There have been a number of scientific studies showing collaboration and cooperation are valuable "survival" traits, not only of the human species, but for many other animal species as well.
I think the big lie of social darwinism resides in the false philosophy of insisting only competition and social "viciousness" leads to the best outcomes for humanity. Where, as we see now, as we have seen numerous times in human history, those in charge only believe war and the use of violence is the best and they insist, the only way to resolve human problems and disagreements.
The viciousness does often percolate to the top. But like any neurosis of a system, the neurosis creates conditions that become so unbearable, that a counter balance force eventually finds its way (eventually) to bring back some semblance of sanity and wholeness. However, this often does not occur until the neurosis has run its full course. And we live in a very dark neurotic time right now.
Yes it runs its course through the masses as well. The hysteria leads the masses to slaughter themselves as if that is what the normal course of life ought to be.
I told a biology teaching assistant in the 1980s that the belief in competitiveness in nature was "only a male paradigm." It wasn't necessarily true. He was flabbergasted.
A few years later, researchers finally looked for altruism in nature, and they found it.
Read Thorstein Veblen's The Theory of the Leisure Class. Veblen described in the 1890s how our culture developed from the battles between small groups and the admiration for the 'victors' to the complicated processes that are based on the same thinking today.
There's nothing so fine as two gentlemen having a dishonest conversation, Darwin for his part became very unhappy with his work and came to regret it. I had a friend once who would always harp on me for keeping unhealthy thoughts.
Darwin based his work on a study of psychopaths and in the end paid the altimate price of hating himself and being hated. (Except of course by the psychopaths) As Christians are prome to say, "Be careful what you think."
But, to be honest, I am some times guilty of the same when I say that weapons should be sent to our inner city youth. A point RT news took up of funding white supremacists while out own population still waits for relief from a 400-year-old crime
Actually, there are natural limits to sociopathy. The more outstanding sociopaths attract attention, usually to their great inconvenience. The clever sociopath knows when to quit or step back, and this is particularly difficult for them because they lack the mental circuitry to sense the interests and feelings of others. Here, of course, I'm speaking of individuals; the case is more complex when we are considering communities, from small tribes and families to nation-states and empires. But the overall principle applies: the most toxic, hostile states acquire enemies which inhibit their growth. The classic example is Nazi Germany, which had great success as long as it confined its attentions to the lesser sociopaths of Europe, but then drew the attentions of the great monsters of the British Empire, the USA, and the Soviet Union, which destroyed it. The United States is now on the imperial path, but it has already drawn the hostile attentions of other great powers, who will eventually make life very difficult for it. Or rather, us. It's too bad our "brightest and best" aren't bright enough to figure this out and choose another path. They could probably get away with being just mildly sociopathic and have a good enough time merely oppressing their fellow Americans.
This sounds scary because it’s probably been a good way to describe historic tendencies that we still risk slipping back into. Eventually the pariah will become a threat international law and cooperation, or the opposite will happen. At the moment there isn’t a powerful enough framework to eradicate antisocial empires, so they can’t afford the risk of keeping to themselves and having one develop. The only way to get away being a menace is to never stop.
People can get away with being menaces at a low level if they are clever and self-disciplined enough to restrict their activities to certain kinds of vulnerable people because of their low social status or disabilities. I have personally observed a couple of sociopaths fairly close-up and that's how they operated. I disagree that the social order actually encourages these people, but it probably should do more to discourage or distract them. I assume there is no cure for the missing brain circuitry. The more serious problem (for me) is that our government and institutions seem to attract both active and passive sociopaths. (By "passive" I refer to the numerous people who will not instigate or lead sociopathic activities but will go along with them. I'm sure I don't need to name them explicitly.)
Almost painful trying to imagine the perspective of such a victim, but this makes sense, and I do recognize it in larger patterns beyond individuals now that I see how easy this will always be.
Well, in theory people could resist it, but issues of class are involved and thus the social order, and people's status within it, which many (most?) will defend.
Exactly true! That's why the "We need to get the psychopaths out of power" is such a facile argument. There's a pyramid under them already vying to be the most cutthroat. They're likely to push the oligarch-for-a-day off the precipice themselves!
Yes they are. Every system on Earth is built on a model of the separate self. But that is the biggest illusion of all. No one is separate. We are a sum of relationships: with ourselves, with others, with nature, with the planet, with life. When you truly understand that, you begin walking down the path of true wisdom and compassion and see through the illusion of separation. Until then, you are unconscious and participating in evil (which all of us are capable of when we act from the illusion of the separate self).
Totally agreed John. It is just a projection of the inner enemies and demons. Until we own our own shadow, we will keep projecting it onto others. It is actually very disempowering.
But we experience life as individuals. What people actually experience may be materially unreal, and yet it's not an illusion; it's still truly experienced.
Individuation happens when you realize your unique Self and purpose while at the same time understand that we are all connected. It is the greatest paradox of physicality. We cannot be anything but connected. That is why the separate self is an illusion just like the wave can never really be separate from the ocean.
I would hesitate to call mental states "illusions" since we experience them directly, It is the only time we are actually inside the Ding an sich. So I would say that in a way they are more real than anything else, since anything we apprehend physically is, after all, only a surface or appearance -- a phenomenon -- which is (re)constructed from sensations in our brains. It is certainly a paradox.
Let me recommend Aaron Good Again. He is on several podcasts. His book "American Exception" documents that the USA has always been run by criminals of the type Caitlan describes here. His youTube interviews with Ben Norton are excellent.
The US was able to achieve planetary hegemony in the first place because it was able to leverage maximum advantage out of the conflicts in Europe and Asia in the 20th c. The resource endowments of North America, distance from rivals and long history of safety from external invasion helped to create a nation-state with considerable industrial, financial, and military prowess. After WW2 the US took advantage of the end of European imperialism to craft a global political and economic to suit itself. The Cold War kept the USSR on the outside, the fall of the USSR left Washington as the only global superpower. This unique status is now eroding very fast, if not indeed already over.
As for ethics, any connection between ethics and national power is super-complicated. Historically, the US drew a great deal of its strength from the freedom and opportunity that it granted its people. American individualism was real, though the promise of American life was complicated by hypocrisies and short-comings. There were no shortage of sociopaths involved in building the US or in creating and sustaining US global hegemony. Today the country is a mess: individualism unconstrained by unchosen obligations has created monstrous social conditions, while the corruption of its institutions is all-pervasive and deeply demoralising. Sociopaths face few, if any, constraints.
We all have sociopathic potential. Sociopathy (a morbid incapacity for empathy) is hardwired into some people. It is a legacy from earlier stages of evolution, I guess and has not been bred out of modern humans because under certain conditions sociopaths are useful. Societies led by sociopaths have an advantage in war over societies led by non-sociopaths.
IMHO the problem is that our institutions are ineffective at constraining sociopaths, while very good at constraining everyone else.
The problem with things like "checks and balances" is that, while it makes it harder for sociopaths to dominate, once they do manage to do so, then they are that much harder to root out.
In my experience it is pretty easy to root out sociopaths...provided people take a stand and call a spade a spade and help each other out. The system, no matter which one and no matter what reforms it undertakes, never works without solidarity and ethics at the grassroots and people being honest about things. Shutting people down bullying people into silence and normalising things guarantees success for generation after generation of sociopath.
Perhaps...my take is that we have just learned to accept the sort of standards that enable sociopaths to operate and there is less support for opposition to overbearing authority. Also, economic insecurity, especially precarious employment, raise the opportunity costs of idealism/ethics.
You can reduce or eliminate economically overbearing authority through socialism, cooperativism, or Welfare, but if you propose these things politically you will be told that you're proposing a form of oppression. And many people, who might agree with the concepts, will not do anything to bring them about. Many of them will look for a great leader to do it for them, with the obvious result.
We can reduce overbearing authority by standing up to it, by prioritising full employment and a host of sensible, really modest, steps. The mistake is to obsess with labels and language...if 'socialism' is a swear word, point out that the socialisation of losses is standard policy...if 'welfare' breeds dependence then corporate welfare must do so too. As for the infantile obsession with leaders, what can one do? Apart from growing up, I have no answer for that one.
"Until you change how money works, you change nothing.“ RIP Michael C. Rupoert
I would add that these cooperative traits are found mostly in women and competitive traits are found mostly in men. Not necessarily because of our biology but due to cultural indoctrination. It serves the oligarchs to teach men to deny their cooperative tendencies and emphasize their domineering tendencies. They are taught to control women in their lives as practice and as many men as they can get away with. This, then becomes the framework for civilization: he who dominates, exploits, enslaves the most humans 'wins'.
Only, instead of 'winning', we ALL lose. Even the oligarchs. Our entire biosphere is becoming unlivable all because a few thousand mostly men have decided they're entitled to control the world. By creating a system that uses money as a reward for compliance, we've all blindly accepted this arrangement, including the most destitute.
What people have lost in the process is their soul. They're oblivious to the symphony that is life. They don't know that we're all meant to learn and play our part. Nature is, fundamentally a community that we were once an integral part of but have been taught we're superior to and have a right to exploit and dominate for our own use. This arrogance is omnicidal. We're on the edge of a cliff and we're pushing not only ourselves over, but taking millions of entire species with us.
So I - a man - am taller and have a more muscular body than the average woman due to cultural indoctrination? I've never worked out.
I don't control women. In fact I consciously seek not to control anyone. (However, I am not a parent to young children).
While I agree with your sentiment, I would argue that you are making a lot of statements in this comment that don't have a basis in fact. Statements that are based on your own prejudices.
The dominating factor - in my opinion (and it is just my opinion) - is a pervasive sense of powerlessness in the ordinary man and woman.
Excellent comment SignmeUplease. Personally, I'm not optimistic humanity isn't about to go off the cliff, especially given the lack of world effort toward mitigating the catastrophic climate change events. It seems more and more likely a dystopian future awaits this planet. My remaining hope lies in that perhaps it is only a lesson to be learned, and there are more chapters in this thing we call consciousness (individually) and group wise. Otherwise, all of it does seem pointless. I've never been a Sartre fan.
I'm a fan of the infinity concept in all its aspects. Why do we think it's our unique experience and we can't get extinct? Why couldn't there have been countless experiments elsewhere? And countless ones to follow?
That we appear to be failing - yes, that seems obvious. And not because we've gotten worse as a species - I don't believe in any "progress" in humans per se - but because all of the technological advances made everything tighter, closer, more explosive in all ways imaginable.
I say it is what it is. We can only observe, some consciously, majority otherwise.
Almost all Central and South American countries now have socialist governments working together for the good of the people. Brazil will join soon. The world is selecting for altruism. The vicious are being selected against.
Thich Nhat Hahn told a terrible and beautiful story of compassion by giving life stories of the good and bad actors in a horrendous event so that one could see how each person came to make their choices. Human beings are the same. There but for fortune go you and I. Everyone is another me. Self love requires acceptance, not constant criticism. So does love of others. Criticize actions and choices, not the actors.
survival of the fittest, social darwinism. there is a complacency. majority of the tribe defer to the killers believing it protects them. The problem is, this is not always true, but the winner writes history.
I just heard Ro Khanna say this week, US defeated the Nazis in WWII, and US defeated Communism.
The USSR defeated the Nazis in WWII. The war was won on the Eastern Front.
Americans have been marinating in Hollywood war films for decades. Movies that glorify and overstate the US involvement in the war. The greater contribution of Russia is ignored. Their delusions about the second world war are, I would say, largely based on that.
I know, I studied USSR history and geography in the 70s at the U. Then, went on to be anti-nuclear peace activist during the Reagan arms race era. So, when I hear this shit huge siren goes off, and if it is one of the so-called progressives in DC, he outed himself as a huge fraud.
There were 2 movies, if I am not mistaken, that portrayed USSR in a positive light in WWII. Very early one was with Gregory Peck, another one was Enemy at the Gates. I found it riveting and I hate war movies!! I recall other significant films, like THE UGLY AMERICAN, and THE BIG LIFT in the 50s amidst all those sci fis.
Yes, I watched that last month, I was stunned. A history I knew little about but it all made sense. I have been watching Ben's pieces religiously for a couple months now. His trip to Nicaragua was of particular interest as in about 1984 or 83, Daniel Ortega took a trip to US. We met with him in San Francisco. After he spoke, we all shook his hand. He does not speak English, he had interpreter. After we left, we organized to try to stop ships going out of Concord Naval Weapons station that were destined to drop off weapons to the Contras. Later, in 1992, while working for Jerry Brown's campaign, I learned about Mena Arkansas and Bill Clinton's relationship with Bush. Funny how no one heard about Iran Contra again after Bill was elected, and Christic Institute was forced to shut down after legal battles and FBI raids. I was in contact with all these people that year due to the campaign, my database, and publishing an activist handbook - an endeavor far too idealistic. I am still unclear who arsoned my house 2x just the week before Clinton was sworn in.
The same Ro Khanna who correctly pointed out a few years ago, that the United States was arming Nazis in Ukraine, and now passionately supports arming and training those selfsame Nazis.
n.b. between 70-95% (depending on who counts and how) German casualties were on the Eastern Front. In 1944, Soviet propaganda made much of "Stalin's Ten Hammer Blows".
To take one of those hammer blows, Operation Bagration, aka "the destruction of Army Group Center" - if the Germans had lost similar numbers in the West as they lost in Bagration, there would not be a single German soldier left from Norway to the Pyrenees.
Which is why .... "king victorious king", .... the literal meaning of my given names, refuses to join the woke world, to assume the chair I wuz planned to sit upon.
Taking your analysis further, these are all conditions of long long longtime fallen cultures, thus of seriously fucked up mentalities.
The only and slightest chance of expunging the psychoses, is by wising up some large very large oercentage of people to demand it.
Fat to zero chance now with every woke bloke forced to subscribe to one of the very same dark side nutjob cults..
True and not so true. The elites, concerning themselves, never took conventional morality seriously, and that is evident throughout history, and persists in the present. Elites believe all laws are meant for the lower economic/social classes. There are not many heads of state who didn't/don't have "mistresses", a hateful, pejorative word meaning "kept woman", but the lower classes felt obliged to confess and repent over sexual connections. "Victorian" is almost synonymous for "hypocrite", and "discretion" was the operative word.
There have been a number of scientific studies showing collaboration and cooperation are valuable "survival" traits, not only of the human species, but for many other animal species as well.
I think the big lie of social darwinism resides in the false philosophy of insisting only competition and social "viciousness" leads to the best outcomes for humanity. Where, as we see now, as we have seen numerous times in human history, those in charge only believe war and the use of violence is the best and they insist, the only way to resolve human problems and disagreements.
The viciousness does often percolate to the top. But like any neurosis of a system, the neurosis creates conditions that become so unbearable, that a counter balance force eventually finds its way (eventually) to bring back some semblance of sanity and wholeness. However, this often does not occur until the neurosis has run its full course. And we live in a very dark neurotic time right now.
Rise to the top? Your sur name is Rothschild? More like the psychopathy of the wealthy trickles down to the masses.
Yes it runs its course through the masses as well. The hysteria leads the masses to slaughter themselves as if that is what the normal course of life ought to be.
I told a biology teaching assistant in the 1980s that the belief in competitiveness in nature was "only a male paradigm." It wasn't necessarily true. He was flabbergasted.
A few years later, researchers finally looked for altruism in nature, and they found it.
From the sociopath point of view, you want to everyone but you to behave in an altruistic manner.
Funny how that works ...
Yes, you are so tight - Read Kropotkin - here's Stephen J. Gould's take on him:
Kropotkin Was No Crackpot
https://www.marxists.org/subject/science/essays/kropotkin.htm
Read Thorstein Veblen's The Theory of the Leisure Class. Veblen described in the 1890s how our culture developed from the battles between small groups and the admiration for the 'victors' to the complicated processes that are based on the same thinking today.
There's nothing so fine as two gentlemen having a dishonest conversation, Darwin for his part became very unhappy with his work and came to regret it. I had a friend once who would always harp on me for keeping unhealthy thoughts.
Darwin based his work on a study of psychopaths and in the end paid the altimate price of hating himself and being hated. (Except of course by the psychopaths) As Christians are prome to say, "Be careful what you think."
But, to be honest, I am some times guilty of the same when I say that weapons should be sent to our inner city youth. A point RT news took up of funding white supremacists while out own population still waits for relief from a 400-year-old crime
Darwin has been overrated now for almost a century. He got some things right but a lot is obviously missing.
you're pretty loony there
https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/wmnxi3/off_duty_police_officer_pulls_gun_on_gas_station/?$deep_link=true&correlation_id=cf7364d2-f923-42cf-a4d0-17a1b5f6a393&post_fullname=t3_wmnxi3&post_index=5&ref=email_digest&ref_campaign=email_digest&ref_source=email&utm_content=post_title&utm_medium=Email%20Amazon%20SES&$3p=e_as&_branch_match_id=1084766266932607269&_branch_referrer=H4sIAAAAAAAAA22Q3WrDMAyFnya7S7rGaUoHpQzGXkNotpya%2BQ9bJt3bT2nXu4GNpe9IOsJX5lzfdrtCxjgeMOfBu%2Fi9U%2FnSjZPKZwKsLxKm4hYX0UMr%2Fnzdujr13o2fctZ1Hf76dQoCilyLmjL6LRUYKHLdSkO8OSVBshZM4x%2FIyTtNILk8BXLzvsLSIqQIC1aojOxS3JyUmE2GKMO2Yqc%2BuDTqxlmnUsjfy8AZ4doe1TyZsbenUfXTqG2Pk3nt90fcfx3sjOokO8w5VQYrhhEDbeMUPPd7aC4auolwEFDISkQBnQfjFqr8gKAxZHRL%2FF%2BtqRVNT01g4wA6RZYPEXq3YceefgE65bjtiQEAAA%3D%3D
USgov would rather nuke the world than live in a world where it does not have full spectrum dominance.
Last stage capitalism/fascism is self annihilation.
Actually, there are natural limits to sociopathy. The more outstanding sociopaths attract attention, usually to their great inconvenience. The clever sociopath knows when to quit or step back, and this is particularly difficult for them because they lack the mental circuitry to sense the interests and feelings of others. Here, of course, I'm speaking of individuals; the case is more complex when we are considering communities, from small tribes and families to nation-states and empires. But the overall principle applies: the most toxic, hostile states acquire enemies which inhibit their growth. The classic example is Nazi Germany, which had great success as long as it confined its attentions to the lesser sociopaths of Europe, but then drew the attentions of the great monsters of the British Empire, the USA, and the Soviet Union, which destroyed it. The United States is now on the imperial path, but it has already drawn the hostile attentions of other great powers, who will eventually make life very difficult for it. Or rather, us. It's too bad our "brightest and best" aren't bright enough to figure this out and choose another path. They could probably get away with being just mildly sociopathic and have a good enough time merely oppressing their fellow Americans.
This sounds scary because it’s probably been a good way to describe historic tendencies that we still risk slipping back into. Eventually the pariah will become a threat international law and cooperation, or the opposite will happen. At the moment there isn’t a powerful enough framework to eradicate antisocial empires, so they can’t afford the risk of keeping to themselves and having one develop. The only way to get away being a menace is to never stop.
People can get away with being menaces at a low level if they are clever and self-disciplined enough to restrict their activities to certain kinds of vulnerable people because of their low social status or disabilities. I have personally observed a couple of sociopaths fairly close-up and that's how they operated. I disagree that the social order actually encourages these people, but it probably should do more to discourage or distract them. I assume there is no cure for the missing brain circuitry. The more serious problem (for me) is that our government and institutions seem to attract both active and passive sociopaths. (By "passive" I refer to the numerous people who will not instigate or lead sociopathic activities but will go along with them. I'm sure I don't need to name them explicitly.)
Almost painful trying to imagine the perspective of such a victim, but this makes sense, and I do recognize it in larger patterns beyond individuals now that I see how easy this will always be.
Well, in theory people could resist it, but issues of class are involved and thus the social order, and people's status within it, which many (most?) will defend.
Their entire lives have been the exception to the rule, they can't grasp that this one is beyond them.
Exactly true! That's why the "We need to get the psychopaths out of power" is such a facile argument. There's a pyramid under them already vying to be the most cutthroat. They're likely to push the oligarch-for-a-day off the precipice themselves!
Contemplate The Iron Law Of Oligarchy.
The clay feet of the oligarchs.
US is a brutal fascist country since 1950s
Since it’s inception.
The North American genocide cannot be ignored.
About strange nude man attack on Pelosi: Paul Pelosi was most likely attacked by a male prostitute
An unavoidable conclusion about Paul Pelosi
1. Assailant in his underpants
2. Paul Pelosi knows his name and tells police he’s a “friend.”
3. Assailant asks “where’s Nancy?” to make sure she’s not home.
4. Pelosi takes bathroom break from spat and makes 911 call
Conclusion: This guy was a sex partner or male prostitute!
Redefine “winning” and maybe game theory won’t destroy us all.
Yes they are. Every system on Earth is built on a model of the separate self. But that is the biggest illusion of all. No one is separate. We are a sum of relationships: with ourselves, with others, with nature, with the planet, with life. When you truly understand that, you begin walking down the path of true wisdom and compassion and see through the illusion of separation. Until then, you are unconscious and participating in evil (which all of us are capable of when we act from the illusion of the separate self).
I keep trying to tell people that there is no "us" and "them". We are all one.
Yet people insist on finding enemies to shake their fists at, and demons to slay.
Ultimately, the enemy and the demon lie within.
Totally agreed John. It is just a projection of the inner enemies and demons. Until we own our own shadow, we will keep projecting it onto others. It is actually very disempowering.
But we experience life as individuals. What people actually experience may be materially unreal, and yet it's not an illusion; it's still truly experienced.
Individuation happens when you realize your unique Self and purpose while at the same time understand that we are all connected. It is the greatest paradox of physicality. We cannot be anything but connected. That is why the separate self is an illusion just like the wave can never really be separate from the ocean.
I would hesitate to call mental states "illusions" since we experience them directly, It is the only time we are actually inside the Ding an sich. So I would say that in a way they are more real than anything else, since anything we apprehend physically is, after all, only a surface or appearance -- a phenomenon -- which is (re)constructed from sensations in our brains. It is certainly a paradox.
Stand with capitalist Russia -- it fights for all of us.
Let me recommend Aaron Good Again. He is on several podcasts. His book "American Exception" documents that the USA has always been run by criminals of the type Caitlan describes here. His youTube interviews with Ben Norton are excellent.
The US was able to achieve planetary hegemony in the first place because it was able to leverage maximum advantage out of the conflicts in Europe and Asia in the 20th c. The resource endowments of North America, distance from rivals and long history of safety from external invasion helped to create a nation-state with considerable industrial, financial, and military prowess. After WW2 the US took advantage of the end of European imperialism to craft a global political and economic to suit itself. The Cold War kept the USSR on the outside, the fall of the USSR left Washington as the only global superpower. This unique status is now eroding very fast, if not indeed already over.
As for ethics, any connection between ethics and national power is super-complicated. Historically, the US drew a great deal of its strength from the freedom and opportunity that it granted its people. American individualism was real, though the promise of American life was complicated by hypocrisies and short-comings. There were no shortage of sociopaths involved in building the US or in creating and sustaining US global hegemony. Today the country is a mess: individualism unconstrained by unchosen obligations has created monstrous social conditions, while the corruption of its institutions is all-pervasive and deeply demoralising. Sociopaths face few, if any, constraints.
We all have sociopathic potential. Sociopathy (a morbid incapacity for empathy) is hardwired into some people. It is a legacy from earlier stages of evolution, I guess and has not been bred out of modern humans because under certain conditions sociopaths are useful. Societies led by sociopaths have an advantage in war over societies led by non-sociopaths.
IMHO the problem is that our institutions are ineffective at constraining sociopaths, while very good at constraining everyone else.
The problem with things like "checks and balances" is that, while it makes it harder for sociopaths to dominate, once they do manage to do so, then they are that much harder to root out.
In my experience it is pretty easy to root out sociopaths...provided people take a stand and call a spade a spade and help each other out. The system, no matter which one and no matter what reforms it undertakes, never works without solidarity and ethics at the grassroots and people being honest about things. Shutting people down bullying people into silence and normalising things guarantees success for generation after generation of sociopath.
The smarter sort of sociopath are better at faking normality, at charisma, at plausible deniabiliyy, at getting us to take the easy way out.
Perhaps...my take is that we have just learned to accept the sort of standards that enable sociopaths to operate and there is less support for opposition to overbearing authority. Also, economic insecurity, especially precarious employment, raise the opportunity costs of idealism/ethics.
You can reduce or eliminate economically overbearing authority through socialism, cooperativism, or Welfare, but if you propose these things politically you will be told that you're proposing a form of oppression. And many people, who might agree with the concepts, will not do anything to bring them about. Many of them will look for a great leader to do it for them, with the obvious result.
We can reduce overbearing authority by standing up to it, by prioritising full employment and a host of sensible, really modest, steps. The mistake is to obsess with labels and language...if 'socialism' is a swear word, point out that the socialisation of losses is standard policy...if 'welfare' breeds dependence then corporate welfare must do so too. As for the infantile obsession with leaders, what can one do? Apart from growing up, I have no answer for that one.
I am pretty sure a presidential race costs in the neighborhood of $6 billion.
Of course, every member of Congress is encouraged, nay, urged, ordered to be openly for sale.
"Until you change how money works, you change nothing.“ RIP Michael C. Rupoert
I would add that these cooperative traits are found mostly in women and competitive traits are found mostly in men. Not necessarily because of our biology but due to cultural indoctrination. It serves the oligarchs to teach men to deny their cooperative tendencies and emphasize their domineering tendencies. They are taught to control women in their lives as practice and as many men as they can get away with. This, then becomes the framework for civilization: he who dominates, exploits, enslaves the most humans 'wins'.
Only, instead of 'winning', we ALL lose. Even the oligarchs. Our entire biosphere is becoming unlivable all because a few thousand mostly men have decided they're entitled to control the world. By creating a system that uses money as a reward for compliance, we've all blindly accepted this arrangement, including the most destitute.
What people have lost in the process is their soul. They're oblivious to the symphony that is life. They don't know that we're all meant to learn and play our part. Nature is, fundamentally a community that we were once an integral part of but have been taught we're superior to and have a right to exploit and dominate for our own use. This arrogance is omnicidal. We're on the edge of a cliff and we're pushing not only ourselves over, but taking millions of entire species with us.
At what point will humanity say ENOUGH?!?!
So I - a man - am taller and have a more muscular body than the average woman due to cultural indoctrination? I've never worked out.
I don't control women. In fact I consciously seek not to control anyone. (However, I am not a parent to young children).
While I agree with your sentiment, I would argue that you are making a lot of statements in this comment that don't have a basis in fact. Statements that are based on your own prejudices.
The dominating factor - in my opinion (and it is just my opinion) - is a pervasive sense of powerlessness in the ordinary man and woman.
And if you did work out that'd make you even more dominating through being intimidating.
Meanwhile in Port Townsend, WA...
Woman, 80, banned from Port Townsend YMCA pool after clash over trans woman in locker room
https://komonews.com/news/local/80-year-old-banned-from-pool-following-exchange-with-transgender-woman
We could go on all night with this.
I don't know what you are trying to prove?
Nothing. Just pointing out that you're against the trend, that's all. Seems you're perceiving me to go with it. Don't know why.
Excellent comment SignmeUplease. Personally, I'm not optimistic humanity isn't about to go off the cliff, especially given the lack of world effort toward mitigating the catastrophic climate change events. It seems more and more likely a dystopian future awaits this planet. My remaining hope lies in that perhaps it is only a lesson to be learned, and there are more chapters in this thing we call consciousness (individually) and group wise. Otherwise, all of it does seem pointless. I've never been a Sartre fan.
I'm a fan of the infinity concept in all its aspects. Why do we think it's our unique experience and we can't get extinct? Why couldn't there have been countless experiments elsewhere? And countless ones to follow?
That we appear to be failing - yes, that seems obvious. And not because we've gotten worse as a species - I don't believe in any "progress" in humans per se - but because all of the technological advances made everything tighter, closer, more explosive in all ways imaginable.
I say it is what it is. We can only observe, some consciously, majority otherwise.
"It has become appallingly obvious our technology has exceeded our humanity."
~Albert Einstein
I don't accept the climate change narrative.
Almost all Central and South American countries now have socialist governments working together for the good of the people. Brazil will join soon. The world is selecting for altruism. The vicious are being selected against.
Thich Nhat Hahn told a terrible and beautiful story of compassion by giving life stories of the good and bad actors in a horrendous event so that one could see how each person came to make their choices. Human beings are the same. There but for fortune go you and I. Everyone is another me. Self love requires acceptance, not constant criticism. So does love of others. Criticize actions and choices, not the actors.
Anyone can change. It is all vibration.
survival of the fittest, social darwinism. there is a complacency. majority of the tribe defer to the killers believing it protects them. The problem is, this is not always true, but the winner writes history.
I just heard Ro Khanna say this week, US defeated the Nazis in WWII, and US defeated Communism.
The USSR defeated the Nazis in WWII. The war was won on the Eastern Front.
Americans have been marinating in Hollywood war films for decades. Movies that glorify and overstate the US involvement in the war. The greater contribution of Russia is ignored. Their delusions about the second world war are, I would say, largely based on that.
I know, I studied USSR history and geography in the 70s at the U. Then, went on to be anti-nuclear peace activist during the Reagan arms race era. So, when I hear this shit huge siren goes off, and if it is one of the so-called progressives in DC, he outed himself as a huge fraud.
There were 2 movies, if I am not mistaken, that portrayed USSR in a positive light in WWII. Very early one was with Gregory Peck, another one was Enemy at the Gates. I found it riveting and I hate war movies!! I recall other significant films, like THE UGLY AMERICAN, and THE BIG LIFT in the 50s amidst all those sci fis.
Yes, of course. You might enjoy this piece by Ben Norton - US not only didn't defeat the Nazi's and Fascist, they incorporated them into US society:
https://multipolarista.com/2022/07/09/fascism-japan-shinzo-abe-empire/
Yes, I watched that last month, I was stunned. A history I knew little about but it all made sense. I have been watching Ben's pieces religiously for a couple months now. His trip to Nicaragua was of particular interest as in about 1984 or 83, Daniel Ortega took a trip to US. We met with him in San Francisco. After he spoke, we all shook his hand. He does not speak English, he had interpreter. After we left, we organized to try to stop ships going out of Concord Naval Weapons station that were destined to drop off weapons to the Contras. Later, in 1992, while working for Jerry Brown's campaign, I learned about Mena Arkansas and Bill Clinton's relationship with Bush. Funny how no one heard about Iran Contra again after Bill was elected, and Christic Institute was forced to shut down after legal battles and FBI raids. I was in contact with all these people that year due to the campaign, my database, and publishing an activist handbook - an endeavor far too idealistic. I am still unclear who arsoned my house 2x just the week before Clinton was sworn in.
The same Ro Khanna who correctly pointed out a few years ago, that the United States was arming Nazis in Ukraine, and now passionately supports arming and training those selfsame Nazis.
n.b. between 70-95% (depending on who counts and how) German casualties were on the Eastern Front. In 1944, Soviet propaganda made much of "Stalin's Ten Hammer Blows".
To take one of those hammer blows, Operation Bagration, aka "the destruction of Army Group Center" - if the Germans had lost similar numbers in the West as they lost in Bagration, there would not be a single German soldier left from Norway to the Pyrenees.
Yup yup yuppedy yup.
Which is why .... "king victorious king", .... the literal meaning of my given names, refuses to join the woke world, to assume the chair I wuz planned to sit upon.
Taking your analysis further, these are all conditions of long long longtime fallen cultures, thus of seriously fucked up mentalities.
The only and slightest chance of expunging the psychoses, is by wising up some large very large oercentage of people to demand it.
Fat to zero chance now with every woke bloke forced to subscribe to one of the very same dark side nutjob cults..
You're always so in point 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 Thank you 🙏🏼
True and not so true. The elites, concerning themselves, never took conventional morality seriously, and that is evident throughout history, and persists in the present. Elites believe all laws are meant for the lower economic/social classes. There are not many heads of state who didn't/don't have "mistresses", a hateful, pejorative word meaning "kept woman", but the lower classes felt obliged to confess and repent over sexual connections. "Victorian" is almost synonymous for "hypocrite", and "discretion" was the operative word.