Boo hoo hoo, those ugly white people took me from my alcoholic mother and cared for me and put me in a White school where I was treat treated like one of them because they hatefully won't let me have the culture of alcoholism, rape, stealing, and self-pity. Help me with this. I am angry about all the divineness and victim mentality and the lack of identity with a multi-ethnic democracy and united effort to raise the human potential. — Athena

It's an imbalanced statement Athena. Open to a great deal of perhaps misinterpretation.
Why do you use 'white people' in the context and imagery invocations you do?
Could this also be non-white people, rescuing white 'children' from white parents engaged in a culture of alcoholism, rape, stealing and self-pity? I assume you are not suggesting that skin colour has any influence at all, on culture? But the underlined words you typed above, could be misconstrued as such. Are you referring to that experienced by indigenous native American tribal peoples?

I liked James song. Last night I saw a show about ethnicity and how rape music gives these victims a voice. James is a good counter to that. Like being all messed up is part of life.
Like oh my God, I am White and I am all messed up and there is no one for me to blame for this. Well, I am female. I suppose I can blame men for oppressing me but now that women are "liberated" who can we blame? — Athena

It's one of those songs that leave the interpretations of the lyrics to the listener but does set a definite base focus, as your words that I underlined above, indicate. My personal interpretation was a variation on yours. I took the song writers to be suggesting that the images they were invoking were accurate for many people but the fact they were 'getting away with it,' was 'messed up.' The writers could also have been admitting that this is what is 'messed up' about themselves and aspects of their own life experience, so far.

"Are you aching for the blade?" (are you violent, or attracted to violence or attracted to being the victim of violence?), "Are you aching for the grave?" (Do you have no fear of death, but in fact welcome it and don't give a flying f*** for anyone else life?)
"That's ok, were insured" (we have protections against such viewpoints.). "That's the living" (the way some people choose to be and choosing to live life as a curse, has a negative affect on us all).

"Daniels saving grace, she's out in deep water, hope he's a good swimmer"
Grace as a person Daniel is trying to save or grace imaged as a feminine aspect of Daniel, which is currently saving Daniel.
Whichever image you choose, that 'grace' is in trouble, as it is in deep water so, the writer hopes Daniel is a good swimmer and he and his 'grace' can mean, he can survive his own inner turmoil.

"Daniel plays his ace (life as a card game of chance), deep inside his temple (his mind or his place of worship). He knows how to serve her (his grace imaged as his feminine side, or saving grace, depicted as his 'ace' or best chance to serve that which is the best of himself.)

"Daniel drinks his weight. Drinks like Richard Burton. Dance like John Travolta. Now"
Oh, how familiar this line is for me. My youth spent doing exactly this, in the pubs and night clubs of Glasgow. I was also a good dancer and did very well, attracting female attention. My main two friends were also good looking guys and we did not often, go out to a night club without ending up going home with a girl. But, what did we achieve, absolutely nothing, shallow, hollow, but seemed fun at the time. Getting away with it all, but basically 'messed up.' That's why the way the lead singer Tim Booth emphasised and stretched the word 'Now,' a little, spoke so clearly to me, as pub and club escapism fun, is very much of the moment, and can seem very 'mis-spent,' when looking back. But, I do think that the reality is more nuanced, than such a conclusion would suggest.

"Daniels saving grace. He was all but drowning. Now they live like Dolphins."
I always considered this as a 'hopeful' ending to the cautionary tale. But I never had a satisfactory personal interpretation of 'live like dolphins.' They look very free in their domain and they look like they are having a great time, as they do their water base acrobatics, to entertain an audience and show off a little, but they remain an endangered species, that still get killed a lot.

I hope I have explained a little better, why the song was important to me in my younger days and still is, today. I also loved this James song and its lyrics.
The only lines I could not relate to, were the ones about the hope that god exists. I never had such a hope, in fact I always hated the idea.

Sometime its good to see the crowd appreciation of the work of James:


Part of enjoying the human experience is the existence of such songs, when they can have personal importance to your personal life experiences. I am happy to suggest that such aids my personal 'spirituality,' in the sense that such encourages me to keep breathing and helps to maintain my ability to keep animated and keep fighting for a better way for humans to be. Even though my contribution to such a goal, will remain as small as it is now. 'Those who find themselves ridiculous, sit down next to me!'

See US gun lobby/ gun laws/ mass shootings. See Munroe Doctrine. See the unending wrangle over health insurance. The argument against doing what's good for most people is: "Freeeedomm!!!!"

And the US is a christian country, formed and constituted and ruled in the Abrahamic tradition of might makes right. Plato did not sign the Declaration of Independence. — Vera Mont

I am not sure but I think your freedom may be, anarchy and I think anarchy is intolerable. On the other hand, understanding culture and the importance of education is vital to human beings being ruled by reason rather than authority over them.

I agree that the Abrahamic tradition of might makes right is problematic! It was not demons or a fallen angel that made humans behave like animals. We evolved to be as we are. It was not a god who made us good, but knowledge and full bellies and a sense of security. Take that away and quickly we degenerate back to animals fighting for our survival, running on hunger and fear, not reason.

It's one of those songs that leave the interpretations of the lyrics to the listener but does set a definite base focus, as your words that I underlined above, indicate. My personal interpretation was a variation on yours. I took the song writers to be suggesting that the images they were invoking were accurate for many people but the fact they were 'getting away with it,' was 'messed up.' The writers could also have been admitting that this is what is 'messed up' about themselves and aspects of their own life experience, so far. — universeness

I understood the song to say that being human is being messed up. I don't know what we might get away with because sooner or later the consequences of our actions catch up with us. It might not be us personally who face the consequences of our actions because the damage may take three generations to be felt. At least that is what Socrates explained in the debate about justice. Sooner or late those we exploit will become a problem for us. We can most easily see that as we deal with racism and a history of slavery. Our forefathers screwed up and we are paying for that today.

I don't think the song meant the whole of society but as individuals, unless we got super good parents and all the advantages of society, we will be screwed up. That is just how it is for humans.

"Are you aching for the blade?" (are you violent, or attracted to violence or attracted to being the victim of violence?), "Are you aching for the grave?" (Do you have no fear of death, but in fact welcome it and don't give a flying f*** for anyone else life?) — universeness

I appreciate those words and how you presented them. That is youth. I was a Greaser and that included risk-taking and willingness to fight. I kept a notebook from one high school year because I had a sense I was going through a crucial life-changing time in my life. On the cover of it, I drew a creepy hand representing death and a tree stump representing life. I see in the song that period of transformation.

"Daniels saving grace, she's out in deep water, hope he's a good swimmer"
Grace as a person Daniel is trying to save or grace imaged as a feminine aspect of Daniel, which is currently saving Daniel.
Whichever image you choose, that 'grace' is in trouble, as it is in deep water so, the writer hopes Daniel is a good swimmer and he and his 'grace' can mean, he can survive his own inner turmoil. — universeness

Being both male and female is Jungian. I think the stage of determining our sexuality justifies restricting any medical treatments for our sexuality until we have that status of adults. Preferably this would be 30 years of age. This is a little off-topic but perhaps interesting enough for its own thread? Perhaps we could pull more people into the discussion if we start a new thread. What you posted here is a great way to start that new thread.

Oh, how familiar this line is for me. My youth spent doing exactly this, in the pubs and night clubs of Glasgow. I was also a good dancer and did very well, attracting female attention. My main two friends were also good looking guys and we did not often, go out to a night club without ending up going home with a girl. But, what did we achieve, absolutely nothing, shallow, hollow, but seemed fun at the time. Getting away with it all, but basically 'messed up.' That's why the way the lead singer Tim Booth emphasised and stretched the word 'Now,' a little, spoke so clearly to me, as pub and club escapism fun, is very much of the moment, and can seem very 'mis-spent,' when looking back. But, I do think that the reality is more nuanced, than such a conclusion would suggest. — universeness

I very much appreciate your explanation of this. It could have been my X out dancing with you, while I stayed at home alone with our son that he thought he had to have to prove he was a man. Unfortunately, he was not interested in being a father and eventually abandoned us. And so we spread human suffering from one generation to the next, but when I was young I resented civility and wanted to be on the wild side when I married the guy with the biker's jacket and boots. Hey love, I don't know the best words to convey how good I feel looking back at that past from the wonderful perspective of old age and with that song in mind. Thank you so much for this wonderful gift.

I am not sure but I think your freedom may be, anarchy and I think anarchy is intolerable. — Athena

It's not my freedom. It's the American conservatives'. Yes, they are intent on tearing down the federation. https://www.commoncause.org/resource/u-s-constitution-threatened-as-article-v-convention-movement-nears-success/

Thank you so much for this wonderful gift. — Athena

You're welcome Athena, but I think Tim Booth should get all the credit, for writing such good lyrics.
I found this wee website, with this introductory comment about the song. I don't think it's far away from our interpretations:

"This song is very much open to interpretation, and depending on they way you process the words, it could can be a warning against overindulgence, a look at surviving life on the edge, or a commentary on how you can always turn your life around. James vocalist Tim Booth, who wrote the lyrics, has explained that the character Daniel in the song saves a woman named Grace from drowning, and adds, "He doesn't realize that in saving her he's really saving himself."

It's not my freedom. It's the American conservatives'. Yes, they are intent on tearing down the federation. https://www.commoncause.org/resource/u-s-constitution-threatened-as-article-v-convention-movement-nears-success/ — Vera Mont

I read some of your link and do not understand how it applies to concerns about our freedom. Do you want to explain what concerns you?

You're welcome Athena, but I think Tim Booth should get all the credit, for writing such good lyrics.
I found this wee website, with this introductory comment about the song. I don't think it's far away from our interpretations:

"This song is very much open to interpretation, and depending on they way you process the words, it could can be a warning against overindulgence, a look at surviving life on the edge, or a commentary on how you can always turn your life around. James vocalist Tim Booth, who wrote the lyrics, has explained that the character Daniel in the song saves a woman named Grace from drowning, and adds, "He doesn't realize that in saving her he's really saving himself." — universeness

Philosophically I am seeing a question about what makes us good. Most ancient people used a notion of family for social order. Going out and drinking and catering to one's impulses in the moment is a life without purpose. Family and saving Grace gives one's life purpose and this might be better than indulging one's impulses at the moment.

I can not read or hear the word "grace" without thinking of the "grace of God".

Here are some definitions of grace and they are fitting in this thread about culture being critical because graces calls out the goodness in ourselves and others.

Grace Definition & Meaning

Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › grace
grace implies a benign attitude and a willingness to grant favors or make concessions. by the grace of God. leniency implies lack of severity in punishing.
‎Synonyms of grace · ‎In a state of grace · ‎With good grace · ‎Grace period

Grace Definition & Meaning

Dictionary.com
https://www.dictionary.com › browse › grace
the freely given, unmerited favor and love of God. · the influence or spirit of God operating in humans to regenerate or strengthen them. · a virtue or excellence ...

GRACE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Cambridge Dictionary
https://dictionary.cambridge.org › dictionary › grace
the charming quality of being polite and pleasant, or a willingness to be fair and to forgive: She always handles her clients with tact and grace. grace noun ...

Grace - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms

Vocabulary.com
https://www.vocabulary.com › dictionary › grace
The related word gracious originally meant "filled with God's favor or help." Grace was borrowed from Old French, from Latin gratia, "pleasing quality, favor, ...

What is Grace? Bible Meaning and Definition



BibleStudyTools.com
https://www.biblestudytools.com › dictionary › grace
An accurate, common definition describes grace as the unmerited favor of God toward man. In the Old Testament, the term that most often is translated "grace, " ... — several

Going from the last definition, being a person of grace is being god-like. In this case, the god is a definition of excellence, not a supernatural being and truly I believe we are healthier with a concept of god that brings out the best in us. This is possible without the superstition that destroyed one other religion, Zoroastrianism. This possibility depends on knowing truth. Truth is in harmony with nature. Superstition is not.

I read some of your link and do not understand how it applies to concerns about our freedom. Do you want to explain what concerns you? — Athena

No. It's not about my concerns. You said Americans value their freedom to do as they please over co-operation with others. I replied, and it went on from there, - thusly:

- I know US citizens are strongly opposed to one world government because they fear that would diminish their power to do as we do. — Athena


- All over the world! - V

- Why is it so important that we have the freedom to do as want? — Athena

- Because you are a or the major world power. Nobody likes to give up power. (see white supremacists... or nazis). Many individual Americans have no power at all and very little freedom of action, even while their "leaders" shout slogans about liberty. (Even while some of their financial elite were active collaborators with the Reich, just as they presently collaborate with undemocratic, repressive governments.)

However, the nations that are dominated, bullied, oppressed and intimidated by major powers would have a great deal to gain. It's all in the perspective. - V

It was about how Americans regard individual freedom of action and what they're willing to sacrifice for it.

Going from the last definition, being a person of grace is being god-like. In this case, the god is a definition of excellence, not a supernatural being and truly I believe we are healthier with a concept of god that brings out the best in us. This is possible without the superstition that destroyed one other religion, Zoroastrianism. This possibility depends on knowing truth. Truth is in harmony with nature. Superstition is not. — Athena

Your intention is fine, if a little too rigid imo. I think:

Going out and drinking and catering to one's impulses in the moment is a life without purpose. — Athena

Is without purpose, if that's all you do! I did a lot of weekend pub/disco, adventure/indulgence etc but I worked hard during the rest of the week and managed to complete an apprenticeship, study at night schools, complete an honours degree course at uni, a postgrad in education and had a 30 year teaching career. I was never unfaithful to anyone in that time and only had two serious relationships in my life. I was engaged twice but both relationships failed. No kids, thank goodness. I am not against having kids but I agree that it's important to have as stable and as strong a support system established, as you can possibly achieve, before you do. Including contingency plans.

The trouble with the main quote above, is that the 'god' label is so soiled with woo woo, and pernicious scriptures, that it's use in any paragraph, which is designed to make a moral statement or give moral advice to others, simply totally fails, imo.
I would reword the quote above as:
"A person of grace is a person of strength and humility. Human grace, is a definition of excellence, not a supernatural being, but a human potential. I believe we are healthier with a concept of grace, that brings out the best in us. This is possible without superstition. This possibility depends on knowing truth. Truth is in harmony with nature. Superstition is not."

The Greeks had their three charities/graces. Three goddess inventions. Wiki describes them.
Aglaia represented elegance, brightness and splendor
Thalia represented youth, beauty and good cheer
Euphrosyne represented mirth and or joyfulness

Education should utterly remove the need for such child like notions, imo.
Notions of Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Brahma etc, are absolutely no different to these three Greek metaphors, for desired human states/ predilections.

:fire:

Going out and drinking and catering to one's impulses in the moment is a life without purpose. Family and saving Grace gives one's life purpose and this might be better than indulging one's impulses at the moment. — Athena

"Family and saving Grace" also traumatize many in various ways which drive them into a "life without purpose" of "catering to one's impulses" via incessantly "going out" to self-medicate – numb themselves – with alcohol, drugs, porn / sport-effing, gambling, conspicuous consumption, bible-thumping literalism, magical / conspiracy groupthink, gang violence, gun-fetishism, etc as a social normative corollary of living in this highly atomized – individualistic – near-sociopathic, neoliberal republic (i.e. post-war corporatocratic America).

The Hellenistic philosophies of ataraxia / eudaimonia had developed in response to the turbulent decadence of waning Greek and Roman imperialisms but the Epicureans, Stoics Kynics & Pyrrhonians could not prevent the inevitable (i.e. entropic) collapse of those Classical civilizations. Cultivation of philosophical practices as a way of life (P. Hadot) had in ancient times given many lives "purpose" (independent of "family and saving Grace" which had served – ideologically justified – tyrannies as they cannibalized their respective societies.)

'Pax Americana' is the latest and greatest civilizational collapse due, in no small part, to its near-century long, corporatizing / plutocratic policies of atomizing decadence that has now become impervious to attempts at viable, effective public reasoning and equitable public cooperation. Conspicuously, (if we are honest enough to admit it to ourselves) the US is a failed state, riven by homegrown, populist tribalism since our national founding, that has become an unsustainable empire. For most Americans under fifty, I suspect "going out and drinking and catering to one's impulses in the moment" is what gives their postmodern (i.e. politically as well as philosophically disenfranchised) lives some solipsistic "purpose".

Good grief, Virginia, there is someone who sees through the glass even more darkly than I do !

Damn good words sir! Encore! Encore!
If only all who have the right to vote, could really understand the points you made.
The horrific right wing gangsters currently seeking, and in many cases, successfully gaining power, all over this planet, would not be happening. The path towards a better experience, living as a human being, would then become far more populated imo.

You forgot to mention left wing gangsters.

No, I didn't, it would have been a superfluous addition imo.
The position I hold, is that political gangsters are unacceptable, no matter what 'honourable intentions,' an individual claims, is their political foundation. Hitler and Stalin or Putin and Trump are pairs of equal horror. Horror that rises from the left or right of politics is the same horror. I see no need to always state that horror can rise through either side. I think it is important to type the following however:

You cannot be a true socialist and be a gangster. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.
You have to stop being one to become the other.

You cannot be a true socialist and be a gangster. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.
You have to stop being one to become the other. — universeness

:clap: :clap:
That's why it's always necessary to eliminate the true socialists when you take their flag.

The Great Terror of 1937, also known as the Great Purge, was a brutal political campaign led by Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin to eliminate dissenting members of the Communist Party and anyone else he considered a threat. Although estimates vary, most experts believe at least 750,000 people were executed during the Great Terror, which started around 1936 and ended in 1938. More than a million survivors were sent to forced labor camps, known as Gulags.

That's why it's always necessary to eliminate the true socialists when you take their flag. — Vera Mont

It has been ever thus. The historical exemplifications offer overwhelming evidence. But we always come back, in every new generation. I like a quote from the Kirk Douglas, Spartacus movie, that I think has always been true, since the first murdered socialist. They will be back and they will be millions!
In the movie, Kirk uses 'he' rather than 'they' but I thought I might update it. He had just killed Tony Curtis, to spare him crucifixion. Hollywood license but I still very much liked that particular line.

They will be back and they will be millions! — universeness

Then they'll have to be killed all over again.

True socialism is therefore inevitable imo, as they will be back ad infinitum, until the better global human society we know can exist, does exist. I know many folks think our extinction via our own stupidity or our obsolescence via AI will come first, but I remain unwilling to accept that, after all the hard work and very costly advances made so far over the past 10,000 years of tears.

There’s always room for better, and maybe even inevitably better. No one knows if inevitably better is good enough to at least be sustainable though.

Change is inevitable, "progress" is not (and fleeting, or fragile, when attained). IMO, "true socialism" is – has always been – incompatible with scarcity-commons, though the alternatives, which are more compatible because they are less equitable, less sustainable & less progressive, are worse. Perhaps, if our species continues long enough to be very lucky, 'networks' of local / micro, post-scarcity, economic democracies (e.g. self-sufficient space habitats / terrestrial arcologies) will be achieved – though almost certainly not in our lifetime by this (G7/G20) transnational corporate hegemony. :mask:

Just keep nurturing your fellows guys and keep your dissent against those who prioritise personal profits and power over people, very high. I predict you both will, despite your doubts, because it's the best option we have. A better way to exist as humans, has always been the biggest and best idea humans have ever had imo. You can't kill that goal by killing the people that maintain it, as it exists in all of us and just like a rotten apple can infect the rest of the barrel, attempts to kill the best idea we have ever had, can often turn even rotten apples into new true socialists/secular humanists.
The actions of vile human beings like Maggie Thatcher created as many, if not more socialists in Scotland and elsewhere, than any British socialist leader I have heard of.
There is also the famous line of "The most effective way to convert a Christian to atheism, is to get them to actually read the bible."

@Vera Mont, @Athena
I get emails from various groups based in the USA, regarding the work they do. This is only because I donate to one or two groups (UK based), who are fighting for causes I believe in. This is from an American group called CFI or The Centre For Enquiry. At least they are trying to combat, right wing excesses. What do you think? How aware is the average American, of the direct affects, that the now imbalanced SCOTUS is having or can/will have, on eroding/weakening the protections the average American currently has, against the increasing level at which "corporations will be freer to act in their own interests."

The dog days of summer tend to be slow ones for lawyers across the country. The Supreme Court has gone on vacation, as have many practicing attorneys, so there is a lull in headline-generating court cases.

As I’ve written many times, in recent years the Supreme Court has not been kind when it comes to issues CFI cares deeply about. The Establishment Clause—that guarantee of our rights that requires that the government not favor one religion over another, nor favor religion in general over nonreligion—has taken a series of body blows in the decade I have represented CFI, and this latest term is no exception. On a practical level, this means we are likely to see a quiet period in Supreme Court religion jurisprudence. That doesn’t mean our well-funded opponents on the religious Right have decided they’ve won enough and will be resting on their laurels; I have no doubt that they will seek new ways to advance the cause of religious, and especially Christian, legal privilege. But cases take time to work their way to the Supreme Court level, and the religious Right’s recent successes have left no immediate backlog of cases for the Court to hear.

One matter that will be in front of the Supreme Court next term that has a direct impact on CFI’s mission is Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. This case gives the Court’s supermajority something it’s been eagerly awaiting: a chance to readdress the level of deference courts have to give government agencies when they interpret the statutes that govern them. For forty years, this area of law has been governed by what is known as Chevron Deference, which states a court shall not rule an agency has overstepped its bounds unless its actions can be shown to be arbitrary and capricious. Justice Thomas in particular has long sought to rein back the administrative state; with Justice Jackson having recused herself from the case, it seems inevitable that tighter restrictions will be placed on agencies’ ability to regulate. What does this mean for us? It means the EPA, the FDA, the FTC, the DEA, and many others will find it harder and harder to protect the public, and corporations will be freer to act in their own interests.
To hear more about the outlook for the Supreme Court, especially in the religious arena, keep an eye out for an upcoming episode of our Point of Inquiry podcast, where host Jim Underdown will interview CFI Board Chairman and constitutional law guru Eddie Tabash and me about these matters.

The actions of vile human beings like Maggie Thatcher created as many, if not more socialists in Scotland and elsewhere, than any British socialist leader I have heard of.

There is also the famous line of "The most effective way to convert a Christian to atheism, is to get them to actually read the bible." — universeness

Thatcher helped to destroy the labour movement and accelerate the decline and disappearance of socialism as a credible challenge, and oversaw the move to the financialization and neoliberalism that we have today, and which remains almost totally unchallenged. Thatcher —> capitalist realism.

Not only that, but she enticed millions of people away from socialism and organised labour, e.g., with the Right to Buy legislation.

It might be personally comforting to think that Thatcher’s policies backfired by radicalizing the working class, rather in the way that tsar Nikolai’s intransigence helped to bring about the Russian Revolution, but except in isolated cases that represented the last gasp of the political working class (the miners’ strike), that’s not the legacy. She certainly produced a lot of resentment, but it was and remains a resigned and inactive kind of resentment.

EDIT: On the other hand, Thatcher might have helped to instil or maintain a broadly left of centre tradition in Scotland in particular, so maybe there’s a kernel of truth in what you say.

Thatcher helped to destroy the labour movement and accelerate the decline and disappearance of socialism as a credible challenge,and oversaw the move to the financialization and neoliberalism that we have today, and which remains almost totally unchallenged. Thatcher —> capitalist realism. — Jamal

Yep, that was her plan from the start. She wanted revenge for the unions crippling the Heath government. Her engineered miners strike was well planned and her happiest moment came from her own lips when she said that she considered Tony Blair her greatest achievement.

Not only that, but she enticed millions of people away from socialism and organised labour, e.g., with the Right to Buy legislation. — Jamal

Also true, and a common tactic the rich use when they are losing. They make some of the poor, much better off, but they do it in a way that eventually damages the majority of the have nots, via the current unaffordability of housing, the unavailability of council houses, and the unaffordability of private rental accommodation. This helps deepen the divisions within the majority and takes the focus away from the nefarious rich. The SNP removed right to buy in Scotland. It's utterly shameful, that Labour did not, under Blair/Brown.

It might be personally comforting to think that Thatcher’s policies backfired by radicalizing the working class, rather in the way that tsar Nikolai’s intransigence helped to bring about the Russian Revolution, but except in isolated cases that represented the last gasp of the political working class (the miners’ strike), that’s not the legacy. She certainly produced a lot of resentment, but it was and remains a resigned and inactive kind of resentment. — Jamal

The words I underlined in the first quote above and the paragraph I quoted from you, immediately above, is where I disagree with you most. Scotland moved away from the labour party, because after Thatcher used us as guinea pigs for her vile poll tax and we showed her just how much we hated her in response, we then got Blair, and we soon learned how 'New Labour' was actually a shade of tory. Blair was revealed as a tory succubus. Scotland abandoned labour for SNP. A party that was not even very socialist but demonstrated more socialism, in their policies than labour ever had in Scotland.
Now we are in flux in Scotland. SNP is waning and labour under Starmer is not much better than Blair/Brown. The socialist movement in Scotland is very much alive and is becoming more and more organised. It has yet to find it's renewed true expression. It was hoping to do so, after Scottish independence was achieved, out of what would then have been the ashes of the SNP. The long haul seems to be the main tactic for now, but a lot depends on events elsewhere.

The best response to Thatcher's Blair/Brown/Johnston/Sunak legacy, is imo, the progressive political tactics happening steadily and surely in Scotland, with a renewed and reinvigorated intention to become an independent socialist/secular humanist nation.

How aware is the average American, of the direct affects, that the now imbalanced SCOTUS is having or can/will have, on eroding/weakening the protections the average American currently has, against the increasing level at which "corporations will be freer to act in their own interests." — universeness

How aware the average American is of anything is not so easy to gage. All we can see is what's on the media, and they are largely muzzled on controversial subjects. I suspect most Americans are still clutching the tattered constitution and claiming it will shield them from bad government, in spite of recent Supreme Court decisions that illustrate the opposite. None of the sitting judges look ready to kick off any time soon, so this SCOTUS can certainly cut up any safety net the people still have.
But, if Trump or one of them manages to grab the White House next year, court intervention won't be necessary: they'll dissolve or defund the beneficial agencies (or do as Trump did, appoint the agency's worst enemy to its directorship) and tear up the constitution itself.

This is all a logical progression - regression, I guess, would be more accurate - from Reagan (I date the inevitable slide into the middle ages from the Reagan/Thatcher/Mulroney Axis. Though Nixon had made a pretty good start at unravelling America, Carter was a brief glimmer of hope. 20 or so states are almost there already; they're poised to disenfranchise women and minorities and turn their states into feudal duchies.

I'm not seeing a silver lining there. Lots' of stormclouds gathering here, too.
Scotland may do better. Is independence still in the cards? Mind you, the EU is not in great shape either, atm. So... unless Putin blows us all into the stratosphere, we shall see.

Well, on this precipitous down slope, comrade – paraphrasing a "revered" old Nazi – only a Singularity can save us. :smirk:

I'm not seeing a silver lining there. Lots' of stormclouds gathering here, too.
Scotland may do better. Is independence still in the cards? Mind you, the EU is not in great shape either, atm. So... unless Putin blows us all into the stratosphere, we shall see. — Vera Mont

Not anytime soon, I hope SNP declare the next general election as a dry run on an independent Scotland for the Scottish voters. If the SNP state that if they win a majority in Scotland at the next general election, then that is a demonstration of the will of the Scots to be independent. Then I think that's about the best that could be achieved for now. I don't mean that the SNP should then hold an independence referendum, regardless of the agreement of Westminster, as I don't think we could handle the repercussions and such a move could end the cause of Scottish independence for the following 50-100 years. We might even end up with an SNA clone of the IRA, and that would be a disaster for all concerned. I remain conflicted as to what has the best chance of producing a socialist nation, as an independent Scotland or as Britain. A socialist grass roots movement, launched after an independent Scotland is realised? or a new grass roots socialist movement within the whole of Britain? I know many would say neither option has any chance but I personally, kinda place such folks, with those who said TV was just a fad. If it was a whole new grass roots movement, I would start with something more simple like a national campaign to officially remove the 'Great' from 'Great Britain' or officially remove the name 'United KINGdom,' and the British Monarchy. The republic of Britain sounds good to me.

As the USA 2024 election gets closer, I do get the impression from online American folks discussing such, that this is almost a civil war of words, that could really turn into violent insurrection. Perhaps the most important election ever held on the planet.
Would you agree with that? Do you think it's that bad?

Had to look that one up. A paraphrase of Heidegger I assume. Not a guy I know much about, but I am trying to learn a little more about the philosophers TPF members like yourself, know a lot about.

only a Singularity can save us. — 180 Proof

The problem is that the term 'singularity' is another very over-burdened and often misunderstood label.
Even the mathematicians call singularities, 'where the mathematics misbehave.'

How about this – Only the Tech Singularity can save us? :nerd: