This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Forget Orwell And Rand, We’ve Gone To Full On Plato
Submitted by Thad Beversdorf via First Rebuttal blog,
Lately, we hear a lot about Orwell’s “1984″ and Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” but perhaps the best crystal ball to our current state of affairs is Plato’s Republic. You see both Rand and Orwell were describing a world outside of themselves. A world they couldn’t understand or accept. And while those works are brilliant and incredibly prophetic, I expect that to understand a world borne of narcissistic sociopathy one must examine the construct of such a world by a narcissistic sociopath. Fortunately Plato, perhaps the world’s most (in)famous narcissistic sociopath, provided us a vivid illustration and explanation of his ideal state in “Plato’s Republic”. Plato provides us the why to Orwell’s and Rand’s ‘unideal’ states.
Plato provides the arguments for the philosopher kings. He also describes various levels of reality, arguing that each societal demographic must live within the reality level delegated to them. He argues each demographic has a limited intellectual capacity and thus can only handle the reality level provided to them. With the philosopher kings being the only societal demographic with the right to and capacity for absolute truth. Likewise, the philosophers kings in the world we find ourselves today control each and every aspect of life including our subsequent perception the world. There is no such thing as happenstance.
The market moves a certain direction not because of unexplained market forces but because the philosopher kings have made it so. Economic policies are creating incredible wealth for the already wealthy while destroying the middle class not because of honest misjudgements or the need for more time but because the philosopher kings make it so. The Fed dropped the U3 unemployment rate as a benchmark because it does not meet their standard of truth but expects the rest of us to consider that true unemployment. Declining GDP is ignored while adjusted indicators signalling GDP is healthy are paraded all over the street because the philosopher kings make it so. A Malaysian airliner is shot out of the sky not by things yet unknown but because the philosopher kings make it so.
As in Plato’s Ideal State, today’s philosopher kings are the only ones with the right to and capacity for (as decided by them) absolute truth. The rest of us live within the realities provided for and to us. We are handed the explanations and when the explanations don’t suffice the subject matter disappear altogether; refer to Ukraine, Ebola, Malaysian airliner, Benghazi, Fast & Furious, IRS criminality, NSA, Breitbart and the Constitution, etc. We the people take what we are fed in stride and in line with our respective places in the hierarchy of truth. If we dare challenge the hierarchy of truth, as men like Snowden have attempted, we are exiled with a bounty on our head. Or for minor offences such as providing the truth behind declining same store sales your career is taken from you like Bill Simon, ex Walmart CEO who was fired for stating that Americans are buying less because they have less income than before. The philosopher kings make it so.
The facts are we will never know the facts.
We will know but a shadow of truth as ascribed to us by the philosopher kings as described by Plato’s Cave Parable. This is how a handful of men and women control billions of people, the same way 20 cowboys control 30K head of cattle. We are provided food, shelter, safety and fear and in return we are provided a certain reality from which we must live. So long as we remain within our respective realities we will be granted comfort. However, if we attempt to break through a level of truth or worse bring others with us, the heavy hand of the philosopher king will find us by way of the guardian class. In our world we become a threat to national security and once we adorn that scarlet letter all rights that were once guaranteed by the Constitution disappear. The Constitution states no person or law supercedes it, however, by way of executive order the chief philosopher king has granted the philosopher kings a level of authority that supercedes that of the Constitution. And as comfortable cattle do, we paid no attention but strode forward with the herd.
So for those inclined to not only reflect on the prophetic worlds of Orwell and Rand but to understand the arguments for such a world by the philosopher kings themselves, refresh yourself with a read of Plato’s Republic. For wars are won not by force of might but by force of knowledge. Plato was correct in understanding that freedom is found in knowledge. If we accept a shadow of truth we will enjoy a shadow of freedom. But if we fight for absolute truth we will win absolute freedom.
- 41995 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


Cat videos would be more informative than this.........
"The Platonist school begins by accepting the primacy of consciousness, by reversing the relationship of consciousness to existence, by assuming that reality must conform to the content of consciousness, not the other way around—on the premise that the presence of any notion in man’s mind proves the existence of a corresponding referent in reality." -- Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology
Well that cleared it all up for me.....
"That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." -- Aide to G. W. Bush as quoted by Ron Suskind
"I am the machine that reveals the world to you as only I alone am able to see it" -Dziga Vertov
Perspective is a wonderful thing, but unlike Plato's assertion it does not determine reality, it merely deludes you into thinking that it does.
I think it was Karl Rove who said that bullshit about empire, not just some random aide. "Project for a New American Century"...more like "Brave New World".
Hi hobopants! It's been a long time... we used to post here under a different PAL name. We are philosopher kings and we are fit to rule!
Buy Bitcoin!!
Uh oh, the return of Fonestar?
Naw, we saw it with our own eyes. A large rock was securely fastened to his torso. He sank to the bottom. We had no choice. The hillbilly gold panners got to him.
never heard of a plato
had to wikipedia it
didn't even have an entry for full-on plato-ing, like in the title
but what does this have to do with banking and finance?
hugs,
DSK
Everything.... Unfortunately Everything.
The people that designed the banking system (theft system), followed Plato’s philosophy or more specific to your question the pyramid structures of society and control of that society he is describing. Hence the ponzi scheme design of the fractional reserve debt based banking system.
Their ultermit influence though is not Plato but Lucifer.
@ lunatic:
as if people used to read plato....
how patheticly funny you are.
My Grandfather worked Intelligence for the Strategic Air Command. He told me there are two things every Intel agency in the world is always doing:
1) Figuring out what others are doing.
2) Lying about what you're doing.
The truth will be classified and compartmentalized. Lies will be publicized.
The OP describes Cantor's famous statement about "smart people needing to make important decisions"
"The facts are we will never know the facts. "
Ain't that the truth! JFK, MLK, RFK, ETC.
To the author: THANK YOU for writing the truth about Plato. Much appreciated!!
PLATO !?
STALIN is moar like it!
The philosopher kings might not feed you all the truth, but that doesn't prevent you from deducing it, and having a "Eureka, I have found it" moment. One can know what real truths exist just by considering the falsehoods that would be displaced if a thing were true.
You could also start with 1+1=2 and go from there.
What is problem with we?
Because more than a few of us can actually see and comment on the false realities the article is discussing and generally have lost all patience for imbeciles, like you.
Arguing for return of a gold standard. Who will own all the gold? Putin and Xi? Not we, so who is imbicile? They will still own you and you will love it.
Why would the readoption of a gold standard remove physical gold from private citizens' hands?
My point is that people on this blog don't like gold, they like "gold standards" which are two completely different things! If you like your gold so much, why exactly are you so concerned about your made-up thought experiment (government) putting their little stamps on your precious gold? Does it make it more valuable? Does it make you feel better when your thought experiment says "we agree with you!"
Generalize much? "People here" - like the hedge is a monolithic block of same-minded individuals.
And what thought experiment are you talking about?
Childish diversion.
Precisely where in the article is gold or the gold standard mentioned? And where does hobopants mention BitCoin?
Nowhere.
If you can't add something to the discussion of elites trying to create an alternate reality the common man will believe, it would probably be a good idea not to insert snobs like the Winklevoss twins (who claim to own 1% of all Bitcoins) or another BitTroll named DPS or any of the other pumpers who cashed out INTO FIAT and left you holding your BitBag.
It makes you look like you've been sucked into an alternate reality and are a sheep or worse.
Like in the article ;-)
Didn't that all run aground with "Mission Accomplished"?
Never go full Plato
Is that like Full Monty?
no, its like shooting the moon, you have to be full retard to go striaght for it
Apparently not. Some brown folks still get droned.
Guys, it's not a bad way of looking at things. Seems to fit the facts as well or better than Rand or Orwell.
Rand ultimately envisioned a snap-back event I just don't see coming.
Orwell envisioned a psychological prison, but one where those who are aware could perceive it. I see few perceiving the depth of thier imprisonment today.
What we have going on today (neo-feudalism, or whatever you want to call it) seems to be a blend of all three. Near-permanent castes with only those at the highest levels having true view of events and circumstances (Plato), perpetual lies and misinformation to control those below (Orwell) and a slow degradation of human industry and choice (Rand).
One heluva shit cocktail, even if you don't buy 100% of everything I'm saying, that's for sure.
Astute observation, but the Orwellian thing gives too much credit to the ruling elite. I picture them more as the Wizard of OZ desperately pulling levers as shit falls apart, rather than a boot stamping on a human face (although I'm sure they see themselves otherwise). Reality always triumphs over hubris.
Orwell's premise was that beyond a certain point, people will control themselves and know what their perception is supposed to be, even in the absence of direct orders from above. They will self-censor. That part seems to fit current circumstances quite well.
The elites aren't the Wizard of Oz, but if those below them believe they are, then they are.
I personally have experience with several long time, intelligent friends who have developed an immunity to certain, threatening facts. A strange impairment brought about from subtle propaganda that they've yet to perceive, if ever. Stuck in their level, I guess, is how Plato would put it.
if I had to design a system to control billions of units of production called humans it would look a lot like Christianity
You're thinking of Marxism.
But,nice try
A Flying Spaghetti Monster whose gift to humanity is constant and unrelenting focus on their guilt is a perfect tool for suppressing humans: you get them to suppress themselves with self doubt, uncertainty and self sacrifice.
"focus on their guilt is a perfect tool for suppressing humans: you get them to suppress themselves with ....... self sacrifice."
So the creator God/Man offers Himself as a guilt offering for others who being liberated from guilt "suppress" themselves by doing good works for others. Brilliant.
"if I had to design a system to control billions of units of production called humans it would look a lot like Christianity"
Having demonstrated a failed grasp Of Christianity how do you a product of impersonal evolutionary time and chance propose to design a system to control persons ("billions of units of production called humans") made in the image of God. God is good, man (you and me) not so much. I appreciate God in His infinite wisdom did not appoint you to design the system. I'll stick with this one difficult as it is.
God is good, man (you and me) not so much.
Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point. Humans who are convinced of their own "un-goodness" are less likely to act independently and are thus much easier to control.
SWR Who holds your leash?
"Gotta Serve Somebody"-Dylan
You may be a preacher with your spiritual pride
You may be a city councilman taking bribes on the side
You may be working in a barbershop, you may know how to cut hair
You may be somebody's mistress, may be somebody's heir.
But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
Rom 6: 15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves,c you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,
I hope you are trolling, because you continue proving his point. Everything you say is evidence of complete indoctrination rather than objective thought.
You're thinking of Marxism.
But,nice try
No, I am thinking of Christianity. If you can get people to enslave themselves with guilt and self doubt, you have no need of the guns otherwise required to enforce Marxism. In fact, Americans are among the most heavily armed people on the planet, yet we tolerate in-your-face tyranny, dished out to us with ever-increasing overtness by a small cadre of obvious sociopaths bent on destroying everything, including us, as long as there's a profit in it for them. Why? Because:
Chrisitanity begins with the statement that we all are sinners (guilty) and we need external forgiveness. It's a perfect vehicle to get people to wallow in self-doubt. I promise you, our overlords do not share this self-doubt, but I can also promise you that they are very happy for you to have it, and for you even to wear it proudly.
If you want to see the future, check out the young.
I took a look and it aint pretty.
I can't tell if I'm getting old and crotchety or if most the young are all actually as retarded as they seem.
With the currently pop culture, hard to blame them... but again, that sounds old and crotchety.
It's a fact, every new generation is more retarded than the previous. I can see it happening with my bare eyes - the overlords are winning.
" I promise you, our overlords do not share this self-doubt, but I can also promise you that they are very happy for you to have it, and for you even to wear it proudly."
Because God is just "our overlords" will face God's judgement too.
Lk 12: 42And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? 43Blessed is that servanti whom his master will find so doing when he comes. 44Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. 45But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, 46the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful. 47And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. 48But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.
SWR, you are precisely that which you claim to resist. The fact that your theology and especially Christian theology sucks and is self serving may make you a good atheist but not much else. I suspect you do not understand the connections between the theology you decry and the roots of Western civilization.
There are no overlords in Christianity. Exactly who are the Christian overlords? In Catholicism there is a Pope. In Protestantism there is no central authority. In both there is no one who runs anyone's life like the government. You do not even understand your first enumerated point, do you? What do you think that means?
You think you are perfected in any way? You would be a great leftist. The Left starts and ends with arrogance and believes in both the perfected ruler and the perfectable man. Government (force) is the way. It is not a matter of conscience. Those governments have this very interesting hostility to the very religions you say empower the overlords. If that were the case then Stalin, Mao and the others would have warmly embraced religion, especially that Christian one. Yet, they look at them as competitors and immediately act in the temporal world to subjugate them. This should not happen given your assertions.
The reason is that the kings, comrades and overlords do not like competition. They do not like any authority higher than themselves, any competing contrarian philosophies and consciences get in the way of what they want to do.
I live in the real world and I know you will find this all unconvincing, but I just like to stake out a position contrary to your juvenile boiler plate assertions and insults. Your type of insults actually have the very real effect of undermining the strength and veracity of your assertions. It is weakness.
Forget overlords, governments, western civilization for a moment and pay attention to what SWR is saying: Christianity, Catholicism (and I would say practically every belief system throughout history) has damaged people.
Focus on that. What do these systems of belief do to your ability to think and act? If you are unable to separate that issue from others, then you are the perfect victim.
And you are the perfect tool. WHO uses you or not (overloards, king, governments, religions, etc) is separate discussion. If you can't separate these issues, you are lost before you begin.
In the context of the summed total of good/evil contributed to the world, Christianity in general, and Roman Catholicism in particular, stands tall leading the "good" category. See, in no particular order: the sonnets of Shakespeare, the symphonies of Mozart and Beethoven, the paintings of Michaelangelo, the science that led to Western Civ. golfing on the moon, the single-breasted suit (but not the pretentious double-breasted, yuck), shoes, Eli Whitney's cotton gin. the internal combustion engine, the abolition of slavery in all countries under the umbrella of Western Civ. by the year 1900, running water, electricity, countless cathedrals spread across Europe, the elevation of women to a revered status from a status of sex slavery, deep-sea exploration, landing a spacecraft on a comet, IPA beer, etc.
Ergo, I would argue, your demand is not for focusing on the most important thing, but for fixating on minutia. Ask yourself: Who has demanded you to take this position, and what does that person/group stand to gain from your taking it?
The perfect tool is you.
Check your premises.
"...your demand is not for focusing on the most important thing" ?. Demand?
You missed part of my point: before you can focus on anything, you have to separate these issues. The key issue here isn't who "stands tall" or "stands" best, worst, etc. The question right here, right now, as raised by SWR is what effect do belief systems, such as your own for example, have on a person's capacity for critical thought and rational action.
I think it is you who missed the point. Whatever the reason, the spirit of Christianity, call it a "belief system" if you like, has undergirded the development of the greatest civilization that has ever existed in the history of the world. So, your suggestion that we all try to separate ourselves from our inherited cultural experience of the past 2000 years is self-destructive. It is because of our (well, my) love for this Civilization that we (I) recoil in horror at the leftist destructive forces tearing it apart (to say nothing of the global banking cartel). Rather than attempt the impossible, as you are doing, I choose to accept that I am a better man because I accept this belief system that you demand, suggest, insist that I separate myself from. Paraphrasing Thomas Fleming: asking one to "separate these issues" and achieve some Randian objectivity is akin to asking a person to flap his arms and fly across the Grand Canyon. To ask this of a person is to attempt to defy human nature.
Faith is based on man exercising freely his assent to believe
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a1.htm
You have no clue of which you speak.
let us prey... umm... I mean let us pray to the almighty. There, thats right. Let us pray to the almighty dollar which is why we are on this web site. To worship money. To love money. That is what we do, isn't it? Chiristians! your the biggest money worshippers out there.
You don't fool or frighten me with your superstitions beliefs of everlasting punishment for eating meat on a friday.(read 1 sin to be eternally damned)
Laundering money for Jesus. Because Jesus can't handle money. He's all powerful but he just can't handle money.
Christianity is a political, not a spiritual system designed by the roman empire. It was invented to keep you enslaved and paying taxes and the roman empire in power(read roman catholic church).
This is what Orwell was writing about.
this system has worked pretty well so far. the muslims copied it.
Render onto ceaser what is ceaser's. Jesus of Nazareth.
"The problem with Christians is that they do not follow the example set by their religion's founder. The problem with Muslims is that they do."
Christianity as a political system is a work of men in tall hats not Christ.
"your superstitions beliefs of everlasting punishment for eating meat on a friday.(read 1 sin to be eternally damned)"
1 Tim 1Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.
"Laundering money for Jesus. Because Jesus can't handle money. He's all powerful but he just can't handle money."
1 Tim 3: 2Therefore an overseera must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,b sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
Let me acknowledge that hypocrisy is frequently found in individual Christians. The prosperity gospel is no gospel at all. That does not mean that there are no sincere Christians who are struggling to obey God and manifest his glory. To be eternally with Jesus is great reward.
"You don't fool or frighten me with your superstitions beliefs of everlasting punishment"
If you say so but, suppressing the truth is hard especially as one gets older.
Rom 1: 18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,g in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Well said. The point of any decent theology is a spiritual journey and reflection to the end of making one's self a better person. It is the goal of any type of enlightenment.
I divide the atheists into two camps, practically.
The first and most numerous are the anti-theists. These are the vocal, hostile, insulting atheists that you see most everywhere. They generally start from an a priori rejection of God/gods and work backwards from there. They are aggressive in their nature and proselytize like any religious missionary. Their goal is generally the eradication of religion, particularly Christianity. These type are dangerous and cannot make distinctions. Radical Islam, Quakers and Buddhist monks are all the same to them.
The second group are the non-theists. They simply cannot come to grips with any sort of God/s or on occasion are even formerly religious people who got "stuck" in their theology. They may be closer to agnostics. They are not particularly hostile, decent to talk to and may even appreciate some of the decent contributions of religions, particularly Christianity. They are more live-and-let-live. Most libertarian atheists are in this camp at least through the last aspect. More importantly they have an ability to make distinctions like the difference between radical Islam and Southern Baptists.
The first group is a waste of time and you simply have to fight them. Pearls and swine or wrestling with pigs are the operative concepts. They do have a ready ally in government and are attracted to it, as well. The second group is more fun to have coffee with and debate with you can cede good points to each other.
SWR, if you ever decide to indulge in an honest study of Christianity, you will discover that the religion actually seeks to set humanity free. The Christ was a truly revolutionary historical figure, even if one does not believe he was God incarnate. The man stopped the improptu stoning in the street of a woman caught in the act of adultery, a very high offense in his day. What does that say?
Furthermore, Jesus was no socialist. His parable of the Master who entrusted Talents (a unit of wealth) to his three servants ends with the Master returning from his trip, discovering that his least capable servant has buried his talent in the ground rather than make productive use of it (as the other two had done), and admonishing sternly as "wicked" this lazy man, taking from him what had previously been given, and entrusting it unto his more productive servants! This is the polar opposite of the robin hood meme; it is also diammetrically opposed to our tax-the-productive-class-to-give-to-the-non-productive-welfare-class policy our government has imposed upon us today.
Give Jesus another look, he might surprise you!
So why did it become a haven for child molesters?
Because humans can choose to perform evil. And humans in religion can choose to perform evil.
Why is there a middleman?
Why is the organisational structure of religion required? It doesn't stop the evil; it probably increases it.
"It" is not a haven for child molesters. And you sir, have swallowed the marxist coolaid.
Marxism has nothing to do with it. People do.
If the almighty individual is so independent that he cannot possibly be affected in his behavior by ideological, religious, or social structures, then how can you say of a man's propensity to evil that belief in Christianity "probably increases it?"
I'm amazed this little riff became so extended - but, the original thread of discusson beginning with SWR's remark centered on the damage caused by the aforementioned belief systems. Nothing else.
Chemotherapy often damages people, even though it may save them. It doesn't mean that chemotherapy must be dismissed. Likewise there is no suggestion that Christiantiy should be dismissed... no need to get your panties in a bunch here!
PS: I think I have to point out that you completely lost the original thread of thought. Is it possible that you've been damaged (by Christianity)? It's not good to be scatterbrained.
I'm sure you meant "train of thought." And no, I did not lose it. SWR's hostile remark to the effect that Christianity is nothing but a control system for enslavement of the masses to some sinister end betrays gross ignorance on his part. Re-read my subsequent posts and you will find some logical rebuttal to his (and your) ignorant repetition of anti-Christianity propaganda, and a suggestion that someone fed up with the evil machinations of power-hungry elites might find in the life of Jesus Christ some comfort and advice for dealing with today's trials. What part of that do you find confusing?
Your chemotherapy syllogism is so puerile it does not deserve to be dignified with a response, except to say that it is invalid.
Why is it that so many grown men (I'm assuming you're an adult) today can only think in 5 second sound-bytes? Do you really lack the capability of critical thought beyond the time it takes for the headline to scroll off the screen? Your inability to follow a logical series of point-counterpoint in this very thread, calling it "scatterbrained," suggests you are the one who has been damaged, not by Christianity, but most likely by the talking box in your living room. Recommend turning that off. Start reading books, beginning with Augustine.
Dupe.
"So why did it become a haven for child molesters?"
When tradition trumps obedience to the word.
1 Tim 4: 1Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.
"Why is there a middleman?"
1 Tim 2:5For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
Exactly what Christian doctrine codifies child molestation? Which denomination or order openly recruits child molesters?
There are no middlemen in final judgement. There are differences between Catholics and Protestants in this idea but the end beliefs are similar.
To end run the last stupid comment, I would ask if atheist regimes have eliminated organizational structures and eliminated all evil? Or, have they practiced it on an industrial sized base and essentially eliminated evil as an archaic religious concept? Evil is simply redefined as resisting the atheist state and it's church doctrines.
Sounds like you learned your version of Christian doctrine from nihilists.
To a nihilist, everything looks like "control".
And everyone else looks like a "controller", which is why nihilists hit them in the head with their stone axes.
Actually I think Huxley's "Brave New World" hit a little closer to the mark than Orwell's works. Not that it makes a huge difference in the end.
@NoDebt
I think you missed my point...
I'm aware of his premise, I disagree with one aspect of his conclusion. Orwell portrayed the elite to be nearly infallible, O'Brien made no mistakes (he might as well have been omniscient).
I don't think our local oligarchs are comparable. Don't conflate the ease with which people are controlled, with the ability of our ruling class. It's nothing special, in fact "it's so easy a caveman can do it"
Other than that he was spot on.
I am rusty on Orwell. I need to read it again.
They were infallible in their methods and efficiency but not their moral standards.
I think the author of this piece (as well as several commentors) is (are) operating with a flawed understanding of Plato in general, and his philosopher king construct in particular.
Plato wrote that the kind of citizen who openly aspires to ascend to a position of leadership among his fellow citizens is exactly the type of person who SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to come to power. This covers most heads of state alive today, and pretty much all members of the U.S. Congress, with a few exceptions. The idea of "running for office" would have been anathema to Plato and his school of thought. The ideal philosopher king is the man who DOES NOT WANT THE JOB!
So, juxtoposing today's heads of state - presidents, monarchs, dictators, some elected, some born into power, some who just seized power, it doesn't really matter - onto the ideal philosopher king in Plato's writing, with a view to criticize Plato as a "narcissitic sociopath" who got it all wrong is the height of straw-man argumentation. As if Bernard Dunham, David Cameron, George W. Bush, Al Gore, Tony Blair, Hillary Clinton (just threw up in my mouth a little when typing that name), John Kerry, Joe Biden, etc. would qualify in any way for Plato's philosopher king.
Thad to the contrary notwithstanding, Plato was no sociopath, and Western Civ. would have done a whole lot better for itself had it adopted Plato's model. Instead, we have the opposite of what he envisioned, an empowered elite addicted to the power of control over the rest of us - essentially the same problem Plato saw in his day, to a lessor degree, and proposed to rectify. Had we a philosopher king in power, there would be none of this business the author repeats (ad nauseum) about "the philosopher king makes it so," and something adverse happens to the citizenry to benefit the powerful elite. That IS NOT WHAT PLATO WROTE, and if Thad had taken the time to actually read and understand The Republic, he would know better than to write such garbage.
Here's a quote from Plato's Republic for those who might confuse Plato's construing of a philosopher king for Obama types. "And as licentiousness and disease breed in the city, aren't many law courts and hospitals opened? And don't medicine and law give themselves solemn airs when even large numbers of free men take them very seriously?" The whole books is a lengthy discussion where Socrates tries to convince two young men to become responsible guardians of their own lives.
Yes, for Plato health meant the full functioning of all the organs. In the same way, a society would function properly with the 'full-functioning' of all its 'organs'. This would imply both collectivism and individualism, and the prevention of runaway and tyranny of either form of government.
If anything, Plato was discussing how to prevent the tyranny of government and its constant intervention in people's lives. This is not to say he was right, as he was mistaken in some things - however, his mistakes show that any form of government or anti-government can become tyranny. (This is aside from the fact that most scholars are Aristotelian thinkers, and miss that The Republic is less fact than it is dialogue. It is like a play, a fiction, and we know from some other dialogues what he was saying intended to make a story from which the lesson may be deeply buried. He did not write commandments, quite the opposite. The Republic was more a city of ideas, from which lessons were learned that he expanded on in other writings.)
This society, democracy, is completely anti-Platonic. What few like to accept is that democracy and capitalism have become tyranny because of their own internal ideas, structure, and historical genealogy. Rather than communism being to blame it is the American democratic reaction (in McCarthyism, for example) that was to blame. Rather than leftist influence and the nanny-state being the problem it is really an inherent weakness of democracy and individualism that allows for, even requires, this multiple-personality of modern government (it was from the beginning a left-wing vs. a right-wing of government, loyal oppositions as a dictatorship over the tyranny of the king). Rather than constraint by the government being the problem it is an inherent fact that in modernity true wealth had already been squandered (just look at de Toqueville's description of the trees of America, a massive desert being created as true expansion of wealth, land, was approaching its limit).
We often hear how the political spectrum meets, like a circle the far-left meets the far-right. Stalin was no different from Hitler, in some minds (socialism meets fascism). We might say the same of individualism and collectivism. At their farthest reaches they come to meet. This is most clear with Ayn Rand, the Absolute Individualist. Of anyone who signifies capitalism and individualism she is it. But her philosophy of objectivism is completely collectivist. Her ideas are a collectivity of individuals who all begin to think the same, act the same, rely on the same mechanistic arguments. As a Randian individualist you are free to enslave yourself to the orders of rational thought. This does not appear to be a problem to many. But once you discard emotions, history, life outside of society (The Republic in its other form, for example) you begin to subject yourself to the tyranny of living moment to moment, completely ruled by the fortunes of the market, the state, or whatever new god is in place. All rationalisation simply becomes an imp of the perverse, changing history to purify the individualist spirit.
'When I die the world ends.' Rand's eschatology was simply an inversion of religious fundamentalism. And when you think about it, a Russian Jew escapes tyranny to live in a post-market/inter-war America. Of course her background will become mixed with American individualism and transcendentalism.
All the evidence you really need is in her cult of indivualists, 'The Collective'. It was supposed to be ironic that it was called The Collective, but really one needs to look at what became of the group. Rand became completely isolated, her individualism returned her to the mythic state of nature so long the government imperative of democratists and individualists. Greenspan became the great fictionaliser of economy for a new form of government. And most of the followers are yippies working for data corporations, six degrees of separation away from the Fed and the NSA. She was the ultimate collectivist, and all of the individualists who worship her are feeding into the tyranny of individualism/collectivism as millions come to think the same thoughts. Floating from moment to moment and ex-posto rationalising it is just a form of biological automation within survival of the fittest imperatives. The individualist singularity is abstract collectivism.
This is why democratists, individualists, capitalists and our society are so anti-Platonic. It hits too close to home (or they may just not be able to process a critique of it). Plato/Socrates critiqued democracy as he saw that the individualism and government of capitalists was a complete lie. It was a creation of a cave and living by the law of shadows. He clearly points out how a government descends into the underworld of oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. Democracy and tyranny are nearly indistinguishable, and democracy always precedes the fall into absolute tyranny. His five regimes do not necessarily suggest that Aristocracy is the best or ideal form of government. Rather, given his philosophical focus his point may have been that even those who seek an ideal form of living may have to go beyond all forms of government, as quite clearly The Republic becomes a tyranny. I cannot imagine this paradox was lost to him.
If there was one thing US foreign policy got right in the 20th century, it was its opposition to global Communism, which, yes, was more evil than free-market capitalism and its predominantly Christian sponsors. (Ask the 20,000,000 buried outside Stalin's gulags if there is any doubt.) And so, while I want to agree with much of what you wrote here, I cannot but give you a downvote for not recognizing the inherently evil nature of communism, and concordant slander of that Senator from Wisconsin who stood against the Frankfurt School et al attempts to corrupt American society. Yes, Senator McCarthy was a flawed man; but he was right about the commie spies and their ties to American media officials and even FDR's White House staff. The documents have been declassified and the jury is out: McCarthy was right.
Communism (collectivism, if you like) fails because it stands opposed to human nature. When you command that the fruits of a man's labor benefit firstly some large leviathan collective state, and second (a distant second) his family, his desire to leave something behind so that his offspring may enjoy a better life than he, one of two outcomes emerge: 1) the worker will find some way to cheat the system, or 2) he will quit working altogether.
Plato understood this, as did everyone else back then. He also appeared to understand that democracy can lead to the same type of collectivist police state to which Marxism has proved to lead. You will find in Plato's writing no legitimate basis for your opinions against the defense of US sovereignty in the 1940-50s.
Your assessment of Rand, however, is pretty accurate, methinks. Randians do not look to the logical conclusions to her arguments. She's horrible; and should be read by no one.
Part of the problem is the misidentifying of Left and Right. If the far Left is communism (Soviet Socialism) and the far Right is Fascism (National Socialism) then there is very restrictive illogical yard stick. Both of these philosophies are completely statists with the absolute autocratic primacy of the State. There are kissing cousins, not aliens. The only difference is in the amount of free market and state control of the economy. There are no differences after that. Both have a single supreme party, supreme doctrine, supreme leader and supreme calling of the State.
The proper Left vs. Right is Commies on the far left. The State is supreme and owns everything and everyone. The far right is anarchists (not the socialist type you see at G8 and G20 meetings) and libertarians who have no government or only an outline of a government by cooperation. In the middle left are democratic socialists which are virtually all western governments including the once vaunted USSA. To the right of them are theoretically the Republicans or conservative parties, but still left of libertarians.
On the far right there can be no tyranny because there is no central authority with a large hostile self serving police force.
As best I can tell is that between the 1920's and 1940's the terms left, right, conservative and liberal all got confused and stirred into a mash wherein things almost became the opposite of their historical meanings. I think it was actually a technique (successful one) of the Left to confuse the language and weaken opposition.
The confusion of the terms "liberal and "conservative" began before we all were even born. This was deliberate; and has been expounded upon by wiser men than I.
Have you read Burnham, for starters?
I'd also recommend, whether you're a paleoconservative or not, subscribing to Chronicles Magazine. For the price of sushi tonight, you can get a 2-year subscription.
https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/
THESE are the types of posts I enjoy reading in ZH. There are too rare. Well done, gentlemen.
Indeed, it is true, though not how this article spins it.
The philosipher kings are not the ones we see. There is a gaurdian class, they are the intelligence agencies. The heads of these agencies more or less rule the world. They can assasinate presidents, act out false flags that bring down sky scrapers right under our noses, manipulate markets, generally play psychological games with everyone, all in the name of "national security", and handle just about anyone, including high powered bankers with the offers of money, health, and safety, and the threat of death if you don't comply, . They are the deep state.
I wish I had the link but I read a fascinating psychological article that showed the very worst people (psychologically) are the very most attracted to the power of government. It tends to agree with my instincts and observations.
This to me, reinforces the libertarian argument against giving anyone power over ourselves.
It also reinforces my belief that the ancients were every bit as wise as we are today even though they did not have the same bodies of knowledge and technology to stand upon. In essence, the did more with less.
With that, it should go without saying (but that's never a safe bet around here) that the philosopher king should have a relatively high IQ, and should be well-educated. There are demographics of every society who are not qualified to responsibly manage all the variables one must manage when put in a position of leadership. It is neither false nor cruel to say that people need to "know their place" in society, and operate within that place rather than try to break through some "glass ceiling." The ceilings are real. (Just ask LT Kara Hultgreen's family.)
Good in-sights.
....I see few perceiving the depth of thier imprisonment today.....
That's because Huxley nailed that part of it.
Thanks, Indy. Let's make this even more complicated, shall we?
You're right, of course.
One of my failings is that I too easily see competing ideas as non-competitive with eachother. I see them as complementary. More than I should, to be honest. Most ideas should be rejected because most ideas are just dead wrong. But put me amongst the philosophies of giants and I have a hard time declaring any of them outright wrong.
I think Orwell would agree and I think I read somewhere that he said something close to what you just did.
Complimentary...
Hell, let's throw in A Clockwork Orange just for flair. Or Barneys for application.
no offence but about ideas.. about 90% of the mode/fashion/ stuff launched on the world comes from usa and all have bad impact of society.
violence in movies, cult of weaponry, fashion clothing, cult of millions stacking,
any fucking plague the world encounter you make it.... how the fuck do you want to be fine while the main thing to put you on your knee ( de-dollarization ) you ready to fire the whole planet to avoid it ....
I thought fashion clothing was a European thing - Paris and London. Or is that just the skinny models part of it all?
actually it's the skinny "heron addict" model part of it all that comes from Paris and London--
You either do as you are told or you are punished.
Depots may cut off your head or throw you in prison.
This has been going on for ever and nothing ever changes.
It is the bases of religion
The governments first enemy is the individual
And government's modern constituency is the artificial individual known as the Corporation. All Hail mighty Business!
Talking with a friend this morning about the continuing drought in the Southwest, how it's going to affect agriculture and the fundamental insanity of vast population centers living Midwestern American lifestyles there. We're having that conversation in Michigan, surrounded by 20% of the planet's surface fresh water, where we pretend that "our" Great Lakes are going to be protected forever by "the people."
What are we going to do, though, when western agriculture grinds to a halt and it's time for people of the southwest to pack up and move, as they would in a sane world? I don't think they're gonna want to move. I think we all know it will be portrayed as an epic human disaster. Corporate powers will ensure that's how it is promoted. The rest of us are going to be manipulated to feel we must do anything humanly possible to reverse it.
That's where the Great Lakes will come into play. We already make extensive use of pipelines for everything else. The means of moving great quantities of liquids and gasses are well established. With fresh water in one place and unfathomably desperate "need" in another, can there really be any doubt how this will play out?
People in the Great Lakes states think they'll have a say. But corporate water concerns costumed as the needs and rights of We The People will surely rule.
Take just one example to start it rolling. Say, the newly privatized city of Detroit's water company. Won't it have Rights? Geez, exercising them won't even require drilling, it will be just "Pump, baby, Pump." It will be marketed as Jobs, Jobs, Jobs for us and "lifesaving" assistance to our fellow Americans of the Southwest. Who could justify something analogous to Saudi Arabia never having pumped its oil fields dry (effects upon the planet's climate notwithstanding)? And if "The People" can be moved to build professional sports stadiums for the teams of billionaires, how could anybody expect that We The People won't be hung with the cost of building the modern Monument to the Ingenuity and Determination of Man? It will be an engineering marvel to be celebrated like landing the first man on the moon. Maybe The Great American Canal.
But those who live long enough--thank God I won't be among them--are going to see the Great Lakes pumped as dry as the Salton and Aral Seas.
All for the "Greater Good." One constructed on a twisted philosophy of individual rights monopolized by corporate persons. What a bunch of suckers. Nobody seems to notice that it's the corporate billionaires who are funding the vast PR war against that Evil Government that they themselves now own virtually lock, stock and barrel. Except for the responsibility of paying its debt, of course.
What a clusterfuck of divide and conquer. All for the mindless greater enrichment of the few. . . . who now claim to embrace the precious sanctity of the Individual.
Would it be considered cruel to suddenly expose the reality of the situation to a cow going to slaughter? Yes reality matters but if we are powerless to change our reality, is it not better to retain as much delusion as possible? Die dumb and happy?
Sure, if it will result in a stampede and get everyone off the feedlot.
CYPHER: You know, I know that this steak doesn't exist. I know when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, do you know what I've realized?
Pausing, he examines the meat skewered on his fork. He pops it in, eyes rolling up, savoring the tender beef melting in his mouth.
CYPHER: Ignorance is bliss.
AGENT SMITH: Then we have a deal?
No!
Truth matters, always.
When a person knows the truth then they are free.
Put another way, free the mind and the rest will follow.
We live in a world where some seek truth above all things, some seek delusion and escape above all things and many more are completely confused by both.
that reminds of the movie "Logan's Run"
all i beautiful till you hit 30 then you are sent to even a better place. Dead is dead
This article fails to mention the crucial information that Plato said that these castes would not be hereditary. Any caste could give birth to a philosopher king. And perhaps even more importantly, the highest caste may bear offspring unsuitable for that class, who would then be trained in one of the lower castes.
Plato's Republic is over 200 thousand words long. But I suppose a simpleton article like this is much more appealing to the slobbering members of the lower castes that occupy these dingy halls of ZH.
Did I rattle your cage? Sowwy.
What planet are you from?
"Plato said that these castes would not be hereditary. Any caste could give birth to a philosopher king."
LMAO
President, most certainly, sad but true, and obvious given our history. But philosopher king? I think you missed the point.
You must remember that Plato was being paid for his time spent to write. His master would only continue with his services as long as he was happy with Plato's work. Was Plato speaking the truth or making sure of his next meal?
Bingo---sarc of the P King---
random thoughts in a story to entertain-- or Plato the novalist??
I find that kids under the age of learning have an open regard for truth and fairness---reason and education quickly change that so with in a short time they become actors in a "Lord of Flies" world, Plato not excluded.
Well, I actually DID like the article.
"Broken Head" from after the heat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyLXZGTwQOg
chaser; "Belldog"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEaOUoKI-T8
not dance music, it's Eno, safe for work, come and see.
This article may be the best thing I've read on ZH in a long time.
edit: "He said, slobbering."
New glaziev's article. US is staging world war III.
http://www.anna-news.info/node/26096
clear and succinct.
Re: Sergey Glazvev
The United States must fear this brilliant economist who is now an adviser to President Putin. Glazvev ran for the President of Russia himself in the 2004 elections. In March 2014, he was one of seven persons banned from entering the United States and all his US assets were frozen
Excellent link, and here's a pungent excerpt:
Ukrainian Nazism is another artificial product of the misanthropic ideology that has been cultivated in the West for several centuries. Three centuries ago the British fancied themselves a master race and made racism the groundwork of their world empire. The Americans are still certain about their superiority over all other peoples around the globe, which, they argue, empowers them to judge other countries and their leaders proceeding from their own criteria. The U.S. authorities use this cult of exclusiveness as a pretext for punishing any other people and even for exterminating the disobedient ones. The underlying purpose of such subjugation is determined by the interests of U.S. capital, disguised in the human rights and democratic values rhetoric. It implies the lifting of all borders to U.S. goods and capital, introduction of U.S. education and cultural standards, and the use of the dollar as the main reserve currency and international legal tender. The United States is dictating to all countries its role of the supreme arbiter in all conflicts, both internal and external ones. It has assumed the right to arrest and punish any citizens of any countries it may not like, and it applies internal U.S. legislation to the entire world, while other countries are expected to agree with the supremacy of international obligations. President Barack Obama’s recent statements about the exclusiveness of the United States was a sure sign the racist ideology is still there and is being employed to excuse any crimes by the U.S. military-political machinery against humanity. Soaring military spending and the flywheel of world tensions are essential for the United States to preserve the notorious exclusiveness of America. “America must always lead on the world stage. If we don’t, no one else will,” Obama said. In more down-to-earth terms: to shrug off the mammoth burden of the state debt and to shift the U.S. economy onto a new long wave of growth.
In accordance with a racist ideology the U.S. political machinery is taking a discriminatory approach to countries depending on the readiness of their leaders to abide by U.S. interests. All countries are grouped into good ones, fully supportive of U.S. policies (the British Commonwealth, Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates), the under-developed, to be taught the U.S. values through political compulsion (Eastern Europe, Latin America), and the bad ones, defiant of U.S. diktat. Any technologies of external destruction are good towards the latter group of countries (Russia, China, India, North Africa, and the Middle East); the ultimate aim being their subjugation through a revolution and implanting of a U.S.-controlled regime, or through conquest and establishment of a colonial administration, or through destruction and subjugation piece by piece. In relation to Russia and the post-Soviet space, U.S. spin doctors have used all tools of destruction that come handy.
Billy the Poet - Nice job posting that quote. And it's true, I do study there reality and vision because if I don't I'll get eaten for lunch. However, there isn't anything new about there reality so if you want to have freedoms it is wise to study history as the article author suggests. Knowledge is power.
It is a binary system and there are only so many moves the top of the pyramid can make. When the system becomes corrupt, the people working for them also are so. What I have observed is that some at the top begin seeking out honest players. It is a barbell economy, you can sell to rich or poor but selling to the rich is more profitable.
A lot of them are overwhelmed with Internet technologies. A cheap start-up would be a tech management company for the wealthy. Then as you earn trust and hang out with them you can influence there thinking towards a bit of benevolence and why that is useful to them and everybody else. To save money on such a start-up, learn sales and get on the horn and call them. Read Tom Hopkins "How to Master tge Art of Sales". Get Business Plan pro for $100 and Google investing terms you don't understand because you will want to speak the same language as them. 70% of start-ups fail. The main reason is lack of a business plan which encourages competitor research and money management considerations.
I hope this helps a few. Some here would rather just bitch instead of adding value and redistributing the wealth back to yourself.
Another idea is using Meetup.com and having an "Inspiring Entrepenuar" group. There were small groups of guys that got together in the Great Depression and sharing ideas and mind-power and resources starting very successful companies. Life isn't fair and there are lots of barriers to entry rich folk have set up. Learn to scale the wall as I suggested and grab yourself some loot. Or just keep using your valuable time to complain.
Pass me the bong.
In a nutshell, she is saying you must live by reason, not faith, like Plato. Plato invented things, without perceving those things in reality, in nature. He was a mystic, in other words.
Fuck that shit.
MY reality is the world. YOUR reality is fantasy.
The universe actually does revolve around me.
Where's my ObamaCheck?
profound--- thats exactly what I was thinking--
After looking at some numbers of how much each vote costs during elections, I need to start voting.
I want my .gov cheese too!
In true capitalistic fashion, I will now be selling my vote in each election to the highest bidder.
If what you see is what you get, then what you get is what you see - or the other way around - dam that Plato fella was clever....
Listen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZklbxpbIy4M
0:52
Brillant WB7. Don't forget this link.
http://databank.worldbank.org/data/views/variableselection/selectvariables.aspx?source=joint-external-debt-hub
Don't want to hide the link. Winks.
Here is “The Prayer of Socrates” by the “Phaedrus” by Plato.
“Dear Pan, and all you other gods who live here, grant that I may become beautiful within, and whatever outward things I have may be in harmony with the spirit inside me. May I understand that it is only the wise who are rich, and may I have only as much…as a temperate person needs…That, I think, is enough.”
"Cat videos would be more informative than this........."
It's comments like this that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the intellectual level on this site is in free fall. But then, so is the rest of this once great country: America is one step away from total bankruptcy (financial, but also moral), and Obama is its twice elected president. A far cry from the ZH I knew, in its first year of existence...
This has become a strange characteristic of the Zeitgeist ever since the Great Financial Crisis. A great deal of the traditional political philosophies find themselves in a state of confusion, uncertainty and turmoil for some reason. I'm loathe to admit this, but Social-Democracy and the centre-left more generally have not been an exception.
What's worse, the attempts which some have been making to begin formulating alternatives, or to simply begin with something new, all tend to lose their momentum after a while and begin to erode and dissapate into irrelevance. What has happened to the Occupy Movement is a good example of this, and as you rightfully point out, this Libertarianism that is being promoted here on Zero Hedge is increasingly in danger of going down this route as well.
As a result, more and more people are beginning to respond to all this confusion by hunkering down in their ideological trenches, as they migrate from the center to more fringe or extremist circles. This is happening both on the left as on the right side of the political spectrum. Consensus politics are deteriorating across both sides of the Atlantic.
Finally something we can 100% agree on. Well said.
The minute you give a "movement" or "ideology" a name these days, the infiltration starts and doesn't let up until it's....assimilated. Until something arises pure enough that it can't be owned and twisted....we have the current situation.
The solution is complete non-participation. I am actually optimistic that we are moving in this direction. Obama, by claiming to "represent" the great mass of non-voters, actually demonstrates to me that they are getting desperate.
I think many of us are already on our way, involuntarily, towards non-participation, once unemployment runs out.
I heard there would be helicopter drops of FRN. Were they lying to me? Damn, all those nets I bought with my unenployment checks seem like a waste now.
It is a conflict between taxpayers and tax consumers. The political class deferred conflict with growing debt, but now the cost of the debt is exceeding the patience of the parties in conflict. The taxpayers will bear no more. The tax consumers want more and will accept no reductions. The tax consumers want to fight and the taxpayers are waiting for them to bring it on. Those in the middle have been moving toward the taxpayers. If the move is big enough and fast enough, civil war might be avoided, but it will not be easy. There are many on both sides who are sick of the tension and want the release that violence and victory bring.
Laws lose their power and relevance once they become imposed and not mutually valued by citizens. This is what collectivists fail to understand or respect. For collectivism to work it must be voluntary. Even Marx understood this, believing this consensus could be achieved by coercion and force that would eventually "breed out" the dissenters, that after a few generations of forced love of state, humans would no longer crave freedom of thought.
Whether it be wealth redistribution, civil rights, public works or military policy, once it becomes apparent it is all prefaced on the individuals interest's being lost for some "greater good" from on high, all voluntarism is lost and the system ultimately collapses as it can't withstand competition of outliers. While we can definitely see livestock in our genes and there is plenty of herd thought going on, we are still human and unique in many ways, and that is why this collectivization experiment always fails. Their belief that they can breed it out by simply murdering those remaining outside of the herd fails to recognize this trait exists in all of us and each successive generation will repopulate that group. There is always a significant portion of us that will not go along. We will see how this time works out.
Elites suffer under the delusion of knowledge and their power over it. They can study humanity and convince themselves that they can master the human race with force and dependencies. The failure comes from the belief that they can rule with a simple majority and use democracy as the bludgeon. They also understand their collectivist ideology can not withstand ANY competition and will use this democracy to not subjugate resistors, but eliminate them....as it has always been done before.
E.M.Larssen:
That’s a thoughtful comment, but it may be that you are trying to look too deeply into matters. Notice the date of your post, Nov. 22.
Does this date ring a bell? Something rather significant took place 51 years ago. A president was killed, yes. But let’s use language that puts events into a more accurate context: a coup d’état took place.
What needs to be thought about is what changed. How are we different now because of what happened 51 years ago?
The golpistas who pulled off the golpe de estado on Nov. 22, 1963, did not change the forms of the American Republic. Men and women still get elected to positions of political power, and the judicial system still functions within the same structures as always. But everything is different.
What happened is this: the rules were changed.
The golpistas of Nov. 22 sent a message to politicians that was heard, absorbed, and became second nature. The message goes something like this: “you politicians can squabble among yourselves about issues that don’t affect our interests – abortion, gay marriage, and the like, and you can funnel money to yourselves and you supporters. However, about issues that do affect our interests, there are lines in the sand. When it comes to foreign policy, military spending, and control of the mass media, the lines are tight. Start stepping over the lines and you are going to lose media support first, then financial support, then ….well ….….look at recent history. We kill. We kill retail (JFK, RFK, and even one of our own, William Colby). We kill wholesale (9/11). We kill bystanders, innocents and children (Oklahoma City). Outside of the USA, we kill by the million. Take heed.”
Magnius L., you say that the political debate is confused, which indeed it is. But why?
The answer: our debate has not come to grips with the reality of present arrangements. Our words lack accuracy.
Take government, for example. We do not have a government. We do, of course, have a government entity. Well, there is a place to start. We can take a step in the direction of accuracy by referring to the illegitimate arrangement now established on the banks of the Potomac -- and metastasizing across the planet – as “the government entity in Washington”.
Also, a minor but important point (that I direct to myself as much as you all): I propose that, by SELF-CENSORHIP, we banish the word “fuck” from our discourse. Practically every comment that is made here uses this word. The word does not convey accuracy of thought. Rather it is a dodge for thinking.
We are in a bad, a very bad, a very dangerous place. If we mount a serious challenge to the power of the men now in control of the government entity in Washington, we will be attacked. They have the power kill us. But more than that and worse than that: they will kill our wives and our children and brothers and sisters and friends. They are evil men. For them there is no way back. They have burnt their bridges and their boats. They have one tactic, which is simple but effective. They are able to murder with impunity.
Such men are not going to be beaten by adolescent bravado and vulgar words. They are only going to be beaten by men – MEN, you understand -- of moral courage.
Among many debates that we have to have among ourselves one is this: what is moral courage? And can we nurture it in ourselves?
thank you -----I've said before many times on ZH-- to have power you must do murder--- You have explained it clearly--
Noone on this site can even read the 216 thousand words of Plato's Republic, let alone understand it, let alone actually write such a feat themselves.
So yeah, I agree, the intellectual level on this site is low, but it's been free falling for a lot longer than ZH has been around.
Listen.
The intellectual level on this site is low, bitchez!
Gold is going to $25,000 an ounce and Putin rules!
Don't buy stawks in a record bull market.
Don't go to college. Get a $10 an hour job as an air conditioner repairman, even though I myself work at a desk job.
Don't buy shitcoin. Cash out your paper 401k and buy silver at $40 an ounce because it's manipulated! When it goes down, it's manipulated. When it goes up, it is free market!
Checkout my nudie avatar!
/very, very sarc
.
So I gave everyone a sampling of intellectualism here lately on the Hedge. The fight stops here!
Suck my dick Doctor.
Korn faggot
Sorry son, I don't swing that way. I'm sure one of your millenial buds would be more than happy to do that for you behind the bleachers at your high school.
Seriously, you need to grow up. Adults are having a conversation here.
The9thDoctor
It sucks when debt becomes fucking your family members to extend credit extensions. Right Doctor?
http://databank.worldbank.org/data/views/variableselection/selectvariables.aspx?source=joint-external-debt-hub
KoRn & Limp Bizkit All In The Family
Tell me about the world bank.
Welcome to the fight club.. 9th doctor.
It's ran by Jews.
At least that's what I have read on here the last five years.
So why haven't you broke down the World Bank link I gave you? Throwning out the Jews appears to be the answer. Where is all the taxpayer money being shifted? Doctor?
Having read and studied Plato in Greek - I'm bothered that so many people here think its silly. I truly believe that the failure of Americans to study the Classics (which became known as "dead white man" in the current academic context) is part of how they've allowed the country to fall. Read the the founding fathers - they were all up in the Classics. /sarc doesn't build (or save) a country - history does.
The decline of the study of the classics is to be greatly regretted. Read the high quality of the battlefield letters of soldiers from both sides during the US civil war who had all been schooled in the classics.
Na, more likely he's a troll trying to get a hock and steer the comments.
Yup, pretty vapid, this one. It's even a step down from the usual "10 reasons why the world is ending".
Plato's Republic is a VERY scary piece of work. He was a huge fan of Sparta and wanted to take their practices further, including stealing ALL of the children once they were born so they could be raised by the elites. Plato was a creepy fucker and his Republic was crown jewel of creepy. There was a reason this very popular and well known man couldn't get elected to office - even the Greeks thought he was bat-shit crazy.
And yet he's considered one of the great "philosophers".
The 9th Doctor
I'm a time lord whose TARDIS is stuck in the time vortex, so unfortunately I have to live in early 21st Century America with the rest of you humans. The Rothschild Zionist/Jesuit/Freemasons are all puppets of the Daleks. If you encounter a Dalek, aim for its eyestalk. The Dalek eyestalk is the eye of the NWO Pyramid.
Fuck off 9th doctor. Fuck your sister.
KoRn & Limp Bizkit All In The Family
"He was a huge fan of Sparta and wanted to take their practices further, including stealing ALL of the children once they were born so they could be raised by the elites."
Plato, like Socrates, had been abused as a child. Of course he wanted to take all the children and get them raised by specialists (not "elites", but child development professionals). If you'd been born in the same family as his, you'd want the same.
And he was not a "huge fan" of Sparta.
"Cat videos..."
All right, meow, where were we?
http://youtu.be/mXPeLctgvQI
Karl Rove: "Guys like [Suskind] were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality" … "That’s not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
The Menagerie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5XBfgPy43A
"The Constitution states no person or law supercedes it, however, by way of executive order the chief philosopher king has granted the philosopher kings a level of authority that supercedes that of the Constitution."
Everyone seems to forget SCOTUS, which since 1803 declared itself sole arbiter of what the USCON "actually means". Being able to redefine, for example, "shall not be infringed" to mean "reasonable control" is 100x more dangerous and powerful than a president that EOs his executive branch.
I solely blame Obamacare on "conservative" Chief Justice Roberts. Ruling it Constitutional as a "tax" was the deathnail.
This is the fundamental problem of the Supreme Court. You only have to "get to" one guy to make your evil plan work.
I would like to know (for certain) if attorneys argued that it was a tax or if SCOTUS decided that on their own. Typically, if not always, the court will only consider what is argued. If it was not argued that it was a tax, SCOTUS should have never entertained the idea and saw it for what it is - a penalty. Not the first shitty decision, and certainly not the last. SCOTUS is a statist joke.