thoughts on....

[Peter Kropotkin]

much of our social and political discourse is based on
the idea that we have only a finite number of concepts...
that of money, freedom, liberty, justice to name a few...
so, if we have a finite amount of say, freedom, some may
have more freedom than others...just like money,
we have assumed that money is finite, and so, only some
get/have money while others have less or none.... and this
falls under the guise of people either being winners or people
being losers... and the winners get the money, the losers
get zippy do da.... to think of justice or freedom in the same
terms that we only have a limited amount of justice or freedom
and winners get more and losers get less....

and we see this very act in progress in the constant delay,
delay and more delays in the several trials of IQ45...for
justice delayed is justice denied... and because of his wealth,
he can get trial after trial after trial delayed... whereas a poor
person would already be in prison for the exact same acts...
justice itself is being perverted by wealth and power...
thus, showing us that there is only a limited amount of justice
in the world...and the wealthy/powerful get that justice...
and the poor do not....

this notion of justice violates our very concept of equality before
the law, that ''all men are created equal''...democracy is predicated
on the notion that all the citizens of that democracy are treated
equally, before the law and politically... but under the concept
introduced by the conservatives to protect the unborn over the
rights of the already here, we can now introduce laws that
can protect the future over the present by making justice,
equal to all.... which is the original idea of justice anyway....
that we are equal before the law... a notion that has been destroyed
in modern day America....with the notion being that there is only
X amount of justice available to American's...and that X amount is
going to the wealthy and powerful... not the poor...

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

the notion of life is that we are going from here to there...
but left unsaid is this idea of where here is and how do we get to
there.. and is there worth a journey?

so, we fill in the details with information... here is America in 2024,
where many believe that America needs a dictator, and IQ45 is that guy....
but in this analysis, what is the journey? where are we going to?
why a dictator? and why someone as stupid as IQ45?

the real problem with this understanding is that is doesn't approach
the way people are reacting to America in 2024...why are people
reacting the way they do? I would suggest that people are reacting from
fear, and not logic or reasoning or even intelligence...and in reacting from
fear, people are making bad, really bad choices... or to say it another way.
our political discourse is infected with fear and not rational thinking...
and fear is one of those instincts that drive people to take actions
they normally wouldn't make...and therein lies the problem with
reacting by instincts.. instincts like anger, hate, and fear....
and we need to rise above just reacting from our instincts...

and we reach the really interesting part of the fear... what exactly are
we afraid of? if we objectively think about the problems of America,
what exactly are we afraid of? Immigrants, be grateful that there are
immigrants... who do you think picks the crops in the fields in America?
or busses the tables or cooks your dinner in restaurants?
or does the landscaping in America today? Immigrants makes life
possible in America today... the silent glue that makes America work
are immigrants... and why should we fear them? are they going to take my
job away? In the vast majority of jobs in America, the average illegal
isn't going to take your job away from you? and the average immigrant pays
far more in taxes then they take in benefits... Texas did a study in which
it shows that immigrants pays roughly 20 billion in taxes and
takes roughly around 10 billion in benefits...illegal aliens bring into Texas
over 10 billion dollars a year...on a straight idea of money, illegals bring
in far more money than they costs... a financial plus, not a minus...

if we actually thought through our fears, we would discover that
our fears are really driven by and manipulated by the media...
and they get attention for their fear mongering, which drives
them to create a fear based America... (attention means making
money.. and that is first, last and everything in the middle, for a corporation)

if we were to approach every single fear driven idea in America, we
would quickly learn that they are based on nothing more than fear itself...
that there is no basis for the fear mongering in America...
and the real things we should be fearing, things like global warming
and income inequality, are dismiss as being wild fantasies....
and once again, the real driver of this is from those who make money
from driving our fears and hiding the truths about such things
as income inequality......because that might cost them some money....

the point to remember is that the media is complicit in driving the
fears for making profits...and corporate America only response to
anything is, how much money will we make? and right now, fear creates
the most profits... so the journey that is being feed by the media only
exists because it will make them money.. if it doesn't make money,
it won't exists... even if it is the truth... given a choice between the
truth and making money, the media will, every single time, choose money
over truth....

and this media impact on our journey and where we are and where
we need to be, is flat out wrong because it's only value
is to make money, not to help people find out the truth...

so, free of the media influence, where are we, and where
do we need to go? both individually and collectively?

has it occurred to anyone why the media hates communism so much,
is that in communism, the media won't make the profits they do under
capitalism... simple pursuit of profits drives their hated of communism....
nothing more, nothing less.... and as the media drives the narrative
of the state, which impacts such things as how we engage with education
and the military-industrial complex... our narrative comes from the media
around us... which is profit driven... and so we get a very biased
narrative of where we are and where we can go to..... think of
the narrative we are getting as being very biased in being driven
by making profits... once we understand the bias nature of the narrative
we are sold by corporate America, then we can actually have thoughts
that are free of the insidious influence of making profits....

the very problem of America doesn't lie in America, it begins with those
who tells lies about the state of America in return for massive profits...
making the point of the narrative being to make money, not to tell the truth
or to be honest about where America is today.....or even being able to explore
the journey of people and America as a country, where are we and where are
we going to and where are we supposed to go to?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

the question becomes, how do we improve or change America into
a place that has value, such as it had for centuries as the
''city on the hill''...which is not a physical designation but a moral
one... we had the reputation of being the most moral country in
the world...that we would do what is morally right over other
concerns, including financial, because it was the right thing to do....

that ship sailed decades ago... now we react from profits, not from
morality... we accept or reject immigrants not from a moral standpoint,
but from a financial standpoint... will it costs us money? will it costs
us jobs? will it increase our taxes? and if a judgement is made from
a monetary standpoint, it is not from a moral standpoint....
and when exactly did we lose this ideal vision of America being the
moral ''city on the hill?''

I would say it began with the Vietnam war and continued with Watergate...
and it was over by Iran-Contra affair in between 1981 and 1986...
and has any president since then, done anything, anything at all to
hold to the higher moral standards required for us to return to being
the ''city on the hill?" The democrats have at least held serve in
attempting to be moral standards... the GOP/MAGA party has sold
its soul to making money and holding and keeping power...no GOP/MAGA
president in 24 years has done a thing that is even vaguely moral...

now one might argue that the modern world is not suited for us to
hold to moral actions... to be moral is to be taken granted of by
''bad actors''... but if everyone is practicing Machiavelli politics,
who is setting the standard for being moral?...

But Kropotkin, you can't be moral in an immoral world?
and please feel free to define how this world is immoral?
But Kropotkin, the world has always been immoral,
hence the ideal of America being the ''city on the hill''
and why can't we try to be that ''city on the hill'' again?

the modern world Kropotkin, but, but what if the truth is that
we are simply afraid of attempting to be moral.. for being moral
takes courage.. and very few, if any, ever practices being brave,
being courageous today.... there is no profit in holding to the value
of courage today.. and thus it isn't practiced....
and who do we define as being courageous today? Anyone who stand
against the crowd or stands against the current of today's acts of
appeasement, against the modern state/society... the courageous
ones are the ones who stand against the crowd or against the state....

we call MLK or Gandhi as courageous.. and we build statues and name
schools after them, but who in the modern-day world, actually follows them
in being courageous against the state/society? now one might say,
Jullian Assange, and he is the poster boy for the state to those who
might be thinking about acting or thinking against the state....
there is a reason he is being publicly flogged... as a warning to others
not to stand out or act differently than the society/state demands....
toe the line or else... and do you see anyone else practicing
courage? no, not at all....

(I try to do so, but I am ignored, as it is quite clear, even here..
I have no audience of any kind...so, my small act of courage is not
seen or discussed by anyone.. I exist anonymously and will die so..
and I get it)

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

so, we have three aspects to this issue/problem of changing
America, back into the ''city on the hill?''

One: we acknowledge that money/economics dictate that we no longer
have any interest in ethics or morals... we simply can't afford to be moral..
it costs too much money to be moral and thus we abandon it... as
we seem to have done...

Two: we rediscover, hopefully before its too late, that morals/ethics
are worth the economic cost because the cost of being immoral,
unethical is worth more than financial costs.. we find it is cheaper
to be ethical then it does to be unethical...
but with that said, how do we go about achieving any ethical grounds?
we have two paths... one, implore the average citizen, the average person
that to truly improve the society, we must allow the state/society to
make laws that force us to become ethical....the drive to become
ethical comes from the state/society... the drive to create a
''utopia'' comes from the state/society... and individually,
we are forced into our roles by the state.... this path of ''Utopia''
is favored by the Communist and other state driven entities...
when America mandates that abortions are forbidden, this is also
state mandated ethics... we use the power of the state to
''improve'' people's ethics... and in this regard, we see very little
difference between the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and 2024 America....
all of them are using the state power to improve people's morals/ethics....
we force people to conform to the state, and not the state to conform
to the needs, wants, desires of the people.....

Three: we engage with people to change their beliefs to create change...
this path, easily the hardest path.. is to change the society/state by
people changing their ideas and values and beliefs... this type of change
is bottom-up change, whereas the second path is top down...
and has a top-down attempt to change people attitude/minds/
behaviors ever worked or lasted? I think we all know the answer to that.....

the best example of the number three working is the long program of
Christianity which changed the Roman empire, one mind/one heart at a time....
and we can see, to this day, how that worked out...
and what was the strength of the Christianity?
that people lived their beliefs... that Christianity became a way of life,
not just something they lived every week at church, for an hour or two....
and then the rest of the week, Christian acted as if they weren't Christians....
they take their religion and lived it, every day, 7 days a week, for 365...
that is the type of commitment that we need to return to....we must
become our values.. live them as a ''way of life''....

for me, that is the path to returning to the ''city on the hill''
by people becoming their ''way of life'' every single day, not
state/society driven, by example driven...

we don't have any role models of people being ethical and moral...
the democratic presidents were far better examples of moral
ethical people, and what they did get for their moral examples?
both Biden and Obama were viciously attacked by those who
only live for profits and wealth.... because moral/ethical
living causes profits to go down.. and heaven forbid in America
today, we lose some profits because we were/are moral/ethical?

so, we have three paths... and we must choose one...
which path do you choose? and I choose the hardest path,
of living ethically, morally... of making my values, a ''way of life''
and what about you?

Kropotkin