Donald Trump and Dictatorial Taste

[pbrower2a]

(07-05-2022, 11:07 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: To be perfectly honest, more authoritarian regimes tend to have the best tastes in music, architecture, military uniforms and public works. That doesn't mean I agree with their other policies, but American liberals in particular seem allergic to anything opulent or glorious. Taking a deeper look, the psychology behind aversion seems to be rooted in a sense of "We've had our time in the sun. It's time to step down, reduce our consumption and go off quietly to think over the crimes we have committed".

I'm not convinced. I'm not convinced that Franz Schubert woud have composed any differently in new England than in repressive-post-Napoleonic Vienna. Italian opera fossilized under Benito Mussolini and lost its creative spark, which may or may not simply be the lack of a successor to Giaccomo Puccini without a successor. I'm not going to say that Bela Bartok's glorious third piano concerto, the work of a man dying of leukemia and knowing that well, would have been written better under Hitlerite stooge Ferenc Szalasi than in FDR's America. FDR's America had what may be the most polished pop music, that of the Big Band Era, that fit multiple levels of aesthetic delight as do the masterpieces of Haydn and Mozart, It is arguable that the finest collection of music from the twentieth century comprises the fifteen string quartets of Dmitri Shostakovich, works seemingly devoid of any political significance. The slickest, most polished pop group of all times, the Beatles, could flourish only in societies free enough to tolerate their eccentricities, like Britain and America at the time. 

I am satisfied that excess and delusions of grandeur that require people to set aside their qualms about content are sordid in themselves. Yes, natural grandeur such as the Grand Canyon or a mountain such as Fuji is legitimately awesome.  I recognize the need for giant bridges to connect opposite peninsulas as the Mackinac or Golden Gate Bridge (I have seen both and have gone across both; they never fail to impress me)... nut there is no excess, as every piece of metal seems to be placed correctly. Maybe engineers love symmetry just as most of the rest of us do. Symmetry is usually good design, whether the Lincoln Memorial or Mount Shasta. 

This said, this suggests that to well fit into Stalin's order it is best to think at the level of a child -- to not be capable of reading between the lines, to accept propaganda at face value, and be unable to judge anything. The ideal mental state for believing in a totalitarian regime is, if one is not a fanatic, to have a level of thought characteristic of those people barely able to read. Then, and only then, is one unable to contrast the promises with their failures, the harm done to people who believe a bit differently, and of course the inability to read between the lines. 

If we are to be competent at the things that make life truly good, we must mature into competent adults. Democracy works best if people are able to read between the lines, to recognize the logical contradictions in demagoguery, to own and operate businesses, and to make moral decisions. The totalitarian leader can quench a conscience as easily as I can quench a candle. All it takes to squelch a conscience is to end the life of the person who wields that conscience. The tyrants and gangsters that I needled, except for Trump, were all killers. 

I have heard or read of the Congressional hearings, and I am satisfied that had Trump gotten away with negating the 2020 election we would have a full-blown dictatorship. It would have been embarrassing for any Presidential nominee from one of the two main Parties or anyone with a significant independent or third-Party campaign to admit that he loved "low-information voters". In view of what I have put on the Web that would  require a miracle to allow me to emigrate, as there are people who could better put valid use political asylum to use than I could, I could be dead or in prison by now. I am not kidding. All tyranny is amoral or immoral as the current necessity requires. I have never been good at suffering with a smile, something necessary for the common man under a tyranny able to do anything to anyone at any time. 

Back to aesthetics: in visual design, symmetry works best with artistic austerity. Excess (notice how I needled Imelda Marcos for clutter) can get very ugly very fast. In music some of the greatest compositions depend upon folk-like tunes or even bird song (bird-song is typically simple and tonal). I will be satisfied that Humanity is ready for twelve-tone music when I start hearing it in folk-song. Add to that, all democracies have concerns for budgets, as pie-in-the-sky projects rarely work out as intended, and most people like taxes to connect to genuine service and not to the sick dreams of personal grandeur of political bosses.

OK, in what ways was America truly better in the past for the vast majority of the people? Cheap labor isn't so great a practice if you are the cheap labor. Slavery and the Trail of Tears were certainly national disgraces, as were the KKK and Jim Crow. (Indeed I have an idea for a science-fiction novel involving alternative history, and this one involves a Klan-dominated America while the Weimar Republic pulls through and Japan gets a "new Birth of Freedom". A hint on how that novel works out: The "Rommel Plan" is essential to restoring a more prosperous and equitable society in America, and a bunch of Grand Dragons are beheaded for horrific crimes in the categories "Crimes against Peace", "Conventional War Crimes", "Crimes Against Humanity". and
General Conspiracy". The Nazis learned much from the Second Klan, which had many of the characteristics that Italian fascists and the Nazis would adopt. The Klan in our reality never got the opportunity to establish any "Kloncentration Kamps" or do large-scale genocide. Nazi quack philosopher (and major war criminal) Alfred Rosenberg even adopted in calque the racist smear Untermensch as formed by KKK fascist Lothrop Stoddard -- from Stoddard himself.

The point of this exercise is that the British and Americans won the war because they were more decent; after they took over some large chunk of terrain they left even the Germans and Japanese* nothing for which to fight. Unlike Japanese troops on occupation duty or German soldiers between Krakow and Stalingrad, British and American troops didn't need to watch their backs as they approached the front lines. Winning the peace is the definitive victory.         
    
...
 
Dictatorial regimes can do performance well, especially in music. The Czech Philharmonic was an excellent orchestra under Commie rule, and it is so now. The Berlin Philharmonic and the Vienna Philharmonic lost little other than their Jewish musicians and could still give soaring performances. It's hard to say whether Jascha Heifetz or David Oistrakh was the better violinist or whether Emil Gilels or Alfred Brendel 'got' Beethoven's piano sonatas better. Remember well that Leonard Bernstein and Kiril Kondrashin were conducting the same notes. It is impossible to create a 'Marxist', 
capitalist', or 'fascist' Mozart  any more than one could have a 'Jewish'. 'Christian', 'Islamic', or 'Buddhist' Mozart. (Maybe someone could replace the German text of Schiller's Ode with a Yiddish translation and introduce klezmer instruments into the finale, but I doubt that would work even in Israel or certain neighborhoods in New York City. (NYC is more Catholic and Latino than Jewish, contrary to myth).        

Quote:"Make America Great Again" used to be a cliche. In 2022, it's isn't, because we live in a time where it is controversial whether or not America ever really was great, and, even worse, if we actually do want to make it great. You are more than welcome to criticize Trump's behavior (I personally think he's very unstatesmanlike sometimes), or his policies, but we want a leader who is confident. Someone who inspires with grandeur and isn't afraid to think big. Trump's penchant for the dramatic and awe-inspiring is a plus in my book, not a negative. 

There's much that I would not miss. Twelve-hour shifts for industrial workers, many of them child laborers having to work because their parents have been worn out and near death from exhaustion. Children dying or being crippled of preventable childhood diseases such as measles, diphtheria, whooping cough, and polio. Children being killed by horse-drawn vehicles and trolleys in the late nineteenth century., or the lethal combination of bad cars and Blood-Alley roads normal until the 1950's. Concoctions of opiates and bad liquor that masked the pain of diseases amenable in early stages to surgery and other medical treatments until it was too late because people no longer feeling the pain still had an aggressive disease killing them. Education that often went only as far as early elementary school because a child's toil might be necessary in mines, factories, farms, or stores. Then there are the race relations in which a black man who looked too long at a white girl might be lynched for "rape". 

The modern technologies of entertainment are what most people think of, but those are trivial in contrast to the real horrors of the time. 

There never was a Golden Age, and people do not long for those alleged halcyon times until most things have gone rotten. Maybe people in fifth-century Rome longed for the (then) much longed-for era of the Antonine Emperors, but one must recognize that the irreversible rot of the classical world had already set in deeply even before Augustus became Emperor. Life is like riding a bicycle up a hill: if you stop you will almost certainly fall. So it is with technological, social, economic, and cultural progress, none of which is ever easy.    
   

Quote: Imo, if you don't want your country to be the best and want people to be proud of your country, you...shouldn't run for office. The reason why the Democrats have lost so much favor from people whose interests they claim to support is that they can sense the bad faith in their statements. Their contempt for rugged individualism (you don't have to be rich to be rugged individualist. out here in the country, it's the norm), their contempt for pretty much every classically American pastime. Hell, there are even a group of liberal celebrities now....boycotting the 4th of July? Are you serious? Do you trust people like that to be leaders? 

Sorry man, not a fan of this take.

The style of all the dictators and gangsters all suggest personal rottenness that permeates the society on the whole. Yes, I can say the same of Donald Trump, a man of intellectual laziness and no principle other than self-indulgence. We may have some rot insinuating itself into America as many of the just-short-of-best-and-brightest among us seek soft jobs in some corporate or government bureaucracy instead of starting a business or doing industrial work. We have rot when much of the pop music promotes either violence or a pimp's fantasy. We have rot when cronyism and corruption become surer ways to profit than is service. When restraint of trade is more attractive than meeting human needs, as in housing, we have serious rot. Political demagoguery by someone who ridicules anyone down on his luck. promotes medical quackery, and claims to have been cheated out of an election that he clearly lost, then we have rot. 

Progress of all kinds depends upon virtues, and virtues do not arise unless they have their own rewards. As we all know, inflation kills thrift. The absence of profits kills the initiative necessary for work without the lash or the threat of execution. When people realize that they are fighting for nothing, all that keeps them from retreating is machine guns pointed at those soldiers who retreat. Democracy depends upon people expecting in general to lose about half the elections in which they participate -- and that the consequences for losing not be stark bliss and pain. (If you really want something, then do it yourself and don't depend upon the government, or at least adapt to what the government provides). 

OK, so in what ways was life better back in the Good Old Days? Because there were fewer people, real estate, gemstones, precious metals,  Impressionist art, furs, abalone, and caviar were all less costly. Life was great for economic elites who could easily find good (domestic) help on the cheap. Since being among the elite was still largely a near-lottery of birth, you must ask of those Golden Days whether you would be part of the tiny elite or even of the minuscule middle class of the time or the one who is the toiler or servant. I prefer that those who do the real work get real pay. Don't you?

*The Italian partisan movement continued to fight Nazis until the end of the war, and they won the peace in most of northern Italy. Of course that would be a peace with Mussolini's bullet-riddled cadaver dangling face-down in an allusion to a scene from Dante's Inferno as a fitting end to a treasonous tyrant.

[Eric the Green]

(07-05-2022, 11:07 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: To be perfectly honest, more authoritarian regimes tend to have the best tastes in music, architecture, military uniforms and public works. That doesn't mean I agree with their other policies, but American liberals in particular seem allergic to anything opulent or glorious. Taking a deeper look, the psychology behind aversion seems to be rooted in a sense of "We've had our time in the sun. It's time to step down, reduce our consumption and go off quietly to think over the crimes we have committed". 

To a large extent, this is true of aristocratic and religious regimes in the past, although the early republics that co-existed with them since the early Renaissance era were also excellent. I could care less about military uniforms, but otherwise yes it's a good point. The challenge for the USA and modern economies is whether the almost-exclusive obsession with gross national product, wealth and even equality of economic opportunity often precludes interest in and support of the arts. In the USA today, it is performance rather than creativity that is emphasized and supported by the authorities here. But speaking of which, is the USA any less authoritarian today than the aristocracies of Europe? There's really not that much difference now. Meanwhile, it's also well to point out that in aristocratic Europe and Asia, the arts were built for the glory of the authorities, and sometimes (especially among aristocrats) the public was not admitted into the palaces they built or the concerts they organized until the revolutions gave more power to the common people.

The aristocrats and religious leaders of the past had a sense of the divine, and especially the Church wanted their arts to communicate and inspire the glory of God or other divinities. Since the revolutions that brought the commons more to the fore, the dictators that have emerged from them or sought to reimpose brute authority over the people have no such desire or interest. This is where dictatorial taste like Donald Trump's is shown. His taste is horrible, and reflects not only his desire to be dictator, but his total lack of any other values or interests except his own wealth. Such has also been true of the fascists and communists, who only sought to impose narrow ideologies on the people and keep them restricted. In the same way, in fact, the garish, Goldfinger-like taste of Donald Trump communicates the ideology of neoliberalism that proclaims that the wealthy alone should rule the people in the name of "free enterprise" and "job creaters".

Quote:"Make America Great Again" used to be a cliche. In 2022, it's isn't, because we live in a time where it is controversial whether or not America ever really was great, and, even worse, if we actually do want to make it great. You are more than welcome to criticize Trump's behavior (I personally think he's very unstatesmanlike sometimes), or his policies, but we want a leader who is confident. Someone who inspires with grandeur and isn't afraid to think big. Trump's penchant for the dramatic and awe-inspiring is a plus in my book, not a negative. 

It remains true that USA people (Americans of the United States) prefer inspiring leaders, especially when voting for president. Those elected may or may not especially "think big", but at least give the impression of being leaders who can accomplish something. They look for leadership qualities and for their ability to connect with the people. History confirms this. Trump is able to connect with that portion of the country willing to follow him, and he gives the impression of leadership ability. It turns out to be a mistaken impression; an ability to deceive, and his notions of grandeur are revolting to anyone with any taste. We need better examples of inspiration and thinking big than the worst president in USA history can provide.

Quote:Imo, if you don't want your country to be the best and want people to be proud of your country, you...shouldn't run for office. The reason why the Democrats have lost so much favor from people whose interests they claim to support is that they can sense the bad faith in their statements. Their contempt for rugged individualism (you don't have to be rich to be rugged individualist. out here in the country, it's the norm), their contempt for pretty much every classically American pastime. Hell, there are even a group of liberal celebrities now....boycotting the 4th of July? Are you serious? Do you trust people like that to be leaders? 

Sorry man, not a fan of this take.

The reason the people have not supported Democrats in the degree that they should, as far as I can see, is their tremendous gullibility and penchant for the irrational and for fantasy. Liberals understand that we need to go beyond what today's right-wing Court conceives of as traditions and economic realities too disruptive to change. We need to do precisely that now if we are to prosper and succeed in the near future. We either move away from classic American "pastimes" and nostrums like "rugged individualism", or we fall to pieces in total failure. We are now the worst developed nation in the world because too many people accept these worn out false notions and outdated systems, and are unwilling to change. Those who knock liberals are just those people who want to continue to live in the worst developed nation in the world, and even are OK with its rapidly-current fall into banana republic status. The non-liberals today are truly pathetic.

"Boycotting the 4th of July"! Again, I find the whole idea bizzarre. What, I won't go watch the fireworks? Gee whiz, what an insult to the USA that is!

[pbrower2a]

(07-06-2022, 05:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-05-2022, 11:07 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: To be perfectly honest, more authoritarian regimes tend to have the best tastes in music, architecture, military uniforms and public works. That doesn't mean I agree with their other policies, but American liberals in particular seem allergic to anything opulent or glorious. Taking a deeper look, the psychology behind aversion seems to be rooted in a sense of "We've had our time in the sun. It's time to step down, reduce our consumption and go off quietly to think over the crimes we have committed". 

To a large extent, this is true of aristocratic and religious regimes in the past, although the early republics that co-existed with them since the early Renaissance era were also excellent. I could care less about military uniforms, but otherwise yes it's a good point. The challenge for the USA and modern economies is whether the almost-exclusive obsession with gross national product, wealth and even equality of economic opportunity often precludes interest in and support of the arts. In the USA today, it is performance rather than creativity that is emphasized and supported by the authorities here. But speaking of which, is the USA any less authoritarian today than the aristocracies of Europe? There's really not that much difference now. Meanwhile, it's also well to point out that in aristocratic Europe and Asia, the arts were built for the glory of the authorities, and sometimes (especially among aristocrats) the public was not admitted into the palaces they built or the concerts they organized until the revolutions gave more power to the common people.

The Dutch Republic, one of the freest societies of the time, had arguably the greatest cultural awakening that a country ever had. The merchants loved their oil paintings, and they wanted good ones by the likes of Rembrandt, Vermeer, et al. A religious refugee from the Spanish Inquisition, Baruch Spinoza, was one of the greatest of philosophers of all time. He made his living grinding lenses for the telescopes that Dutch scientists used for exploring the heavens or Dutch merchant-traders used for locating their place at sea. Descartes established the marvel of analytic geometry in the Netherlands. The Dutch had a fine composer in Pretorius, and if they were not so great at literature (it is telling that to this date the greatest work of Dutch literature is an incomplete, juvenile work by someone whose native speech was not Dutch; it is almost always read in translation. A hint: it's from the middle of the twentieth century). That may reflect that the Netherlands is a small country whose language is surrounded by the powerhouse literary languages French, English, and German.  

The Florentine and Venetian republics were hardly democracies, but their leaders generally knew enough (especially in Venice) to leave the artists alone to do what they did well. Britain (except under Henry VIII) was much the same.  

Quote:The aristocrats and religious leaders of the past had a sense of the divine, and especially the Church wanted their arts to communicate and inspire the glory of God or other divinities. Since the revolutions that brought the commons more to the fore, the dictators that have emerged from them or sought to reimpose brute authority over the people have no such desire or interest. This is where dictatorial taste like Donald Trump's is shown. His taste is horrible, and reflects not only his desire to be dictator, but his total lack of any other values or interests except his own wealth. Such has also been true of the fascists and communists, who only sought to impose narrow ideologies on the people and keep them restricted. In the same way, in fact, the garish, Goldfinger-like taste of Donald Trump communicates the ideology of neoliberalism that proclaims that the wealthy alone should rule the people in the name of "free enterprise" and "job creaters".

Thank you, Eric. You have expressed something that I did not express. Trump celebrates nothing grander than his ego. Were I an artist it would not be about me. The great art of the Roman Catholic Church sought to humanize the Gospel and Old Testament stories into something something accessible to the masses. Much of this is in remembrance of Jesus for his ultimate Sacrifice. 

Let us remember another religious tradition not mine as it is not from my ethnic group. Slaves in America got the Gospel in the expectation that it would make them productive toilers who would accept their personal degradation and economic exploitation as the Will of God. Those slaves often found the Gospel having copious allusions to freedom and human dignity against the Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar. It's hardly surprising that the Nazis and Stalinists did not want their subjects to contemplate that part of the Bible, as it might give people some ideas incompatible with tyranny. The Stalinists sought to obliterate religion altogether, and the Nazis tried to bowdlerize Christianity to cheap sentimentality. 

I take the commandment Thou Shalt Not Steal as a condemnation of economic exploitation, itself a form of theft. That commandment is incompatible with the plutocracy that the Hard Right would delightfully impose upon us all at the cost of all liberty and personal dignity,     

Quote:"Make America Great Again" used to be a cliche. In 2022, it's isn't, because we live in a time where it is controversial whether or not America ever really was great, and, even worse, if we actually do want to make it great. You are more than welcome to criticize Trump's behavior (I personally think he's very unstatesmanlike sometimes), or his policies, but we want a leader who is confident. Someone who inspires with grandeur and isn't afraid to think big. Trump's penchant for the dramatic and awe-inspiring is a plus in my book, not a negative. It remains true that USA people (Americans of the United States) prefer inspiring leaders, especially when voting for president. Those elected may or may not especially "think big", but at least give the impression of being leaders who can accomplish something. They look for leadership qualities and for their ability to connect with the people. History confirms this. Trump is able to connect with that portion of the country willing to follow him, and he gives the impression of leadership ability. It turns out to be a mistaken impression; an ability to deceive, and his notions of grandeur are revolting to anyone with any taste. We need better examples of inspiration and thinking big than the worst president in USA history can provideImo, if you don't want your country to be the best and want people to be proud of your country, you...shouldn't run for office. The reason why the Democrats have lost so much favor from people whose interests they claim to support is that they can sense the bad faith in their statements. Their contempt for rugged individualism (you don't have to be rich to be rugged individualist. out here in the country, it's the norm), their contempt for pretty much every classically American pastime. Hell, there are even a group of liberal celebrities now....boycotting the 4th of July? Are you serious? Do you trust people like that to be leaders? 

Quote:Sorry man, not a fan of this take.

The reason the people have not supported Democrats in the degree that they should, as far as I can see, is their tremendous gullibility and penchant for the irrational and for fantasy. Liberals understand that we need to go beyond what today's right-wing Court conceives of as traditions and economic realities too disruptive to change. We need to do precisely that now if we are to prosper and succeed in the near future. We either move away from classic American "pastimes" and nostrums like "rugged individualism", or we fall to pieces in total failure. We are now the worst developed nation in the world because too many people accept these worn out false notions and outdated systems, and are unwilling to change. Those who knock liberals are just those people who want to continue to live in the worst developed nation in the world, and even are OK with its rapidly-current fall into banana republic status. The non-liberals today are truly pathetic.

The GOP program suggests much the same as the heretical Gospel of Greed. The idea that faith in Jesus will guarantee wealth otherwise unavailable contradicts the Sermon on the Mount, the essence of Christianity. Jesus told His followers to bring dignity to the poor, and to not exploit them for personal gain. Jesus' Ministry tells us to sacrifice corrupt gain and aristocratic finery to make life better for those in grave, and often life-threatening peril from their poverty. 

The few rich people of Jesus' time were either aristocrats, corrupt officials, hustlers, or outright thieves. Maybe He would have had a different message had he been born in one of the mercantile republics such as Holland or Venice in which commerce created wealth that could literally tickle down to the common man. I doubt that in such a place He would have gone after the merchants and manufacturers. I doubt that He would have told small businessmen to liquidate their businesses, give the proceeds to the poor -- and leave their employees destitute. 

Those who demand that others suffer for the gain of themselves while the poor endure great suffering, or offer such a fraud as most of our televangelists offer, deserve to be called out for what they are. Such people are the priests of the false god Mammon.       

[quote]"Boycotting the 4th of July"! Again, I find the whole idea bizzarre. What, I won't go watch the fireworks? Gee whiz, what an insult to the USA that is![/quote]

See my above post. Patriotism is fine when the nation is healthy. Under sick leadership patriotic expressions become obscene parodies.

[JasonBlack]

(07-06-2022, 06:40 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: See my above post. Patriotism is fine when the nation is healthy. Under sick leadership patriotic expressions become obscene parodies.

Depends on what you mean by "patriotism". My take is:

[Eric the Green]

(07-07-2022, 05:44 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(07-06-2022, 06:40 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: See my above post. Patriotism is fine when the nation is healthy. Under sick leadership patriotic expressions become obscene parodies.

Depends on what you mean by "patriotism". My take is:

It's a good statement. Of course Twain lived in an age of nationalism. As I see it, I can support all the countries of the world, and the people there in need, as I can or choose to; not just mine. I support my country because it is where I live and it's my responsibility. I pay my taxes, I vote, and I have worked as a sworn precinct voting official because I believe in the country's elections and the right of everyone to vote regardless whether I agree with them, unlike most Republicans today who do not. But I don't see my country as more-deserving of support than others are from their own citizens, or as necessarily better than other countries, or any deserving of lording it over others--- with the second phrase added. My country is really the world, and Twain was a good citizen of the world, to the extent that he understood this in his time.

[JasonBlack]

(07-07-2022, 08:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's a good statement. Of course Twain lived in an age of nationalism. As I see it, I can support all the countries of the world, and the people there in need, as I can or choose to; not just mine. I support my country because it is where I live and it's my responsibility. I pay my taxes, I vote, and I have worked as a sworn precinct voting official because I believe in the country's elections and the right of everyone to vote regardless whether I agree with them, unlike most Republicans today who do not. But I don't see my country as more-deserving of support than others are from their own citizens, or as necessarily better than other countries, or any deserving of lording it over others--- with the second phrase added. My country is really the world, and Twain was a good citizen of the world, to the extent that he understood this in his time.

Moral universalism seems to be a staple of idealist generations. Both the hippie and hawkish neocon branches of boomers exhibit it, as did the abolitionist Transcendentals (who had an even stronger presence in England than in the United States), the evangelizing Puritans and the Missionaries on their expeditions of the same name.

You'll have to forgive me, but I'm way too poor to share the sentiment. For me, it's friends/family before community, community before country and country before world. Anything else is trying to juggle 7 balls before you can even juggle 3.

[David Horn]

(07-08-2022, 03:43 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(07-07-2022, 08:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's a good statement. Of course Twain lived in an age of nationalism. As I see it, I can support all the countries of the world, and the people there in need, as I can or choose to; not just mine. I support my country because it is where I live and it's my responsibility. I pay my taxes, I vote, and I have worked as a sworn precinct voting official because I believe in the country's elections and the right of everyone to vote regardless whether I agree with them, unlike most Republicans today who do not. But I don't see my country as more-deserving of support than others are from their own citizens, or as necessarily better than other countries, or any deserving of lording it over others--- with the second phrase added. My country is really the world, and Twain was a good citizen of the world, to the extent that he understood this in his time.

Moral universalism seems to be a staple of idealist generations. Both the hippie and hawkish neocon branches of boomers exhibit it, as did the abolitionist Transcendentals (who had an even stronger presence in England than in the United States), the evangelizing Puritans and the Missionaries on their expeditions of the same name.

You'll have to forgive me, but I'm way too poor to share the sentiment. For me, it's friends/family before community, community before country and country before world. Anything else is trying to juggle 7 balls before you can even juggle 3.

Interesting.  You are a tribalist, then.  So are 80+% of my neighbors.  It's intrisic in some parts of this country, but certainly not all.  For me, I'm more closely aligned with Eric's camp here: human first and foremost, with differentiations cascading down from there where approriate.

[JasonBlack]

(07-09-2022, 09:33 AM)David Horn Wrote: Interesting.  You are a tribalist, then.  So are 80+% of my neighbors.  It's intrisic in some parts of this country, but certainly not all.  For me, I'm more closely aligned with Eric's camp here: human first and foremost, with differentiations cascading down from there where approriate.

Yes. Morality is mostly a set or principles for survival and making the most out of life on an individual and group level. If you can't look out for your own, they are meaningless. For those with exceptional wealth, and whose families are taken care of, one's circle of concern can gradually grow outwards to encompass larger communities, but even then, when is that ever going to really be past the level of the country (excluding individuals from other countries you actually have a real relationship with)?

[pbrower2a]

The United States of America is not a nation-state. It is a nationality of convenience. This is an empire, even if it is (long may it so stay) the Empire of Liberty. We have great diversity in what it means to be an American. Very old Hispanic communities in New Mexico and Florida are just as American as descendants of residents of what were the original thirteen colonies and states. If having been stripped of any cultural connection to a foreign country except genes that place one's ancestors (or enough of them) in sub-Saharan Africa so that they could do back-breaking toil under brutal management and having to create a culture in America that belongs only in America, then what is?

... most of us recognize that excess is a sign of poor character. Learning, expertise, creativity, wit, and service do not create or promote excess because they are precious for what they can do for others. They deserve cultivation with economic rewards, and anything less is madness. If one isn't rich, then not being rich itself establishes the appropriateness of restraint. If one is rich due to honest efforts and investment (especially in a competitive economy that keeps profits modest), then investment can make more sense than 'enhanced indulgence'. So if investment in the family business comes at the expense of over-priced sports cars, jewels, artwork, large stables full of horses, whores, high-rolling, and cocaine, then such creates prosperity for the capitalist and opportunity for workers -- which is the capitalist ideal. Inordinate profits indicate that the person getting the gain is either a crony capitalist facing no competition or getting unusual breaks from the government, that one's business is ethically suspect (like drug trafficking), or that one is an outright thief. Even if the earnings are legitimate, as for a pop star like John Lennon or Michael Jackson or some winner of the Super-Duper Megabucks Lottery, the gain and the contribution aren't close.

It's not power. FDR and Churchill had power to rival that of dictators on the other side of the struggle between Good and Evil; during that struggle they were more concerned with winning that struggle than with self-indulgent excess. Contrast someone like Saddam Hussein, Nicolae Ceausescu, Hermann Goering, Bokassa I, Imelda Marcos, or (Fidel Castro was a candidate). I did ignore royal families such as the Japanese Royal Family, the House of Saud, or the royal families of the UK, Netherlands, Belgium, or Spain or former princely families of India or royal families of German monarchies before 1918. Somebody may have been a rapacious pig in the past, but that may not reflect upon successors.

In a sound social order, gain and contribution are close; investment in honest activities gets a reliable reward. Sure, John Davison Rockefeller II may have been hated in his time as a 'robber baron", but he practically invented the refinery and the pipeline system; he did on a grand scale what other capitalists were doing on a small scale at the time. The Rockefeller family is inordinately wealthy, but it is not prone to garish excess. Maybe they question what the point is of the sort of display that one sees from the kleptocrats and gangsters that I have displayed -- or even Michael Jackson's Neverland. Maybe some of it is an attempt to salve a miserable childhood of fear and deprivation.

I've never bought a ticket to one of the Super-Duper Megabucks Lottery, which is probably the only way that I could have ever gotten fantastically rich. What would I do with 500 million bucks after taxes? I've been programmed to not waste money, as I recognize excess in one thing (like an expensive hobby) means denial of something else. If I spend money for personal enjoyment -- even a movie -- I want it to be satisfying.

[Eric the Green]

(07-09-2022, 03:21 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(07-09-2022, 09:33 AM)David Horn Wrote: Interesting.  You are a tribalist, then.  So are 80+% of my neighbors.  It's intrisic in some parts of this country, but certainly not all.  For me, I'm more closely aligned with Eric's camp here: human first and foremost, with differentiations cascading down from there where approriate.

Yes. Morality is mostly a set or principles for survival and making the most out of life on an individual and group level. If you can't look out for your own, they are meaningless. For those with exceptional wealth, and whose families are taken care of, one's circle of concern can gradually grow outwards to encompass larger communities, but even then, when is that ever going to really be past the level of the country (excluding individuals from other countries you actually have a real relationship with)?

The idea that I or any human is an individual on "your own" is a delusion. We are always interdependent at every moment. If you think you are an individual, see how long you can survive in this form without breathing. Even being conscious depends on there being others to be conscious of. We each depend on the Earth for physical sustainance. Indeed, my concern does not have to grow beyond myself, because it inherently is already. It embraces others I know, my community, my country, my world, my universe, because I am interdependent with it all.

[Eric the Green]

(07-09-2022, 11:26 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The United States of America is not a nation-state. It is a nationality of convenience. This is an empire, even if it is (long may it so stay) the Empire of Liberty. We have great diversity in what it means to be an American. Very old Hispanic communities in New Mexico and Florida are just as American as descendants of residents of what were the original thirteen colonies and states. If having been stripped of any cultural connection to a foreign country except genes that place one's ancestors (or enough of them) in sub-Saharan Africa so that they could do back-breaking toil under brutal management and having to create a culture in America that belongs only in America, then what is?

Interesting point. I think we can call The United States of America a nation state. Such a thing is not necessarily composed of one ethnic group or "nationality", although activists in the 19th and early 20th centuries thought so. All nations contain diverse populations. The USA has always had more diversity than most nations. A nation is an area with a common government. Ours is a federal nation, which means it has states that are governments within governments that have some authority. Which should have more is always a contentious issue in a federation like ours.

"descendants of residents of what were the original thirteen colonies and states" is what I and my family are. Only my paternal ancestry line originally came from a southern state, Virginia. A former contributor to this forum (the old version established by the authors of T4T) had done research into ancestry in that region, and thought my Meece ancestors must have lived in the eastern VA peninsula, since I know I probably had Meece ancestors in that area. My earliest known direct paternal ancestor was born in the 1780s and got married around 1804 in Franklin County in central Virginia, and was mentioned there in the 1810 US census. By 1840 this ancestor, Peter Meece, is listed in the US census as living in the township in Indiana where my Dad (Peter's great great grandson) was born, along with Peter's son, and they had no slaves. So if the Meece line ever had slaves, they had been given up.

But all of us in the USA have ancestors that came from somewhere else, whether 13,000 years ago, 350 years ago, 170 years ago, 120 years ago, 60 years ago, or 10 years ago. We are all Americans living in the United States.

If I understand the term empire, which is kind of vague I admit, the USA's imperial aspirations reached their limit in The Phillippines, Guam and Puerto Rico. We had already bought Louisiana, conquered most "indian" land, and half of Mexico, bought Alaska, and absorbed Hawaii, but we let The Phillippines go. The USA later asserted its right to determine by invasion the governments and laws of Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. We failed in the former two, at least, and after much travail may have succeeded in the latter. We had a few smaller allies in these projects, too, including some natives in the first two cases, who proved unworthy.

[David Horn]

(07-09-2022, 03:21 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(07-09-2022, 09:33 AM)David Horn Wrote: Interesting.  You are a tribalist, then.  So are 80+% of my neighbors.  It's intrisic in some parts of this country, but certainly not all.  For me, I'm more closely aligned with Eric's camp here: human first and foremost, with differentiations cascading down from there where approriate.

Yes. Morality is mostly a set or principles for survival and making the most out of life on an individual and group level. If you can't look out for your own, they are meaningless. For those with exceptional wealth, and whose families are taken care of, one's circle of concern can gradually grow outwards to encompass larger communities, but even then, when is that ever going to really be past the level of the country (excluding individuals from other countries you actually have a real relationship with)?

I guess it's time to pitch The WEIRDest People in the World, How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous by Joseph Henrich.  Henrich is an anthropologist of some renown, and wrote this book after collaborating on several cross-disciple papers with fellow Harvard faculty members.   

The book is a weighty read, and the data are numerous and varied, but the essense of the book is the postive but totally inadvertant effect the Roman Catholic Curch had on Western society by purposely destroying the family/tribal model over roughly 10 centuries.  In short, lack of focus on family and tribe made collaborative efforts with strangers more likely and far more profitable.

[nguyenivy]

(07-10-2022, 07:58 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-09-2022, 11:26 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The United States of America is not a nation-state. It is a nationality of convenience. This is an empire, even if it is (long may it so stay) the Empire of Liberty. We have great diversity in what it means to be an American. Very old Hispanic communities in New Mexico and Florida are just as American as descendants of residents of what were the original thirteen colonies and states. If having been stripped of any cultural connection to a foreign country except genes that place one's ancestors (or enough of them) in sub-Saharan Africa so that they could do back-breaking toil under brutal management and having to create a culture in America that belongs only in America, then what is?

Interesting point. I think we can call The United States of America a nation state. Such a thing is not necessarily composed of one ethnic group or "nationality", although activists in the 19th and early 20th centuries thought so. All nations contain diverse populations. The USA has always had more diversity than most nations. A nation is an area with a common government. Ours is a federal nation, which means it has states that are governments within governments that have some authority. Which should have more is always a contentious issue in a federation like ours.

"descendants of residents of what were the original thirteen colonies and states" is what I and my family are. Only my paternal ancestry line originally came from a southern state, Virginia. A former contributor to this forum (the old version established by the authors of T4T) had done research into ancestry in that region, and thought my Meece ancestors must have lived in the eastern VA peninsula, since I know I probably had Meece ancestors in that area. My earliest known direct paternal ancestor was born in the 1780s and got married around 1804 in Franklin County in central Virginia, and was mentioned there in the 1810 US census. By 1840 this ancestor, Peter Meece, is listed in the US census as living in the township in Indiana where my Dad (Peter's great great grandson) was born, along with Peter's son, and they had no slaves. So if the Meece line ever had slaves, they had been given up.

But all of us in the USA have ancestors that came from somewhere else, whether 13,000 years ago, 350 years ago, 170 years ago, 120 years ago, 60 years ago, or 10 years ago. We are all Americans living in the United States.

If I understand the term empire, which is kind of vague I admit, the USA's imperial aspirations reached their limit in The Phillippines, Guam and Puerto Rico. We had already bought Louisiana, conquered most "indian" land, and half of Mexico, bought Alaska, and absorbed Hawaii, but we let The Phillippines go. The USA later asserted its right to determine by invasion the governments and laws of Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. We failed in the former two, at least, and after much travail may have succeeded in the latter. We had a few smaller allies in these projects, too, including some natives in the first two cases, who proved unworthy.

Could it be that the definition of nation-state has evolved from long ago?  As I understand it, nowadays we use sovereign state to refer to the top-level political entity (the one shown on passports).  We evolved from the old nation-state model where ethnicities were tied to land to a model determined by law / global agreement via the UN.


There are advantages of the current model but it does really make me think of what will happen should nature reclaim some of the lands via climate change that people currently live in who will be forced to relocate.  What will it mean to be X-ian/ese if country X is underwater or otherwise totally uninhabitable?  Also, once the people of those lands do relocate elsewhere, do they just lose their sovereignty?  Is there a way to preserve it?  If not, our system of what defines sovereignty/nationhood has a gap as up until now it assumes the land and people living there are fixed in place.  This may become a real concern for some Pacific island countries in our lifetimes (especially Millennial/Zoomer/Alpha) as some of them are expected to be the first impacted by climate change later this century.

[Eric the Green]

(07-11-2022, 02:27 AM)nguyenivy Wrote:

(07-10-2022, 07:58 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-09-2022, 11:26 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The United States of America is not a nation-state. It is a nationality of convenience. This is an empire, even if it is (long may it so stay) the Empire of Liberty. We have great diversity in what it means to be an American. Very old Hispanic communities in New Mexico and Florida are just as American as descendants of residents of what were the original thirteen colonies and states. If having been stripped of any cultural connection to a foreign country except genes that place one's ancestors (or enough of them) in sub-Saharan Africa so that they could do back-breaking toil under brutal management and having to create a culture in America that belongs only in America, then what is?

Interesting point. I think we can call The United States of America a nation state. Such a thing is not necessarily composed of one ethnic group or "nationality", although activists in the 19th and early 20th centuries thought so. All nations contain diverse populations. The USA has always had more diversity than most nations. A nation is an area with a common government. Ours is a federal nation, which means it has states that are governments within governments that have some authority. Which should have more is always a contentious issue in a federation like ours.

"descendants of residents of what were the original thirteen colonies and states" is what I and my family are. Only my paternal ancestry line originally came from a southern state, Virginia. A former contributor to this forum (the old version established by the authors of T4T) had done research into ancestry in that region, and thought my Meece ancestors must have lived in the eastern VA peninsula, since I know I probably had Meece ancestors in that area. My earliest known direct paternal ancestor was born in the 1780s and got married around 1804 in Franklin County in central Virginia, and was mentioned there in the 1810 US census. By 1840 this ancestor, Peter Meece, is listed in the US census as living in the township in Indiana where my Dad (Peter's great great grandson) was born, along with Peter's son, and they had no slaves. So if the Meece line ever had slaves, they had been given up.

But all of us in the USA have ancestors that came from somewhere else, whether 13,000 years ago, 350 years ago, 170 years ago, 120 years ago, 60 years ago, or 10 years ago. We are all Americans living in the United States.

If I understand the term empire, which is kind of vague I admit, the USA's imperial aspirations reached their limit in The Phillippines, Guam and Puerto Rico. We had already bought Louisiana, conquered most "indian" land, and half of Mexico, bought Alaska, and absorbed Hawaii, but we let The Phillippines go. The USA later asserted its right to determine by invasion the governments and laws of Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. We failed in the former two, at least, and after much travail may have succeeded in the latter. We had a few smaller allies in these projects, too, including some natives in the first two cases, who proved unworthy.

Could it be that the definition of nation-state has evolved from long ago?  As I understand it, nowadays we use sovereign state to refer to the top-level political entity (the one shown on passports).  We evolved from the old nation-state model where ethnicities were tied to land to a model determined by law / global agreement via the UN.


There are advantages of the current model but it does really make me think of what will happen should nature reclaim some of the lands via climate change that people currently live in who will be forced to relocate.  What will it mean to be X-ian/ese if country X is underwater or otherwise totally uninhabitable?  Also, once the people of those lands do relocate elsewhere, do they just lose their sovereignty?  Is there a way to preserve it?  If not, our system of what defines sovereignty/nationhood has a gap as up until now it assumes the land and people living there are fixed in place.  This may become a real concern for some Pacific island countries in our lifetimes (especially Millennial/Zoomer/Alpha) as some of them are expected to be the first impacted by climate change later this century.

That's all correct. I think what happened that Jason alluded to, I think, is if immigrants and refugees coming to other countries means that they become part of these countries after losing their own, but become part of the culture of those countries. They may lose a separate sovereignty, but become a voting and cultural part as potential citizens of the diverse make-up of their new sovereignty.

As George Monbiot points out in his video on neoliberalism, many people will be driven to immigrate in coming decades because there will be nothing left for them in their old country; no environmental, social or economic basis for their lives there. That has what has been happening since the great recession and the subsequent revolutions and repressions of the Arab Spring era and the increasing climate crisis. And the issue becomes paramount because of the xenophobic reactions by people in the countries that the migrants enter, whether Trump, Brexit, Le Pen, Orban, etc.

https://youtu.be/jOuzABjrAo4?t=708

[JasonBlack]

(07-10-2022, 07:24 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-09-2022, 03:21 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: Yes. Morality is mostly a set or principles for survival and making the most out of life on an individual and group level. If you can't look out for your own, they are meaningless. For those with exceptional wealth, and whose families are taken care of, one's circle of concern can gradually grow outwards to encompass larger communities, but even then, when is that ever going to really be past the level of the country (excluding individuals from other countries you actually have a real relationship with)?

The idea that I or any human is an individual on "your own" is a delusion. We are always interdependent at every moment. If you think you are an individual, see how long you can survive in this form without breathing. Even being conscious depends on there being others to be conscious of. We each depend on the Earth for physical sustainance. Indeed, my concern does not have to grow beyond myself, because it inherently is already. It embraces others I know, my community, my country, my world, my universe, because I am interdependent with it all.

You'll notice I said "look out for your own", not "go it on your own". Few people have what it takes to truly exist as a lone individual. All the more reason we need to focus on those closest to us. If we can't help them, we can't help anyone.

[JasonBlack]

(07-10-2022, 08:07 AM)David Horn Wrote: I guess it's time to pitch The WEIRDest People in the World, How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous by Joseph Henrich.  Henrich is an anthropologist of some renown, and wrote this book after collaborating on several cross-disciple papers with fellow Harvard faculty members.   
The book is a weighty read, and the data are numerous and varied, but the essense of the book is the postive but totally inadvertant effect the Roman Catholic Curch had on Western society by purposely destroying the family/tribal model over roughly 10 centuries.  In short, lack of focus on family and tribe made collaborative efforts with strangers more likely and far more profitable.

Christianity has a long and proud history of fostering cooperation and fostering good relations between otherwise unrelated groups (of course, it also has a long and not-so-proud history of being misused in abetting all manner of more "worldly" agenda, to put it mildly, but that's another discussion).

Alas, being tribalist in the sense of looking out for one's family does not have to mean they are one' sole concern, only that they are one's first concern. Tbh, I think the world would be better off if about 80% of people focused primarily on their own immediate families. Prioritizing the world as a whole should really be the reserve of the elderly, the wealthy and those able to afford the lifestyle of an intellectual.

Think of it like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. You have to secure the foundation before you reach for levels of higher consciousness.

In the words of Nassim Taleb: "If your goal is to become a philosopher king, become a king first, then a philosopher".

[JasonBlack]

(07-09-2022, 11:26 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The United States of America is not a nation-state. It is a nationality of convenience. This is an empire, even if it is (long may it so stay) the Empire of Liberty. We have great diversity in what it means to be an American. Very old Hispanic communities in New Mexico and Florida are just as American as descendants of residents of what were the original thirteen colonies and states. If having been stripped of any cultural connection to a foreign country except genes that place one's ancestors (or enough of them) in sub-Saharan Africa so that they could do back-breaking toil under brutal management and having to create a culture in America that belongs only in America, then what is?

One thing we can all agree on: America is an experimental mass of cognitive dissonance and ideological contradictions, where revolution often coincides with convention and tradition. Imo, it's a miracle we have lasted this long, but at the same time...it's clear something worked.

[pbrower2a]

(07-11-2022, 04:09 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(07-09-2022, 11:26 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The United States of America is not a nation-state. It is a nationality of convenience. This is an empire, even if it is (long may it so stay) the Empire of Liberty. We have great diversity in what it means to be an American. Very old Hispanic communities in New Mexico and Florida are just as American as descendants of residents of what were the original thirteen colonies and states. If having been stripped of any cultural connection to a foreign country except genes that place one's ancestors (or enough of them) in sub-Saharan Africa so that they could do back-breaking toil under brutal management and having to create a culture in America that belongs only in America, then what is?

One thing we can all agree on: America is an experimental mass of cognitive dissonance and ideological contradictions, where revolution often coincides with convention and tradition. Imo, it's a miracle we have lasted this long, but at the same time...it's clear something worked.

Liberty. Early promotion of mass education that people cherished back then. Zero tolerance for mass violence. The ability to cope, most of the time, with multicultural and multi-ethnic reality. A free market except for the welfare state. Being on the winning side in most major wars. The United States has typically shown more flexibility than systems like Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and Thug Japan that sought to destroy a decadent society that lacked a martial spirit. We improvised the last legions to march through Rome. The USA has been around for a long time as empires go. Do you not believe me? At 247 years, we are only 57 years away from having a longer lifespan than Russia under the Romanov dynasty, an impressive entity if one terribly flawed.    

The cognitive dissonance is comparatively new, much of it the result of people confusing their resentments with truth, the rise of fundamentalist Christianity, and extreme narcissism arising among the economic and administrative elites. 

Except in the run-up to the American Civil War, America has been typically good at self-correction. We are in the early stages of our response to an effort to nullify a free and fair election. Look at the system failures of other countries from antiquity to modern times, and you will usually notice that something spiraled out of control until the system was formally destroyed. They thought that they could solve their problems with wars, and they ended up with an enemy too big for them to stave off; they repressed independent thought and thus ensured that all that could grow was internal rot; they had no coherent finance; they ended up with an elite that became increasingly incompetent. 

We will soon discover that we have too much to lose to avoid doing what it takes to undo some of the rottenness that many of us see. Maybe we need to change patterns of child-rearing, to decentralize the economy so that there is opportunity for a good life in more places (the Rust Bowl used to be a place of opportunity; I have every cause to believe that it can again), and in general to have a culture that honors the blessings that many of us used to take for granted at the expense of tawdry titillation, the celebration of the overweening Self, crony capitalism, and intellectual laziness. We grow plenty of food for the population that we have, which means that we are in less danger of global warming than countries that live on the edge of mass starvation.

History shows that those who bet against the USA typically lose badly.

[Eric the Green]

(07-11-2022, 03:55 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(07-10-2022, 07:24 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-09-2022, 03:21 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: Yes. Morality is mostly a set or principles for survival and making the most out of life on an individual and group level. If you can't look out for your own, they are meaningless. For those with exceptional wealth, and whose families are taken care of, one's circle of concern can gradually grow outwards to encompass larger communities, but even then, when is that ever going to really be past the level of the country (excluding individuals from other countries you actually have a real relationship with)?

The idea that I or any human is an individual on "your own" is a delusion. We are always interdependent at every moment. If you think you are an individual, see how long you can survive in this form without breathing. Even being conscious depends on there being others to be conscious of. We each depend on the Earth for physical sustainance. Indeed, my concern does not have to grow beyond myself, because it inherently is already. It embraces others I know, my community, my country, my world, my universe, because I am interdependent with it all.

You'll notice I said "look out for your own", not "go it on your own". Few people have what it takes to truly exist as a lone individual. All the more reason we need to focus on those closest to us. If we can't help them, we can't help anyone.

My own experience makes me inclined against this idea. Families are repressive and confining. And they too, are too much about "our own". "Independent families" is a delusion. The point is we are inter-dependent even more on our community, our state, our nation, and on government and politics, economic powers, and most of all, on Nature. And on the greater Spirit. Spirit, and Nature. These are the two that Americans most forget, to our peril, and through our countercultures and green/new age movements, greatly need to discover, and focus less on our business and looking out for our own.

[Eric the Green]

(07-11-2022, 04:03 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(07-10-2022, 08:07 AM)David Horn Wrote: I guess it's time to pitch The WEIRDest People in the World, How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous by Joseph Henrich.  Henrich is an anthropologist of some renown, and wrote this book after collaborating on several cross-disciple papers with fellow Harvard faculty members.   
The book is a weighty read, and the data are numerous and varied, but the essense of the book is the postive but totally inadvertant effect the Roman Catholic Curch had on Western society by purposely destroying the family/tribal model over roughly 10 centuries.  In short, lack of focus on family and tribe made collaborative efforts with strangers more likely and far more profitable.

Christianity has a long and proud history of fostering cooperation and fostering good relations between otherwise unrelated groups (of course, it also has a long and not-so-proud history of being misused in abetting all manner of more "worldly" agenda, to put it mildly, but that's another discussion).

Alas, being tribalist in the sense of looking out for one's family does not have to mean they are one' sole concern, only that they are one's first concern. Tbh, I think the world would be better off if about 80% of people focused primarily on their own immediate families. Prioritizing the world as a whole should really be the reserve of the elderly, the wealthy and those able to afford the lifestyle of an intellectual.

Think of it like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. You have to secure the foundation before you reach for levels of higher consciousness.

In the words of Nassim Taleb: "If your goal is to become a philosopher king, become a king first, then a philosopher".

Ha ha! Sadly, that priority does not work. Power corrupts. If one is not first a philosopher, and you first become a king, you will be a tyrant, and you will damage your realm and then fall.

Maslow kind of reversed Jesus, and I think in this case, Jesus had it right. I guess I have to reject Maslow, and continue to admire Jesus. Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His Righteousness, and all else will be added to you. https://biblehub.com/kjv/matthew/6-33.htm

There's a new age, counter-cultural motto we need to adopt instead of looking out for our selves and our families. "Think globally, and act locally." We do what we can that we have access to, and keep in mind the larger planetary priorities and the effects of all of our actions on the planet. 

We are not better off if most people think only about their families. That is why we have not become homo sapiens yet. If we think only about short-term needs and about ourselves and our own, and cannot anticipate the long term and the larger effects of our actions, we are not smart. Nature, with less brains and dependency on four legs or roots with no opposable thumbs, is still smarter. Our thinking apparently only allows us to reduce our subconscious awareness and concentrate on manipulating the world around us to meet our immediate needs and goals. That is not smart. That is exactly what's wrong. That is what is heating up the planet and knocking down the forests and despoiling the environment, and what causes wars, and launches class and religious conflicts.

Nature is still smarter than we are. It works as a whole, and species are embedded in the whole system. Left to itself, it expands, creates and flourishes. We are deluded by our way of thinking to feel separate and apart and that we can control things individually. Unless we can somehow get smarter, or unless the smarter people can outvote the dummies (sadly not the case yet, as Biden is way down in the polls and Democrats still behind in the midterms), we are DOOMED.

When we make ourselves into gods and try to run things all by ourselves, we mess things up. If we let go and let God, and let the Spirit within or Universal Mind run things, we create the New Jerusalem or return to Eden.