and rethink our organization of people, and make our organization more compatible with liberty and morality?

There are only two ways to have social order, culture or authority over the people. Liberty depends on culture. Culture depends on education.

Before we got so technologically smart we realized people from around the world were coming to the United States and non of them had experienced democracy. It was a priority for schools to teach children a set of American values, Americanizing the children and knowing their parents would learn about citizenship in the US from their children. I can quote from the 1917 National Education Association Conference and other books written back in the day if you want validation of purpose of education before the 1958 focus on technology and ending the transmission of our culture.

You can look at Boris Johnson defence of Winston Churchill statues or the last Trump’s speech Mount Rushmore speech, he made his 'defence' of American heritage (and Mount Rushmore monuments) one of the main messages of his campaign. — Number2018

Trump absolutely is a leader of a culture war. Opposing wearing a mask and following the advise of health experts is totally opposed to science, and therefore, orpposed to rule by reason. Disrespecting native Americans and advancing the exploitation of natural resources and the damange done to our planet, is totally opposed to science and rule by reason. The two sides are this battle are intense.

Not odd at all. I define the right as a "Tribalistic fealty to power". A spiritual hierarchy of Immigrants < Unbelievers < Believers < Wealthy Believers < Priests & Anointed Politicians < J-Man & G-Man holds appeal for those with this kind of disposition. — hypericin

Ah, Jesus didn't stand for a hiarchy of power did he? He said we do not understand what power is, didn't he? Neitzsche was concerned about Christians being sheep. Aren't they suppose to be good slaves and give charity? They certainly are not to aspire to worldly wealth and power. What is the good of their heirachy of power? Whereas pagan philosophy is about human excellence and rule by reason and opposes authority over the people. It is all paradoxical.

Oh really people hate the idea of consensus? I never heard of such a thing. Well the swell of social consciousness we are experiencing now is pretty awesome don't you think? I think I would rather be a part of it than oppose the good of consensus.

I do not understand being opposed to consensus. Can you please explain.

Really? I am quite sure democracy is about empowering the people and the first formal democracy is at least as old as Athens when citizens with nothing to loose because they were not property owners fled when Athens was invaded leaving only the top 1% to defend Athens with their private armies. When the Perians began invading, a serious defense was needed so the top 1% made a deal with the people who didn't own land. In turn for military service, they would get a say in government. The left and right is that simple. How do we justify the peasants having a say in anything?


Here is another to understand the left and right...

"Polanyi, who fled fascist Europe in 1933 and eventually taught at Columbia University, wrote that a self-regulating market turned human beings and the natural environment into commodities, a situation that ensures the destruction of both society and the natural environment. He decried the free market's assumption that nature and humans are objects whose worth is determined by the market. He reminded us that a society that no longer recognizes that nature and human life have a sacred dimension, an intrinsic worth beyond monetary value, unltimately commits collective suicide. Such societies cannibalize themselves unto they die. Speculative exesses and growing inequality, he wrote, always destroy the foundation for a continued prosperity." Empire of Illusion ny Chris Hedges

It is odd that Christians tend be on the right, while those with no god to care for them, tend to be on the left.

Sorry, I'm not following how this related to the bit you're responding to. In any case, political philosophy is all about the analysis of power and authority. I'd be happy to explain more if you have some more specific questions, I just don't know where to go from here.
an hour ago
Reply
Share
Flag — Pfhorrest

What forms culture?

How do people come to know the different philosophies and decide which ones are the best to use when they prepare to make a political decision?

What is the relationship between philosphy and culture? That is what I really want to know. Like which philosophy should I study to understand economics and politics?

PS I totally understand what philosophy has to do with democracy, but I don't see anything about that here.

Don't you think that pulling down statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln would perfectly fit
to the situation of a culture war? And, there would be the division of people into the two camps:
in favor of and against. Still, it is not clear how pulling down these statues is caused by the above combination.
You could add burning the American flag and destroying other symbols of the US -
will the union survive after all? — Number2018

Thomas Jefferson believed everyone must be educated if we are to have a strong and united republic, and that was not education for a technological society with unknown values. It was education for citizenship and independent thinking and good moral judgment and this education stimulated inventions and the advancement of science because truth is essential to our democracy and liberty. The strongist opposition to that education is Evanglical Christians who also give us the myth of our democracy depending on Christianity. Christianity without education for democracy is theatening to our democracy.

Our culture war is still the war against Christian England and those who wanted to remain loyal to the king. It is still the divide of the federalist papers and Jefferson's democracy and still the divide of slave owners, aristocrats and autocrats, against the people. It is a divide full of lies on one side and the side of science that corrects false information.

Tearing down all the statues is destroying the good with the bad. But as I keep staying we don't know our history and are not prepared to defend our democracy. Welcome the result of education for a technological society with unknown values.

I was hoping this thread would be more on the culture war between what I'd colloquially term the "Silicon Valley Libertarian" and the "Social Justice Warrior" stereotypes, reckoned "right" and "left" respectively, though inaccurately. (The true right is the worst of both, and the true left the best of both).

That's a much more philosophical culture war, as both sides are philosophically wrong in one way about factual matters and philosophically wrong in the opposite way about normative matters, but they've got which kind of wrong they are about which direction of fit reversed from each other. (And also a populist vs elitist leaning in one of their kinds of wrongness each, hence the left vs right gloss they get painted with).

Maybe I should start a different thread on that, if anyone's interested. — Pfhorrest

I am thinking may be I don't belong here at all? Which one objects to the notion that a cooperation is an individual? Which one is againt monopolies and would return things like banking and the media to several small owners? Which one understands what bureaucratic organization has to do with the shift of power from power of the people to power of the state? I am really sorry but I am very ignorant of philosophy and I don't understand what it has to do with political and economic power or lack of it.

Do you understand the current situation in the US as the beginning of the next revolution?
Any 'successful' revolution was led by an organized group that could articulate a clear ideological agenda and establish new forms of power and societal life. Do we deal with a similar situation now? — Number2018

Yes, and no.

We are ahead of the game because we have history and advanced communication technology.

We are in trouble because we ignored history. We replaced our domestic education with education for a technological society with unknown values, and because this education leaves us ignorant or the democracy we inherited, we can not defend it. We herited perhaps the best possible democracy and we don't know enough about it to defend it, nor could we establish anything better.

Forums such as this one could resolve the problems. We can take back our power and we restructure our laws so they do what they were intended to do. For example from the book Empire of Illusion by Chris Hedges:

"He (Roosevlet) sent a message to Congress on April 29, 1938, titled "Recommendations to the Congress to Curb Monopolies and the Concentration of Economic Power". In it he wrote:

"the first truth is the liberty of democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism- ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way to sustain and acceptable standard of living."

Our democracy is open to change by reason and consensus. We do not need to change that. We need to read and talk and realize what has gone wrong and how to right that wrong.

At the same time technology and science has totally revolutionized our consciousness and never before have we been so close to realizing the awesome potential of our democracy. Up until now we have lived with many false believes and without the organization and wealth to fully manifest our democracy. Our consciousness is bringing us to a New Age, a time of high tech, peace and the end of tyranny.

What we have to do now is bring together past wisdom with today's knowledge and potential.
WE HAVE TO DO THIS, BECAUSE THERE IS NO ONE TO DO IT FOR US. OUR LIBERTY DEPENDS ON WHAT WE DO, NOT WHAT SOMEONE ELSE DOES FOR US.

Return to the intellectual revolution that began our democracy and that was not stated by the Bible! We must bring an end to the Myth of Christianity being the foundation of our democracy. That is just plain un-American and there is no way we should be supporting Israel any more than we should support China or Saudi Arabia or Russia. Making money the bottom line and using religion to support this and the "power and glory" of military force, is destroying our economy, democracy and liberty.

It has happened before but revolutions do not come out as those who fight them hope because they go into them to destroy the existing power and do not have a plan for destroying power, so when the fighting is over, those who understand power take over, and at first people are glad for their leadership, then they realize it is not the leadership they want.

The American revolution began as an intellectual revolution and that needs to be repeated to get a good outcome to a revolution.

Descartes is having a beer in a bar and when his glass is almost empty the bar tender asks him if wants another beer. Descartes replies, "I think not" and disappears.

you can retain benefits for certain historically disadvantaged groups through cultural identification. Clearly people belong to distinct cultures, but people do not belong to distinct races as there is no such thing as race in our reality.

It's really just a matter of getting more sophisticated in our language. Describe people's physical attributes, dark skin, dark hair, brown eyes. Then describe their cultural ties, he was born and raised in Jamaica. This more accurately describes someone as the complex individual they are, instead of the harmful, unscientific and imprecise label "black" — dazed

But Martin Luther King's dream speech had nothing to do with an African culture. It was 100% the culture of the US that children were once taught is our democracy. Since the 1958 National Defense Education Act our culture has radically changed. Some of that change is very good. Women were discriminated against as much as people with dark skin. We liberated women and have been moving on liberating people of color as well, except in the South where the culture of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant supremacy is strong. The South has the aristocracy from the old world. The federal government enforcing change on the South became violet. However, I will go back to the democracy that is in old school books, and books about democracy written during the war years, the democracy people of color and the Japanese Americans thought they were defending in war.

Thomas Jefferson devoted his life to free education for all because he thought that was essential to a strong and united nation. Especially in times of war, before we came to depend so much on military technology, and relied very much on patriotism, we focused on democratic values. I repeat, Martin Luther King was 100% the US culture not at all an African culture. I think we have a huge problem believing the color of a person's skin means the person naturally has a different culture. That just is not so. But it can very much mean they experience a culture of hate because of injustices or an unwillingness to change as is the case in the South. Manifest Destiny came with serious problems because it was also White Anglo Saxon Protestant and that is not a culture for democracy. Without education for democracy we do not have a culture for democracy any more than there would be Christians if churches stopped preaching Christianity and prepared everyone for a technological society with unknown values.

you can retain benefits for certain historically disadvantaged groups through cultural identification. Clearly people belong to distinct cultures, but people do not belong to distinct races as there is no such thing as race in our reality.

It's really just a matter of getting more sophisticated in our language. Describe people's physical attributes, dark skin, dark hair, brown eyes. Then describe their cultural ties, he was born and raised in Jamaica. This more accurately describes someone as the complex individual they are, instead of the harmful, unscientific and imprecise label "black" — dazed

That is not at all how an old text describes democracy in the US. It is not how books written during the world wars describe the US democracy when we were called to war to defend it. However since 2000 plenty of books have been written about what has gone wrong in the US. We stopped education for democracy and began educating for a technological society with unknown values in 1958. Could that have lead to the lost memory of what democracy? But even when we had education for democracy, that was a very White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant education that supported prejudice and inequality.

How about autocratic industry could that lead to weakening democracy when most of us became dependent on corporations for employment, instead of owning our own businesses? And we do have a history of exploiting laborers and focusing on gaining wealth. That was curb with laws against monopolies but corporations have gotten around those laws and we remain in denial of that.

It is not like the US does not have problems, but it seems they all center on not understanding democracy?

I don't see anyone talking about democratic values so I want to stress I think talking about democratic values is the solution to the problem. Why aren't people speaking of democratic values?

A friend and I claimed to be Ferengi from the Star Trek show on a census because we object to the race questions. However it is not as easy as just not using those racially identifying terms because people in different classifications get special benefits and perhaps they should. Native Americans and people of color deserve those benefits.

However, I hate talk of racism too and wish we talked about the values of democracy and why our nation is worth defending and what it means to be a good citizen of a democracy. Thomas Jefferson thought education was essential to being a strong and united Republic and I agree.

"Democracy is a way of life and social organization which above all others is sensitive to the dignity and worth of the individual human personality, affirming the fundamental moral and political equality of all men and recognizing no barriers of race, religion, or circumstance." General Report of the Seminar on "What is Democracy?" August 1939

Martin Luther King didn't make up new values, he repeated the values of democracy in the US and people of color and the American Japanese thought they were fighting for these values when the served in military service during the second world war.

Hanover, those are interesting considerations however I was attracted to this thread because I would like a less demanding experience appropriate for a learner.

Men tend to discuss subjects and goals and shy away from correcting each others behaviors. Women tend towards correcting people's behavior and that can be very offensive and bring an end to further discussion.

I think I have been fairly tolerant of your dismissive attitude towards my perspective during this discussion. I recognise that you have a unique perspective and set of experiences that is meaningful in how I relate to a more objective understanding of reality, but you don’t seem to see it that way at all. I’m not sure how much longer my tolerance is going to hold out if you keep making comments like this. — Possibility

I have also felt offended.

I am not sure women would have ever gotten a civilization going. Men seem more capable of getting past personal differences and achieving goals. I know I am not the person who can better.

Before leaving, I want to say, Jesse Jackson said poverty is like living in a war zone. That is very different from pointing to people living simply in a Garden of Eden as a definition of living in poverty.

Evidently explaining the difference an economic crash made on my understanding of poverty, did not convey the meaning I intended. Sorry about my communication skills being so bad and having such an obnoxious personality. I did the best I could.

I think you might be making assumptions here regarding my relative affluence and social position - perhaps to justify our difference in perspective? I don’t buy it. — Possibility

Either you can relate to what I am saying or you can not, and right now, you do not appear to be relating to what I am saying so yes I assume you have not had the same experience.

[QU0TE]You’re railing against the perceived injustice of your position in comparison with everyone else.[/QUOTE]

No, not everyone else has had a different experience. There are some people who share my point of view and would not make the arguments you have made.

What they have that you don’t, in terms of economic opportunity or health or social validation or influence or power or independence. Yet, if you travel to the remote villages of East Timor, for instance, you will find more joy in what little they have than you can imagine.

I once thought like you. The whole point of my explanation was to say how the experience changed my understanding of poverty.

There, I think, you may understand what the value of family and community really is, without the economic, health, social or political structures that fail to serve you.
They are not fighting for equality or validation or a better ‘standard of living’. They are happy with what they have, but they are open to increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with people and communities across the world. And we give to them, not because they ask or demand it, but because they give us an opportunity to care about them, and in that connection we recognise how much we have to give. It’s a matter of perspective.

Thanks to television, I know of people in remote places. You are speaking of a totally different culture. The comparison of poverty in a completely different culture, with poverty in the US, is like comparing apples to oranges.

Watch your assumptions here, again. No experience is meaningless - you might have just missed the point of it.

The word meaningful means. "having a serious, important, or useful quality or purpose.
"making our lives rich and meaningful"

Arguing that my experience was a beneficial and meaningful experience is like arguing fighting for air because of the coronavirus and suffering organ damage for life is a meaningful experience worth having. That is pretty idealistic middle-class thinking not based on knowledge of the experience and when it comes to poverty, that kind of thinking is not to be tolerated! It is like tolerating people drinking bad water because it is a "meaningful experience" to watch your bright and loving child suffer mental retardation or death while being helpless to do anything about it.

I think you keep reminding me to not assume things because you know the problem of making assumptions instead of asking questions.

Liberty is not contingent upon morality, and morality is not contingent upon justice - that’s just how we like to conceptualise the world - but it isn’t reality. In truth, immorality enjoys undue freedom, and highly moral people suffer injustices. We ensure justice (and morality, too) by reducing liberty. Do you think you get to choose whether or not to ‘tolerate’ a pandemic? Do you think our efforts at isolating are the solution, or are they simply buying us time to increase awareness, connection and collaboration?

The ideal of Liberty, Morality and Justice is one of many trinities whose ‘infinite possibilities’ cannot be manifest in observable reality. It may be mathematically perfect, but if you base your concept of reality on it, then your sense of suffering will be acute, I’m afraid. — Possibility

My reply to your post disappeared and I am too tired to repeat the effort so I will skip to the most important points. Besides the criticism that my post are not on point is also eating on me. I don't want something as important as the following to be lost in too much verbiage.

Liberty is contingent on morality. Liberty, morality, and justice are a trinity, that manifest our reality, as surely as the three sides of a triangle give it strength. Democracy does not work without that understanding the trinity does manifest our reality.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

A moral is a matter of cause and effect.

Only highly moral people can have liberty.

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”
― Thomas Jefferson

That actually makes no sense. I don't eat to attain the goal of satiation. 'Often' I can accept, but not 'always'. I am not always future oriented, which is when goals have to be achieved if they are achieved. Believe it or not, sometimes my mere presence suffices me. — unenlightened

Okay, I can appreciate that reasoning. But it is hard today to imagine a community of people who do not share goals. I think when a group of people do not share goals the group falls apart. Just like a body stops functioning when its parts are not working together.

The US, and several countries around the world, provide us examples of what happens when people are not united by values and goals. Having armed men threatening those who oppose them is not a sign of a healthy nation.

What's the point, what's the goal?

Why do you think there ought to be a goal? We have established what your personal goal is, and that you would like the rest of life to adopt the same goal, but it looks to me that life in general has no goal, any more than the moon has a goal. A lot of humans like to set goals and achieve them and then set more goals... if you are dissatisfied with the goals you have set yourself, you can abandon them and choose a new goal or no goal. A plant grows towards the light, but it does not have the light as a goal. It produces flower and seed in season, but does not have a goal to reproduce, it does not complain if it doesn't.

The moon is absurd, going round and round like that and never getting anywhere. This is the absurdity of absurdity. — unenlightened

Humans always have goals. They don't always share the same goal. However, when we were defending democracy in the classroom, the citizenry of the US was much closer to sharing the same goal. Education for a technological society with unknown values has pretty well destroyed that.

Education for a technological society with unknown values and the bureaucratic technology that goes with it, manifest of the despot Tocqueville warned us about. Our present economic crisis may sink this technological ship and leave us all in small lifeboats without the despot over us?

PS humans do not have the intellect of plants. They have the potential to be like a colony of ants, but education for independent thinking leads a reality that is not like a colony of ants. Education for "Groupthink" and our present bureautic technology, instead of education for independent thinking and the bureaucratic we had, can make a mass of humans more like an ant colony.