I talked a little bit about this in an earlier annotation. How the events from 9/11 changed the American mindset. I agree that the U.S. government had much to do with this because they made it a constant point to make the Islamists to seem like the biggest threat to America and the negative feelings that people had from the event grew even more from this. When a society focuses on an enemy as a root for their problems then they become blind to all of the other issues and the root of their societies real distress. This causes for unnecessary war as mentioned later which definitely does more harm because now people and resources are being used up and invested. This reminds me of parallel concepts between 1984 and the how the U.S. government acts when in war. In 1984 they distracted their citizens with the constant state of war and focused their minds on who the "enemy" was to their society even though they suffered from many other problems.

from wikipedia: Risk society is the manner in which modern society organizes in response to risk.

another definition: British sociologist Anthony Giddens, a risk society is "a society increasingly preoccupied with the future (and also with safety), which generates the notion of risk.

I think from the second definition it makes sense on why a book was written based on this concept after the events held on 9/11 in America. After that day flying especially and fews have never been the same in the United States. We as an American society are constantly preoccupied with the idea of saving us from terrorists. It's proactive thought.

I can't find a good definition for "cosmopolitan politics" itself but "cosmopolitan" can be defined as: the idea that all human beings are, or could or should be, members of a single community

defined by Oxford dictionary: a modified form of liberalism tending to favor free-market capitalism

Hobbes is saying that when it comes to civilization it is not particular men (I'm guessing the citizens of both nations) who were at war with each other, but instead the rulers of the nations who have control over the people and their resources. The kings are power hungry and go to war with other kings because they are jealous. The people of the nation/soldiers aren't necessarily jealous or power hungry but they fight because they don't want to reap the consequences of a loss.

Hobbes is saying that another nature of man is the desire for power and to feel stronger than the other person. This is why people cannot simple stay still and be contempt with life of equality, there is a desire for power among men.

Because all men are naturally equal, if both want the same thing how do they decide who gets it? If both are equal candidates who's to say one deserves something over the other. This is a cause for hostility and finding a means to decide who gets the thing. My question is, why does it have to be conflict over who gets it instead of sharing?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm thinking that he's describing the concept of "the grass is always greener on the other side"? Basically how people commonly think that someone else has it better than you currently do and it can cause jealousy of that individual. Or how people tend to compare themselves to others and feel that the other person is smarter than them even though others may say the same about them.

This is a really interesting concept that I myself agree with. Hobbes is talking about how the basic nature of man makes all men equal even though some people may be physically or intellectually stronger than others. Because of the nature of men and the collective social nature of man, each individual can find a way to overpower another man. In this sense, we are all equal and should treat each other as equals.

An English philosopher, scientist, and historian, best known for his political philosophy, especially as articulated in his masterpiece Leviathan. A political philosopher who justified wide-ranging government powers on the basis of the self-interested consent of citizens.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thomas-Hobbes

I'm confused, I thought he was for fascism?

from Classical Latin proletarius, citizen of the lowest class (see proletary) + -an a member of the proletariat; worker

https://www.yourdictionary.com/proletarian

This means that everyone must have one mind and I get how this could be beneficial but I really don't see how this is good for a society. If everyone is forced to think the same way there will be no progress and if the cohesive knowledge is incorrect, the people of the society will never know. "2+2=5"

A Jacobin (French pronunciation: ​[ʒakɔbɛ̃]; English: /ˈdʒækəbɪn/) was a member of the Jacobin Club, a revolutionary political movement that was the most famous political club during the French Revolution (1789–99).[1] The club was so called because of the Dominican convent in Paris in the Rue Saint-Jacques (Latin: Jacobus) where they originally met.

Today, the terms Jacobin and Jacobinism are used in a variety of senses. In France, Jacobin now generally indicates a supporter of a centralized republican state and strong central government powers[2] and/or supporters of extensive government intervention to transform society. Jacobin is sometimes used in Britain as a pejorative for radical, left-wing revolutionary politics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobin_(politics)

I'm thinking that war heroes being the hero of a person who lives in a country under war is a common thing. For me, it seems weird to look up to a soldier as a hero because that's not what my life revolves around.

The image of kids putting value and excitement on items commonly used to take lives of others doesn't sit well with me. It reminds me of videos I've seen in the past that involved a person being excited to use a weapon with the goal of "exterminating all ___". (Americans/African Americans)

What was the nature of these speeches and the underlying purpose for having children memorize them? I could understand memorizing speeches that have to do with personal happiness, but not memorizing speeches that deal with war and violence. I think it may be like this to normalize the topic of war and progressing a nation in regards to power.

Founded in 1925, the “Schutzstaffel,” German for “Protective Echelon,” initially served as Nazi Party leader Adolf Hitler’s (1889-1945) personal bodyguards, and later became one of the most powerful and feared organizations in all of Nazi Germany.

https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/ss

I think that this statement is filled with a lot of outdated assumptions. If all a female was is a sexual object, then I don't think that alone would be enough to keep partners and families together as the male could satisfy that through many other people. Another issue in this is that it suggests that the female only benefits from physical security. If Freud's theme for explanation deals with sexual satisfaction, how come only the male is experiencing it?

I would go further to say that they are things that are associated with advancing human health, life, and wellbeing. I think these aspects themselves are things that contribute to happiness, not civilization itself as a structure.

Another statement that I think is biased. I really do not think the average man gains sexual satisfaction from urinating on fire. I really wonder how he gets to this conclusion. I think it is based on his own experiences, desires, and feelings.

I see where he's going with the idea of cheap enjoyment and how technological advances seems like they could possibly be a source for false happiness, but I think with and without technology the amount of overall happiness would stay the same. The prevention of growth and ability to learn and experience new things has often been a source of unhappiness so technological advances are useful for those persons who experience such a thing.

I'm confused as to where he's drawing this conclusion from?

most noticeable or important

having a limited or narrow outlook or scope

atominism: a doctrine that the physical or physical and mental universe is composed of simple indivisible minute particles

Where are we getting this definition from? Does it always have to be a group or can it be individual?

This is a very interesting but I also think accurate way to describe the experience of oppression and the oppressed. It makes you ponder how the disconnect in experience can be eliminated.