Discussions on
The America We Should all Hold Dear
Part I
A True America for All Americans
A Positive Freer to world to build and lead – the American perspective. We can build a world to lead or build a world only to revert to the old in retreat. We can build a United States for all Americans, or we can rejuvenate a Race Base State (RDS) or Cultural Wars State (CES). We tried the latter and the cruelties of it led to a Civil War. That’s why we have the United States for all Americans – thought not perfect, but the right track in creating a perfect union and a just and fair society – a unified dignified America for all Americans – free from racism, sexism, and discrimination – of One America that is embedded in her name – ” The United States of America” – upon which a Patriot Truth was ascertained – that for the Union to work, all humans are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights, with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. At first, it looked like the Union won, but to some, it looks like it didn’t. To some, as if the Civil War had never ended, the Greatest Nation on planet earth born on that struggle of equity, justice, and fairness is gradually, aggressively, and unknowingly drifting back into a possible Divided States of America (DSA) – where the only policy that runs through anything else is coded, toned, or dressed up in racism, sexism, or bigotry is gradually resurfacing to becoming normalized again. How costly will this shift be to the great aspiration that beautiful God Trusted Nation (GTN) once had? The painful nostalgia of lost battles shouldn’t be rehearsed, and rehashed to be relived by an America that humanely and respectfully really wants to forgive, let go, and move on – longing to move forward better and bigger to a cherished American Dream of a positive promised future for all Americans.
We shall not be litigating won or loss trials, but together for the sake of our great nation, we should be working harder to build a Great United States (GUS). Hoping for a better day where all Americans are treated for their humanity without constant reminders that certain Americans are better than everyone else because of their skin. Such isn’t backed by science, morality, or civility, but by cruelty against vulnerable others. Just as you can’t be the lighthouse of the world by unfairly discriminating on where the light should shine, you can’t hold God and be racist, sexist, or hateful. The Foundational Principle of the United States of America is based on fundamental fairness. And it’s upon this struggle to legitimize and legislate the dignity of fairness that we have a great nation. The name The United States of America was chosen by the Founding Fathers to create a Union of States upon which the Constitution reigns supreme, not the Divided States of America (DSA) that is gradually creeping into the system. The DSA is a new alteration that would hardly benefit the promised future of this great nation, but works against that which is left of America – its patriotism, nationalism, respect for the Fallen, or upholding the Union and the Values that once made this Great Country on the Hill to be the envy of the world. Americans shall not settle for a Race Base State (RDS), Cultural Wars State (CES), or a Divided States of America (DSA). RDS, CES, and DSA are not the American Patriot Ways (APW). We can’t let go of that which we all hold dear that makes America Great – that we are the United States of America with a Unity of Purpose in a solemn belief in One America – a true America for All Americans.
Philosopher Prince Israel Zaar 09292025
____________________________________
Counter-argument of Text
Generative AI Mode Assisted
The text by Philosopher Prince Israel Zaar presents a philosophical and political argument grounded in American ideals of equality and unity. A counter-argument to this piece could engage with its core assertions from different philosophical, historical, or political standpoints. Below are several potential counter-arguments, each addressing a distinct aspect of the author’s claims.
Counter-argument 1:
The critique of idealism and historical revisionism
This counter-argument would challenge the text’s idealistic and potentially selective interpretation of American history and founding principles.
Critique of the “Patriot Truth”:
The text presents a “Patriot Truth” that “all humans are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights” as a foundational and ascendant principle [0]. A counter-argument could note that this truth, while enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, has never been fully realized. For much of American history, this ideal was contradicted by the realities of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and other forms of discrimination. Therefore, framing it as the dominant and successful “track” towards a “perfect union” might be historically inaccurate and ignore ongoing systemic injustices [0].
Challenge to the “Drifting Back” narrative:
The text warns of America “drifting back” into a “Divided States of America” (DSA) [0]. A counter-argument might posit that the divisions—based on race, culture, and class—are not a recent relapse but have been persistent features of American society since its inception. From this perspective, the current moment isn’t a retreat but a more overt manifestation of long-standing tensions, or perhaps a different form of the ongoing struggle, not just a return to the past [0].
Counter-argument 2: The challenge to “One America” and unity
This counter-argument would question the feasibility and desirability of the “One America” vision presented in the text, emphasizing the importance of identity and difference.
The myth of the melting pot:
The author advocates for “One America” and decries the “Cultural Wars State” (CES) [0]. A counter-argument could draw upon multiculturalism and critical race theory to suggest that the “melting pot” ideal has often functioned to erase or marginalize distinct cultural and racial identities. It could be argued that a forced unity can be just as oppressive as division, and that true fairness requires acknowledging and valuing difference, not attempting to merge all identities into a single, dominant narrative.
The role of “cultural wars”:
The author frames “cultural wars” negatively, but a counter-argument might posit that these conflicts are a necessary part of democratic discourse. Disagreements over fundamental values, such as the role of race in society, are not just distractions; they are the substance of political debate. Dismissing these as a return to a “CES” might suppress legitimate grievances and necessary societal reckonings [0].
Counter-argument 3:
The economic and structural critique
This counter-argument would focus on economic inequality and systemic issues rather than framing the core problem as a deviation from patriotic ideals.
Beyond cultural divisions:
While the author identifies “racism, sexism, and bigotry” as primary drivers of division, an economic critique might argue that these are symptoms of deeper structural issues, particularly economic inequality [0]. For instance, it could be argued that the rise of nationalism and cultural grievance politics is driven by economic anxieties and the decline of a social safety net, rather than purely by a moral or patriotic failure.
Critique of the “Great United States (GUS)” framework:
The text suggests that working harder to build a “GUS” is the solution [0]. A counter-argument could challenge this by suggesting that systemic problems—such as the concentration of wealth, the justice system, and educational disparities—cannot be solved simply by a collective change of heart or renewed patriotic effort. Structural reforms are necessary, and focusing solely on unity might obscure the need for fundamental political and economic change.
Counter-argument 4:
The political realism perspective
This counter-argument would question the practical political utility of the author’s idealistic and moralistic framework.
Politics of grievance:
The author’s dismissal of re-litigating “won or loss trials” and “painful nostalgia” might be challenged by a political realist [0]. A counter-argument could observe that in politics, history is always contested. Appeals to history and narratives of past injustice are powerful tools for mobilizing voters and challenging the status quo. To simply demand that everyone “forgive, let go, and move on” ignores the real political power of memory and grievance, both of which shape political action.
The nature of compromise:
The author’s vision of a single, unified “United States of America” might be critiqued as overly demanding in a diverse, democratic republic. A counter-argument could argue that compromise and the management of competing interests are the hallmarks of successful governance, not the pursuit of a complete and total unity of purpose. Different groups will always have different interests and perspectives, and a healthy democracy accommodates and negotiates those differences rather than aspiring to erase them.
____________________________________
The Usefulness of this Text
(Generative AI Mode Assisted,14 Sites)
The usefulness of the provided text by Philosopher Prince Israel Zaar lies in its function as a political and philosophical manifesto. A manifesto is a public declaration of intentions, motives, or views by a person or group. While the text does not present a formal, logically structured argument in the academic sense, its value is in its rhetorical and thematic purposes.
Its primary uses
Articulating an idealistic vision:
The text is a clear and passionate articulation of an ideal for America rooted in its founding documents. It explicitly defines a “Patriot Truth” based on the principle of equality and outlines a desirable future focused on unity (“The United States for all Americans,” “One America”). This type of idealistic vision can be useful for inspiring supporters and providing a clear, moral objective for a political movement.
Critiquing contemporary issues:
The text identifies what the author perceives as the core problems facing modern America: “Race Base State (RDS),” “Cultural Wars State (CES),” and “Divided States of America (DSA).” By naming and framing these issues in opposition to his ideal, the author provides a rallying cry for those who feel similarly, helping to organize a critique of the status quo.
Acting as a thought experiment:
For a political scientist, historian, or philosopher, the text can be a useful case study in political rhetoric and idealism. It prompts analysis of the feasibility of its proposed solution (achieving perfect unity by focusing on shared ideals) versus the practicality of managing deep-seated societal divisions.
Spurring reflection and dialogue:
For the general reader, the text encourages introspection on deeply important concepts like patriotism, fairness, and national identity. It challenges readers to consider what they believe are the foundational principles of the United States and how well the country is currently living up to them. By raising these questions, the text can contribute to broader public discourse and debate.
Limitations and areas for further analysis
The usefulness of the text is subject to critique, especially from analytical or political science perspectives:
It offers normative claims, not empirical arguments:
The text states how America should be but provides little evidence or argument as to how the country could realistically get there, particularly given the historical context and entrenched power structures. For example, simply declaring that “the Civil War had never ended” for some people is a powerful rhetorical statement, but it does not offer a strategy for addressing the underlying issues.
It presents an external critique:
The text frames its argument from a moral and patriotic high ground, rather than engaging directly with the perspectives and arguments of those it critiques. A more analytical text would explicitly address the historical and political factors that give rise to the very divisions the author condemns.
The idealistic approach can overlook complexity:
As argued in the counter-argument, an idealistic emphasis on unity can sometimes ignore or simplify the complex, legitimate grievances that fuel cultural and racial conflict. From a realist perspective, addressing these issues requires more than a call for national unity; it requires an engagement with the messy realities of power, history, and competing interests.
In summary, the text’s usefulness is as a tool for inspiration, motivation, and critical reflection. Its value is not in its analytical rigor or concrete policy proposals, but in its impassioned call for a renewed commitment to certain foundational American ideals.
___________________________________
How do manifestos like this affect political discourse?
(Generative AI Mode Assisted, 12 sites)
Manifestos like the one presented by Prince Israel Zaar significantly affect political discourse by framing issues, galvanizing support, and establishing the ideological battlegrounds on which debates take place. While most voters may not read them in detail, their ideas and language filter into the broader political conversation through media coverage, political campaigns, and public debate.
Here’s a breakdown of how manifestos influence political discourse:
Shaping the narrative
Defining the conversation: Manifestos assert a particular view of the current state of affairs and what the future should look like. The text by Zaar, for example, defines the central challenge as a conflict between a “United States for all Americans” and a “Divided States of America (DSA)”. By introducing terms like “Race Base State (RDS)” and “Cultural Wars State (CES),” it provides a specific framework and vocabulary for discussing political and social problems.
Simplifying complex issues:
Manifestos are designed to be persuasive and accessible, often boiling down complex historical and social issues into clear, digestible narratives. Zaar’s text reduces a long history of American inequality and division to a choice between noble unity and destructive bigotry. This can clarify an argument for supporters but may also oversimplify issues for opponents.
Influencing media coverage:
When released, manifestos often command significant media attention and news cycles, especially from political parties. In this context, journalists and commentators will frequently reference a manifesto’s key ideas, pledges, and slogans, further amplifying its message and shaping public perception.
Mobilizing support and defining movements
Rallying supporters:
A manifesto serves as a rallying cry, offering a unifying vision and moral purpose for those who already share its core principles. Zaar’s manifesto appeals to a sense of shared patriotism and a yearning for national unity, framed around a core belief in equality. This approach strengthens the resolve of existing supporters.
Excluding opponents:
By defining a movement’s identity, a manifesto also clarifies who is an opponent. Zaar’s text positions those who promote a “DSA” as working “against that which is left of America.” This binaristic framing can intensify political polarization by making it difficult for those outside the movement to find common ground.
Informing party platforms:
For political parties, the manifesto is an official document that declares policy goals rooted in core values. It provides a consistent framework for candidates and campaign staff to stay on message and defend their positions throughout a campaign.
Creating a benchmark for accountability
Setting standards for governance:
Historically, election manifestos serve as a benchmark against which to hold political parties accountable. The promises made in a manifesto are used by the media, civil society, and opposing parties to scrutinize a government’s performance once in power.
Serving as a historical record:
Manifestos also function as important historical documents, articulating the ideas and aspirations of movements at specific moments in time. They can provide scholars and future generations with insight into the concerns and motivations of past political actors.
In summary, manifestos are powerful rhetorical tools that can energize supporters, define the terms of a political debate, and create benchmarks for political accountability. The Zaar text functions in this tradition by offering an aspirational ideal for America while simultaneously constructing a narrative that critiques current perceived divisions.
____________________________________
Framing the Text in a Debate Format
(Generative AI Assisted used 14 sites)
The provided text from Philosopher Prince Israel Zaar can be framed as a debate between two opposing perspectives on the future of the United States. The central issue is how the nation should navigate its present challenges: by reaffirming its founding ideals of equality and unity (“United States of America”) or by succumbing to divisive forces based on race and culture (“Divided States of America”).
Debate format
Resolution: The United States should reaffirm its commitment to the foundational principle of a unified nation for all Americans rather than risk sliding toward division based on race and culture.
_______________________________
Affirmative side: Building a unified, forward-looking America
This side would present arguments based on the core ideals outlined in the text, emphasizing the importance of unity, progress, and fundamental fairness.
Key arguments:
The historical and aspirational basis for unity:
The United States was founded on the principle that “all humans are created equal” and has a history, albeit imperfect, of striving for a “more perfect union”. The Civil War, though a painful episode, represents a victory for the Union and its underlying principles of equity and justice, which should not be re-litigated.
The danger of regression:
The text warns that allowing coded racism, sexism, and bigotry to become normalized again would be a catastrophic regression. It argues that embracing a “Race Base State (RDS)” or “Cultural Wars State (CES)” is a path toward the “Divided States of America (DSA)” and would destroy the nation’s promise.
The moral imperative of fairness:
True patriotism and nationalism require upholding fairness and respect for all, not just a select group. The text stresses that discriminating on the basis of skin color is not supported by “science, morality, or civility” and is a cruel practice that America must reject.
Forgiveness and moving forward:
The affirmative side would advocate for putting aside past resentments to focus on a shared, prosperous future. The text promotes moving on from “painful nostalgia of lost battles” to build a “Great United States (GUS)”.
____________________________________
Negative side:
Addressing challenges from the perspective of historical grievances (devil’s advocate position)
This side would challenge the affirmative’s premise by arguing that a return to older traditions is necessary or that the idea of a unified nation has historically been flawed. It would explore the perspective that the Civil War’s outcome did not truly resolve historical divisions, as implied by the phrase “to some, it looks like it didn’t”.
Key arguments:
The persistent reality of division:
This side could argue that the Civil War did not end all divisions and that the promise of a “perfect union” has never been fully realized for all Americans. Historical grievances are not “nostalgia” but ongoing issues that prevent a unified vision from being universally accepted.
The appeal of cultural or group identity: Proponents of a more identity-focused approach might argue that focusing on a single, unifying national identity can erase important cultural distinctions. They could contend that celebrating unique group identities, even if it leads to friction, is more authentic than striving for a unity that glosses over differences.
Redefining “patriotism”:
This position could redefine patriotism not as blind adherence to a singular “American” identity, but as loyalty to one’s own people or cultural traditions. It might challenge the idea that a truly unified nation is possible or even desirable, and suggest that a federation of distinct identities (a form of DSA) is a more realistic outcome.
The critique of universal principles:
A more cynical or critical viewpoint could question whether the foundational principles of “fundamental fairness” are genuinely attainable or have ever been applied universally. It might argue that focusing on these principles is a distraction from the underlying power dynamics that perpetuate inequality.
___________________________________
Rebuttal and synthesis
Affirmative rebuttal:
The affirmative side would counter the negative’s points by reiterating that the pursuit of unity and fairness is precisely the project of a “more perfect union”. It would argue that addressing historical grievances is best done through a framework of shared humanity and fairness, not by retreating into separate, identity-based camps. True strength comes from incorporating diverse perspectives into a single, unified national narrative, not from emphasizing division.
Negative rebuttal:
The negative side would argue that the affirmative’s vision is naive and ignores the deep-seated divisions that persist. It would question whether a nation built on universal principles can truly overcome the historical injustices that have defined its reality for so long. It might suggest that an open acknowledgement of division is more honest and productive than the forced unity advocated by the affirmative.
Synthesis:
The resolution to this debate lies in determining the best path forward. Should the U.S. focus on building a more perfect union based on its founding ideals and address challenges within that framework? Or is the country so fundamentally divided by historical and cultural factors that a different, less unified, future is either inevitable or necessary? The outcome depends on which path Americans choose to follow.