My starter list of things I do not support:
I do not support foreign wars.
I do not support debt-based economies.
I do not support big pharma, big ag, or big energy.
I do not support govt handout programs.
I do not support politicians.
I do not support anti-family propaganda.
I do not support public education.
Principles like these don’t just resist the system, they rebuild culture
nevent1qqsva22gjztrcnd736h67l7y92ejry6hmecp6087rf60rvrnrc0mswspp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqnlps9j
I agree 💯
The last one confuses me a bit… Public education is one of the most significant creation that’s singly handedly lead to education being something reserved purely for the rich, elite, upper and ruling classes, to being something *literally* everyone can receive.
To the Founding Fathers of the United States one of the most revolutionary and core concept’s they created was the idea of a public institution that provided education to each and every person, regardless of race, gender, religion, or social class.
Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams all *strongly* fought for the creation of public schools, so that a person that grew up on a farm (who were historically left completely illiterate) could receive the same education as someone that grew up in the richest family, or the highest eschlons of society.
Without public education we might as well go back to the dark ages. When people attended church where mass was conducted in LATIN — so not only could they not understand the words spoken, but wouldn’t be able to verify them if they wanted to, since they couldn’t read the Bible.
Being anti-public education is to be anti-knowledge. Anti-learning. Believing that these things should be tightly held and kept secret by the ruling class, at the expense of the public as a whole.
I think that may have been true in the past but technology has radically changed the beed for public education. Education is at everyone’s fingertips now and costs near 0
I would zap you if I could.
Jefferson argued for public education in the counties only through 4th grade.
Both John and Samuel Adams believed there should be a strong religious component ("American Democracy is for religious [Christian] people.)
They wanted parents to pay for it by the time their children were 14.
They had not yet been introduced to Dewey-inspired progressive education.
Saying being anti-public education is anti-knowledge is absurd. Ben Franklin was almost entirely self-taught, and across the country thousands of students are educated very adequately at home.
No. It’s not. And yes, Ben Franklin HAD to be self taught, because he didn’t grow up in a rich aristocratic family.
Benjamin Franklin played a *critical* role in shaping early American public education through his advocacy, innovation, and institution-building. He emphasized instruction in English, modern languages, mathematics, science, history, and practical subjects like accounting and agriculture-preparing students for business, public service, and civic life, rather than solely for the clergy.
Franklin started the Academy of Philadelphia, which became the College of Philadelphia in 1755 and later evolved into the University of Pennsylvania. This institution was revolutionary in being independent of church and state, focused on preparing students for practical careers, and included innovative features such as teacher training and the nation’s first systematic instruction in medicine and botany.
Thomas Jefferson was a pioneering advocate for public education in the United States, believing that an informed and educated citizenry was essential for the success and preservation of democracy. He proposed a comprehensive system of free, publicly funded education for all (free) children, regardless of social class or wealth, as a means to equip citizens with the knowledge necessary to safeguard their rights and prevent tyranny.
The founding father’s effectively invented the idea of public education as we know it today.
The single most critical and important tool in creating a state that could operate independently of the church — rather than the church being the state, and arbiter of who would (or could) receive an education, and to what point.
And the creation of public educational institutions was not only one of their proudest accomplishments, it’s what created modern America.
Public education is what created a country where people came from all over the world to study at our schools, and many stay here and create everything from modern industrialization, to the internet, Apple, Microsoft, and Google.
To be against something that is such a *huge* part of the country and world we live in today is absurd.
“…focused on preparing students for practical careers…”
“…knowledge necessary to safeguard their rights and prevent tyranny”
Again, they hadn't met prosessive education. What we have is nothing like what they promoted, and if they had realized how easily public education could be corrupted by Marxism, they would have rejected the idea and left the whole thing up to families to figure out.
Franklin and the rest of the Founders worked within a defined truth framework. They couldn't imagine that materialism would change the basis of morality and that it would be so eagerly embraced by the American educational system.
If something is broken, you fix it. Not destroy it.
The value that public education has, and has always had from it’s inception, is undeniable.
The cost of it’s absence would be incalcuable.
To deny the public assured access to education leads to the very things you seem to think already exist inside a system run by well meaning, hard working educators who are democrats and republicans, left-leaning and right-leaning alike.
No one is taught to hate their race. Or their country. Or their gender. Or whatever the latest MAGA talking point is.
Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams knew one thing: a public without access to a basic education is a recipie for tyranny. It gives every advantage to the rich and powerful, and leaves the general populace illiterate, and left in the dark, easy to control, and ignorant of when their freedoms and agency over their lives is co-opted by self-interested aristocracies.
They were wrong. Public education, like all public services, becomes a tool of tyranny as the rich and organized realize they can bend it towards their own goals. All they need is money and influence to capture it.
The reality is that only a moral people can safeguard against tyranny. The only things they need for this is the ability to read and a sound moral code as the basis of their actions and interactions.
It doesn't require an elaborate public school system to ensure this happens, which is why Jefferson proposed a very limited public school experience focused on grammar.
America has been brought to the brink of ruin by its materialist public school system that has been funded by theft and led by awful people.
Families would be better off keeping their kids home and teaching them what it means to be a human being. There are all kinds of great models where this is getting done right now across the US from homeschool co-ops to online microschools.
We don't need govt schools to educate our children.
Let’s table the whole “public services” (notably controlled and regulated by… the public) are a “means of tyranny.”
It’s great if you are able and can afford to home school, or send your children to private school.
What exactly do families do that are not able, and cannot afford these things?
What happens to the children of families where both parents work day jobs, struggling to make ends meet?
What do single parents do?
Your vision of what “should be done” and what public services are is deeply flawed and myopic, at best.
You've basically made the case that public ed is a welfare and daycare program. Arguing that single parents won't have a place to put their kids is to ignore the decades-old research that says that single parent households is the single largest cause of systemic poverty in the US. Giving people this option incentives the behavior. People must be redirected back into teo parent households if we're going to break the poverty cycle. This has never been more apparent in the black community, which was thriving until the introduction of the welfare state. What difference does school make in urban areas? Most of the boys are on a path to prison even with public schools. No one in education has been able to break the cycle without substantial family support. And even then only because distinct education programs were created for a few kids with substantial private philanthropy.
You just made the case for sounding like a self-absorbed and selfish asshole without a fundamental understanding of:
A.) anyone that lives under circumstances other than your own.
2.) most basic purpose and function of a democratically controlled government, operated separate from the church.
America, and the fundamental values it was founded on are *definitely* not for you.
I recommend trying out living in a theocratic state that developed outside the effects of the reformation.
Try the Middle East. You’ll love it much more there. It’s much more your style.
Whatever I sound like to you, I look forward to the time when we are on a bitcoin standard and you cheer the govt on as it demands you give up your bitcoin to support social programs.
Meanwhile, I will be using my bitcoin to fund leaner, more efficient, locally supported educational options, which by the way, is what's going to happen regardless when the dollar becomes worthless.
Education available to everyone regardless of class is great.
Unfortunately that's really not what public education is at this point.
Education available to everyone is literally exactly what it is… for lower education anyway. Higher education should be equally as universally accessible (without burying children in debt before they have a job).
So Is it perfect? No.
Is it toxic? Not remotely.
Should it be better? Absolutely.
Would destroying it completely directly lead to throwing us back to a time where only those who could afford it could learn to read? Without a doubt.
I think the current system is pretty much beyond repair in many ways. We're not too far from the state where only those who can afford it know how to read or do basic math and the statistic are getting worse by the decade.
I'm hoping something better will emerge from the ashes. If I had young children I would keep them as far away from schools as I possibly could.
What you say about the benefits of public education is true, but out of date. Today's public schools have been taken over by the Jewish power structure and the cultural Marxists who do its bidding. They uniformly teach White students that their ancestors were evil "racists" and that open borders, sexual degeneracy and perversion, racial mixing, slaying their own children in the womb, and sexual self-mutilation and sterilization are the essence of virtue and "human rights." Jefferson and Franklin would be appalled and horrified by what these schools have become.
It’s out of date to teach basic literacy? You wouldn’t even be able to use the device you are currently on, read or write the words without public education.
If parts of it are out dated that’s not a failure of public education, least of all a reason to be “anti-public education.” It’s reason to do everything it takes to ensure our institutions continue to lead the world in free thought and innovation.
But in order to do that, it has to be universally publicly accessible.
I don't think anyone is against basic literacy. But, like thunderheads gathering on the horizon, the anger is building as we are forced to pay for public schools that turn our children against us, against their race and cultural heritage, and ultimately even against themselves. And they are run by ideologues who are almost totally unaccountable to us and absolutely and implacably committed to their subversive agenda. It is intolerable. I will not be sending my children to these brainwashing pens.
I literally didn’t understand any of this.
What?
I'll ultra-simplify it for you: Public schools have become anti-White and extremely multicultural and leftist in recent decades. Millions upon millions of people dislike that -- passionately. The politicized garbage in the classroom which the left considers mandatory, we consider intolerable. There is no healing this divide.
What?
I don’t know where you live… but.. no… none of these things happen in public schools. That is not how they operate. That is not what they are teaching… and it’s definitely not who they are run by.
They very much are publicly accountable and transparent (hint: that’s what “public” means).
Private schools? Home schooling? In those settings there is no transparency. No standards. A child can very much be taught any of those things.
But no…. This fever-dream you’ve invented is not an institution that operates in the US, or any western nation that I am aware of.
Look, I've been in the classrooms and the libraries and looked at the books and talked to the teachers. There isn't one I've found who doesn't revere Martin Luther King and teach that he was a hero. There isn't a one who questions the Establishment narrative of the World Wars. There isn't a one who doesn't support "brave" transsexuals and homosexuals and teach that these are valid "choices" for students. There isn't one who doesn't think the Old America was "racist" and "sexist" and "homophobic" and therefore profoundly bad. There isn't a one who doesn't teach that making our society multiracial is basically a moral imperative. To you, perhaps, all these things are normal and desirable, and only the evil, the wildly eccentric, or the woefully ignorant could possibly question them. If so, there is the unbridgeable divide right there. We, and we are millions, will not send our children to such schools.
… wow… that went from MAGA crazy to Proud Boy Tiki Torch March faster than Tesla on fire…
This is the point in the conversation where I bow out with a simple: “well… I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion.”
"Public" does not mean transparency here. It means that it is paid for by our taxes.
"Private" means it's paid for entirely voluntarily by people who find value in it. Transparency might vary, but no one forces you to pay for it.
You sound like one of those teachers insisting on 6yr olds choosing their own pronouns the first day of school. It would be very worried if I was forced to send my kids to your class every day. Thank god we still have other choices in this country.
If your children are against you… I can pretty much guarantee the root cause is not public education….
Or if it really is public education that turned them against you… You might want to do more self-reflection, than projection.
But as for the rest of your comment, all I can say is….
…. What?
The federal government should have nothing to do with schools. Like everything else it touches, they've turned them to shit. They are indoctrination centers at best, and ghetto prisons for children at worse. To whatever extent government needs to be involved it should be only at the most local level.
This might come as a surprise to you, but in the United States *we* are the government (for now… though it appears it’s anyone’s guess if we continue that way).
That means each and every one of us. Regardless of if you are the one voted into office, or the one voting someone into office.
So if the “federal government turns everything to shit” *we* are the ones at fault.
You.
Me.
Your friends and family.
… and so on.
Reflect on that a little bit.
I’m with you on all with an asterisk on politicians.
Just allowed “politicians” to corrupt the election process. We are supposed to elect representatives, to choose the best to lead, but instead elect those good at getting elected.
So i don’t support politicians. politicking isn’t about leading.
We cannot abdicate governing, we have to step up, family, town, city, county, state, country. all levels.
And we have to figure out how to support them and start taking back control over the levers or governmental power.
I look forward to the time when the politicians have to court us on the basis of the good their regions offer.
Until then, they must be defunded.
it’s a chicken or the egg type of deal i guess.
i really think differentiating between leaders, those who seek to serve the common good, vs politicians those who seek private goods is necessary.
if leaders don’t run, politicians win
if leaders run without support, politicians win
after i get this book over the finish line, i think that is the next goal.
writing the field manual for assaulting municipalities, turnings communities into little citadels and bastions of sound governance. then just destroying corruption with asymetrical morals and sound money
The gulf between leaders and politicans is the same as between visionaries and rent-seekers.
yeah, good connection, also a similar dynamic with cooperation vs extraction
Whatever you're writing sounds interesting.
it’s the moral analysis of the monetary system and bitcoin. Push aside all the economics, and just do the ethics, going back to Aristotle.
when you understand the ethics, you understand why the economics perform the way they do.
These are ancient ideas, easy to grasp, but will be fresh for bitcoiners and nocoiners
I'm in favor of that general conversation. I do have reservations about Aristole's ideas as he lays out in Nichomachean Ethics. My novice view is that he is primarily focused on virtues that pertaining to the polis (courage, generosity, magnaminity, justice, etc).
Personal ethics such as humility, gratitude, fortitude, love, faith, and perseverance give way to ethics that promote the highest good for the city (horizontal vs vertical).
In my barely informed view is that ehat it means to be human can only be understood in light of our relationship to God and our purpose as created beings.
He 💯 nails the “What is money” question, its nature, and outlines the essential seed of all economics in about 3 paragraphs.
and hylomorphism avoids the stupid impasses people collide into when they say “value is purely subjective” or “purely objective” in reality, it’s both
Economics grows out of ethics, because without justice no one would exchange or engage in commerce
he says money is literally the glue that binds society together. so from those necessary intersubjective connections, all economics are secondary to ethics, and these aren’t “personal ethics” but objective morals for human objects.
i’m taking probably every correct intuition you have about money, and g providing the philosophical anchor to objective reality, when our feet on planted so firmly on ontological bedrock, we can actually be persuasive to nocoiners and orange pill the masses
economic analysis will just put the masses to sleep cause you have to think.
we recognize moral terms, it’s not a calculation.
I disagree with the notion that money is the glue that binds society together. Monetary policy is downstream of morality. A clear sense of the chief end of our existence is what binds us together. And while I would disagree with Aristotle about what the summum bonum is, it is clear that a principled pursuit of the highest good is essential. But if we don't acknowledge that the summum bonum transcends our horizontal interactions (whether social, political, or economic) I'm afraid even that will be in vain.
“clear sense of the chief end”
we are saying the same thing:
Downstream of morality is the same as saying morality is primary
From your note, I think you are taking the glue analogy a little different than what is meant. that’s on me.
Both are parts of the truth and need to be combined for tbr whole.
The final end that unifies and directs our collective action is essentially the abstract, immaterial form
Money as social glue is the concrete, practical, material object
they are inseparable as a unified whole
I may have missed you saying morality is primary. If so, my bad. I look at families as the essential social unit. They are held together by covenants of blood, purposes, and moral convctions. This depends on the transcendentals. I believe that Aristotle would support this point. My issue is that he didn't give weight to God's involvement in the moral equation. Human action often has nothing to do with our interactions with one another and what is best re community thriving but rather with our relationship with the divine. The material gives way to the spiritual, which is a domain where money is irrelevant.
Maybe I'm arguing for a distinction without a difference, or for a perspective I don't really comprehend, but I don't see an acknowledgment of a supernatural conscious moral being in Aristotle's thinking.
Your spot on with with family being the atomic unit.
Society is more like a molecule, how families cohese.
Aristole fully acknowledges the necessity of a being of pure actuality to kick start existence, that’s his way of talking about God.
Aquinas bridges Aristotle’s concept of God into Catholic verbiage.
For both, morality is objective, so as God is our creator, he is also the author of morality.
You are correct in understanding that essential connection between God and morality.
Aristole wouldn’t disagree with you. Aquinas would articulate that thought in an easier way for us to understand in modern times.
I appreciate the clarification. When does the book get out there?
I finished it right before 3 weeks of travel for weddings and graduations, so when i get back, ill read it one last time with fresh eyes and deliver it to the publisher.
i found a good artist here on nostr and she is doing the cover. so things are coming together
I've been down this road with a book. only half the journey is writing the thing.
what did u write?
I wrote a hero's journey for my son. It started as a short story and turned into a 300 page beast. The editing was the worst part. I effectively rewrote it three times. I'd link it, but it would dox me.
understand the concern.
that’s really cool. when you have a reason to write, it just flows
i was thinking about my girls as a motivation.
i would literally rather die than pass this monetary nightmare on to them as their inheritance
I can’t describe the flow state of writing when it’s flowing any other way than a spiritual out of body experience.
Once I started it, the story just kept coming. I had an idea how it was going to end, but I didn't know how my characters would get there. It was fun seeing it happen. I actually teared up at the end as I wrote the two main characters making peace with one another and being satisfied with what they had accomplished together. It was a resolution my son needed to see.
book is done, traveling for a bunch of weddings and graduations, so giving my self some time away from it, when i get back will read it one last time with fresh eyes before delivering it to the publisher
Are we the same person?
Interesting thought. Maybe you should read my starter list of things I support before drawing any conclusions.
Same Same 🤝🗽
