But this bias is blinding us. I think it is more dangerous than ever. We need to restore a consciousness-raising era which can bloom, and help us to recognize each other again - as part of the same union. We need new motivations to see the potential value of an opposing perspective - we need this to restore the broken trust between us as Americans.
Polarized rhetoric and ideological arguments are happening 24/7. It seems like the bane of our existence to reject each other. Everyone believes their reasons are justified. But what I don’t see very much of, are the voices looking to unite.
As we tip-toe around “threat of civil war”, assassination attempts have occurred resulting in loss of life… there is a feeling that our disgreements have left a permanent wedge. We’re scarred now. These biases we maintain - can wreak havoc on relationships, and deliver a corrosive insult to our dignity and composure as free citizens. There’s a myth that we are the model for the world - so it is crucially important we act like it.
I’m not asking anyone to change their mind, but I do think we all need a new model for civility, leading us - and setting a new precedent for how we all behave and communicate.
Proposal:
Can we Americans unite by accepting same interpretations for what is “chaos” - what is “evil” - what is “tyranny” - what is “tragedy” ?
These existential forces dictate our perspective at the root of our psyche. For us to see eye to eye, and end this tribalism, we need to find a way to mutually agree on the literal meanings of universal, core phenomena that govern our human experience in the natural world. Let’s nurture a more simplistic and humble culture, where we actually enjoy relying on each other.
Until then…I think we carry on tempting fate belligerently, until our children will find themselves buried under piles of shrapnel from our ruthless vitriol and fear-mongering: leaving them senseless and furious, and decaying from our failures to establish a true patriotic, united community.
Sounds good, “end tribalism”, there’s too many fundamental differences in today’s Society. One example, amongst many, would be “abortion”. There’s a large segment of the population that believes it’s a “women’s right” to be able to have an abortion, there’s another large segment of the population which believes “abortion is murder”. These are blatantly polar opposites, there’s no reconciling that. It’s far more like tribalism is eliminated once one tribe eliminates the other tribe. This is essentially how humans have existed in all of recorded history. I understand “end tribalism” sounds nice, but so does "end homelessness "/“end poverty”/“end suffering”/“end War” and the list could go on and on.
You make good points. Thank you for the feedback
In this context - we can assign “tribalism” to the ideological warfare happening in our speech and attitude to each other.
So, I think this really becomes a philosophical debate, which highlights our most basic mentality towards ourselves as a single community.
I want to lift it out of it’s rhetorical form, and make this thread about brainstorming ways to take action on this, since solutions are not obvious. It’s somewhat of a thought-experiment, but I think a necessary conversation.
For example, I wonder, can we mutually accept “America First” values? Can we all feel patriotic for the same reasons? How do we do this?
Accomplishing the task of limiting or banning the influence of global organizations like the WEF, WHO, and UN from making decisions about our country will require a multi-step approach, involving both political action and public engagement. Here are some key strategies:
Elect Representatives Who Support National Sovereignty
The most direct way to achieve this is by electing leaders who prioritize national sovereignty over global influence. These officials must be clear in their opposition to allowing unelected bodies to have a say in domestic policies. Public awareness campaigns and grassroots movements can help promote candidates who take a stand on this issue.
Legislation to Restrict Foreign Influence
Congress should pass laws that explicitly limit or ban the ability of organizations like the WEF, WHO, and UN from influencing American policies or enforcing mandates. This could include blocking the funding of these organizations with taxpayer dollars and preventing them from holding decision-making authority over national issues, especially those involving healthcare, economics, or domestic law.
Review and Amend International Agreements
The U.S. is part of many international agreements and treaties, some of which allow external organizations to influence domestic policies. A thorough review of these agreements is essential. Amend or withdraw from any treaties that cede too much control to global bodies or compromise national sovereignty.
Limit UN Presence on U.S. Soil
The U.S. could take steps to limit the physical presence and activities of the United Nations within its borders. This could include re-evaluating the privileges afforded to UN headquarters in New York, imposing stricter limits on UN operations, and possibly relocating its headquarters out of the U.S. altogether.
Increased Transparency and Accountability
Any engagement with global organizations must be transparent, with clear accountability to the public. Elected officials should be required to disclose their involvement with organizations like the WEF and WHO, including any financial or policy ties. Citizens should be informed of how these entities influence policies that affect their lives.
Public Awareness and Activism
A critical part of reducing foreign influence is ensuring the public understands what’s at stake. Grassroots movements, media campaigns, and public petitions can raise awareness about how these global organizations influence national policies. By building a strong public opposition, we can pressure lawmakers to prioritize national interests over global agendas.
Withdrawal from WHO and WEF
The U.S. could consider formally withdrawing from the WHO and limiting ties with the WEF. This would mean no longer providing funding, support, or participation in key decision-making forums that impact domestic policy. The U.S. can still collaborate on a bilateral level with other countries, without ceding authority to international organizations.
Reaffirm Constitutional Rights
Any foreign influence that violates or threatens constitutional rights must be met with strong legal challenges. Courts can play a role in striking down mandates or policies imposed by global organizations if they infringe on the Constitution.
By implementing these strategies, we can protect our sovereignty, ensure that decisions are made by elected officials accountable to the people, and prevent global entities from having undue influence over the future of the United States.
Thank you for your well thought-out arguments and for starting this discussion.
While I fully support the spirit of anti-discrimination laws in their existing format, I think these laws have grown to have the opposite effect of their intended purpose. At this point in time, all of the “protected classes” have grown to cover nearly every category except one: white men, especially Christian men. At that point, it becomes a weaponized tool to persecute and prosecute a rapidly shrinking minority under the rules that were made when they were mostly in the majority, and held the majority of powerful positions and wealth. Those days are long gone.
Based on your post regarding Goldwater’s position, I think we might need to reassess how protected classes are determined, and re-think how private organizations can decide who should be hired and/or served by by these 100% privately-funded and established interests.
It could be argued that any organization that receives public funding of any kind should be required to be non-discriminatory in every aspect, but a fully private organization can choose to be exclusive, if that is relevant to their purpose (BET, the Girl/Boy Scouts, women’s organizations, etc., if fully private, would be a good example).
This goes for crimes, too. It is horribly discriminatory and completely unethical when one crime victim gets better representation if the crime can be considered a “hate crime,” while another victim of the same exact crime might never see justice.
We should eliminate protected classes and instead protect all people from discrimination, irrespective of their allotted designation.
