Pirate Television: Morris Berman - Why America Failed

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzgY20d2MtU[/youtube]

What does everyone think about what he is saying? Personally, I think he is spot on about American culture. I think our government is the only the symptom of the true problem that exists. I believe our culture and our standards is the problem. Personally, I've come to the same conclusion that Dr. Berman has come to. I do not believe we can do anything about our decline.

I've put forth questions that challenge the culture in of itself in various forums including yahoo answers. I receive the same result which is either I am cursed out, told I am asking nonsensical questions or ignored. If I am given answers, the answers are just restatement of the belief(s) and that I must just accept the beliefs. The beliefs are just accepted without question, further reservation and further analysis. There is no detailed analysis of where some of these beliefs may lead and the validity behind these beliefs. In fact, it is like some people do not even realize I'm even challenging the culture whatsoever or just simply do not care. One inconsistent belief I see is one has to conform to extreme individuality and this extreme internal locus of control. It is almost cultish in a way.

This is why I believe Mr. Berman is correct this. It is like the culture and the standards are never open to question and examination. Why is America never wrong? Why are those who have problems in America are always the one with the problem? Does this mean America, its' standards, values and beliefs are the epitome of perfection? I do not believe they are. I do not believe any society is perfect but the culture in America acts like we are when we are not. Can an individual in a given society ever be correct and the whole of a given society ever be wrong and the culture in itself is maladjusted, ill and sick?

Pirate television? I have no idea what that is, but I've read two of Berman's books, so I can comment on what I think of him based on them, if that's okay.

I agree 100% with his descriptive narrative regarding the symptoms of decline that are all around us, indeed, are right under our collective noses. What I found most interesting is that in what he had to say you could find things to irritate, annoy and offend everybody, from one end of the political spectrum to the other. Which is why the decline he posits is at least as likely to happen as not: nobody will buy into reversing current trends, and there's a substantial minority of people who are not only interested in keeping the status quo in these matters, but in also accelerating things. Can't argue with any of that.

But where I part company with him is on the deterministic nature of his arguments and conclusions. He seems to think that because he's seeing what others are unwilling to see -- and as noted I can't argue much with him there -- he's also correct in the conclusions he's drawing. That I don't see. The future has a funny way of failing to conform with our expectations, both in good and bad ways. And I just can't swallow the neo-Toynbeean or neo-Spenglerian tone he took in both books. The future might be every bit as bad as he's predicting; hell, it might be worse. But I would submit that he does not make an ultimately satisfying case that' that's how things will shake out. And to cloak yourself with such an air of inevitability seems to me to smack of an almost religious sense of your own infallibility.

I will say that I'm a bit impressed that he takes himself seriously enough to have decamped off to Mexico. That's something people like James Howard Kunstler, who hoes many of the same rows as Berman, seems to have no interest in doing.

I had to read your response a few times to understand what you were saying. What you're saying is that he has a high probability of being correct but is not absolute. Am I correct in your assessment of what he is saying?

As an American, I was surprised about the results of the poll on world peace. Some Americans are coming to realize that the many other countries don't like us. I didn't realize it was to that extent. And for that reason. I bet very, very few Americans could explain that the reason other countries don't like us is because they see us as a threat because of our fondness for war. I think Berman's spot on about the culture and that we are the problem. I do have hope for America, though, even if it's a fool's hope.

Of course people in a lot of countries don't like us. We have a pot to piss in.

Most people in want wish to impoverish their neighbors rather than work hard to improve their lot.

ruveyn

Where do you get this idea from? No one wants to impoverish anyone. If you truthfully believe this then I have to ask how much many dirty sneakers have you been sniffing? So, you're telling me that poor and destitute people are jealous and envious of those who supposedly worked hard and want to bring those who worked hard down? How do you derive this crazy and insane idea? What are your premises for this?

You're proving to me that Dr. Berman is right more and more.

What can I truthfully say to this? Okay, I have my answer now. Is this what American people truthfully think?

What kind of bumble headed nonsense is this????

Actually, yes, people do think like this. Take a look at Germany, post-Versailles. A large part of the Anti-Semitism of the Nazi era was that the Jews were relatively welathy, unlike the Germans who were permitted no industry at all. The jealousy of the German drove National Socialism. I read a medieval poem once criticizing the Church because while the author and his ilk toiled in the fields, the priests and nuns (who the author portrayed as lovers to the priests) liked in the lap of luxury, and never worked a day in their lives. He suggested that they have the priests killed so that the peasants can become priests.

Everybody has this idea that they are more deserving. Many's the time I've listened into a conversation along these lines. "He's just a rich ****, I could run this company better than he could," or, hell, "Workers of the World, unite!"

The anarchists in Catalonia didn't send their ex-bosses to concentration camps, or spread poverty.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUig0lFHDDw[/youtube]

All I have to say is wow!

First, it is called envy not jealously.

With Germany, post-Versailles, I don't agree. The german were on the brink of starvation. This was due to the harsh treatment that came about because of the Versailles treaty. There was no envy here. Hitler capitalized on this and had a scapegoat.

How did the farmers get to their depraved state.



This is irrelevant to my point. It doesn't matter if a person feels he is more deserving or not. If a person needs help and looks like they do a person should out of good conscious, decency and morality should help uplift them because it is just and right. They feel this way. There is no force here. There is no robbing from peter to give to Paul. There is no workers of the world unite.

What is it that you and reuven are trying to convey? Are you saying that one should not desire to improve his lot whatsoever? Should one not desire a job at all or the knowledge that everyone else has on how to obtain a job? Let's say one is on social security, should one be content to remain on social security and not desire to improve his station in life whatsoever? What the heck kind of logical reasoning is this? Why isn't one allowed to seek help from others whatsoever?

The more I go down the rabbit hole the more bizarre and twisted all of this becomes. Dr. Berman is so right about the things he has told me. America is a madhouse.

We now live in a nation where,
doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice,
universities destroy knowledge,
governments destroy freedom,
the press destroys information, religion destroys morals,
and our banks destroy the economy.”

--Chris Hedges

Can anyone explain the Epistemology and metaphysics of today's American beliefs, standards and culture? Can anyone explain in detail why I am wrong in the things that I state? The Epistemology and metaphysics of American beliefs, standards and culture makes no sense to me.

What is the correct thinking that one should have and why?

No, one should most definitely improve his lot. Bully to those that do. However, the most common pastime in this country is to take cheap shots at the man on top, rather than respecting him and lauding him as a great man for what he's accomplished.

And what's this about American beliefs? We have some 314 Million people, and each one believes differently. The most basic of "American" beliefs, though there are fringers who disagree, is the rule of law is good, capitalism is good (but not laissez-faire, no Slaves or RPGs in the supermarket, thanks), that a man's duty is to make his own way, and that other than taxes, military service, and laws, the government can't interfere in the day-to-dayness of your life.

Apply that to your question as you like.

You've clarified further and I appreciate that. There are issues that I do have. I agree with things you say but only to certain extents.

I will apply this to myself only. I am not taking cheap shots at the man on top and I do respect them or at least some of them. The first issue I have and this brings me great fear. Should a person be a allowed to earn his way to absolute power with no constraints on him. We live in a finite 3-D space with finite amount of resources. Should one person or a group of people allow most or all of the set amount of resources and space that exists? I do not think so and I do not agree that one should be able to earn his way to absolute power whom we never elected nor gave consent to be governed. This is my issue with what is going on today.

There is no envy or hatred of those who are on top on my part. Should one person be allowed to earn and own all of the gold of the world? Like Lord Acton said "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. With respect to property rights, I only agree with it to a certain extent.

You've mentioned the rule of law. If a man is allowed to earn absolute power with no checks and balances do we not destroy the rule of law? In essence, I see us going back to the divine right of kings. This is my first issue.



I disagree with this. This is not every man for himself. What if a person is not able to make his own way? This is a major core tenet of American society I have complete objections to. This every man for himself is a zero sum game and I believe we will all lose this game in the end. I go by this tenet instead laid for by my lord and savior Jesus Christ: http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/10-24.htm

Christians ignore these doctrines today and choose to follow after cultural traditions which seem to go against the core tenets of Jesus Christ. IMHO, American Christians have bastardized the bible to justify their own selfishness. Yes, it is true that if one does not work he shall not eat. This is so true but is only a part of what is true.

It is a man's duty to help others make their way especially if they are able to. I do not mean communism or socialism which involves the law and the force of a gun. I mean that one should be moved to do this. This is what I see as the rot of American culture. Americans claim to be Christian but are so in name only.

OP:

I agree with so much of what you say and have for my entire life. It's interesting since I also have Asian heritage and my mom raised me very traditionally Japanese so therefore I have a very Eastern mindset. I grew up here in States so I have seen both points of view. I spent a considerable amount of time with an Indian family as well and stayed with them in Mumbai for some time. I've always reached out to people all over the world in order to understand their points of view and I can say even after all these years, the American "way" seems utterly foreign to me and so wrong.

I am disabled and no longer able to work. I spent my ENTIRE LIFE trying to get to the point where I could. I've tried and tried; pushed myself past a reasonable amount of suffering in order to do so, but cannot anymore. I'm horribly afraid because I have one family member alive who doesn't have the resources to help me and I know from experience that no one else will be interested in helping me because, in America, somehow being disabled is all one's own fault and one is just an invisible member of society who doesn't have a right to a decent living.

Because, according to capitalism, we are worthless human beings. I'm sure many people would rather we were euthanized so we wouldn't use money for necessities such as medicaid. No one will come out and say that directly, but it's very obvious that's how people feel.

I agree that we live in a world of limited resources. Yet, the essence of capitalism is to find a demand, and provide a supply. This does lead to practices that provide a limited return and a great deal of damage, such as strip mining, slavery, pretty much anything the energy industry has ever done. However, this also leads to progress. Let's look at oil, the ultimate limited resources. As we see the limitations of oil, we find other industries in an effort to remain competitive. The capitalist thing to do would be to recognize the limitations of oil, and the fact that the market has been pretty effectively cornered, and for the oil companies to move into other more sustainable and potentially more profitable fields, such as solar. Solar is effectively fusion, and with enough technological advancement, we can find a limitless source of energy. The profit is in who operates the biggest solar plants. That is adaptation the essence of capitalism. Another example is GMOs. They get a lot of flak, but with enough research and improvement, they could solve the world's hunger problem. They've already massively increased the global food reserves.

To be sure, the problem of limited resources won't be solved by Monsanto or Exxon. It'll be solved by the competitor, the one who desperately seeks a new and better product to place themselves on the top of the heap. Then someone else will come along to displace them. That's adaptation, the unique ability of competition to improve the world by trying to own more and make more money. So, yes, everyone's trying to seize ownership of the most resources, but they never achieve it, because more resources become available as competition drives progress.



I agree that Christians, not just in America, but everywhere are christian in name only. Christianity, as a governmental system, would lead to no progress whatsoever, and for this reason, Christianity is unworkable as a lifestyle in any world where you are expected to compete. However, there are systems in place. The lifestyle demanded is unworkable in the world at large. This is why monasteries, churches, etc. exist. You can devote your life to Christ, and the laypeople support you, not because they must, but because they want to.

A man, outside of this system, must make his own way. He must constantly be striving to improve. Even in monasteries, you strive to improve your understanding of God and his word. There are those who are incapable, and we have set up systems, just like monasteries, to aid them. This is the milk of human kindness, and it is as Christian as can be. A man works, then sacrifices a portion of his labor, through taxation, to support the nation and it's people who can't support themselves. The quality of life among the poorest American would make many of the wealthier Africans green. Many chafe against this, but the fact is, it's the only workable system. Poverty destroys an economy. So we support them. We also expect them to use that aid to better themselves, to go to school, to get treatment, whatever, but to find a way that later, they or their children can work and can contribute.

Another point is how competition raises the standard of living for everyone. Take globalization. The American workers are being paid peanuts, so the organize unions. They get what they need to live, but keep pushing, until the company can't pay their wage, so the company goes overseas. The people there get paid peanuts, until they organize, then they demand too much, and the company moves. Eventually, the company has nowhere left to run, wages balance worldwide, and equality reigns. Meanwhile, the free trade and spread of corporations has introduced foreign ideas, such as free speech, freedom of religion, etc., and this strengthens the bond between peoples, breaks down walls, and, as we see in the West, basically puts a stop to wars. This is actually a rather Christian endgame, no?

No one will ever hold all the resources, because as much as they try, more become available. It's basically Sisyphus.

Oh cruel capitalistic industry! Now we live into our mid seventies instead of dying mostly before the age of 65.

fueledbycoffee, this is so well written, coherent and logical. This is the type of thing I have been asking for. I do see where you are coming from and it does make a lot of sense by the way you have written it. I wish more people would write in a more logical way and explain these concepts to me instead of telling me one line which make no sense to me.

In a way, your concept is similar to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. A book called The Time Ships includes the concepts of Gödel's incompleteness Theorems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Ships

I would feel more comfortable if we were able to colonize space and travel from planet to planet as easy as it is to fly from continent to continent on our planet. I wish NTs would explain concepts a lot better than they do like you did.

I would not want Christanity as a governmental system.



This is only part of it. I will give you an example. By showing me the logic of the American belief system and the way of thinking you've provided me some aid to me already. I appreciate that. I will say this. There are times one needs help to improve himself. Part of it is not only understand what he must do but understanding the underlying reasoning. If a person has erroneous thoughts more than likely he will do actions based upon these thoughts.

I will give you an example from my personal life. My decisions in my life were based upon certain assumptions which were wrong. I've had to do a lot of research already to see where I went wrong. I had certain assumptions about the workplace which apparently were wrong especially Information Technology. I could not get a job in IT because I did not and still do not understand what I was supposed to do and still do to obtain one. I've done tons of research and a lot of it is vague and reads like Greek.


I even tried to go outside of IT and tried to work at Wal-Mart but could not. I could not make heads or tails of some of the questions on the personality test(s). I remember trying to apply to staples for a position there but again I ran into the problems of the personality tests. I didn't understand some of the questions and I do not understand the underlying structure to them.

The tests have strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree. The structure makes no logical sense whatsoever. Here is why.

In logic we have
a. All a are b.
b. Some a are b.
c. No a are b.

By implication if some a are b then some a are not b. This presents issues.

If I strongly agree or disagree it does not mean I absolutely agree or disagree. I could agree with something 99% which leaves 1% disagreement and vice versa. If I have some agreement then by implication I will have some disagreement. Neutral means that it is balanced which means 50% agreement and 50% disagreement. Is neutral a special form of the concept of some which means my agreement levels and disagreement levels are evened out?

This is one reason I don't understand the personality test and why I am on SSDI.

They asked me a question on one of these tests if I believed that life was unfair. Again, what were they asking me? I didn't understand this question whatsoever.

The best definitions that seem to fit the term fair is

a. proper under the rules
b. free from bias, dishonesty or prejudice.

"life is not fair" is touted as a rule of the world. How can this rule exist if life has no rules? By the nature of this semantic paradox then based upon logic then why is it not safe to say that "It is not true that life is not fair." If this is turned around then life is only sometimes fair which implies that life is sometimes not fair.

Why unfairness of life always considered a negative thing if it allows for mercy to be granted. If life was fair wouldn't life be strictly be machine like and rule based? This means if a cop has to break procedure to save a person's life then the cop would be wrong to do something because it violated procedure. Wouldn't it be merciful to give the cop clemency for breaking the procedural rule? Is mercy a type of fairness? Is unfairness a form of fairness? Do you see where I am confused in all of this and why I could not answer this question whatsoever?

Another thing is I'm always told that one can't start at the top I must start at the bottom. Where is the bottom? What is the structural hierarchy of the workplace? This is why I am collecting SSDI today. I can't start something if I do not have a fundamental understanding of what one is supposed to do, how and why. If I am to be productive I need major help to do so that is provided by others out of the kindness of their own hearts and without resentment. Without that I am in a creek without a paddle.

The thing is though when I have asked for it I'm told these one liners which tell me nothing. Telling me to have a positive attitude or life is not fair tells me absolutely zero. Telling me that no one gets a free lunch in life tells me absolutely zero.

I have tried to go to various places like voc rehab and they admitted after four weeks of being with them and worktec that they could not help me. They recommended the autism center in which each session is $100.00 per hour. I only get 1 hour every two weeks. I quit going because we couldn't afford it anymore.

Without major instruction as to how society works, why it works this, help and compassion from others I see no possible way I can succeed in America in any way, shape or form. I have been promised things and have received s**t on sewer delivery.

There are others such as myself who need help and are not getting it because of this pull yourself by your bootstraps mentality. The truth is without major instruction and help I literally can not do it. There is no negativity here. This is fact. This is why I have to challenge certain beliefs and those who have them. This is my motivation as to why I have to challenge societal standards.

Telling me to change my attitude will change nothing because it is vapid and devoid of substance.

You forgot
d: some a are not b

That are the 4 kinds of categorical propositions and they form the basis of term logic which is the kind of logic that Aristotle produced in The Organon.