Collectivist's neo-reactionary anti-democracy thread

Jerry,

Do not confuse tactics with outcome. I have family in Greece that have a better sense of what is happening on the ground than you do. Believe what you want. The various marxists governments of Europe, the US and other nations have been carefully planted to foster revolution as a means of destabilization. If at first they don't succeed, they will try again using different tactics.

By the way, examine more critically your knee-jerk admiration of democracy as it is applied not only in Greek society, but all over the world. Democracy, like other collectivist based ideologies, are the weapons of choice for the internationalists. Once levels of indoctrination have reached critical mass, the mob always gets it wrong and democracy empowers them to vote in their own enslavement.

The influential ideas espoused by the politically correct progressives and so-called intellectuals have been carefully defined to push a socialist agenda and one world government.


Zombie democracy is never a good thing ...

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hello (anti) Collectivist,

I feel inspired to reply with another quote, which (unlike your pseudo-Franklin) is credibly attributable to its illustrious (or infamous?) source:

https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time....

-Winston Churchill​
 
Last edited:
Sorry Jerry, but your preferred quote clearly demonstrates, again, an automatic acceptance that Democracy as the ideal is simply a false choice.
I suggest strongly you and others watch the following video to understand how and why collectivism has gained such popularity.

 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hello (anti) Collectivist,

Please explain further: what form of government are you advocating in preference to democracy?

I reject your characterization of democracy as a "collectivist ideology". Under a democracy, the people would be empowered to reject collectivism to the extent that they so choose.
 
Please explain further: what form of government are you advocating in preference to democracy?
A system that abides by a fixed body of law, one not subject to change at the whims of an oligarchy or a socially engineered mob of sheep (as afforded by a democracy). A constitutional republic, for instance, is far superior to Mr Churchill or Jerry Russell's preferred political system. :)

This video describes why Democracy is Collectivism and a Republic is not. It is sourced from the important work of G Edward Griffin.
 
I feel inspired to reply with another quote, which (unlike your pseudo-Franklin) is credibly attributable to its illustrious (or infamous?) source:
https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government
On this point Jerry, you were correct about my pseudo-Franklin quote. We must always be careful about being accurate (as Abe Lincoln warned us) ..

The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you never know if they are genuine. —Abraham Lincoln
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Collectivist,

First of all, let me say that I'm a big supporter of individual rights, and of the rule of law.

Now, as to "democracy" vs. "republic", I'm not so sure there's any contradiction. First let's look at the etymology:

consulting www.etymonline.com,

Democracy: from Greek demos "common people," ... + kratos "rule, strength"

Republic: from Latin, res "affair, matter, thing" + publica, fem. of publicus "public"

Aside from one being Greek and the other Latin, they seem to be more or less synonymous. We find the same thing if we look at modern English dictionaries, for example, Wiktionary:

democracy ‎(plural democracies)
  1. (uncountable) Rule by the people, especially as a form of government; either directly or through elected representatives (representative democracy).
  2. [countable, government) A government under the direct or representative rule of the people of its jurisdiction.  
  3. [uncountable) Belief in political freedom and equality; the "spirit of democracy".
republic ‎(plural republics)
  1. A state where sovereignty rests with the people or their representatives, rather than with a monarch or emperor; a country with no monarchy.  
  2. [archaic) A state, which may or may not be a monarchy, in which the executive and legislative branches of government are separate.  
Not much difference in modern usage. Strangely, "Democratic Republics" and "Democratic People's Republics" are usually neither.

But, moving on to the content of your argument (as opposed to the semantics): what is the best protection for individual rights, and for laws designed to protect those rights? It seems to me that we are making a mistake if we rely on the slave masters; on the contrary, the people are most deeply interested in protecting their own rights. As such, in a democracy or republic, the people must use their voting rights to protect themselves by electing representatives who will support them, or by exercising direct democracy.

If the people are fooled by propaganda into endorsing their own slavery, and attacks on their own rights, the situation is dire. But that's why we hope that what we're doing at this website will help. That's why we endorse and support other independent media that are striving to protect freedom and democracy and the republic.

I haven't watched your longer video, and probably won't, based on the comments about it on you-tube. The shorter (6:40) video entitled "group supremacy", I have some objections.

I claim that the video's denial of the existence of the "group" is silly. It's like saying there is no such entity as a human being, only ensembles of cells (such as brain cells, skin cells, muscle cells, and so forth). It follows that a human being is nothing but an abstraction, and therefore only cells have rights. Ummm... Right.

And, any denial of rights to the individual is portrayed as an immediate purge or slaughter of that individual. Laws, uniformly applied, almost always involve limitations on rights (for example, the right to murder or steal from your neighbor is disallowed.) It's easy to imagine other limitations on individual rights that would have huge benefits for the group.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you never know if they are genuine. —Abraham Lincoln
LOL!! Actually, the internet makes it easier to figure out what's genuine.

http://www.bullionstacker.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&p=156096

- Those who think Greece will be booted out of the Euro do not understand the system
- The great credit collapse has not yet occurred, but it is coming. Those who believe the next 'event' is hyperinflation do not understand the system
Appears to be a genuine quote, and a genuinely dated prediction, from our very own Collectivist! Kudos for anticipating that Greece would not be booted out of the Euro. But on the other hand, I subtract a point for predicting Greek civil war (post #66 of July 5 above).

I'm not convinced that there could be a truly epic credit collapse. The elite and their corporations hold vast amounts of their wealth in the form of bank deposits and bonds, and the 'slaves' won't keep working so hard if they think their modest paychecks deposited at the bank will disappear. So, the entire system depends on maintenance of the myth that all the debt can be repaid, or at least serviced & rolled over.

The little credit collapse of 2007-2008 pretty much proved to me that "they" couldn't let such a thing go much further. On the contrary, the PTB will do whatever it takes to keep the system solvent. Even in Greece, they couldn't keep the banks closed for long.

There might be more similar small credit crises in which a few institutions fail, before the electronic printing presses roll to keep the game going. But my guess is that hyperinflation is the end result. (P=.9, in other words, don't blame me if this guess is wrong.)
 
Applying rights to cells? Jerry, you are reaching my friend,

A group is indeed an abstraction to which rights cannot be applied whereas a human (your example) is not an abstraction. Again, groups cannot have rights simply because a group is made up of individuals. If I have a SINGLE group called MEN, comprised of both Blacks and Whites, how does AFFIRMATIVE ACTION get evenly applied to the GROUP called MEN. Obviously it cannot because there is a segment within the group that would be disadvantaged.

Forget about Democracy vs Republic for a moment and instead concentrate on the concept of INDIVIDUALISM vs COLLECTIVISM. The individualist argument is one where the rights of the individual are supreme and it doesn't matter whether the group wants to or not, they cannot interfere with those rights. This doesn't mean the individual can steal or murder someone because obviously this would entail the victim's rights be violated. Contrast this with collectivism which, as the video correctly states, the individual's rights can be legally violated if it means the interests of the greater number are served.

It is truly a philosophical struggle and one where we, as individuals must sometimes make self sacrifices but such choices should be personal ones, not imposed by the state or a democratic mob.

The best form of government then, is one where a small set of fixed constitutional laws are set forth and not subject to change, where the rights of the individual are protected. PERIOD. The trick is to ensure the body of laws are minimal and self evident. The function of government is not to create new laws but to ensure that existing ones are protected. This is the prime difference between a Republic or Constitution based government and a Democracy. We do not need forums such as this to educate the masses in order for democracy to work because no matter how hard you try, there will always be tremendous differences of opinion and constant opposition to various viewpoints.

Consensus politics, just as in in consensus science or economics leads us head long into misery. It is the very reason why I view collectivism as the greatest threat to our freedom and chose this mockingly as my member name.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Collectivist,

Applying rights to cells? Jerry, you are reaching my friend,
I hope you understand that my point was not that cells should have rights, but that the human being exists as an entity in spite of being an abstraction which is entirely made up of cells. For that matter, the cells are made of atoms, and the atoms are made of subatomic particles. Good luck trying to understand the world if you say nothing exists except subatomic particles, and everything else is nothing but an abstraction.

But wait... I would certainly live longer if I could arrange for all my cells to have a right to nutrients, and to be free from attack by germs & cancers. Maybe 'cellular rights' are not such a bad idea.

Again, groups cannot have rights simply because a group is made up of individuals. If I have a SINGLE group called MEN, comprised of both Blacks and Whites, how does AFFIRMATIVE ACTION get evenly applied to the GROUP called MEN. Obviously it cannot because there is a segment within the group that would be disadvantaged.
I don't understand, why can't the concept of rights apply to groups as well as individuals? And why can't the rights of different groups be defined differently? Why should whites, as a group, be entitled to continue the spoils of centuries of crimes against blacks who were held as slaves, as a group?

The best form of government then, is one where a small set of fixed constitutional laws are set forth and not subject to change, where the rights of the individual are protected. PERIOD.
So how are these constitutional laws going to be protected? A constitution is just a piece of paper, it has no ability to defend itself.

If you are going to rely on some group of oligarchs, or a monarchy, to protect the Constitution and the people's rights, you are putting the wolf in charge of the chicken coop.

If you rely on the common people (whose rights are being protected) to protect the constitution, then you're back to a democracy. But then, a lot of those people might think that groups also have rights, and that some sort of compromise needs to be worked out that might involve infringing on some individual rights, such as the rights of white people to systematically only hire other white people.

Rick sometimes seems to think there's been little if any human political progress over the past two millennia, but I think there has been. We've moved from monarchies and oligarchies to (albeit very seriously flawed) democratic republics, and I think that's a good thing. Conditions for the average person were very much worse under the Romans, or medieval feudalism.

This is the prime difference between a Republic or Constitution based government and a Democracy.
I deny that a "Constitution based government" would meet the modern definition of a Republic. Oligarchical governments such as the ancient Roman "republic" would not make the grade. And under the Roman "republic", rights of the largest percentage of the population, who were slaves, were not protected at all.

It is the very reason why I view collectivism as the greatest threat to our freedom
I would agree with you that "collectivism" is a threat to freedom, and I certainly wouldn't call myself a collectivist. But on the other hand, I think that the "oligarchs" (whoever they are) are the real threat, and that "collectivism" is one of many tools they use.

Just because some event has not yet happened does not mean it will not in the foreseeable future.
Fair enough, but to be actionable and verifiable, a prediction does need to have some sort of time frame attached.

Also be aware that a credit collapse is not only possible, it is inevitable.
So I am allowing a 10% probability that you're right. In that case, would there be any problem stashing dollar bills instead of silver coins? Or, keeping cash in brokerage accounts, as you mentioned earlier that you like to do?

Wouldn't the price of silver be in big trouble if industrial demand collapsed in a credit crunch?

Personally I'd say that silver is the better bet than cash, but mainly because of the chance of a hyper inflationary end game.

My sense is that efforts to starve entire populations is the tactic they will use, just as was instituted by the bolsheviks years ago.
Sad to say, I agree with this, and a hyper-inflation would be a good way to accomplish it. Credit crunch would do the trick too.

If you have not done so, please consider stacking non perishable foods, vitamins, water (I use a Berkey, for example), warm blankets and other such things to prepare for the great planned purge.
I consider this excellent advice, even if September comes and goes without any apocalyptic events.
 
The Constitution isn't just a piece of paper but rather a fixed set of laws never to be changed. If a society fails to respect those laws in a Republic then of course, it is as ineffective as any other form of government. But to say we should contest those laws if the majority of people vote those changes in is not correct in my opinion. I don't think we will agree on the issue of democracy vs a republic so let's end that discussion there :)

In terms of a credit collapse vs hyper inflation, the negative effects are similar however how one plans for the crisis matters. I will tell you that I once considered hyper-inflation as the course of action the elite would use to crash the system but I have since revised my thinking. Remember, if the goal is to collectively punish as many people as possible, which of the two would bring about more pain?

Hyper-inflation actually helps holders of debt since the initial debt obligations are easier to pay off. This is exactly what happened during the weimar republic in Germany. The elite use Hyper-inflation when the citizenry they try to punish are thrift and rely on their savings. In the absence of credit markets, this is what you would see. If you believe this is what will happen, gold, silver and equities in stable companies is preferred as well as barter goods. Currency becomes trash.

Deflation on the other hand makes debt extremely onerous and cash becomes very attractive. Deflation ensures those in debt cannot adequately repay their loans so they must sell everything they got to continue with their payments. Credit is also extended to stall defaults but once the plug is pulled, it is game over for both creditor and debtor in terms of the existing loans but by this time, the banksters own everything of value and the rest they buy with pennies on the dollar. When enough people and companies become bankrupt, credit markets collapse violently. This is the preferred weapon of choice simply because most people today are debtors and this scenario is collectively more punishing. Also, it makes the consolidation phase easier so select multinationals are able to better acquire smaller entities.

This is why I see the next big event being a credit collapse, not hyper-inflation. I still feel hyper-inflation happens at the very end to destroy any savers left standing (everyone else would be impoverished from the deflationary collapse that preceded it) so gold and silver are still the way to go. The reason why you want to buy silver NOW is because hoarders of physical precious metal won't trade in their metal and the rest are just trading paper gold and silver anyway so it doesn't really count (paper price may go to ridiculously low levels but decouple from real metal price which would sky-rocket).
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Collectivist,

But to say we should contest those laws if the majority of people vote those changes in is not correct in my opinion.
I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying here. In my view, in a democracy, if we disagree with laws that have been passed, the correct course of action is to contest those laws using the democratic process. I take it you also want to contest laws that you believe are unjust or in conflict with the ideal constitution you're proposing, but I'm not sure what means you're advocating.

I can see that in your own life, you've chosen the path of Internet forum discussion & debate. This is something I can approve of, although I admit the effectiveness is open to question.

The Constitution isn't just a piece of paper but rather a fixed set of laws never to be changed. If a society fails to respect those laws in a Republic then of course, it is as ineffective as any other form of government.
I still don't understand how you are conceiving of a "Constitutional Republic" that is not a democracy. If the authorities who are tasked with defining and/or protecting the Constitution are not democratically elected, then how do they come to power? Are they a revolutionary vanguard, or self-selected by some sort of ruthless power struggle amongst the wealthy and famous, or shall they be a hereditary oligarchy?

I don't think we will agree on the issue of democracy vs a republic so let's end that discussion there :)
I think it's a great thing to be able to "agree to disagree" and continue to be friends, and explore other topics for possible areas of agreement or collaboration. So if you don't reply to my questions, I'll appreciate that you've allowed me to have the last word.

This is why I see the next big event being a credit collapse, not hyper-inflation.
Could you be more specific about what sort of credit collapse you are predicting? I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a stock market crash, bank holidays, "bail-ins" with depositors taking serious haircuts, a severe depression in economic activity with very high unemployment, and / or some sort of attempt by the US government to selectively renounce foreign debts, such as T-bills held by China.

What would surprise me would be widespread bank failures, bankruptcies of major corporations, across-the-board default on US treasury debt or core Euro sovereign debt, or attempts to recall and outlaw cash held as "greenbacks" or Euro central bank notes.

The response to all of the above, I expect, would be more money and credit creation in an attempt to get out of the depression.
 
Hi Collectivist,



I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying here. In my view, in a democracy, if we disagree with laws that have been passed, the correct course of action is to contest those laws using the democratic process. I take it you also want to contest laws that you believe are unjust or in conflict with the ideal constitution you're proposing, but I'm not sure what means you're advocating.

I can see that in your own life, you've chosen the path of Internet forum discussion & debate. This is something I can approve of, although I admit the effectiveness is open to question.



I still don't understand how you are conceiving of a "Constitutional Republic" that is not a democracy. If the authorities who are tasked with defining and/or protecting the Constitution are not democratically elected, then how do they come to power? Are they a revolutionary vanguard, or self-selected by some sort of ruthless power struggle amongst the wealthy and famous, or shall they be a hereditary oligarchy?



I think it's a great thing to be able to "agree to disagree" and continue to be friends, and explore other topics for possible areas of agreement or collaboration. So if you don't reply to my questions, I'll appreciate that you've allowed me to have the last word.



Could you be more specific about what sort of credit collapse you are predicting? I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a stock market crash, bank holidays, "bail-ins" with depositors taking serious haircuts, a severe depression in economic activity with very high unemployment, and / or some sort of attempt by the US government to selectively renounce foreign debts, such as T-bills held by China.

What would surprise me would be widespread bank failures, bankruptcies of major corporations, across-the-board default on US treasury debt or core Euro sovereign debt, or attempts to recall and outlaw cash held as "greenbacks" or Euro central bank notes.

The response to all of the above, I expect, would be more money and credit creation in an attempt to get out of the depression.
Have either of you fellows followed the work of Clint Richardson, over at the Corporation Nation radio show on RBN or his blog Realityblogger? You might want to take a look at his work, if you know the definitions of some of these words, you might not want to be throwing them around so easily. What I'm getting at here is these words or phrases like constitutional republic and democracy do not mean what I think you think they mean. They definitely mean what the general populace thinks they mean, and I posit that you are repeating the same old worn out propaganda definitions to each other, which isn't getting us anywhere. I know this sounds condescending, but since I have been absorbing Clint's work and looking for my self at these things, with the best dictionaries and law dictionaries I can get my hands on at the moment, I have to say he appears to be correct. We do not know what the words mean we are using, and a lot of what we mean by way of meaning or definition is tainted by what he calls dog Latin. Some of this is the complexity and convoluted nature of the law, but another aspect of it is the assault on reason we have been under for quite some time (centuries?).

Now I know most everyone on this site would agree to most of what I just said in that last sentence, either in whole or in part, but I think his work in words and language is eye opening. Others have made the same observations, like LarkinTexas from the RBN network, and even Jan Irvin. We need to make sure we actually know what our words mean, if we don't we are falling into that Tempest like trap of being fooled by word spells so to speak, or the magic of cognitive deception via corrupted or misdirected language. This is just me butting in to someones else's forum conversation for a brief commentary on the content, and is not intended to be an opening up of the debate into another avenue. I just wanted to throw my two cents in as a warning.

PS: Clint's work on the religion of the Federal Reserve, CAFR and government in general is good stuff, as well as his figurative analysis of the bible as a document of law and a guide to Natural Law.

http://thecorporationnation.com/

https://corporationnationradioarchives.wordpress.com/

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCorporationNation

https://www.youtube.com/user/cnrarchives
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Craig,

I drew my definitions of "democracy" and "republic" from Wiktionary, whose definitions seem to be typical of most mainstream English dictionaries. I also looked at their etymological trace. With all due respect, if Clint Richardson is coming up with different definitions, I would suggest that he is the one who is using the words in an idiosyncratic way.

Having said all that, I'm curious. I looked at Clint's blog, and see that he expresses strong opinions on a wide variety of topics, but his thoughts on the definitions of "democracy" and "republic" didn't exactly leap off the page. What sort of eye-opening definitions does he offer?
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
Have either of you fellows followed the work of Clint Richardson, over at the Corporation Nation radio show on RBN or his blog Realityblogger? You might want to take a look at his work, if you know the definitions of some of these words, you might not want to be throwing them around so easily. What I'm getting at here is these words or phrases like constitutional republic and democracy do not mean what I think you think they mean. They definitely mean what the general populace thinks they mean, and I posit that you are repeating the same old worn out propaganda definitions to each other, which isn't getting us anywhere. I know this sounds condescending, but since I have been absorbing Clint's work and looking for my self at these things, with the best dictionaries and law dictionaries I can get my hands on at the moment, I have to say he appears to be correct. We do not know what the words mean we are using, and a lot of what we mean by way of meaning or definition is tainted by what he calls dog Latin. Some of this is the complexity and convoluted nature of the law, but another aspect of it is the assault on reason we have been under for quite some time (centuries?).

Now I know most everyone on this site would agree to most of what I just said in that last sentence, either in whole or in part, but I think his work in words and language is eye opening. Others have made the same observations, like LarkinTexas from the RBN network, and even Jan Irvin. We need to make sure we actually know what our words mean, if we don't we are falling into that Tempest like trap of being fooled by word spells so to speak, or the magic of cognitive deception via corrupted or misdirected language. This is just me butting in to someones else's forum conversation for a brief commentary on the content, and is not intended to be an opening up of the debate into another avenue. I just wanted to throw my two cents in as a warning.

PS: Clint's work on the religion of the Federal Reserve, CAFR and government in general is good stuff, as well as his figurative analysis of the bible as a document of law and a guide to Natural Law.

http://thecorporationnation.com/

https://corporationnationradioarchives.wordpress.com/

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCorporationNation

https://www.youtube.com/user/cnrarchives
hi Criag
Wishing you well.

I like LarkinTexas from the RBN network, and Jan Irvin, a lot, & joe Atwill, but for me Allen watt, is the best to understand the big boys game we find our selves in now days.
Jan has tried for years to get Alan on his show, I would love jerry and joe to try and get him on there podcast. I find. Clint ok some of his stuff is ok, but he was on Jan's show and seem alittle off. See here for your self; http://www.gnosticmedia.com/membership-options/?_s2member_vars=catg..level..1..post..5809..L1JCTl8wNDM=&_s2member_sig=1450743308-a4870e16b4408e923760de491a07e6bb
RBN Gnostic Media Radio 043 – Clint Richardson – Truth and Reality – 8/28/2015
Clint seem to me to say there is no truth, is that true?

Wishing all a long good safe life!
LH
--{ "A Coat of Green Hides Banksters' Dream" © Alan Watt }--
Money Runs Cons - Brainwashed Public - Taxed for Existing - Trap of Emotions - Service Economy - Sustainable Development - Progress -
Carbon Trading Scams - Show of Politics - Real Archives of Real History - Preponderance of Evidence - Omnibus Spending Bill - Green
Climate Fund - Ancient Priesthoods - Window Tax - Milner Group - United Nations is a Private Body - Outcomes from COP21 - Carbon Sinks -
Forest Degradation - REDD+ - World Bank - Green Businesses to Save Planet - Ego is an Awful Thing - Psychopaths - Pensioners Freezing in
Their Homes - Concentrate and Learn.
*Title and Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - Dec. 20, 2015 (Exempting Music and Literary Quotes)

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/cutting-through-matrix-alan/id154490096?mt=2&i=359319294
 
Last edited:
Top