It is not the same people that are both destructive and constructive, these two opposite poles in every society. When the destructive part begins to dominate, then great changes are about to occur.
Congratulations on this one GA. I like #3, the part about ritual. It's who and what we honor on specific occasions. Of course we honor our war-dead, and we honor those political leaders that made the war possible, so that we could have these dead war heroes. It would have some sense if they died defending our own territory from invasion, and not soldiers of fortune seeking riches on the far corners of the planet.
Our generals and presidents explained it to us so eloquently when they were trying to ring-fence China. Dear population; You know there are those things called dominoes, and they fall in a series.
(That's not really how you play dominoes, there is a little more intelligence to it, matching the dots, and planning some available dots for the next move.)
But our leaders think in terms of blocks played with by two-year-old's. Anyway, they were so convincing that 60,000 of our young men decided to give up their lives for the proper placement of dominoes. Well, same thing in Korea a few years before. (Vietnam really started in 1955, even though the Tonkin Gulf was 1964).
What America really needs is a purging ritual. All those politicians, generals and admirals that brought us the folly of war must be deported posthumously. Their passports, birth certificates and all records of their lives must be destroyed, and they names written in our annals as our greatest traitors. Really their family fortunes should also be frozen, and returned to the common good.
Then we can start on the alive despots, that are running the current atrocity mill.
I think that clear separation between the powers behind society allows for tension between them and maximizing the "middle ground" between them for people to use. A conscious controlled disunity of interests would be ideal, allowing for incoherence/inconsistency to respond to developing needs while being held together enough to be recognized as a single unit.
At simplest, something like Church, State, and People - each with their own ideas and coming together only to settle intractable issues. Kind of stability through tension.
Motivating the people to come to a balance within society and with other societies/the environment is a thankless and never-ending task that eventually gets centralized and handed off to bosses, leaving it ripe for collusion.
You refer to a middle ground of tension between opposing views. I think you are suggesting that we could live this way if there was some balance. It is kind of like military deterrence, but that only works where there is parity. You are suggesting Church, State , and people. But who are the people, and what voice do they have, (certainly not unified in anything but don't raise my taxes). The voice of the people would be represented by political movements. Labor unions have given up the ghost. And the major political movements have merged (against the people).
They have also made it next to impossible to create a third movement. It would be held as a spoiler. The Greens will get on the ballot this year, and maybe get 3% of the vote. At least they may bring up some debate topics that are presently off of the calendar. They say the word "Genocide" so they are banned from Twitter, and everywhere else.
Incoherence/inconsistency doesn't respond to anything. It probably only falls to my entitlement, and my rights.
There is no central Church, and all the other churches wouldn't allow it, so no voice there.
People will start to come into some form of balance with world depression, societal collapse and WWIII. 32 world NATO states are using all their spare change to fight with and dismember Russia. Next they'll move on to China, if there is anything left of them. How else would you define WWIII?
Congratulations on this one GA. I like #3, the part about ritual. It's who and what we honor on specific occasions. Of course we honor our war-dead, and we honor those political leaders that made the war possible, so that we could have these dead war heroes. It would have some sense if they died defending our own territory from invasion, and not soldiers of fortune seeking riches on the far corners of the planet.
Our generals and presidents explained it to us so eloquently when they were trying to ring-fence China. Dear population; You know there are those things called dominoes, and they fall in a series.
(That's not really how you play dominoes, there is a little more intelligence to it, matching the dots, and planning some available dots for the next move.)
But our leaders think in terms of blocks played with by two-year-old's. Anyway, they were so convincing that 60,000 of our young men decided to give up their lives for the proper placement of dominoes. Well, same thing in Korea a few years before. (Vietnam really started in 1955, even though the Tonkin Gulf was 1964).
What America really needs is a purging ritual. All those politicians, generals and admirals that brought us the folly of war must be deported posthumously. Their passports, birth certificates and all records of their lives must be destroyed, and they names written in our annals as our greatest traitors. Really their family fortunes should also be frozen, and returned to the common good.
Then we can start on the alive despots, that are running the current atrocity mill.
.
I think that clear separation between the powers behind society allows for tension between them and maximizing the "middle ground" between them for people to use. A conscious controlled disunity of interests would be ideal, allowing for incoherence/inconsistency to respond to developing needs while being held together enough to be recognized as a single unit.
At simplest, something like Church, State, and People - each with their own ideas and coming together only to settle intractable issues. Kind of stability through tension.
Motivating the people to come to a balance within society and with other societies/the environment is a thankless and never-ending task that eventually gets centralized and handed off to bosses, leaving it ripe for collusion.
You refer to a middle ground of tension between opposing views. I think you are suggesting that we could live this way if there was some balance. It is kind of like military deterrence, but that only works where there is parity. You are suggesting Church, State , and people. But who are the people, and what voice do they have, (certainly not unified in anything but don't raise my taxes). The voice of the people would be represented by political movements. Labor unions have given up the ghost. And the major political movements have merged (against the people).
They have also made it next to impossible to create a third movement. It would be held as a spoiler. The Greens will get on the ballot this year, and maybe get 3% of the vote. At least they may bring up some debate topics that are presently off of the calendar. They say the word "Genocide" so they are banned from Twitter, and everywhere else.
Incoherence/inconsistency doesn't respond to anything. It probably only falls to my entitlement, and my rights.
There is no central Church, and all the other churches wouldn't allow it, so no voice there.
People will start to come into some form of balance with world depression, societal collapse and WWIII. 32 world NATO states are using all their spare change to fight with and dismember Russia. Next they'll move on to China, if there is anything left of them. How else would you define WWIII?
.