Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain -
If the conscious mind--the part you consider to be you--is just the tip of the iceberg, what is the rest doing?
|
Sunday, 23 March 2025
quote [ It takes decades to grow a forest and a few minutes to burn it down. ]
|
steele said @ 3:08pm GMT on 29th March
I'm gonna be real, dude, I don't have a lot of energy for this nowadays, but I would probably start with here: The spirit of the Constitution was to look after the interests of the people and deny absolute power. I suppose it was written in the belief of the goodwill of people. That spirit has disappeared nowadays. The bully gets his way.
Absolutely not. Like if that's where you're starting from, I can see the problem, because that's like grade school mythology. The reality is that this government was founded by a bunch of Slave Owners and Businessmen adjacent to Slave Owners, to protect their business interests. Slavery was mentioned in the early drafts of the Declaration of Independence and then removed at the behest of said Slave Owners and Northern businessman, probably because they saw the futility of trying to cause an uprising of poor people to revolt against the crown on their behalf. In the years prior to the Declaration, the crown was preventing people from expanding further into the continent, coming closer to banning slavery, and yes taxing the colonies.... to pay for the battles with Spain/France and put down the regular uprisings of the enslaved. Maintaining slavery on behalf of the colonies was becoming very expensive for the Crown and they were having enough of it.
After the Revolution, the US had a working government, The Confederacy. Had 14 presidents and everything. But a growing undercurrent of poor people felt that since they fought in the war to free the country from the crown, then they should all own it too. This led to Shay's Rebellion. This put the investments of all those rich people who paid for the revolutionary war at risk, so a call was put out for a Federal Convention to strengthen the Confederacy. You probably know it better as the Constitutional Convention, but that was not its original intention. It was essentially a Coup by the Federalists and they were not at all quiet about their intentions about what their purpose was and why.
Alexander Hamilton had James Madison publish the Federalists and he regularly talked about protecting the Minority of the Opulent from the tyranny of the majority (ie, poor people.)
From Federalist 51 here he talks about how the new government will prevent poor people from taking over: There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.
This challenge sound familiar? The system is designed, from the very beginning, to keep the rich in charge.
Here's Madison talking about creation of the Senate:In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability.
The Federalists, the real founders of the US Constitutional Government, did not give a fuck about anyone who wasn't rich. Priority Number 1 was Private Property. Then, their first president? George Washington, the richest man in the US at the time! This country was built for rich people by rich people, and any progress for humanity has come from fighting tooth and nail against the rich as they use this country to grow their wealth by slaughtering rebellious workers at home and across the globe, even today.
steele said @ 3:11pm GMT on 29th March
I'm gonna be real, dude, I don't have a lot of energy for this nowadays, but I would probably start with here: The spirit of the Constitution was to look after the interests of the people and deny absolute power. I suppose it was written in the belief of the goodwill of people. That spirit has disappeared nowadays. The bully gets his way.
Absolutely not. Like if that's where you're starting from, I can see the problem, because that's like grade school mythology. The reality is that this government was founded by a bunch of Slave Owners and Businessmen adjacent to Slave Owners, to protect their business interests. Slavery was mentioned in the early drafts of the Declaration of Independence and then removed at the behest of said Slave Owners and Northern businessman, probably because they saw the futility of trying to cause an uprising of poor people to revolt against the crown on their behalf. In the years prior to the Declaration, the crown was preventing people from expanding further into the continent, coming closer to banning slavery, and yes taxing the colonies.... to pay for the battles with Spain/France and put down the regular uprisings of the enslaved. Maintaining slavery on behalf of the colonies was becoming very expensive for the Crown and they were having enough of it.
After the Revolution, the US had a working government, The Confederacy. Had 14 presidents and everything. But a growing undercurrent of poor people felt that since they fought in the war to free the country from the crown, then they should all own it too. This led to Shay's Rebellion. This put the investments of all those rich people who paid for the revolutionary war at risk, so a call was put out for a Federal Convention to strengthen the Confederacy. You probably know it better as the Constitutional Convention, but that was not its original intention. It was essentially a Coup by the Federalists and they were not at all quiet about their intentions about what their purpose was and why.
Alexander Hamilton had James Madison publish the Federalists and he regularly talked about protecting the Minority of the Opulent from the tyranny of the majority (ie, poor people.)
From Federalist 51 here he talks about how the new government will prevent poor people from taking over: There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.
This challenge sound familiar? The system is designed, from the very beginning, to keep the rich in charge.
Here's Madison talking about creation of the Senate:In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability.
The Federalists, the real founders of the US Constitutional Government, did not give a fuck about anyone who wasn't rich. Priority Number 1 was Private Property. Then, their first president? George Washington, the richest man in the US at the time! This country was built for rich people by rich people, and any progress for humanity has come from fighting tooth and nail against the rich as they use this country to grow their wealth by slaughtering rebellious workers at home and across the globe, even today.
steele said @ 3:12pm GMT on 29th March
I'm gonna be real, dude, I don't have a lot of energy for this nowadays, but I would probably start with here: The spirit of the Constitution was to look after the interests of the people and deny absolute power. I suppose it was written in the belief of the goodwill of people. That spirit has disappeared nowadays. The bully gets his way.
Absolutely not. Like if that's where you're starting from, I can see the problem, because that's like grade school mythology. The reality is that this government was founded by a bunch of Slave Owners and Businessmen adjacent to Slave Owners, to protect their business interests. Slavery was mentioned in the early drafts of the Declaration of Independence and then removed at the behest of said Slave Owners and Northern businessman, probably because they saw the necessity of causing an uprising of poor people to revolt against the crown on their behalf. In the years prior to the Declaration, the crown was preventing people from expanding further into the continent, coming closer to banning slavery, and yes taxing the colonies.... to pay for the battles with Spain/France and put down the regular uprisings of the enslaved. Maintaining slavery on behalf of the colonies was becoming very expensive for the Crown and they were having enough of it.
After the Revolution, the US had a working government, The Confederacy. Had 14 presidents and everything. But a growing undercurrent of poor people felt that since they fought in the war to free the country from the crown, then they should all own it too. This led to Shay's Rebellion. This put the investments of all those rich people who paid for the revolutionary war at risk, so a call was put out for a Federal Convention to strengthen the Confederacy. You probably know it better as the Constitutional Convention, but that was not its original intention. It was essentially a Coup by the Federalists and they were not at all quiet about their intentions about what their purpose was and why.
Alexander Hamilton had James Madison publish the Federalists and he regularly talked about protecting the Minority of the Opulent from the tyranny of the majority (ie, poor people.)
From Federalist 51 here he talks about how the new government will prevent poor people from taking over: There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.
This challenge sound familiar? The system is designed, from the very beginning, to keep the rich in charge.
Here's Madison talking about creation of the Senate:In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability.
The Federalists, the real founders of the US Constitutional Government, did not give a fuck about anyone who wasn't rich. Priority Number 1 was Private Property. Then, their first president? George Washington, the richest man in the US at the time! This country was built for rich people by rich people, and any progress for humanity has come from fighting tooth and nail against the rich as they use this country to grow their wealth by slaughtering rebellious workers at home and across the globe, even today.
<-- Entry / Current Comment
steele said @ 3:08pm GMT on 29th March
I'm gonna be real, dude, I don't have a lot of energy for this nowadays, but I would probably start with here: The spirit of the Constitution was to look after the interests of the people and deny absolute power. I suppose it was written in the belief of the goodwill of people. That spirit has disappeared nowadays. The bully gets his way.
Absolutely not. Like if that's where you're starting from, I can see the problem, because that's like grade school mythology. The reality is that this government was founded by a bunch of Slave Owners and Businessmen adjacent to Slave Owners, to protect their business interests. Slavery was mentioned in the early drafts of the Declaration of Independence and then removed at the behest of said Slave Owners and Northern businessman, probably because they saw the necessity of causing an uprising of poor people to revolt against the crown on their behalf. In the years prior to the Declaration, the crown was preventing people from expanding further into the continent, coming closer to banning slavery, and yes taxing the colonies.... to pay for the battles with Spain/France and put down the regular uprisings of the enslaved. Maintaining slavery on behalf of the colonies was becoming very expensive for the Crown and they were having enough of it.
After the Revolution, the US had a working government, The Confederacy. Had 14 presidents and everything. But a growing undercurrent of poor people felt that since they fought in the war to free the country from the crown, then they should all own it too. This led to Shay's Rebellion. This put the investments of all those rich people who paid for the revolutionary war at risk, so a call was put out for a Federal Convention to strengthen the Confederacy. You probably know it better as the Constitutional Convention, but that was not its original intention. It was essentially a Coup by the Federalists and they were not at all quiet about their intentions about what their purpose was and why.
Alexander Hamilton had James Madison publish the Federalists and he regularly talked about protecting the Minority of the Opulent from the tyranny of the majority (ie, poor people.)
From Federalist 51 here he talks about how the new government will prevent poor people from taking over: There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.
This challenge sound familiar? The system is designed, from the very beginning, to keep the rich in charge.
Here's Madison talking about creation of the Senate:In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability.
The Federalists, the real founders of the US Constitutional Government, did not give a fuck about anyone who wasn't rich. Priority Number 1 was Private Property. Then, their first president? George Washington, the richest man in the US at the time! This country was built for rich people by rich people, and any progress for humanity has come from fighting tooth and nail against the rich as they use this country to grow their wealth by slaughtering rebellious workers at home and across the globe, even today.
[It's a Youtube with timestamp that SE doesn't like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diITRaJgRqQ]