In my opinion there is a "line" in everything and that line connects everything in universe. If people ever discover the Reason for everything. To answer to the Why question! Why everything happens like that. The Way it works. If people do ever achieve that I believe it will connect-answer to everything! It will connect all siences! It will be the line that connects all dots.so yes it will answer all philosophical questions too. If not then th questions will remain forever till science help — dimosthenis9

But then what fun would life be? My mind jumps to the Hindu god waking up, and reality as we know it disappears like a dream, only to start all over again when he goes back to sleep.

For me, quantum physics throws us into questioning all of reality as we understand it. It is all energy but we think of all of it as matter. That is mind-boggling to me.

But just the other night I had this dream about a pigeon that came back to me and next morning I got a parcel in the post of stuff I had ordered online ages ago. You did mention dreams earlier, mine tend to be of this "coded" type, sometimes more direct and obvious than other times but always connected with events taking place within the next few days. It is as if your subconscious is communicating to you in a language that you can learn quite easily if you make the effort. Some of my friends and acquaintances have that sort of dreams, too, and we have long discussions about it. Obviously, this is only explicable by positing the ability of human consciousness to operate not only independently of the physical body but also independently of time and space which is quite extraordinary really. Over time, this and other experiences (even more powerful and real than dreams) have convinced me than there must be some truth in reincarnation. This is what I mean when I say "reliable accounts" of paranormal experience. — Apollodorus

I used to experience stuff like that a lot more than I do now. I went through a phase when I bought books about clairvoyance. Such as Edgar Cayce's books and Ruth Montgomery. Of course, quantum physical thinking is a must. It can be argued that our perception of time is just an illusion and that seems to make sense if what we dream seems to come true the next day.

For example, in the Russian Revolution people got involved in overthrowing the imperial system. But what they got was a new emperor called Stalin who murdered or starved to death millions of innocent people.

What I'm saying is that people can get involved politically without knowing what the end result will be. — Apollodorus

:lol: What choice do youth have? They do not know enough about life to make well informed decisions.
For give me, this thread seems to be making me aware of how different my thinking is! :chin: I so remember rushing out into life eager to get my peice of the pie, and to my horror finding my life was totally different than what I expected and realizing how much I did not know! Now as an old woman I find no one wants to hear what I have to say nor the lessons I have learned. They all want to rush out there and discover life for themselves.

My point is, along with all the other changes in life is the growing populations of long lived people. This means a totally different consciousness than in the past. When things changed slowly and there were no scientist or professional experts, we listened to our elders and valued their experience.

Then education for technology told the children old people are old and out dated and technology was creating a whole new world, elementating any reason to turn to the elders. Our technological world, with merit hiring, has destroyed family values and family order. Like lemmings we are all rushing over a cliff and this is really stupid because we have more information that ever before and the scientific method of determining truth, and we are not developing a culture of independent thinkers and long lived people. We are looking for a leader and don't know the cliff is infront of us. Our expectations have gone wild and our sense of responsibility has crashed.

think a major point that has been missed here is the ultimate objective of Fabianism. When I ask people what current political system they think Fabianism most resembles, they tend to say “America” or “England”. This immediately tells me that they have failed to process and assimilate what Fabianism is about, because the answer is China (though it used to be the Soviet Union).

Shocking as this may sound, this is the reality of Fabianism if we carefully read Fabian documents. As I said before, the original Fabians were radical members of the British Liberal Party and that means Marxists.

G B Shaw openly (and proudly) admitted that he discovered his political career by reading Marx. Now, at that time “Marxist” or “socialist” was a dirty word in polite society. There was no way middle-class Liberals could have promoted Marxism openly. So, these “Liberal” Marxists decided to slightly modify Marxism to make it palatable to wider sections of society. So they used more indirect and suggestive language that still preserved the Marxist essence of Fabianism.

“The object of the Fabian Society is to persuade the English people to make their political constitution thoroughly democratic and so to socialize their industries as to make the livelihood of the people entirely independent of private Capitalism” - Fabian Tract No. 70, 3

The original agenda of the Labour Party which the Fabians founded in 1900 was to enforce socialism through nationalization, state control and abolition of private property.

Common ownership of the means of production, state administration and control of all industries and services (1918 Constitution).

Land nationalisation (1918 Manifesto, Labour and New social order, etc.).

That was exactly what the Fabians and Labour tried to enforce when they came to power in 1945 but failed to win support for all the Marxist policies they would have liked to implement.

But there is much more to it. Leading Fabians like H. G. Wells and G. B. Shaw were great admirers of totalitarian regimes such as Communist Russia to which they maintained close links.

The Webbs knew Lenin personally from before the 1917 Revolution (remember they were in contact with Marxist revolutionaries through the Socialist International and other organizations) and had a portrait of Lenin at their private home. They made several trips to Russia as did Shaw and wrote “Soviet Communism: A New Civilization” in praise of the regime which they believed should be copied by England and the whole world.

The Fabians regarded Bolshevism as “applied Fabianism”. They called the Soviet Union “Union of Fabian Republics”. Lenin was “the greatest statesman of Europe”. Stalin was a “good man” and a “good Fabian”, etc., etc.

So, basically, as many historians have pointed out, the Fabians were promoting Communism under the guise of “democratic socialism”. This is exactly what earned them the label of “Fabian Conspiracy” in addition to their well-documented policy of stealth.

IMO pretending to promote a democratic system when in fact you are promoting a totalitarian one is not only disingenuous but also undemocratic - by definition. — Apollodorus

Where do you stand on all of that? I thought we agreed private property is a good thing? However, workers need affordable housing and that requires government to step in because privately there is no affordable, decent housing for low paid workers. Because of population growth land needs to be set aside for low income housing and it needs to be spread about the incorporated area.

All economies depend on low income workers and these workers need to depend on government subsidies as a social thank you for their important social and economiic contribution. And every child must be assured a safe neighborhood and good education.

However? I am not sure government should provide child care and all adults should be forced to work for economic reasons? I think the traditional values and traditional women are essential to a civil society. I am more in favor of supporting individualism than destroying it.

One of my favorite books is Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, maybe he was writing in response to Fabians? George Orwell's 1984 is also a warning against totarianism. We speak of democracy and say too little of liberty. I do not want to live in a country without liberty and that means people will make choices that lead to poverty and I will point out that means a lot of women getting paid very poorly for caring for others because that is meaningful and essential work and that work is not about honest profit. In such circumstances that is where government needs to subsidize the worker. And I would leave the homeless in camps that are provided for everyone's safety. Taking all challenges out of life is not doing anyone a favor. Moving from a camp to a home should require making a social contribution.

Hum, :chin: we could talk about what is a honest profit and what is the ugliness that we see in capitalism.

I don't see how my assumption that there ought to be a somewhat equitable access to education is somehow indicative of that I advance some form of extreme egalitarianism.

It's been over one-hundred years since the era of industrialization. I'm still just some down and out Catholic school kid from a working class neighborhood who never can seem to get past kind of a lot of wealthy and abusive middle-aged men. As much as I don't harbor any animosity towards people with wealth or the lucky few who are let to become successful within academia, classism just isn't charming and mentalism really is a form of prejudice.

They don't like anyone with a fair amount of intelligence and common sense. They never have and never will. They're right not to. What often happens is that people like me get everyone else to understand that they're just kind of using them, as, if we don't, we will be marginalized and isolated from society. On some level, they're right to claim that we're just trying to remove them from their positions of authority. Clearly, we have good reason to. They could always just give up on their boarding school habits, though. There came a time in my life where I thought that I should consider as to why it is that Jason Pierce has developed the band, Spiritualized, and let go of what I thought about Spacemen 3. It takes half of them until around sixty-five to gain even the semblance of maturity, though.

This is just a personal gripe and nothing to anyone here, really. I can appreciate Classical music. I'm glad that there's a world outside of it, too, though.

A joke that I have added to this comment:

I grew up in an actual split-level house next to an actual sewer in an actual post-industrial working class neighborhood with a proverbial "other side of town" across the bridge and over the rain tracks that also happens to be kind of a mob retirement community and went to an actual Catholic school where there were actual informally organized boxing matches in the parking lot where we had our recess. It's a good thing that I am a Pacifist and don't have any friends because we otherwise probably would have started the American equivalent of the Provisional Irish Republican Army by now.

A closing remark:

As much as I, too, am a great fan of his work, I do kind of lament that the creative oeuvre of Wes Anderson has had the effect of, again, convincing the global populace that what isn't really, but people generally term "racketeering" is fun. I just want to be let to like Bottle Rocket again. Alas, though, I should stop going on like this, and, so, will give the original poster their thread back. — thewonder

I need to see the quotes with the replies, otherwise, it is like walking into the middle of a conversation and not knowing what people are talking about.

Equitable education is essential to democracy. What we have been doing, giving some children excellent education while other children live in life-threatening neighborhoods, with very poorly funded schools, is insane. Science is just beginning to point out that inequity sets our young on very different paths. We are still very primitive and we may self-destruct before making adequate changes but science might make a difference. The chances of that happening increase if we start using TV to educate the people and create a better world.

You write of the old world order that is ordered by family. In the old world order children are dependent on their families for any advantages they may have, and if they are raised by poorly educated parents doing manual labor for very low wages, they will not have advantages. Importantly among the advantages is social ties and cultural differences.

The new world order is about merit. That means anyone with the necessary education has an opportunity to rise up and achieve the highest levels. Now we know that is an ideal but not exactly the whole story. The human factor has not gone away and that is a good thing. But there are people who believe we all be better off when everything is run by computers. I really don't think we want to go that far in overriding the human factor. In the New World Order, people are dependent on the state, not the family, and that may not be a good thing?

I believe you not only are you no topic, but you raise our awareness of the complexity of it all. The upper class, middle class, and low class have different values, and just how much should government and education shape the child's values? The US "Americanized" the immigrants' children and many of those children walked away from their families and never looked back. The children went on to achieve the American dream, especially if they fought in WWII and took advantage of the GI Bill and got in on the new technologies when there was very little competition for those higher-level jobs. Back in the day, not only was the education free to GIs but their education almost guaranteed upward economic mobility. That was not that long ago and it dramatically changed our lives and expectations. We have a lot of soul searching to do and questions to ask.

If we look at it from that perspective, then nothing can be done, there is no hope, and no point discussing anything.

Personally, I think we can learn from the Fabians. Take their slogan "Educate, Agitate, Organize", and start educating, organizing, and mobilizing the people. But we can't do that if we can't agree what to educate them about or what we want to achieve. — Apollodorus

Perfect, I agree with that 100% and one of the stupidest things in all time is our use of TV for advertising and appealing to our lowest instincts to attract people who watch the advertising, instead of using it to educate the masses and keep them updated. The other really stupid thing is letting industry make education decisions instead of the educators and our failure to prepare these educators to prepare the young for democracy as they once were when used education to mobilize for war.

We need a Fabian society to correct these grievous errors.

What I'm saying is that people can get involved politically without knowing what the end result will be. — Apollodorus

That is one reason we should pay attention to history. Our education for a technological society may be smart but it sure isn't wise. We can forgive people in the past for their ignorance because they didn't have history to learn from and the ability to educate everyone and keep people informed, but we do not have a good excuse for our ignorance.

"Economics is generally regarded as a social science, although some critics of the field argue that economics falls short of the definition of a science for a number of reasons, including a lack of testable hypotheses, lack of consensus, and inherent political overtones." — Apollodorus

That is as smart as all the different religious leaders taking their flock in a different direction, and basing their understanding of life on a fiction. How in the world did we come to an agreement that that is economics?

Secondly, even if it was an exact science, it is still interpreted and applied differently by different political factions. Otherwise, all governing political parties would have an identical economic program. But they don't. Different parties stress different sectors of the economy or employ different methods to pursue their policies. — Apollodorus

:lol: Yeap and might there be something wrong with that? How about, something a whole lot wrong with that? It isn't just about politics inside a nation, but politics and the whole world! They all need to get their heads out of the cloud and ground economics in reality.

In Soviet Russia there was an overproduction of bricks for the building industry but there was a shortage of shoes, etc. How do we explain that, in a political system following the economics of Marx who was supposed to be an economic genius? — Apollodorus

Obviously, that thinking was not grounded in necessary facts. Not only is it necessary to know the number of shoes needed but also do we have resources for making shoes? Where do the resources from come?

As for philosophy, Pythagoras, Plato and other famous Greek philosophers all believed that it should have a practical application in public life. Roman emperors often agreed and tried to style themselves philosophers. If we deny this, then what good is philosophy? — Apollodorus

Wow, what a great observation that is. And how well was scientific thinking developed in the day of Plato and Rome? Rome's economic problems were directly related to its supply of gold, and it is a great example of what is wrong with having an economy dependent on oil, and not figuring that into economic thinking. Religion and philosophy are great for talking about who to treat each other. It is not science and economic thinking should not be modeled on philosophy without reality.

Yes, I have and I know exactly what it is like. It's a never-ending struggle that most of the time leads either to no results or to the wrong results. That's why Karl Marx gave up on politics and took up economics.

I doubt very much that people regret the efforts of the Fabian Society when the vast majority of people haven't even heard of its existence except perhaps small political circles like within the British Labour Party.

At the end of the day, if people are happy with the education and culture we have at the moment, then there is nothing to worry about. But if not, then something needs to be done. And to do something we need to know who the key players are in education, culture, politics, etc. — Apollodorus

I really need to move on to my mundane life, and I hate doing that in the middle of a really hot debate.

You said

People got involved in the hope of building a better society but came to regret it. — Apollodorus

Why did they regret it?

But when it comes to education you said

People got involved in voting for Trump only to regret it afterward. That happens all the time. Politicians are good at manipulating public opinion. That's what they do for a living. You've got to do that because otherwise you don't get elected.

Hitler was elected democratically. Does that mean that Hitlerism was good? The point is not how you get to power but what you do with that power once you get it. — Apollodorus

:brow: Trump and his thugs are the same as Hilter and his thugs, and is the result of replacing the US replacing its liberal education with the German model of education for technology. For a good 30 years, I have been trying to make people aware of this change in education and it is futile because people are clueless about what culture has to do with being a democracy, and they are convinced education for technology is essential to our wealth. When Eisenhower put that into place, he warned of the dangers and no one pays attention to the warning, nor do they accept the science of global warming, nor do they know what have is temporary and will come to a terrible end unless there are a few miracles.

That's exactly my point. Economics isn't an exact science. It can be interpreted and applied in many different ways. So, ultimately, what matters is what you aim to achieve, a truly just society or promote certain business interests that paid for your election campaign? — Apollodorus

That is not how I understanding economics. We can measure everything, and with the right measurements, we can predict the future.

Let me explain myself. I knew a geologist who after years of working in the field became a professor, and he wrote books. It was an academic publisher who published his books and they were used in colleges. The publisher did not market the book in book stores such as Barnes and Noble, so I attempted to persuade economic professors to look at the book and they refused. They had no understanding of what finite reality has to do with economics, not even oil! Their heads were up in the clouds somewhere with economic theories. Like hello, the gold rush led to boom towns, and the boom towns became ghost towns, and that is a complete failure of economic planning. Oil-rich nations tend to be one resource economies and when the oil is gone, they are back to riding camels. They know this and are investing much of their wealth in military power, and they will not sink into poverty passively.

The US would be so screwed if it had not been for fracking ending our dependency on foreign oil. Isreal could not take more and more land from Palestinians without the protection of a large nation and its military build-up. The US needs to secure its access to oil and chose to do so militarily and that makes Israel essential to the US, the economic fallout of all this is huge and I highly doubt there is one economic professor explaining it. Now, what are the philosopher-kings going to do with this information? Which philosophy course explains these concerns are vital to keeping people fed?

I just think that if we're going to establish a rule by the wise, it ought to be the case that everyone can come to be considered so. — thewonder

The miracle of democracy is the group mind/consciousness. I wish I were a faster reader so I could read Apollodorus links to the books before saying anything. From the little I know now, the effort of the Fabian society is exactly what is needed but Apollodorus has said things went sour. On the other hand, I don't care who makes up the ruling group, it will never achieve the miracle of a democracy with full participation. I do not mean direct democracy, because that would never work for large populations, but a republic that empowers everyone.

People got involved in voting for Trump only to regret it afterward. That happens all the time. Politicians are good at manipulating public opinion. That's what they do for a living. — Apollodorus

Have you sat on committees that were developing policy or gotten involved with political activist work? When you think something needs to change, how do you go about getting that change? If you are not a good leader capable of uniting followers, you will not succeed and if our leaders do not succeed, we do not succeed.

Why did anyone regret the efforts of the Fabian Society? I am pushing the point because you are right about some movements going sour. Perhaps understanding why this happens could lead to avoiding the problem and succeeding instead of failing?

Well, philosophy does include logic. Plus, a philosopher king or whatever we choose to call a ruler would have economic advisers, exactly as existing heads of state do. — Apollodorus

I seriously doubt that past economic advisers were capable of giving good advise because they just were not thinking of the greater economy.

Even in Theodore Roosevelt's day, Europe was full of people with royal titles and that social order is nothing like the social order that evolves through exploring the world and trading. In the past, people were locked into their birth position, but with exploring and trading and then industrialization, we get the new rich and a huge shift in power.

Philosophy is not economics and our high-tech society that can feed everyone is not the result of philosophy. Where is the meeting ground between philosophy and economics? A focus on being compassionate is not going to achieve what we have achieved. On the other hand, I also fault economists who ignore our finite reality and create notions of economics that are not well-founded in reality. Our planet will not sustain the US standard of living around the world and I think we are behaving totally insanely!

In a nutshell, this was the Fabian plan or “conspiracy”: to systematically, and in their own words “stealthily”, take over education and, through education, also culture, politics and governance. And, as explained by R. Martin, they replicated this in America and throughout the British Empire. In other words, these are the practical details to Wells' more general outlines. — Apollodorus

Why would their plan have any resistance?

In any case, it is clear that Fabianism is not a democratic enterprise. The people have absolutely no say in it. If we want to change culture we need to change education. But we can't do that when education is in someone else's hands. — Apollodorus

Really if the decisions are not made through the democratic process, how are they made? :lol: I have tried to get people interested in education for many years. If Fabians found enough interested people to be effective, more power to them. Did they perhaps have an exclusive society that prevented people from getting involved?

Why should we be ruled by a conspiracy of Fabians and oligarchs? Both politics and business are about power and self-interest. In contrast, philosophy is about wisdom or common sense. Therefore, governance should be based on philosophy, not on politics or business.
4 hours ago — Apollodorus

I think the big mistake communist made is to eliminate the business people. Philosophy just is not the subject to study for a good economy and if the economy isn't good, nothing will be good. We might want to care more about logic and worry less about being "nice".

I don't understand what this has to do with the Democratic Party. — thewonder

I never speak of the Democratic Party. I speak of the democratic process and my ideas of that come from the ancient Greeks. I am also in favor of sports events and the winners of the game get things their way until next year when the games are played again.

Correct. I've slightly edited the OP (2nd post, actually) to clarify how Fabianism has come to be associated with "conspiracy". The Fabians were attacked from the start by other socialists, from leading ideologists like Engels to common folk, for being disingenuous and self-interested or "unprincipled spiders" as some called them.

And yes, property is a powerful motivating factor in all political movements. Leading Fabians, although members of the Liberal Party, were often Marxists and some still are. However, they realized early on that abolition of private property as advocated by strict Marxists wasn't too attractive a proposition to the common people. Farmers and other land owners were definitely against the idea and ever factory workers wanted higher wages in the hope to one day own their own property.

So, the Fabians who were highly intelligent and educated people, were forced to modify their political program in order to accommodate the interests of the majority and win the support of bankers and industrialists whose aim was to water down the more revolutionary currents of socialism. This is why they dubbed socialism "a business proposition" and were viewed by other socialists with suspicion and disdain. But the Fabians' intellectual work, their influence on education, and the support they enjoyed from economic interests enabled them to outmaneuver other socialists and impose their own agenda.

The internal situation within the British Labour Party, where right-wing Fabians are at loggerheads with left-wing unionists, is a microcosm of the wider tensions and conflicts between Fabianism and other socialist currents throughout the world.

But, as I said, there is quite a bit to explore and assimilate. So, do take your time. There is no rush. — Apollodorus

When I got involved with a group of grandparents fighting for grandparents' rights, I was horrified by the fighting for control that almost destroyed our united effort, and I notice in the reading that there were divisions in the socialist movement for the same reason. We are highly motivated when we feel important to the movement, and like churches break up into different sects, political activist groups seem to do the same thing. Strong leaders need followers, they tend to compete against each other.

For sure owning one's own property is desirable. There are some benefits to renting, but I rather have control over property choices and who can live in my home, than feel like I am still living with my parents because the owners and managers have all the rights, not the renters. Not to neglect, when we own we build equity and when we rent, not only do we not have equity but the cost of renting goes up and up, preventing renters from getting economically ahead and preparing for retirement. Those are important differences.

"This is why they dubbed socialism "a business proposition"" I really like your explanation of that and I must ponder it. It makes perfect sense to me to work with economic interests instead of against them.
And it seems to me, some of the important Fabians were educators, not industrialists. That might be important to their take on things? Education is essential to liberty and I think liberty is very important. It goes with owning land and having property rights, versus renting and living under rules made without us having a say in them.

I think I favor the democratic model for industry. I like the idea of worker-owned industry but there must be strong leadership as in a republic, not the inefficiency of democracy that lacks strong leadership. Thank you for making the issue comprehensible.

the party of new money (as opposed to the Tories who were the party of old money). — Apollodorus

That seems like an important statement. Which generation enjoyed that new money and what changed that made that new wealthy posible?

"gold and diamond producers"? That comes from Africa. Exploration and trade were behind the new economic opportunity, and that is a totally different economy than farms, serfs, and slaves. The new economy involves wars of conquest and leads to the first and second world wars. Wars are costly and demand manpower. The colonial economy didn't survive the world wars but industry was able to pick the labor and continue creating new wealth. Mass production requires mass markets and now a growing middle class becomes more important to economic growth. This is a lot of rethinking social and economic matters.

As I said, the tension between the Labour right wing revolving around the Fabian Society and the left wing revolving around unions is still there and for very good historical and ideological reasons that need to be understood. — Apollodorus

I am going to have to work on figuring that out. Can you say more about it? What are the important power centers of both? I have always ignored left and right talk so I really do not have the necessary concepts.

Edward Carpenter was not exactly a wealthy industrialist. His family was wealthy and left him a nice inheritance, but he was not an industrialist. But was sensitive and imagined a better world much as Henry Ford's son did. He was a romantic homosexual attracted to working-class men.

His sexual preferences were for working men: "the grimy and oil-besmeared figure of a stoker" or "the thick-thighed hot coarse-fleshed young bricklayer with a strap around his waist". — Wikipedia

He was strongly influenced by Walt Whitman and the Hindu Bhagavad Gita. He clearly saw in these a sense of purpose and devoted himself to that.

In May 1889, Carpenter wrote a piece in the Sheffield Independent calling Sheffield the laughing-stock of the civilized world and said that the giant thick cloud of smog rising out of Sheffield was like the smoke arising from Judgment Day, and that it was the altar on which the lives of many thousands would be sacrificed. He said that 100,000 adults and children were struggling to find sunlight and air, enduring miserable lives, unable to breathe and dying of related illnesses.[25] — Wikipedia

Fabian influence. Why was this “Open Conspiracy” or “Fabian Conspiracy” so influential? The Fabian founders were well-off Liberals (members of the British Liberal Party) with close links to industrial interests, such as owners of railway/railroad companies, steel plants and chocolate manufacturers. G B Shaw who was a highly influential Fabian leader, wrote “Socialism for Millionaires” in which he advised wealthy personalities of the day to use their wealth for social causes. Carnegie and Rockefeller were among those “converted”. For example, the Fabians’ London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) which was established to promote socialism, had more than 30% of its expenses covered by Rockefeller foundations while also receiving funding from the British Chamber of Commerce, bankers, financiers and other sources. — Apollodorus

How many of those leaders experienced terrible poverty as children? H. G. Wells is one of them who was malnourished and suffered a lot because of poverty and stupid laws that enforced suffering on others, such as his mother having to work as a domestic to support her family when her husband was disabled, and her employer having the power to prevent her from living with her children and husband while she was employed.

While Martin McGuinness was a former leader of the Provisional Irish Republican Army, he later became Sinn Féin's chief negotiator in the peace process. Engaging in dialogue is not the same thing as fostering political terrorism. — thewonder

That is certainly true! But what makes those in power willing to listen and share power? The Steampunk movement is the result of disappointment about industrialization leaving so many in desperate poverty. We are struggling to overcome this problem and I think we have made great progress, but I am not sure the democratic party is managing the economic problem well at this moment in time. Good intentions are no guarantee of good results. But we can not maintain the status quo either because we must adjust to changes. And so it is throughout human history. What makes those in power willing to listen and share power?

Oh, you're most welcome. Do take your time. It's all very interesting stuff I think and I doubt you will regret it in the end. Reading does tend to open one's horizons especially when it comes to new topics of this kind. — Apollodorus

From the mother thread.

Well, it is a critical study. However, the point about Fabianism is that it seeks to implement socialism by stealth. This is clear from the Fabians' own statements. The method is called "permeation" in Fabian writings and it refers to putting Fabian socialist ideas into people's minds without letting them know that those ideas are socialist. It's a technical term in Fabian Socialist theory that you need to be familiar with in order to understand what the author is saying. I thought you were aware of it already. — Apollodorus

:grin: I have been pondering thoughts all night. First for the word "conspiracy". It originates from Latin meaning to breathe together, which becomes agreement and later a secret plot.

Sorry I am a very slow reader and feel a need to respond before I have completed the reading.

What possible ideas could the Fabians have that are more radical than Christianity? > especially the Anababitist and the Munster rebellion come to mind.

Anabaptist Münster rebellion - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Münster_rebellion
Siege — The Münster rebellion was an attempt by radical Anabaptists to establish a communal sectarian government in the German city of Münster ...
‎Rebellion · ‎Siege · ‎Aftermath · ‎References — wikipedia

The people who started this rebellion did so with pamphlets

The pamphlets at first denounced Catholicism from a radical Lutheran perspective, but soon started to proclaim that the Bible called for the absolute equality of man in all matters including the distribution of wealth. — Wikipedia

It appears a big conflict with Catholicism is a hierarchy of authority and aristocratic social organization versus equality in every way.

But Anabaptism was not a single movement because in the region there were peasant wars and an attempt to establish a theocracy and evenly distribute wealth. Which makes me think back to Athens and the rise of democracy. At least since Athens, the poor have rebelled and demanded a stronger say in government and fairer distribution of wealth. So what is new about Fabianism?

It would be the negative meaning of conspiracy to think thoughts of social and economic change can be secretly embedded in a society. Are these ideas different from Christianity or democracy coming from Athens? The notion of democracy is we can discuss these things, and come to agreement about the best way to organize ourselves. It is a social order that works pretty well, with problems developing when a group of people are excluded from governing power, except economically. That economic factor is so troublesome. Athens protected private property because doing so improved their ability to meet human needs than communal living did. There is a stronger motivation factor when we have private property instead of communal property.

You have me tracting down information and reading as fast as I can and I don't have anything worth saying yet, but I am having a wonderful time. Thank you. :grin:

Was it the ignorance of those whose souls Christians tried to save through torture and death or the ignorance of Christians? Was it the ignorance of those who were the victims of psychological torture of those who were told what to believe on penalty of an eternity in Hell or the ignorance of Christians? Is it the ignorance of those who strive for peace or the ignorance of Christians plotting Armageddon? — Fooloso4

Oh my, that is back to the thread this one sprang from. Empirical scientists being no better than the church of old. These discussions can make a person's head swim. Especially when trying to decide if a subject should break off into a new thread or not because everything is connected. :roll:

Perhaps we need new categories of thought? How can we be sure of what we know? Around 1830 Tocqueville wrote of how Christian democracies would become despots and this is not a good thing but seems an accurate explanation of what is happening. Are we unquestionably sure one economic system is better than another and would this be true for all people in the whole world? Is there ignorance hiding in what we believe is true? Do we have terminology that includes a healthy element of doubt?

Was/is democracy a conspiracy? I can imagine fundamentalist Muslims and Chinese leaders arguing it is. Are some economic systems compatible with democracy and others not?

Are we boldly making political and economic decisions in a state of ignorance and do we need informed people to form a conspiracy and straighten out this mess?

Just in case anyone is confused by the comment above, the new thread which was started by Apollodurus, is not meant to be to replace this one of mine, meaning this one is discontinued. I think that the idea of a separate thread is because in the last few days a political discussion has been dominating, so it probably required a separate thread.

So, any further discussion of the mysteries of philosophy is welcome here, because I don't think that they have really been solved yet. As this thread is long, and people, especially new forum members, may not wish to go back to the beginning, the three central mysteries which I pointed to were the existence of God, free will and life after death. In discussions of them, one theme which emerged was that of trying to understand and explain the nature of consciousness. — Jack Cummins

Thank you for restating the mysteries, and yes, the separation is about not taking your thread off-topic as we kept moving in a political direction and I felt bad about that.

I want to go back to your earlier statement

I am glad that someone else on the forum wonders about the what ifs rather just what is — Jack Cummins

Immediately Einstien comes to mind and his thought experiment about riding on a beam of light. I am thrilled that you encourage thought experimenting as the people of science seem to be as far off course as the church of old became when it made itself the authority on what people can talk about and what they can not talk about or think about. I am sure the empirical scientists mean well, and the formula for scientific thinking has merit, but when our thinking becomes too rigid, it limits our understanding of truth.

Einstein expanded our knowledge of reality with his thought experiments and I am sure that applying such thought experiments to the mysteries can also extend our knowledge of the unknown. One of my very old books on logic explains we can intuitively know things but need to test those ideas with the scientific method before moving a thought from an interesting thought category to empirical fact. And isn't this the work of philosophy? Creative thinking is essential to expanding our consciousness. One of the biggest mysteries is what is math? Why can knowledge of pi, and other mathematical tricks, reveal so much information? I have a math professor's lectures and he can talk for 4 hours about knots and how math makes the unseen known, such as knots in DNA. It is mind-boggling and people are arguing if math is real or a human invention.

So far I am not well impressed by the Fabian Freeway book. It really is a conspiracy theory. Maybe it is written that way because murder mysteries are so popular and scaring people a little might pique their interest. The communist and socialist, I have met, all want to convince everyone that their understanding of how things should be, is the best. I don't believe anyone is secretly trying to take over and steal our freedoms from us. However, when we do not understand the importance of culture then we do not prepare our young to defend our democracy so they become adult citizens who are not prepared to defend the culture for liberty. Personally, I don't think my liberty should be at the expense of others so communist and socialist ideas are appealing to me.

The second book is more agreeable so far. I have no problem with information about an elite group of people meeting. The Imperial Federation doesn't look like a bad thing to me yet.

The Imperial Federation League was a 19th-century organisation which aimed to promote the reorganisation of the British Empire into an Imperial Federation, similarly to the way the majority of British North America confederated into the Dominion of Canada in the mid-19th century. The League promoted the closer union of the British Empire and advocated the establishment of "representative government" for the UK, Canada and the self-governing colonies of 'Australasia' (Australia and New Zealand) and Cape Colony (the future Union of South Africa) within a single state. — wikipedia

Perhaps we need a separate thread for this discussion. Figuring out the best form of government and best economic organization might be a mystery but probably not the kind of mystery that this thread is about. However, the subject is interesting.

But there is a possibility that America is heading that way. If it happened in China where people went from worshiping the emperor to worshiping Mao Zedong overnight then it can happen anywhere. Pulling down statues and cancelling history can perfectly well end in cancelling culture and cancelling freedom. It looks to me that a lot of people are going along with that and I don't see what will stop it unless as you say, we go back to educating people in the established culture. But that won't happen if the education system is controlled by people whose main goal in life is to cancel Western culture as soon as possible. — Apollodorus

Exactly! However, I do not think there is a goal to cancel Western culture. I think the purpose of education is defined by military and economic needs and the values set by the military and bankers are not family values.

When the US mobilized for the first world war, industry argued to close schools, saying the war caused a labor shortage and that they were not getting their money's worth because even after a young person was educated they still had to train them for the job. Teachers argued schools that made the young good citizens were also good for making them patriotic citizens and that education must replace the educated people who would be killed in the war, and indeed public education was used to mobilize the US for WWI and WWII.

And as national defense needs change so does education. As employers had to train new employees for the rapidly changing technology, so would any military branch have to train people. We were in a crisis as our young did not learn what was needed for the developing technology and we needed to train typists, record keepers, mechanics, etc as fast as possible! :gasp: Vocational training was added to education at this time, and as everyone knows the military technology of the second world war, specifically air warfare and the atom bomb, radically changed education again.

There is also the radical bureaucratic changes that changed education and culture. Military order needs people to obey authority. Prussian military-bureaucratic order applied to citizens brought an end to preparing everyone to be industrial and civic leaders. We tore down our national heroes who were examples of strong individuals who stepped into leadership positions, long before tearing down statues. With this change is a nanny government, subsidizing us for rent and food and medical care and now trying to change this dependency on government by insisting industry pay everyone higher wages. I think that is a mistake, but subsidizing workers is also a serious problem. And an economic system that has destroyed traditional family values is also a problem. While those educated for technology are as dependent as people in third world countries on industry to provide them jobs, because they are not educated for leadership.

Lastly, our industry is modeled after England's autocratic model and that leads to autocratic values, not democratic ones.

You partly understand me. What you have described are cultural differences, which are a mix of nationalism, propaganda and, yes, some of this is philosophically derived, sure. I didn't say ideas weren't important. I was simply referring to academic or the serious study of philosophy, which most people don't do and still manage to be good people. A simple observation of no particular worth. — Tom Storm

Okay, I agree that fortunately, we all tend to be good people. I think that is because like other animals we are social animals and we learn from each other and social pressure shapes us. And we also share cultural notions of what it means to be a good man and a good woman. The changes in our notions of how a government should function is blowing me away. I never thought the federal government should be held responsible for child care so mothers can work outside the home. In the past marriage was about family duties, and by law members of the family had to take care of each other. By law, in my state, women could not hold jobs unless they can take care of the family and do the job.

Families sent their young children to work in factories until there were laws preventing this. The parents took what the children earned and used that money as they saw fit, but wives who worked could keep what they earned. The government did not help anyone pay rent, or subsidize their need for food. Marriage was very important because it was very difficult for single parents to meet the needs of their children. It was never just a matter of law that made people care for each other and their children. Society expected proper behavior and social pressure usually got people to conform until we get to very cities where social pressure becomes less effective as we are strangers to each other.

think that I would rather come back in another human body, but if people really believe in reincarnation they ought to think about working to ensure that humanity survives, or else they won't be able to come back at all, at least in this cycle of existence. — Jack Cummins

Exactly. For me the thought goes like this- There is life on other planets and that life depends on that planet, even the souls who have passed. Now if their planet dies, are they extinguished, or as a group of souls can they wander through space until they find another planet that will support their lives? I don't do well in science forums because my reading is not limited to science and my imagination is beyond science. In philosophy, we are not limited to saying something is so or not, but we can imagine and question if such a thing could be possible and if so what would that be like.

I would not at say we might as well be China. We have a very different culture and we need to get back to educating for that different culture. However, I agree with the rest of what you said and the New World Order is the whole world. What Jack says means this is not just a US thing.

I'm sorry if you thought I was attacking you, Athena. That was not my intention. What I should have said was that those ideas seem to me to depict a worse scenario than the one I see. But really my broader point was that theorized or disciplined philosophical study have no necessary connection to good citizenship. It might improve it, it might make it worse, that is an open question — Tom Storm

Sorry about that misunderstanding. It was something you said to someone else that I thought was a personal attack and now I am embarrassed about making an issue of something that I probably should have ignored. However, you surprise me by saying "that theorized or disciplined philosophical study have no necessary connection to good citizenship" :gasp:

I must totally misunderstand what you said because there is an important difference between being a Frenchman or a German when these two countries were fighting each other and it is philosophical notions that make people so different. The US prepared with education in Greek and Roman classics or dropping that and preparing the young with Geman philosophy, is a totally different culture! Christianity without literacy in Greek and Roman classics is not the same as Christianity with German philosophy.

Democracy without arte and preparation for being a generalist has serious problems. Philosophy can lead to a despot or against such.

In my mind what you said is not a correct understanding of what is so.

I really did have a tutor who thought that life after death might consist in us living eternally as disencarnate entities. However, the whole topic of bodies in afterlife is one which makes me laugh because my mum has always considered spoken of concern about what kind of bodies people would have after the resurrection, whether they would be glamorous and, whether the elderly would be given back their youth. Also, when I went to an evangelical church, I can remember people talking about what meals they would have after the resurrection. But, really, I think if you read the Bible, especially Paul, he is speaking more about spiritual bodies, rather than earthly ones. — Jack Cummins

I have seen some pretty ugly people and the idea that in heaven they might look in the mirror and see an attractive person, and others were attracted to them as they never experienced in their previous lifetime, they could not possibly be who they are, but obviously would be someone else. That would be a real head trip.

Except as I imagine reincarnation, we would have to forget our previous lives or instead of having a new life, we would be living the old one. I do not want to spend eternity in the life I have had. I work at forgetting my past. I would like reincarnation best if I had a totally new life each time. It would be nice to keep the knowledge I have intentionally gained but not the memories of this personality.

One reason I have worked so hard to gain knowledge is what if I do end up at that big dining table in the sky and I am seated next to the great people of history. It would be so embarrassing to be ignorant of them and their achievements and the history of their time. Seriously that thought really bothers me.

I think Hegel needs to be taken in the right historical context. His "statism" was a reaction to the French Revolution that promoted individualism which many saw as leading to anarchy and chaos. The Germans were different from the French, they preferred stability, law and order to the unbridled idealism and individualism of the French. Plus, they had no choice. In a world system of conflicting imperial interests, they needed an ordered, successful and strong economy and the state and military to promote and defend that.

Germany was a world leader in science, technology, education and the arts. It wasn't just the Americans who borrowed from the Germans. But I'm not sure "German philosophy" is the real problem in America. Don't forget that Marxism was another Darwinist "German philosophy" that believed in a new type of man to replace the old. I think the problem is that multinational corporations and financial groups have infiltrated and taken over the political system which now runs more and more according to their interests and less and less according to the interests of the people. People can see that after decades of "progress" not much has changed. Even Clinton and Obama with their "Change" and "Yes We Can" slogans left quite a lot unchanged. People are beginning to distrust politicians in general and turn to any populist figure for solutions. Unfortunately, that will never really work unless and until the root causes of it all are addressed. — Apollodorus

I love the historical view of things because so much is a reaction to something else. Considering your concerns you might want to know what bureaucratic order has to do with reality.

The Military-Industrial Complex or New World Order may have begun as a need for national defense but lacking awareness of it and trying to change things has the US in serious need of psychoanalysis. Forget all the emotionally disturbing stuff that goes with Hitler and WWII, and just focus on the organization of power. There is no way the US federal government could do all things it is doing today without adopting Prussian military bureaucracy applied to citizens. I don't care if it is Republicans in power or Democrats, they are both driving the same car (Military Industrial Complex).

Aldous Huxley said- "-In the past, personal and political liberty depended to a considerable extent upon government inefficiency. The spirit of tyranny was always more than willing, but its organizational and material equipment were generally weak. Progressive science and technology have changed all this completely."

Frank Gervasi praised Hoover for the organization of government that gave it huge powers it never had before, in the book "Big Government". Roosevelt called in Hover to reorganize the government to accomplish what Roosevelt was able to accomplish during the Great Depression. Our government today could not be working with industry to get vaccines out, and send checks to everyone, and plan a major infrastructure restructuring without the bureaucratic order set by Hoover and Roosevelt and developed by Eisenhower. Socialism versus capitalism :lol: Gee people can argue about that but they are clueless when it comes to understanding the government organization that makes socialism possible and that we already have it. That happened long ago during the Great Depression.

Some books, warning of the dangers of giving government these new powers, were written and then when we went to war :gasp: the marriage between Industry and Government really alarmed the people who paid attention to the importance of organization. The Military-Industrial complex is not just about war. It is about our government's relationship with industry and a transfer of power from citizens to the government.

In 1830 Tocqueville warned Christian democracies would become despots that control the minute details of our lives, leaving us nothing to do. We are as children given a bucket full of water and paintbrushes to help paint the house when the adults are actually doing the painting, not the children. The philosophies that relate to our personal liberty and power, are coloring books we give the children to keep them out of the way unless we understand the organization of political and economic power.

Attack the thoughts, not the person.

Could it be said, the Athenian interest in arte and individualism is the opposite of Hegal and "the state is God". Hegel and Sparta are a good match, and for sure, Sparta was not about individual liberty. Democracy in the US is about individual liberty, but without also being about arte and democracy we are advancing anarchy instead of democracy. The US has dropped the Greek philosophy in favor of German philosophy and Nietzsche's superman has become a problem along with Trumpism and favoring authoritarianism.

It is Greek and Roman philosophy that is important to understanding democracy. We know German philosophy lead to a military industrial complex and two world wars.

My own experience is that many secular people live calm, rational lives, with few concerns about metaphysics and epistemology and still manage to live deeply and thoughtfully, rarely being too concerned by questions of transcendent meaning. — Tom Storm

Yes, but as political creatures, in a democracy, it is important to decide what is the right thought (truth) and the right action. Our abyss is an economic collapse such as Germany experienced before Hitler seized power and totalitarianism or socialism killing our democracy with liberty. That would be hell on earth and our only defense is right reasoning and right action.

Great that should be enough to feed all of us if we have a symposium. :grin:

I went through a time when I really wondered a lot about reincarnation, but I am not sure that it is possible to know for sure at all. As it is, I agree with your focus on how 'to create myself as a better person.' That is not to say that I don't think reincarnation is an interesting question, in the wider one of life after death. At least, it would not leave us floating around as entities, without bodies. — Jack Cummins

Interesting notion floating around without bodies. Does not sound good at all. However, being one with God might mean without an ego that necessitates separation from God, but instead being part of one consciousness. As the Egyptian notion of the spiritual trinity. Our body dies with death, and our heart is judged and may or may not enter the good life, and no matter what, the third part of our trinity returns to the source. Our 3-dimensional reality being an illusion of separation.

That pretty much encapsulates what philosophy is about.

As for reincarnation, and I think this also touches on Jack Cummins' observation, it was a theory that operated on more than just one level. One of the aims of Greek philosophy was to expand man's consciousness, or "open the eye of the heart", to higher realities. Thinking of reincarnation, even as a theoretical possibility, served the purpose of expanding human consciousness in the same way astronomy (which was also an important element in philosophy) focused the mind on the heavenly world above. In other words, reincarnation served a very important psychological and spiritual purpose. Accomplished philosophers were no ordinary men, they were qualified and experienced spiritual masters and guides who knew what their were doing, hence the paramount importance of the master-disciple relationship. This can sometimes be difficult to appreciate for modern man who either has no access to a qualified teacher or who, following the default approach of materialistic, consumer-orientated society, thinks he can construct his own philosophy or spiritual "ladder to heaven" from bits of materials gleaned from the Internet or from books. This is not to discourage individual effort. As they say, when the disciple is ready the teacher, in whatever form or shape including life itself, appears. But it remains that there is a qualitative difference between learning by yourself and learning under a teacher or in a group which means that misinterpretation or misunderstanding of original sources or teachings can happen rather more easily than we think. — Apollodorus

You said that so beautifully I could cry. I recently said something close to that to my daughter, telling her how sorry I am that I could not give our family the benefits of a church because Christianity just isn't my path. I don't think she fully understood what I was saying, the importance of that group of which you speak.

As I understand philosophy and democracy they go together. The group mind being far superior to individual efforts to understand right thinking and right action. This forum is the closest I can get to the intellectual stimulation I desire. It would be so wonderful if we could gather to share a meal and have a symposium.