XPost: soc.culture.canada, soc.culture.palestine, soc.culture.jewish
XPost: soc.culture.israel, soc.culture.iranian
["Followup-To:" header set to soc.culture.jewish.]
On 2023-11-16, David Dalton <
dalton@nfld.com> wrote:
On Nov 16, 2023, Jos Boersema wrote on soc.culture.jewish
On 2023-11-16, David Dalton<dalton@nfld.com> wrote:
November 16, 2023 is World Philosophy Day.
From google :
The theme for World Philosophy Day 2023 is “Philosophical
Reflection in a Multicultural World”. This theme highlights the
importance of philosophy in promoting understanding and
dialogue between different cultures and perspectives.
Here is your philosophical understanding in a multi-cultural world, if
you like some dialogue. It is a necessity for a culture and people to be
able to express themselves as they wish, without too much interference
from other cultures, within some general and reasonable limits which all
half decent people can naturally agree with. For this expression they
need to be Sovereign in their lands. If they make a mistake, they can
learn from it. If they see another Nation doing better, they can choose
to adopt the example in a way which suits them.
There being many Sovereign Nations brings with it a cultural wealth,
which is more interesting to experience if one wishes to do so (on a
trip for example), and creates a greater wealth of also political
experiences, which can help Governments on all levels to gain good ideas
by example, and to also learn things to avoid from bad examples.
Some general limits would for example be a culture where they would
torture their own children to death for their own amuzement. Another
limit could be warfare and conquest against other Nations, or great
damage to the natural environment which is also affecting other
Nations. Methods to deal with these problems could be ranging from
friendly diplomacy to a war of annihilation against the enemy.
The point is: there is no Empire hanging over everyone, suffocating the
life out of people, wanting everyone to do the same thing on the same
day, so that the incomprehensibly large Empire becomes easier to rule.
The people who want such a uni-cultural world by mixing everything
together and creating a new culture to their liking, simply need to find
themselves a land and people, and they can have the culture they seem to
want there. It isn't necessarily a problem if someone believes the whole
world should be ruled by google for example, so long as it is nothing
more than a belief.
Empires have come and gone. There was often great wealth in the
heartlands of the Empire, and it may have lead to a lessening of smaller
wars in the heartlands of the Empire. On the other hand, the Empire
waged war on a larger scale, including their wars of conquest and later
their wars of succession - which in modern times could be called civil
wars or Revolutionary wars. When the Empire became a Tyranny, it was so
much more powerful a repression than smaller Nations would likely have
been capable off. The Tyranny affected a larger area, making fleeing and
defeat of the Tyrants more difficult. The eventual collapse of the
Empire was also more destructive. In other words: a larger Empire merely
seems to bring out certain factors which happen in smaller Nations also,
and bring them out in a more forceful way. Both to the positive and the
negative. In the end, you are not necessarily any better.
If you add that an Empire is typically conquered by war, an Empire is
in many ways little more than the people of one city dominating all
other people. This act of ultimately violent domination does not bode
well for what is to come in an Empire. This violence also happens on
smaller scales, from small villages going to war on each other, to large
Nations and entire Empires. All this war is a result of the anti-social
attitude of ordinary people toward each other.
A global Empire will not stop the warfare, because a large part of the
warfare is the war between the rich and the poor. In an Empire, this
difference often ends up much greater than in a smaller Sovereign area.
Here again, the larger area and people merely results in a more extreme
version of what happens in a smaller area. It isn't better, it just has
more potential to be extreme.
An example is the USA, who have now more or less conquered the whole world. >> They want everyone to follow their culture, while pretending to respect
and absorb other cultures. It all sounds so nice and peaceful, like
their proposal to have a "World Philosophy day" to think about the
greatness of the American global Empire. It is a day of worship for the
Empire, worship and obedience. At the same time, in the real world, the
USA is busy creating the worst World War the world has ever seen, to
deal with the uncontrollable looting of their ruling class against their
own currency (which means, against their own people). The other Nations
all do the same thing, even down to insane "Corona" policies, and they
all sit in the same Parliament (the "United Nations"), which "by
accident?" is in New York City..
A global Empire will not help, it will only make the extreme even much
more extreme, because now there really is no way out. A global
monoculture is a monoculture like no other before it. There is no
balance against it. It will likely become the greatest monstrosity
humanity has ever created.
THe fact that humanity cannot figure out a good way to live (yet), does
not help, but rather makes all this worse. If humanity could manage to
finally live correctly as a human being, without war and crime, as good
people, it is conceivable that a global Government of sorts might be a
possibility. It would likely still have downsides and risk the dangers
associated with a monoculture.
For example, if it was decided to make all traffic laws the same over
the whole world, while that might seem to make being on the road simpler
if you travel a lot, you loose the experience with different sets of
traffic laws and solution. You loose cultural wealth. It would already
be possible for all traffic laws to become the same if that was the best
thing to do (say), if every Nation slowly adopted traffic laws which
seem to be the best ones, using examples from other Nations and their
own. There would be a natural and dynamic convergence, it would be a
process based on many political decisions and debates over a long period
of time. It would likely actually come out at the best set of laws. This
could be called a betterment of the cultures.
If a global Empire had some bureaucrat, being bored with an difficult to
understand Empire because it was different in different places, just
choose some whatever set of traffic laws or even had a research
department choosing the best set, and they then enforced a reasonably
good choice over the whole world, it wouldn't likely be as good. It
would just be what they think is good, but the whole experience with all
these traffic laws and each Nation tweaking them step by step, this
would not have happened. Their choice of global traffic law would be
similar to one Nation making up their traffic laws. They also try to
make good laws. Therefore a global Empire creates global cultural
poverty and stagnation.
It is also much harder to change big things, than it is to change small
things. The global Empire will therefore become exceedingly stagnant.
It should be noted that the things which are negatives for ordinary
people, such as repression and poverty, are seen as positive by the
criminals behind these Empires. They want a global Empire, because they
want there to be no escape. They want there not to be a counter balance
or different example to learn from. They want the wealth gap between the
working poor and lazing super rich to be as big as possible, etc. They
create these Empires because they are after these ill gains for
themselves.
Thus a thing like "global Philosophy day" can be understood to be part
of the cultural warfare conducted by the Imperial ruling class. Why
don't you tell us about some interesting local holiday in your Nation
instead. We don't need a "global Philosophy day" to worship the USA, and
to show our obedience to their wicked ruling class.
On my Salmon on the Thorns webpage, in my essential messages
I lobby for minimum global standards but beyond that lots of
loving diversity, many petals on the rose. I also am trying to
provide some glue for the global mosaic and demonstrate
commonality but maintaining diversity. (When I first posted
on Commonality and Diversity to soc.religion.paganism
in 1997, shortly after that Pope John Paul II preached
on Commonality and Togetherness, so I wonder if
his speech writer had seen my post.)
Also in those essential messages I say
"Instead [nations] would contribute to a decentralized, in how it
is controlled, by strings from elected representatives from all
over the world, weak world government responsible for global
policing, international space program, global standards negotiation,
and maybe a few other things but with most duties left to the still
existing national, first nations, provincial/state/territory and
municipal governments. The world government global policing
force when not needed for policing could do environmental and
humanitarian work. This would save all the countries trillions of
US dollars, collectively and over time. Some of that could go to
an international space program, other to environmental and
humanitarian work. Also arms dealing to anyone other than
official police forces and hunters should be banned. Also
there should be a global monetary unit and global budget
balancing."
If you are for a one world Government, then just say so. You either
have a global Government, or not. If you create any sort of weak
global Government, you create a Global Government. You have created the principle. You do not control how it will develop. It is a fantasy to
think that you can. To be a global arbiter of whatever means you have a
great amount of power already. Those who have that power, will work to
escalate it, so they have more power.
It seems to take somewhere between 2 to 4 centuries for a culture to
become corrupt or even collapse, it may be faster. Rome starts with a
Republic, becomes a Plutocracy and then a Tyranny. At first there where
many limits on power, such as elections, and the Army was not allowed to
enter Rome. One by one these limits fall, and you end up with a brutal
military Tyranny, which excells in finding new ways to torture people
to death.
This is the future of a global Government also, especially within
the current culture and makeup of humanity, where crime and war are
everywhere, which is not going to change easily, if ever, and certainly
not by creating an even more detached and megalomaniacal form of
Government: global Government.
A global Government is too big. The problems are too large. The distance
to the global Government are too vast for ordinary people to keep it
under control. It also represents a loss in principle, where the highest
form of Government in the world is not a specific group of more or less
power hungry people, but rather is the conversation between Sovereign
Nations. Subjugation under a new Master is not the same as a negotation
between two or more entities.
Once a group is appointed to embody any such negotiations between
Sovereign Nations, this group will become a power and law unto themselves.
It is already difficult and large enough to have a Parliament and/or
Senate in a Nation fulfilling the same function. To just copy this
method over into a higher and higher level until all humans fall under
one single Parliamentary clique - with all the risks of it falling into
Tyranny - results in the danghers I have already listed above.
You have engaged almost none of my arguments, by the way. You have this
typical naivity people have, which is exploited in propaganda: "We will
just be nice from now on, it will just be a little poison at first,
don't worry, we will take care of you". You see it in the USA itself
also, and also in the so-called European Union (the USA Vassal control
system for their western European conquests): at first this Government
is limited. "Oh, don't worry, we just take a little bit of power over
all of you." Now, the USA already has become a torturing Tyranny,
complete with a personality cult around their Presidents / Kings.
I have argued the case for real diversity, and for the conversation
between Nations to be the higher level above that. It is similar to how
people live in the street. They live in separate houses, where each of
them decides how they want to live. They decide what to put on the wall,
and leave others to their walls, etc. Even when they have the same
taste, they do not break down the walls between their houses. When it
comes to the street, they may work together on a few common problems if
those arise. In principle they do so as equals and in a conversation,
because they are not subjugated to a third person. Even if they organize
a Government to deal with the street, a Government which they want to be
of service to them, they do not allow this Government to dictate to them
what they put on their walls or what they eat, or to break down the
walls between their house and the neighbors' their house.
We have all these things done, when we have Sovereign Nations. We
already have the element of a common Government within the Nation. We
need the diversity between different Sovereign Nations, and all the
arguments I have given earlier.
If humanity somehow could finally find true peace, then this
conversation and agreement between Sovereign Nations will also become
easier and more productive. There is no need for a global Government in
that case, either. There are an incomprehensible amount of people in the
world, and one of the experiences they can have and may need to have, is
to be part of a Sovereign Government, and to engage in this whole
process, of Governing internally and negotiating externally. It is a
loss if we all subjugated under the same global Government, with all the
risks of its absolutism and singularity.
By the way, there is also a fundamental problem with the global
Government, and that is it's claim to be just that. How about half of
humanity does not want there to be any global Government, either because
they are against it on principle, or because they want their National Government to be Sovereign, or both. What will this pretentious global Government do ? How about if everyone wants a global Government, but
after a few centuries they want out from under it ?
I already know the propaganda which will be claimed against that "Oh but
we will be nice", but like hell you will be. The global Government will
be a global Tyranny, and anyone who will dare to resist or break away
will be hunted down and tortured to death. That is the eventual result.
It will not be less savage that Rome or the Chinese Emperors, or any of
the other Empires in the past or present. In the end, it will be even
worse, because it is even bigger, more insane, more incomprehensible,
and there is nothing outside of it anymore.
Sorry to write too long, ignore as needed.
--
Economic & political ideology, worked out into Constitutional models,
with a multi-facetted implementation plan.
http://market.socialism.nl
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)