This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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.
- 42001 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


Roberts was also instrumental in loosening the reigns of untraceable money onto elections.
In the end, that will make his work on Oblamacare trivial.
"Everyone seems to forget SCOTUS, which since 1803 declared itself sole arbiter of what the USCON "actually means"."
Arguably, SCOTUS had judicial review power prior to Marbury v Madison. That case was simply the first opportunity to exercise the power. There is a lot of evidence from the time of the ratification process to support the idea that SCOTUS and the Federal Courts were expected to have judicial review power. One example...
Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 78: "The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."
only applicable in a "rule of law" situation---not in a "rule of men" one.
If it is? It must Be/
Plato was an interesting character. He was "all or nothing" in his intrepretations.
Plato had an ego rarely matched. Athenians were citizen class everybody else were less than human so anything you did to the lesser was just fine since they weren't capable of complex thought or deed.
Sounds like democracy to me, and for some reason it's a standard for the world to follow.
edit: actually it sounds very talmudic.
True to an extent, I wonder what the people of Melos would have to say about the fairness of Athenian democracy.
The Melian dialogue as described by Thucydides in his History of the Peloponnesian War (415BC) is worth re-reading
Replace "Athenians" with "New Yorkers" and you have present day.
More accurate would be San Franciscans. An "enlighten" class who has mexicans mowing their lawns, raising their kids and cooking their meals, while getting paid slave wages. And the whole time preaching diversity and fairness. Socialism for thee but not for me.
Modern tech yuppies are the worst.
Plato was an egotarian. He was afraid of his own shadow.
Study the history of Plato. He painted(sculpted) to deflect his unwillingness to fight.
People study History!
Infopipe of adjusted reality, all media. Independence equals reality. Slavery is to be duped. Got it.
Read Marshall McLuhan.... the medium is the message.
The writer of this article risks unsettling the herd. Thank heavens so few in the herd pay attention to what is happening around them, so we need not fear a critical mass of unsettled members. As long as the great majority drink their Kool-Aid, Things will go onward the same, Tho dynasties pass.
We are living Rand. Ask the acts of Greenspan. Fuck this author.
Actually there's a lot of Brave New World in the direction we're going and for Orwell I would pick Animal Farm.
All of the above. People who own us are engaging in wage arbitrage, and taking their factories overseas. And as Rand advocated, they are building up a military to protect what they have taken. As Orwell predicted, there is constant surveillance to keep the powerful in power.
"Statism needs war; a free country does not. Statism survives by looting; a free country survives by producing." --~ Ayn Rand
Let's go ahead and bail out banks and prop up the stock market. -- Alan Greenspan, co-author of Rand.
Your defense is a made up quote from someone who isn't Ayn Rand? That's weak even for you. Why not get a real quote to support your arguments?
Which company did Ayn Rand head?
Alan Greenspan, her co-author, had a job once. What did he DO. Explain Greenspan.
Nevermind. I'm done for the night. Go fuck yourself frat boy.
What evidence do you have that I am a "frat boy?" Just like Plato you think that your own whims constitute reality when in fact they're simply convenient fictions behind which you hide from reality.
Hahahaha. The frat boy doth protest too much. Good night Rand sheep, keeper of your parents' money.
Hahahaha. The frat boy doth protest too much. Good night Rand sheep, keeper of your parents' money.
Asking you to support your assertion is protesting too much? You certainly have some interesting critical thinking skills not to mention an amazing sense of justice and fair play.
Did you explain Greenspan yet?
I made no unsupported assertions about Greenspan. You are the one who makes accusations which you absolutely refuse to support.
The persona you imagine for yourself -- that of a really smart guy who's going to show those Tea Baggers a thing or two and boy, won't they look stupid! -- has begun to fail rather miserably. If you want to pretend to be the smart guy who puts down the rabble you'll have to at least try to make a valid argument.
I'm just a simple guy who sees that Alan Greenspan co-wrote with Ayn Rand, and ruined this country. You're the intellectual who is able to differentiate the two. But no doubt you, Ayn, Alan and their Zionist friend Ben are smarter than me. And words mean more than actions as always.
"I'm just a simple guy who sees that Alan Greenspan co-wrote with Ayn Rand, and ruined this country. You're the intellectual who is able to differentiate the two. But no doubt you, Ayn, Alan and their Zionist friend Ben are smarter than me. And words mean more than actions as always."
Why have you not present your evidence that Ayn Rand praised militarism? You made the assertion so back it up with facts rather than non-sequitur opinions or be prepared to accept that you are not smart enough to do so. Give me a quote from this Rand-Greenspan treaties which you refer to and prove your point.
Look it up yourself asshat zionist.
"Look it up yourself asshat zionist."
Talk about desperate!
I sponsored a Palestinian boy named Fady al-Belehy from the Hay al-Salam district of Rafah for several years. I use Palestinian honey, olive oil and olive oil soap. I had an olive tree planted in Palestine in honor of my grandmother. I sent a backpack to a child in Gaza via Code Pink. I sent hundreds of dollars to support the Free Gaza boats since the first voyage. What have you done?
Oh, and my mother's schoolmate was killed by rocket fire on the USS Liberty.
Now where's your Rand-Greenspan quote praising militarism? You claim it exists but you can't seem to produce it.
Holy shit that's funny. "I sponsored a Palestinian boy named..." Hahhahahahahahahahhha. Zionist. How did I know?
Are you really incapable of doing a simple google search on Rand and the military? I'm not doing it for you. I'm not your fucking slave.
Here's my 5 star review on Amazon for Al'ard olive oil soap. Why not buy some and support the good folks in Palestine?
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3F1GP2EC04CYQ/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&A...
Fuck you and fuck you again.
That is not an argument.
No, it's just a fuck you. Fuck you. I don't argue with Zionists. Zionists believe they own the world. I disagree. We're not going to work it out with words. Just actions.
"Just actions."
You saw my Amazon review which I posted under my own name so you and everyone else knows that what I have said is true. What have you done other than to falsely accuse me despite the fact that the evidence of your calumny is plain for all to see?
I am ready to judge you by the actions you have taken in support of Palestinians. All you have to do is present them.
Fuck the Palestinians too. And the Christian crazies. And mostly fuck the Zionists. But fuck all of you fucking religitards. You divide us, and lead us to war over competing dieties, while you eat from a golden spoon and and do everything you claim you are against.
Explain Greenspan.
With that I accept your concession.
Go fuck yourself zionist Rand lover. I concede nothing to you. What, are you going to call your friends and blow up a few buildings in NYC?
Rothschilds.
Dimon.
Blankfein.
Morgan.
Geithner.
As usual I upvoted all of your posts LTER.
It's nice to see others who are critical of Ayn Rand's BS.
Actually, if I were to interpret his own words, without Rand LTER would live a very confused life... as in, he would even know what he is living through.
Normally LTER brings up good points, but I guess he had too much to drink tonight, and he's just cussing now.
I would like to see Ayn's support for military quotes too, because all I can find thus far is her being opposed to war.
I "googled it" and all I get is her opposition to war and militarism.
I'm hugely critical of Ayn Rand, especially with her butt buddy Greenspan and their "collective", but I am just not seeing her advocating utilizing militarism for defending "producers".
Rand was in favor of the military. Look it up.
Here's Rand on Isreal. From 1979. Any Randers want to defend this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU
I did look it up and that's how I know you're woefully incorrect.
"Men who are free to produce, have no incentive to loot; they have nothing to gain from war and a great deal to lose. Ideologically, the principle of individual rights does not permit a man to seek his own livelihood at the point of a gun, inside or outside his country. Economically, wars cost money; in a free economy, where wealth is privately owned, the costs of war come out of the income of private citizens — there is no overblown public treasury to hide that fact — and a citizen cannot hope to recoup his own financial losses (such as taxes or business dislocations or property destruction) by winning the war. Thus his own economic interests are on the side of peace." -- Ayn Rand's The Roots of War, 1966.
Want to bet? How much asshole.
Seeing as how the quote is accurately sourced, you might as well just pay me now. Make it a buck.
"The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders."
-Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.
Where do I collect my dollar?
And do you reject her support of Isreal?
That is hardly support for militarism. Self defense is a natural right. I disagree with Rand insofar as security services both foreign and domestic should be provided by the free market rather than government. But unlike me you are a supporter of government. Are you now claiming that you are an anarchist who wants to see the police and army disbanded in favor of laissez-faire solutions? If not then you are just as militaristic as Ayn Rand.
How would I characterize someone who made a bet, lost, and reneged? So now you disagree with Rand, but won't pay me my buck? A fucking dollar? And you won't part with it. Got it. Randite.
But you lost the bet. The quote you cited didn't say what you claimed. However, if you want the buck, I'll send it to you. What's your name and address?
My quote from Rand didn't say that she supported the military? I guess government army is vague. Typical.
If you wish to admit you were wrong and lost the bet, send the buck to the Tylers.
You claimed, "People who own us are engaging in wage arbitrage, and taking their factories overseas. And as Rand advocated, they are building up a military to protect what they have taken."
To support that claim you provided this Rand quote:""The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders.""
Please explain how repelling foreign invaders is equivalent to "People who own us...building up a military to protect what they have taken."
Keep your dollar, Randite. No worries. I won't sue you, and even if I did you'd call someone. You may go back to parsing Rand for snippets of things that make sense in your world view.
So you can't reconcile those two quotes either? That's what happens when you let vodka do your thinking for you. Do you ever reread your posts after you've sobered up and isn't that embarrassing enough to get you to an AA meeting?
I'm too busy with the testicular cancer meetings. Meat Loat doesn't attend AA, even though he would do anything for love. But he won't do that.
So LTER is drunk...again.
The 9thDoctor cannot even discern that. Neither can you. You lack intuition.
There are two distinct personas...One when he is drunk and another when he is not.
LTER is pretty cool when he is sober.
But he is an example of that amazing product, Instant Asshole...Just add alcohol.
Go sleep it off LTER.
It's 3 am Eastern for fuck's sake. What are you doing here sober? And I'm commenting on an article that addresses my greatest pet peeve. But I guess this kind of rebuke is consistent with new Zero Drudge Pussy club. I hereby throw a pillow at you and make a derogatory comment about Al Gore, because it matters.
So I called out Ayn Rand, the patron saint of the new Zero Drudge. Let me find you a band aid for your boo boo.
I miss this place.
My favorite Ayn Rand quote is: "Why the fuck is my Social Security check late again"
He's good people. Just has a serious bitch with Rand. Please....let....it....go.
Like trying to get a bone out of a pit bulls mouth. She's not my fav...mostly due to basic lack of economy of word, but to much hard drive space has been burn for this particular fight.
He just don't dig Rand, man,
I hear ya, but he's like one of those terrible accidents where you just can't look away or a scab you just can't stop picking at.
That scab is people waking up to Zionism. Scratch it.
Zionism is a terrible evil, not something for you to use as a desperate tactic to save face.
Rand was a zionist. Do you reject her?
I reject Rand's support of Zionism. Her own philosophy can be used to refute Zionism. She obviously failed to think Objectively in that case.
Do you reject your own support for Zionism in this very thread when you said, "Fuck the Palestinians?"
So you rejected Rand before you supported her. Or do I have that backwards? You supported her before you rejected her. Oh wait. You supported her, then you rejected her, then you supported her again.
You're an idiot.
Explain Greenspan.
Like all individuals Rand could sometimes be wrong. I have been wrong. Have you ever been wrong?
Here are some quotes from Ron Paul in which he both agrees and disagrees with Ayn Rand's views. Do you consider him to be an idiot and do you consider yourself to be an idiot as you voted for him?
Like his son Rand, Rep. Ron Paul went through an Ayn Rand phase. In 2007, he told Dartmouth students that “she had a lot of influence on me,” but he has also criticized her take on religion and Christianity as seeming “so cold.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75667.html#ixzz3JsOIFOGG"
I'm wrong a lot, which is why no one worships me. So do you reject Ayn or live your life by her words, ignoring the actions of her co-author Greenspan.
Explain Greenspan.
And yes, I strongly disagree with Ron Paul for ever believing in Rand. I voted for him because he wrote a book called "End the Fed."
Ayn Rand was wrong about any number of things but that doesn't change the fact that she shared some great insights as well. Do you consider that to be a declaration of faith?
You're the one arguing the faith frat boy.
Shall we End the Fed and stop supporting Isreal? Two simple questions. I say end the Fed and stop supporting Isreal. You? I'll bet pussy frat boy zionist Rand supporter punts. Prove me wrong. Here's your chance.
"You're the one arguing the faith frat boy"
If my contention that Rand was insightful but sometimes in error is an act of faith then is saying the same thing about you an act of faith? There has been a time or two that I have agreed with you but I find fault with other things you've said. Do you believe that that makes you my God?
Shall we End the Fed and stop supporting Isreal?
Yes, of course. But how does your statement, "Fuck the Palestinians" withdraw support from Israel?
Okay, you want to end the Fed and withdraw support from Isreal. We have that in common. So there are two major tenats of Rand that you admit were complete folly. And can you explain Greenspan?
If you also agree that Greenspan was full of shit and is the only living example of Rand in practice, what is left of Rand? Please give concrete examples of her acts/works, not words. Greenspan also said a bunch of words that were lies.
"If you also agree that Greenspan was full of shit and is the only living example of Rand in practice, what is left of Rand?"
But Greenspan acted in direct opposition to the ideals set forth in Atlas Shrugged. His closest counterpart in the novel would be Wesley Mouch, a villain.
Please give concrete examples of her acts/works, not words.
Ayn Rand was a novelist and essayist. Her words, both right and wrong, are her actions. She did quite well for a frightened young woman who escaped the horror of early Soviet Russia and made the most of a new life in a new country which she loved, God bless her.
In the past week we have learned that you've never made any effort to speak out publicly against war and that while you claim to be anti-Zionist you have done nothing to support the Palestinians and in fact have said, "Fuck the Palestinians." It appears that you are lacking in moral action yourself.
Presented without comment:
"But Greenspan acted in direct opposition to the ideals set forth in Atlas Shrugged."
Presented without comment because once again you have no valid retort.
My words do not speak as loudly as Alan's actions. I humbly defer to Alan's actions to make my point. You may loudly repeat his co-author's words now if you like.
If you believe that Greenspan acted according to the ideals in Atlas Shrugged then you must mistakenly believe that he replaced the FRN with gold.
"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked: 'Account Overdrawn.'" -- Ayn Rand
Very loud indeed.
Read before you downvote! Personally, I respect Rand. He's not giving rights away.
Rand is challenging your thoughts. He's calling you out!
Rand is locked and loaded in Alaska.
There is an apparent paradox here"
Got it.
But it survives by looting the producers.
And the producers must be protected against the looters. And the looters are a common problem to the producers.
So, therefore, efficiency and common sense dictates that a COLLECTIVE protection against looters is necessary i.e. "to provide for the common defense".
Ergo: police forces and armies.
But: police forces and armies are instruments of GOVERNMENT.
Conclusion: GOVERNMENT, police forces and armies are necessary for the survival of a free country.
"We are living Rand."
Yes, we are as the crony capitalists who were the villains in Atlas Shrugged have taken control. She was quite prescient. But you vehemently disagree with Rand's condemnation of crony capitalism and you have consistently refused to explain why.
Explain Greenspan. Or do you only care about what they said, and not what he did?
Greenspan: a person who is not Ayn Rand. Does that help? Why do you find it impossible to find fault with Rand's actual ideas as expressed by Rand herself?
Because I care about what people do, not what they say. You'll get that later in life.
I'm older than you, sonny boy. Just another convenient fiction on your part.
Do you plan on presenting any actual arguments tonight or are you just pissing in the wind yet again.
Which part of Greenspan's actions do you agree with?
Stop dancing and fight.
You're the one dancing, frat boy. And go fuck yourself you fucking Rand sheep.
Do you really believe that that is a cogent argument?
You have asserted that Rand praised militarism yet you refuse to present a single piece of evidence to support your misapprehension. I provided a quote that shows the opposite (and I can provide more).
Is that the Hustle you're trying to do? It doesn't look good on you.
"I don't blame those who refuse to be drafted, however, if they did so out of genuine convictions (not necessarily religious). If someone opposed the state's right to draft him, he'd be right, and would go to jail. But when a lot of bums declare they don't want to fight this war because they don't want to fight Soviet Russia -and that's all it means- then not only don't they deserve amnesty, they deserve to be sent pemanently to Russia or North Vietnam at the public's expense." Ayn Rand
This is all I need to know about Ayn Rand. The state's right to draft? And to say that a person's reason for refusing to be drafted is pertinent? Fuck dat.
Easy for her to say. Women don't get drafted.
Explain Greenspan.
Wrinkled old asshole opportunist. Throwing spaghetti against the wall to see if it sticks.
Greenspan was launched from the "Mothership" back in "43 to rade some offworld currency for XAU.
That's when the PAPER market started. Bitchez
A brilliant portrayal, +1 !
Thank You
Sorry, it was for the guy above you.
re: Greenspan
so what is new? power corrupts
LTER - Reading Aristotle doesn't mean you'll practice it while in power. Same as tge Ten Commandments.
Yup, we have the soldier class in place, the philosopher kings (money-changers), and those unwashed masses still lost in the cave watching the shadows on the wall.
Throw in some technology: advanced weapons, drones, and N.S.A. monitoring, and the picture is almost complete.
All hail Big Brother, Caesar, the Imperium, and the New Rome.
De-evolution in full force.
tyrants will always try to build a world for their slaves
.
its all about who we are
I love how Americans believe their "constitution" means anything.
Jingoistic opiates.
Some of us have actually read it. And swore to defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We've never been relieved of that oath.
Clean up, clean up, everybody everywhere. Clean up, clean up, everybody do your share.
I love you, you love me. With a great big hug and a kiss from you to me, won't you say you love me too.
Don't bring Barney into this.
Exercise, exercise. Come on everybody, do your exercise!
WTF did I just read ? And why ?
Man's interpretation of absolute truth is an absolute abomination. Take a look around........
The philospher kings were supposed to be benevolent rulers using their knowledge of philosophy to run an enlightened government. I'm pretty sure King Barry the First and the rest of the rogue's gallery that comprises governments around the world are the exact opposite of what Plato was thinking.
King Barry reads a teleprompter and signs E.O.s. He is an orator, not even anywhere near a philosopher king.
A piss-poor orator, too. If his tele-prompter dies, he's a fish out of water...flapping about, gasping, with eyes glazing over.
The philosopher kings aren't the people in actual visible positions of power. Obama in this scenario is merely Alcibiades (the gay consort of Socrates in the Symposium) - a self-interested, not particularly deep character who can be guided and manipulated by the philosopher kings who 'whisper in the ear' of the ruler. The PKs require such a person in order to achieve their own goals (which are NOT equality of opportunity for the public at large).
I see a lot of people here misinterpreting or dismissing the relevance of Plato to our modern situation. It's not that I think this blog post was particularly hot, but if anyone has a memory-span, consider the relationship of Plato, the notion of the "noble lie" which this author only tangentially raises, and the Straussians - i.e. the intellectual hard-core of the neo-cons. The Straussians never went away - they just got a new Alcibiades whose ear into which they're whispering.
Instead of being so glib on the topic, we ought to learn from the texts that outline the imperial end-game of these nutjobs that think total control is possible (once again).
Shadows on the walls of the cave man.
first of all never argue with a dead greek. if you must take the mcluhan approach, an examination of the narcissistic impulse, as it applies to all of technology. the common myth of narcissis is that he fell in love with his own image, while he didnt recognize himself, much as modern man does not think he lives in the extensions of his technology, and is numb to their effects. (trust me its a lot more accessible than all that crap about shadows in a cave)
So you figured out that a Malaysian airliner is shot out of the sky not by things yet unknown but because the philosopher kings make (claim) it so
but you haven't figured out that the Constitution has not been in effect for quite some time? Or that it is only now used as part of an illusion to pretend that the uSA still exists for the benefit of the masses when in reality it is just a corporation with employees?
Sometimes I wonder where they dig up these faux bloggers posing as truth tellers or truth seekers? Maybe from the graveyard of a Roger Corman movie
Oh and nice cube on the icon & black and white duality heading on your blog Sport. I'm sure the satanic brotherhood appreciate the symbolic shout out
"...but you haven't figured out that the Constitution has not been in effect for quite some time?"
With respect, but please refer me, and the other readers here, to the convention, or meeting, of states that "de-ratified" the Constitution.
Thank you.
An American, not US subject.
"If the Constitution is no more, I propose that Aesop's Fables replace it."
De-ratify No,
Re-Order Power, Yes.
Uncivil War created a forced union and reoriented power from these united States to The United States.
14th made a mockery of u.s citizenship as shown by the illegal mess.
16th made slaves of the People
17th eliminated states participation in the national government, thus sealed the end of their sovereignty
The Aldrich Plan (Federal Reserve) ended the national governments sovereignty handing it over to the private bankers of Europe.
The fathers allowed us the power to destroy ourselves if we wished and we took them up on it.
And Aesop's Fables would aptly define how most see the republic today.
I realize this is a small portion of all information. But its what I could find in 15 minutes
Supreme Court Justice Marshall Harlan (Downes v. Bidwell, 182, U.S. 244 1901) by giving the following dissenting opinion:
“Two national governments exist; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and Independently of that Instrument.”
and look at the more recent events and documents
1. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/22/president-obama-s...
2. 42 U.S. Code § 5122 - Definitions - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/5122
3. The National Emergencies Act (Pub.L. 94–412, 90 Stat. 1255, enacted September 14, 1976, codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1601-1651)
4. whitehouse.govpressreleases 2013 - BO has signed 19 states of Emergency continuations of National Emergency declarations for Zimbabwe, Cuba, Libya, Ivory Coast, the Middle East Peace Process, Sudan, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lebanon, Significant Transnational Criminal Organizations, the Former Liberian Regime of Charles Taylor, the Western Balkans, the Risk of Nuclear Proliferation Created by the Accumulation of Weapons-Usable Fissile Material in the Territory of the Russian Federation, Belarus, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, and Iran.
5. Regarding the Trading With the Enemies Act 1917 - H. Rep. No. 95-459, at 7 (1977) - " has become essentially an unlimited grant of authority for the President to exercise, at his discretion, broad powers in both the domestic and international economic arena, without congressional review. These powers may be exercised so long as there is an unterminated declaration of national emergency on the books, whether or not the situation with respect to which the emergency was declared bears any relationship to the situation with respect to which the President is using the authorities"
6. The whole world is a battlefield and being a citizen of the USA doesn't provide any protection. In case the whole world doesn't clarify the US enough the NDAA and Patriot Act remove any remaining doubts
Examples
Just like gun rights the criminals that run your country know they can't come right out and announce that they've taken them away or are going to take them away or people would instantly rise up and take them out. Same with the Constitution. It was substituted through subterfuge. Kind of like a shell game but in this case more like a shell company and switched but not fully disclosed and certainly not published, discussed and debated in public. Considering these people are liars, thieves, psychopaths and sociopaths I'm confident that no matter which way it happened it was neither done lawfully nor with the full knowledge and consent of everyone who resides in the Republic. However, the userpers believe they can lie their way out of it by explaining it in some delusionally lawful way without it coming back to them. A combination of make it up as they go and plausible deniability. Pretty much what happens on a daily basis in America now.
Here are a few examples:
1. There has been a state of emergency in effect for the entire country for quite a few years already. This is equivalent to Martial Law and provides the ability for the CEO (BO) of USSA Inc through debt based extortion of the States, or the wilful complicity of any Governors, to take any action unilaterally that he deems necessary without consulting Congress or anyone else. I strongly suspect the upcoming lawsuit(s) to go nowhere or do anything to curtail the power and subsequent furthering of the destruction of any rule of law (albeit only perceived) in your country
2. There is a constant testing of the waters in the criminal media to promote and gauge the reaction of the public to statements like the Constitution is outdated and no longer relevant or there needs to be a Constitutional Convention to make radical changes to bring it up to date. This always seems to be directed by the Media and their masters. This should be a clear indication that they aren't interested in increasing your freedoms but replacing or removing them. If they can't get you to do it volutarily they will do it illegally and behind your back and then try to rush it through the rubber stamp factory called CONgress with the willing support of sellout criminals like Nancy (we have to pass it to find out what's in it) Pelosi. (ie. TPP, UN Small Arms Treaty)
3. Small incremental steps are being taken to formally place the entire US into a willing state of acceptance of the Martial Law (semantically word gamed as State of Emergency) that already exists. (Boston Bombing Watertown, Ferguson Missouri). The events that do occur are assessed, refined, rehearsed and retried at the next coordinated event involving fed/st/local complicit traitors. They are literally war gaming your country in front of your eyes under the guise of drills, created scenarios or possibly even completely fictitious public events that will get larger and more visible over time until the whole country is openly accepting the police state. Of course it will be for everyone's safety. That is unless enough people stand up and say enough and order the government to stop. I do not have high confidence this will happen based on how clueless most Americans appear to be
Do the following statements from the Governor of Missouri sound like even remotely competent or sincere answers about his own declared State of Emergency?
https://soundcloud.com/jon-swaine/gov-jay-nixon-on-ferguson
Rand, 1984, BNW, yada yada...
Seems more like we are in Lord of the Flies territory to me. I wish it was more like Brazil(Movie, not the failed S. American socialist superstate).
Plato's The Cave describes so many people I know, and deal with everyday. They are more comfortable with the simple shadows on the walls, than the brilliance of the real world and truth.
The text: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.8.vii.html
An American, not US subject.
The cave supposedly described the structure of reality. It was (and is) bullshit.
oh! c'mon! everything you need to know about the power structure of the world you should have learned in kindergarten but certainly by high school. the world society is socially, therefore politically and sconomically, stratified. that stratification is an overlapping organization down to the various stratifications of the lowliest of humans.
in disagreement with the author, the stratifications change all the time as new stratifications gain power or emerge from nothing. the top tier of humans have the most to fear. someone is always trying to change another's reality to impose their own. history shows the reality is the disruptions of the status quo(the current reality) is the constant
The problem is not really the stratification of society per se, but the unequal access of those at the top to theft via "printing," backed by the violence of governmnet.
Let me steal from my neighbor to my right, while using my neighbor to my left to subdue him, and I too could be rich. But then do I really stand above my fellow man, or on them?
An American, not US subject.
Makes me pine for the barbarians of old. At least they were honest in motive and expected no quarter. The key is to never get comfortable...
Odin would be proud. As will Thor's hammer!
"The facts are we will never know the facts."
One of the best lines written in 2014
Unless a guys has guilt and spills the beans.
Look at this guy who was convicted for homicide (murder) for 30 years on the testimony of an adolescent witness.
The adolescent now grown up has avowed he gave false testimony on that case 30 years after the condemnation.
The guy walks free today.
You can never tell with human nature.
Maybe we'll get someone telling the truth on bigger issues. "I was a JPM hit man who sucked the squid testicle and spawned a Fed print frenzy, they were so scared that my Baby was un-CDSable".
Awesome if true.
So ! Zero/Hedge has turned into an "pre-school" day care center?
I'll provide some trading ideas.. The little pricks on "liberty".
Like anyone knows the outcome. Hate me
We've all asked ourselves, " Why are we wasting time" ?
Start asking yourselves how to balance a bowl full of "Jello¥ "
They don't know a once of thought if EBT is empty. Winks
Focus on Mnemosyne
Repeating the same mistakes is their focal point. Shakes my head.
Amnesia
See how these bastards rewrite history?
http://warburg.library.cornell.edu/
Make up shit and call it history. Sell it to the next generation. Education, indoctrination.
No comment
Paul M. Warburg
http://www.federalreservehistory.org/People/DetailView/84
You still haven't gone back far enough. You're correct that the essential bifurcation of mankind happened long ago. You just haven't gone back nearly far enough.
What is the essential, the fundamental?
The answer is rather simple. Before man learned to produce what otherwise would not have come to exist by natural processes of the environment, man was a predator, like other animals.
Eventually man learned to be a producer, to live by creating goods and goodies that would not otherwise have come to exist by natural processes of the environment.
And THAT is still the essential dynamic today.
Some humans produce goods and goodies, and other humans remain predators.
Those humans who remain predators are observant enough to see quite clearly that practicing their predatory trade upon other humans is vastly more efficient than hunting random animals and berry bushes in the wild.
And so they do. And the most successful of those modern human predators are the predators-that-be, or as people less precisely identify them, the powers-that-be.
This is the fundamental and essential distinction, and the distinction humans need to clearly understand to be capable of what is happening in the modern world, as well as what to do about it.
Baby, if I go back any farther I'l be looking at the back of my head.
Good analogy. What you suggest does in fact have substance even today. We're still chasing those shadows in the cave though.
If you were a creationist you could define that bifurcation with "when Eve ate the apple" or "when Cain killed Abel".
Good vs Evil, is the simplistic definition of society's ills.
Then, they used it to sell christian God to Constantine. It worked.
Now they use it to sell Market-God, and downgrade State-God or vice versa.
What has changed in the good vs evil meme and one God vs another?
I think this simple "black and white", binary reasoning, is not getting the world any wiser.
At least Plato defined other perspectives, as did Aristotle, all based on logic and observation.
But some people like simple solutions; they can't solve quadratic equations. Let alone calculus or quantic theory.
Reductionism is like Rap music; its beating the same drum all the time; monotonous.
Look up Plato's Cave. The first 'Grubering'.
Oops. Apparently, looks like everybody has already looked up Plato's and his cave condo shadows in HD.... nevermind.
Whatever you feed into the machine on a subliminal level the machine will process. - William Burroughs
Excellent work, Sir. Short, sweet, and pithy, yet easy to swallow.
But do we really have to read "The Republic"? Can't we just stipulate it as as being true?
I got the following message in a fortune cookie last week. Those Chinese fortune cookie people know their Western philosophy.
All the reasons reasons check out.
Plato not well read, or not understood.
Current society has nothing to do with the platonic ideal state.
Philosopher king have no posessions and never will have any.
Current society is described by plato as democracy, the last stage in civil decay.
That's right.
The application of Plato in modern society has little to do with Philospher Kings and everything to do with epistemology as indicated in Billy the Poets first post.
For Plato to assert that what is real (percepts) comes from what is not real (concepts) and never to prove this assertion then begets entire populations filled of believers instead of understanders. From this one false premise believers over the milennia have been easily manipulated into believing in a god, utopia, santa claus, and paper currency. Once the belief is embedded, they will do anything to defend it.
Plato's student, Aristotle, offered the opposite view that to understand we start with what is real (percepts) and then induce from these percepts what is not real (concepts). In this manner then concepts are proven by deducing them back to percepts. This is the scientific-method that the Renaissance embraced. Aristotle's wrintings on logic are solely responsible for western civilization's emergence out of Plato's Dark Ages. It is no surprise that just as Aristotle's logic and his masterpiece, Metaphysics, were rekindling Europe that tptb banned his Metaphysics from being taught at the University of Paris for about 80 years.
Both of these men can then be viewed as metaphors for what Parmenides was identifying in his poem On Nature, that there can only be two paths any mind can travel. Either, Aletheia (or truth, objectivity), or Doxa (opinion, subjectivity). Paraphrasing Parmenides, there can only be what is and there can never be what is not. Plato starts with what is not, Aristotle starts with what is.
The relevance to most ZHers?
That something can come from what is not, is the fundamental principle of fractional reserve "banking." It is just another tentacle of Plato's monsterous ideology only this time applied to economics. That something must come from what is, is the fundamental principle of a gold based economy. Even though as JP Morgan intimated that you cannot print character, the platonists keep on trying. This last bit about the economic relevance is discussed ad nauseum at Rebellion Against Plato.
all of the scenario's espoused here and past authors of prophetic dystopian visions of mans future are analagous to the proverb of three blind men describing an elephant*......the motivations of the elite are simple....power...and the promise of some form of immortality....spiritually or physically .... maslows apex of self actualization-the masses motivations are simple....Maslows lower tiers...food,shelter..social acceptance....protection..or Maslows pyramid minus self actualization apex.
an important and always ovrlooked caveat to ones mdeling of Man's future state is.....nothing exists in a vacum..life is a constant flux of change and imbalance...Mankind has no homeostasis ....all standards of society are arbitrary and subject to rapid and sweeping change....pretty theories and real/ psuedo intellectuals and their ideas are soon rendered impotent and irrelevant by inexorable change..i.e. , state of the art in science and technology coupled with the law of large numbers and rapid change od social norms.....man makes his contribution large or small.... negative or positive.... yet the world moves to its destiny from epoch to epoch....this time will be different...lol
Let Obama break the constitutional law. Stop the fucking tabloid bullshit. He loses all Presidential Power. This is a no brainer.
Actually, he is increasing Presidential power and seems to be rather unopposed. It's not hard to do if you have no conscience and an elitist attitude.
people,
who put faith and trust in some 200+ year old document (written by the oligarchy) that anyways must be fundamentally revised and adapted to modern reality,
are brainwashed and stuck in the box.
Oligarchy = rule by small number of people. Now these can be the tyrannical type, like most, or just a small group fullfilling their promise of something better like the founding fathers. The reality of power and politics is no different today than at the time of the document you seem to despise. Only we the People have changed from an independent, responsible and free people to dependent, irresponsible and chained.
What's different is the u.s constitution 'allows' the People by amendment to actually do what you propose and has been done many years ago. The country's soul was sold to the devil in 1913. The devil kept his end of the contract and we became a mighty empire. Now we must pay the price of our side of the contract.. Pain, Misery and Destruction.
who says i despise the constitution?
i just said we need one for modern reality....