The Reason For Wars

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: The Reason For Wars

Post by Belindi »

Ormond wrote:
Steve3007 wrote:We create the dividing line ourselves and place it where we choose.
I am happy to join you in riding this hobby horse.
Does Ormond refer to this horse's being untrained and untrainable? Because despite the largish component of interpretation there is actually some unbiased scientific evidence.

-- Updated January 24th, 2017, 3:33 am to add the following --

Gordon wrote:
I agree men are not chimpanzees, my idea was to try and illustrate that they are distinct from the female of their own species, and potentially have an existence that has been defined by their evolution, to fit them for a distinct role tailored for their species survival.
The same argument from culture applies. Men aren't simply sexually defined but are defined by gender typing which is cultural. Women likewise, and even in present times the woman gender is still culturally defined to the disadvantage of women.

I claimed that human behaviour is more, or at least much,influenced by culture compared with genes, however for that (cultural)reason I agree with Gordon that human males are generally aggressive, more so than human females notwithstanding the few recorded exceptions. The politically extreme Right pictures liberals as if they were castrated by the main stream mores which is why the extreme Right seem to be hankering after the good old days when men were men and women were women. One lurid example of the latter attitude was a man at the Inauguration who , interviewed for television, claimed no more than that Mr Trump was "an alpha male".
User avatar
Ormond
Posts: 932
Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm

Re: The Reason For Wars

Post by Ormond »

Belindi wrote:Men aren't simply sexually defined but are defined by gender typing which is cultural.
It's true that culture plays a role in shaping men in general, but stating that does little to address the problem of wars. Many or most men can be civilized to some degree by the processes of culture, on this we agree. But regrettably, these processes have never demonstrated that they can tame violent men, and they have a pretty limited effect upon the submerged violence lurking in most men. When the truly violent men sound the bugles for their next war, a great many regular men answer the call.

The sexually defined aspects of men have been generated over millions of year, extending back way before we were even human. The influence of civilizing cultural forces are at best thousands of years old, and as we all know, such forces have only modest impact.

If we had millions of more years to edit the male gender it does seem possible it might be bent in a more peaceful direction. But thanks to the knowledge explosion we don't have millions of years, or thousands of years, or centuries, or maybe even decades. The whole ball game could come crashing down next Tuesday.

The moral of this story is probably that the knowledge explosion is in the process of ripping away whatever theories and conclusions we've become attached to. In an era dominated by an accelerating rate of change, by the time any theory earns sufficient authority to gain wide acceptance, it's probably on the verge of being out of date, no longer relevant.

As example, take my theory of getting rid of all men. Even such radical surgery would not solve the problem forever. If the knowledge explosion is not somehow tamed and brought under control, then eventually we'll reach the point where just a few women, maybe even just one, could bring civilization crashing down.

Please reflect carefully on the concepts of "exponential growth" and "accelerating rate of change". Think of a car that starts at 5mph, and then begins speeding up. The faster the car goes, the faster it can go even faster. If we don't understand the revolutionary nature of such forces then we'll continue to think status quo solutions left over from the 19th century are sufficient.
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: The Reason For Wars

Post by Belindi »

Ormond wrote:
The sexually defined aspects of men have been generated over millions of year, extending back way before we were even human. The influence of civilizing cultural forces are at best thousands of years old, and as we all know, such forces have only modest impact.

If we had millions of more years to edit the male gender it does seem possible it might be bent in a more peaceful direction. But thanks to the knowledge explosion we don't have millions of years, or thousands of years, or centuries, or maybe even decades. The whole ball game could come crashing down next Tuesday.
I don't belittle the effect of genetic inheritance on human males, nor that of mood swings, or aggressive personality types. I think all of those exist.

But it doesn't take millions of years to change culturally induced behaviours and beliefs. For instance when African slaves were imported to work the Southern cotton fields the owners very soon adapted their morals in order to feel entitled to own slaves. Then when there was American legislation and law enforcement against slavery it took a few decades for most normal Southern males to become compliant with the law and the newer morality.

Similarly with South African Apartheid, it seems entirely normal now to have black Africans in the administation. Etc.

Human males are plastic in their natures . The plasticity of humans is probably a big factor in the success of the human species
User avatar
Ormond
Posts: 932
Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm

Re: The Reason For Wars

Post by Ormond »

Belindi wrote:Human males are plastic in their natures.
Then why has no society in history succeeded in changing or controlling violent men? If you are proposing that this is possible, then please tell us how, and when you predict the job will be complete.

I propose that Gordon and yourself, this thread in general, and our society at large, are all simply ignoring evidence which is found to be inconvenient. As example, observe how the following has been repeatedly stated, and repeatedly ignored.
Please reflect carefully on the concepts of "exponential growth" and "accelerating rate of change".
It's not just you, or our fellow members here, but a society wide group think. It seems no one, no matter how expert, is willing to think through the consequences of giving ourselves ever more power at ever faster rates.
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
Gordon975
Posts: 101
Joined: December 9th, 2014, 6:51 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: The Reason For Wars

Post by Gordon975 »

Ormand Wrote:
How will the species continue to evolve if violent men destroy the species?
Your concerns about the violence of men halting their evolution, is a noble one, but there are other concerns that are more likely to lead to our demise in the not to distant future, if we cannot work together to prevent it.

It is the evolution of all life that matters, not just the evolution of human life, we may with the human advanced intellect position ourselves in a self deluded position of supremacy over other life, however we are just a species like all others, and our real forces of destruction have probably already been unleashed, not against ourselves but against other life forms, many of which could become extinct. With the destruction of other life forms will at some point come our own, unless our perception of the problem changes.
The evolutionary path of life to fit it for its environment will continue long after records of the human species and its "achievements" have decayed into dust and blown away, and our evolution via intellect will be forgotten.

Our hope may be that an attack of one society on another will be impeded by the realization that the application of total war, would mean the destruction of everything that could be gained by pursuing it, such as cultural supremacy over the other society and its wealth, and as I have suggested before war relies on people to execute the orders to enable it, with the proper education people would not exist prepared to carry out the tasks needed. We should always be prepared to defend our culture from what we see as other misguided ones, but at the same time allow them to pursue their own agenda within their sphere of influence and so evolve through experience without interference.
Belindi Wrote
Men aren't simply sexually defined but are defined by gender typing which is cultural. Women likewise, and even in present times the woman gender is still culturally defined to the disadvantage of women.

To test your hypothesis we would need to remove education from the human intellect along with speech and then observe what happened. It is I think probable by doing this we would observe that each human is equipped with a basic conscience which would affect behaviour, that in turn would then be conditioned to fit with the conditions of the environment whatever they were. Animals manage to survive well in this way without an educated intellect. It is very difficult to be able to determine how conditioned by education and speech our intellect is, and how well it can override conscience and presumably it varies from one individual to another.

To suggest, "gender is still culturally defined to the disadvantage of women." Is perhaps easy to beleive but from my observations I would say that within partnerships between male and female, the woman always has an equal and usually superior role to play, and as individuals we often feel persecuted just because we feel and perceive we are different.

Belindi Wrote
I agree with Gordon that human males are generally aggressive, more so than human females notwithstanding the few recorded exceptions
Violence within our societies from men is generally under control, and I think rare, but always well publicised, and from my personal experience I have never witnessed any, except perhaps when at school many years ago. The "civilised" cultures to which we belong, encourages popular entertainment that portrays gratuitous violence, they also support within the application and conditions of their penal institutions a culture of revenge rather than reform, and the US still retains a death penalty which sets an example of barbarity which is then often mirrored in the society which condones it.

My subject here is that of the reason for war, and my conjecture the human male accepts the concept of war, and will volunteer to serve in an army because it is part of the natural survival strategy that has been passed on as the result of evolution via reproductive natural selection.

The male of the human species has, via conscience, had its behaviour effected at an intellectual level and conditioned, to naturally defend the females of their perceived group, and in turn try and compete for the females of "rival" groups, many defensive walls have been built by men, based on this belief, possibly rooted in the requirements of reproductive natural selection from a primitive human past. One strategy for achieving peace between societies may be to highlight our common needs, make everyone realise there is more that unites us than divides us, and make us all feel part of one world wide society and culture.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: The Reason For Wars

Post by Belindi »

Gordon wrote:
To test your hypothesis we would need to remove education from the human intellect along with speech and then observe what happened.
Formal "Education" is a one part of acculturation but is not the only part , and for the most of man's there was no formal education at all. Cultures of belief and practice have however never been lacking from man's condition. As a matter of fact other animals too have cultures which are passed to the young notably by their dam but also by all significant others in the animal society.

It would be immoral to experiment on human young by removing them from all cultural influence by which I mean the company, example and instruction of others in the community. We can well imagine how absolutely helpless someone would be who had never been in the company of others of his kind. In fact, there have been feral children who have been reared by apes or wolves and who have been helpless in a human society.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: The Reason For Wars

Post by LuckyR »

Ormond wrote:
Belindi wrote:Men aren't simply sexually defined but are defined by gender typing which is cultural.
It's true that culture plays a role in shaping men in general, but stating that does little to address the problem of wars. Many or most men can be civilized to some degree by the processes of culture, on this we agree. But regrettably, these processes have never demonstrated that they can tame violent men, and they have a pretty limited effect upon the submerged violence lurking in most men. When the truly violent men sound the bugles for their next war, a great many regular men answer the call.

The sexually defined aspects of men have been generated over millions of year, extending back way before we were even human. The influence of civilizing cultural forces are at best thousands of years old, and as we all know, such forces have only modest impact.

If we had millions of more years to edit the male gender it does seem possible it might be bent in a more peaceful direction. But thanks to the knowledge explosion we don't have millions of years, or thousands of years, or centuries, or maybe even decades. The whole ball game could come crashing down next Tuesday.

The moral of this story is probably that the knowledge explosion is in the process of ripping away whatever theories and conclusions we've become attached to. In an era dominated by an accelerating rate of change, by the time any theory earns sufficient authority to gain wide acceptance, it's probably on the verge of being out of date, no longer relevant.

As example, take my theory of getting rid of all men. Even such radical surgery would not solve the problem forever. If the knowledge explosion is not somehow tamed and brought under control, then eventually we'll reach the point where just a few women, maybe even just one, could bring civilization crashing down.

Please reflect carefully on the concepts of "exponential growth" and "accelerating rate of change". Think of a car that starts at 5mph, and then begins speeding up. The faster the car goes, the faster it can go even faster. If we don't understand the revolutionary nature of such forces then we'll continue to think status quo solutions left over from the 19th century are sufficient.
Sounds Ok in theory but in practice violence is going down, not up. When coupled with technology making violence more efficient, this is a double decrease in per person (male if you will) violence. There just isn't any "there" there.
"As usual... it depends."
Gordon975
Posts: 101
Joined: December 9th, 2014, 6:51 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: The Reason For Wars

Post by Gordon975 »

Belindy Wrote:
Human males are plastic in their natures . The plasticity of humans is probably a big factor in the success of the human species
Human males are plastic in nature, and this is very much the reason for the success of the human species, but perhaps that plasticity has its limits, and those limits are arrived at when intellectual thought resulting in a logical adjustment to society is at odds with basic instincts, resulting from reproductive natural selection.
Belindy Wrote:
Other animals too have cultures which are passed to the young notably by their dam but also
by all significant others in the animal society.
This is completely true, the most important education that any human receives comes from their mother.
Belindy Wrote:

in reply to - 'To test your hypothesis we would need to remove education from the human intellect along with speech and then observe what happened.'
It would be immoral to experiment on human young by removing them from all cultural influence
I agree, my suggestion was hypothetical and did not intend that such a thing should ever be tried.
Luckyr wrote:
In practice violence is going down, not up. When coupled with technology making violence more efficient, this is a double decrease in per person (male if you will) violence. There just isn't any there.
What you highlight is perhaps the strange anomaly that is war. One on one the males of our species generally get on well together, cooperate and have fun in their lives, but under certain conditions will band together in a group set on killing the members of another one. At an intellectual level this makes very little sense. When we praise killing an enemy, and reward a successful killer with acclimation, medals and fame, while at the same time endorsing the execution of men engaged in male on male violence, resulting in murder, it makes even less sense.
Perhaps war and its execution is outside the bounds of intellectual reasoning, and vary much controlled by more basic underlying instincts.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: The Reason For Wars

Post by Belindi »

Gordon wrote:
Human males are plastic in nature, and this is very much the reason for the success of the human species, but perhaps that plasticity has its limits, and those limits are arrived at when intellectual thought resulting in a logical adjustment to society is at odds with basic instincts, resulting from reproductive natural selection.
I agree with the spirit of what you say here but my point was that over the whole of man's past we cannot blame male aggressive basic instincts for wars. This is because natural selection hardly applies to human societies which have artificially selected traits through cultures of belief in what a powerful male ought to be.

One of the effects of cultures of belief is that the gentle self -effacing man has been generally discredited in favour of aggressive conquerors who, society has decided, get all the perks, while the gentle nurturing man goes to the bottom of the heap, and tends not to survive.

We agree that other animals have cultures that are transmitted from one generation to the following one. However animals' cultures are so different from human cultures in degree of influencing behaviour that we humans reproduce ourselves as if we are artificially- bred like domestic animals.

When I said that human males were plastic in nature I did not mean that they adjust themselves compliantly to society. I meant that the nature of human males is not fixed by natural selection as are male wild horses, wild birds of prey, or wild rabbits and so on.

The causes of war therefore as far as human males are concerned is that the ideas, the cultures of belief, in societies cause human males to be aggressive, especially those males that rise to positions of command.
Gordon975
Posts: 101
Joined: December 9th, 2014, 6:51 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: The Reason For Wars

Post by Gordon975 »

Belindi Wrote
I agree with the spirit of what you say here but my point was that over the whole of man's past we cannot blame male aggressive basic instincts for wars. This is because natural selection hardly applies to human societies which have artificially selected traits through cultures of belief in what a powerful male ought to be.

The core human group is the family, in its most basic and intimate form this comprises a male and a female, who sole purpose for existence is to enable the male sperm to meet with the female egg. Pre the current revolution in agriculture which began perhaps 10000 years ago and which we live through even now, a family and its members would have existed as hunter gatherers in a world full of danger and potential death through starvation. Our societies however they are arranged, are the result of controlling and unifying families to create conditions within which life can be led in a safer more comfortable way, ultimately enabling sperm to meet with a greater number of eggs.
Our modern cultures are based on the organisation of vast numbers of family groups, influenced by education and culture, provided as the result of this organisation, however underneath the culture exist the family of the hunter gatherer, with a strong desire to survive, guided by a strong instinctive desire to preserve the life of family members in a hostile world.
Male offspring of such a hunter-gatherer family groupings, are by conscience driven away to create new family groups, with different females from that of their own family, such behaviour is conditioned by the process of natural selection. It is this drive and the resulting competition that results with other males, that enable the individual male to engage in warfare.
Belindi Wrote:
When I said that human males were plastic in nature I did not mean that they adjust themselves compliantly to society. I meant that the nature of human males is not fixed by natural selection as are male wild horses, wild birds of prey, or wild rabbits and so on.



I think I understood your meaning, but was trying to explain that underneath each example of cultural influence, is the conscience that each creature, including the human one, is born with to
enable it to exist without culture or education. Culture is plastic and can spread itself to varying degrees of depth, and so mask our more base instincts to a greater or lesser extent, however culture can be stripped away in an instant, so leaving just base instinct, and this can happen if we are subject to a traumatic situation that our cultural programming cannot cope with.
Belindi Wrote:
One of the effects of cultures of belief is that the gentle self -effacing man has been generally discredited in favour of aggressive conquerors who, society has decided, get all the perks, while the gentle nurturing man goes to the bottom of the heap, and tends not to survive.
Aggressive conquerors only exist because we allow them to, this is usually to avoid a perceived danger or a potential threat to our families existence, in a way men that are "aggressive conquerors", and the gentle nurturing man lead a symbiotic relationship, enabled by their common cultures and societies, meaning that each could not probably exist without the other.
Belindi Wrote:
We agree that other animals have cultures that are transmitted from one generation to the following one. However animals' cultures are so different from human cultures in degree of influencing behaviour that we humans reproduce ourselves as if we are artificially- bred like domestic animals.
I think what you are saying here is that animals have a lesser learned culture than humans, and certainly this is probably true, but still no less important. To suggest that our cultures and I assume that you might include our class structures here, means that the process of reproductive natural selection within humans is dependant on how we are educated, and bonded to the class of our society into which we were born, is probably false, in the long term if it could be sustained over millennia it might be true, but history suggests that class structure within a culture is sustained in isolation, perhaps for decades rather than millennia.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: The Reason For Wars

Post by LuckyR »

Gordon975 wrote:
Luckyr wrote:
In practice violence is going down, not up. When coupled with technology making violence more efficient, this is a double decrease in per person (male if you will) violence. There just isn't any there.
What you highlight is perhaps the strange anomaly that is war. One on one the males of our species generally get on well together, cooperate and have fun in their lives, but under certain conditions will band together in a group set on killing the members of another one. At an intellectual level this makes very little sense. When we praise killing an enemy, and reward a successful killer with acclimation, medals and fame, while at the same time endorsing the execution of men engaged in male on male violence, resulting in murder, it makes even less sense.
Perhaps war and its execution is outside the bounds of intellectual reasoning, and vary much controlled by more basic underlying instincts.
Yes, but it is deeper than you mention. While there is a difference in mentality and practice between individuals and groups (group psychology), there is a general decrease in violence over time in BOTH individuals and groups.
"As usual... it depends."
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: The Reason For Wars

Post by Belindi »

Lucky R wrote:
Yes, but it is deeper than you mention. While there is a difference in mentality and practice between individuals and groups (group psychology), there is a general decrease in violence over time in BOTH individuals and groups.
I think I'd need to ask how to quantify violence.

What interests me more however is what you say about group psychology , individuals and groups. How might an individual free themself from group mentality, the actually visceral urge to conform?
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: The Reason For Wars

Post by LuckyR »

Belindi wrote:Lucky R wrote:
Yes, but it is deeper than you mention. While there is a difference in mentality and practice between individuals and groups (group psychology), there is a general decrease in violence over time in BOTH individuals and groups.
I think I'd need to ask how to quantify violence.

What interests me more however is what you say about group psychology , individuals and groups. How might an individual free themself from group mentality, the actually visceral urge to conform?
Any definition of violence would suffice. The statistics are so dramatic that the effect is notable regardless of the "ground-rules".

As to the effect of group psychology, it is currently unable to be gotten around (for groups). For individuals, it is not very difficult to avoid. Let me use a statistical example to make the point:

Let's say in a group of 100, that 90 are susceptible to the effects of group psychology. As it happens for the 10 outliers, they are either unable to appreciate group cues (rare) or introspective enough to see through the rhetoric of the Leadership and thus not drink the Koolaid (not uncommon). Let's say that the 10 embark on a campaign to "educate" the 90 on the false observations and promises of the Leadership. Probably the maximum of vulnerable individuals who can be converted (to think for themselves, considering they don't naturally do that) would be 15%. However, even a group of 77 out of 100 is enough of a quorum to set the snowball of the group psychology down the hill towards it's inevitable conclusion.

No, the best that the group can hope for, if the Leadership is steering the group in a detrimental direction, would be a competing group with a better ideology. You can't make a silk purse out of sow's ear.
"As usual... it depends."
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: The Reason For Wars

Post by Belindi »

Lucky R thanks for the analysis. Please consider the USA with what I'm told is its strong tradition of individualism. Is such a country less likely than , say, India or China, to be swept along by some group irrationality?
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: The Reason For Wars

Post by LuckyR »

Belindi wrote:Lucky R thanks for the analysis. Please consider the USA with what I'm told is its strong tradition of individualism. Is such a country less likely than , say, India or China, to be swept along by some group irrationality?
You bring up a number of issues:

The USA does have a "strong tradition of individuality". Having said that, the practice of it is long on bravado and short on true individuality. It is true that compared to states that stress group-think, the USA does have many more divisive/nontraditional voices, but many if not most don't have any traction within the universal discussion. So, from a practical standpoint American individualism is essentially a myth (though as mentioned, examples of it do exist).

China, because of generational suppression of the Individual, and India because of longstanding cultural traditions, actively embrace and seek out groups. Historically, the USA embraced the IDEA of individuality, while hiding their group-think under other guises (political parties, labor, civil rights, racial groups etc). However in recent times there has been a large shift in the USA (and elsewhere) in two different but complementary directions. One is a loss of Trust in institutions, such as the press and science in general to the point that education or even the acquisition of facts and knowledge is not held in very high esteem. As a corollary (or perhaps an indirect cause), there has been the rise of online "expert" opinion that because of software driven selection for opinions that you already have, drives out moderates towards the two polar opinions on any topic. This set of circumstances has made the USA with it's tradition of individuality, into being more vulnerable to group-think than at any other time, though to be fair, it isn't one group-think, rather one opinion and it's opposite. Sort of double group-think.

Perhaps they'll cancel each other out...
"As usual... it depends."
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021