A world without politics.

@BizSuitStacy You said: "The world will always be political."

Do you mean that we have a need to control people?

@BizSuitStacy The reality of this/ our world.

@soar2newhighs Do you really believe this story?

@sree251 I’m afraid I do. Speaking for myself, I have little confidence in our government or politicians. I believe there are those who are able to call the shots and they’re not in Washington DC. They are the people who for years had the power, money and means to effect the nation they wanted. They still exist today. That is my belief.

@soar2newhighs Thanks for your input. I have not been aware of the Raven Rock story but it seems normal to expect the US Government to "save" itself during a doomsday scenario. The objective is not nefarious because it is the people's command center. It has to save itself in order to save the people.

However, you seem to believe that the government is a selfish entity looking out for itself. Am I right or not?

@sree251 Yes, I believe our Government is out for itself. A selfish entity? Of course it is and always has been!
Look at the politicians and how they enter with not a pot to piss in, a window to throw it out of and amass millions! What’s that all about?
If you haven’t viewed the two videos I linked, I suggest you do. You will come away with your own conclusions. I did and that’s why I say what I do. And it’s not only these videos; it’s how IMO we the people are being screwed on a daily basis. Look around, see what ‘s going on.

@sree251 there are people who believe they need to control the rest of us. And they have been doing so in the shadows for longer than any of us have been alive.

@soar2newhighs You said: "Speaking for myself, I have little confidence in our government or politicians."

It seems to me that the institution of government is flawed Every person we know and trust from our neighborhood and town invariably turn into a crook when he/she gets to Washington DC.

@BizSuitStacy two soon to pass into the abyss… …courtesy this entity!

@sree251 The noble, idealists, naive, are soon out or sucked into the poison.

@soar2newhighs You said: "Look at the politicians and how they enter with not a pot to piss in, a window to throw it out of and amass millions! What’s that all about?"

I am not into bi-partisan politics and am sure there are crooks on both sides of the aisle in Congress. To address your remark above, I did watch Obama back when he appeared as a speaker at the Democratic Convention before he ran for President. I was very impressed with Obama back then. It was an economic downturn then and Obama had a home that was "under the water". He was practically broke. Now, he is worth more than a hundred million. I am not insinuating that he has been corrupt. His political career made him rich.

Frankly, I can't see any motive for anyone running for President other than a selfish one. The reason is because no one can be so dumb as to think that he or she can walk into the White House and command the fate of the nation. No way. What surprised me was Trump. I think he, being a macho leader type, actually believed that he could make a difference. He has great instincts and personal charm. Even Xi Jinping came to Mar a Lago. And Trump's stepping into North Korea was a shocking triumph in foreign relations. Apart from that, looks like he is paying dearly at the hands of "Deep State" for his bravado.

@soar2newhighs Maybe it's time to put the crack pipe down dude.

@Kwek00 crack is good, so is cocaine as we know…

@Kwek00 You said: "Maybe it's time to put the crack pipe down dude."

You don't agree with @soar2newhighs ? Can you refute his contention about our political institutions and politicians?

@sree251 Engage with more conspiracies and feelings and believes? ... Why? The man gave up on journalism, he gave up on facts, and now he's a grown man posting pictures of george sorros and the grim reaper online. I love the irony though, that he's talking about rich people who want to control nations and all that... while voting for a party that has created more opportunity for these types of figures too emerge. I love the irony that this man has filled his head with conspiratorial nonsense, pushed and backed up by wealthy groups that control conservative media outlets and conservative think tanks. Both institutions are not there to educate people like fall2newdepths, but too use them so they can establish themselves on top of a hyrarchie. Which is by the way, super consistent with conservative ideology that has a disdain for "normal people" in favor of those that escape mediocraty and thus have the right to fuck everyone over. But who is he complaining about? About a philantropist that made it his life works, to create "open societies". The day any of these tools can explain to me, what is wrong about striving towards the concept of an "open society" has still to come? I don't know... but people that posts George Sorros his head everywhere aren't going to tell you either, because that's what that elite group of people that doesn't like the concept will never teach their tools about.

But you just watch his videos... then come back to me, and if you believe that any of this stuff is worth anyones time... then I feel bad for you.

@Kwek00 You said: "The day any of these tools can explain to me, what is wrong about striving towards the concept of an "open society" has still to come?"

The concept that society [b]must be open [/b]to alternative points of view sounds great. It is the dictate that it must be open that is troubling. It is insinuating that all societies must be open to critical thinking because they are oppressive and must be dismantled. This concept is the driver of US militarism and interference in foreign countries in the defense of democracy and freedom. We see dictators and autocratic regimes everywhere. This concept is driving us to fight Russia and China perceived as enemies of freedom regardless of world annihilation in a nuclear war. I see "Open society" as another ideological product of intellectuals who want to herd us like cattle.

What do you say? Be open to my alternative point of view if you can just to prove that you believe that Soros is doing the right thing.

@sree251
[quote]It is insinuating that all societies must be open to critical thinking because they are oppressive and must be dismantled.[/quote]

The entire point of critical thinking is to dismantle ideas and structures... and if ideas are oppresive without any rational reasons, they should be dismantled. I don't think a lot of wars are being fought for the direct result too create open societies. The idea will ofcourse influence how people think about foreign policy, Liberal societies in general, try to move away from physical violence and fight out their diffrences in institutions[i] (this include the courts)[/i]. So yeah... what this has to do with war, I don't know.

Being open to something, and respecting something, are two diffrent things. If your ideas are based on loose sand, then they are not equal to ideas that have evidence going for it. All ideas aren't equal, they have never been equal. In an ideal society, the ideas that have the most evidence for them should be critically accepted. And things that are proven should be accepted. However, we are pretty far from that stance.

@Kwek00 You said: "The entire point of critical thinking is to dismantle ideas and structures... and if ideas are oppresive without any rational reasons, they should be dismantled."

Mao Tze Tung was a critical thinker. What you said above was exactly what drove him to launch the Cultural Revolution. It wiped out the oppressive backward superstitious beliefs of traditional Chinese culture. The modernization of China to catch up with the west would have been impossible let alone outpace western societies in the use of technology otherwise. Is that a good thing? This would depend on who is asking the critical question. More importantly, [b]who has the right[/b] to ask that question?

@sree251 Mao, is as far as you can get from an open society. Why even bring him up in this coversation? How did Mao use non-violent institutions to bring people to the table? Open societies, liberal societies... they are in it for the long stretch. They don't seek revolution EXCEPT for when they want to establish the system. It's one of the only ideological frameworks, where so many enemies of the dominant idea can freely organise under. Bringing in Mao here, just shows that too many people have an opinion about a concept that they never looked into.

@Kwek00 You said: "I don't think a lot of wars are being fought for the direct result too create open societies."

The Korean and Vietnam wars were fought against the oppression of communism. Our messing around with dictators in South America. And we have been trying to tear to shreds the muslim societies in the entire Middle East and North Africa. And that sums up all the wars on which we have been squandering American taxpayers' money at he expense of our own welfare.

@Kwek00 You said:"Bringing in Mao here, just shows that too many people have an opinion about a concept that they never look into."

I appreciate your patience. If you think I have been careless in forming my opinion of Soros' philosophy, please correct me. This is what a critical discussion ought to be: a project in cooperative thinking.

@sree251 Man, do you really think that the aim of the United States in Korea and Vietnam was to establish an "open society" or was it fought to stop the enemy at the time? Because all those fairy tales about Americans fighting for democracy as if they have no other motives concerning foreign policy. That might work for the romantics, but I'm not that simple.

My comment on the George Sorros figure is about people having no clue what they are talking about. That they villinise someone that seems to have pushed for an open society since he survived the holocaust. And I call people tools, because it's exactly that ignorance that is being abused by forces that oppose the idea of an open society. But the tools themselves are unaware to explain what they are actually angry at. I've not called you a tool yet, but you are kinda helping my point as we go along. Because this has little to do with your frustrations about wars in the middle east and the tax money that payed for it.

@sree251 Well here is the website of his foundation:

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do

Except for "cilmate justice", which isn't a part of the ideals of an "open society". It pretty much explains what it believes in. Open societies are societies that cherrish human lives (humanitarianism), believe in a form of equality of the human species, a form of liberty, political freedom (pluralism), and promote the rule of law. Ussually channeled through a liberal democracy. It's the term that came up around the 1930s, promoting a liberal model of society.

@Kwek00 You said: "In an ideal society, the ideas that have the most evidence for them should be critically accepted."

What is an ideal society to you? What is an ideal society to Soros? Is it not a community of people living together? Do you think that people are driven only by ideas, concepts that yield to critical examination? Let's examine this question critically.

So, what are we? This is a fundamental question that no philosopher from ancient Greece till now has ever been able to answer. Eastern philosophy is silent. Does Soros know what kind of life forms his open society is meant for? The human being is a creature invented by science. We have not figured out how our ideas come out of the brain yet.

Are you with me or am I talking nonsense?

@sree251 Do you believe that ideas that are back up with evidence should not be critically accepted? Because in my ideal world that would be part of it.

We aren't talking about my ideal. We are talking about George and his love for open societies, these things aren't utopic in nature. They try too maximilise a certain form of liberty for the individual. It's pluralistic in nature. And no, I don't think people are only driven by ideas... but that also has nothing to do with what we started. Neither am I going into extremely deep conversations of the nature of our reality. I really wonder, if you read what I've send you, if you agree with what I said an open society is... then I wonder what kind of society you represent as a countermodel.