Fixing Democracy

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Dear Richard,

Naomi Klein's claims there are correct but also obsolete, since after 2008 she could not adapt to the reality of economic decline. The day Trump was elected I was depressed because I thought WW3-hypin' Hillary was going to be elected. I turned on TV early and found her ahead. I was depressed all day until I suddenly heard on the radio that Trump had won. It was not going to be WW3 after all - I rejoiced.

Naomi Klein, I later found, was also in Australia at this time - but she was going to party with her Green friends, rejoicing in Hillary's victory. Their smiles slumped and the party fizzled out as Trump's Flyover-State victory emerged. She lives in a wacko-liberal world of her own. She knows neo-liberalism doesn't work but she has no answer about how to deal with generalized economic collapse post-2008 - a mixed economy has to have someone at the top, a really effective caste of rulers, a just Fuehrerprinzip with police to make the tax collection work through correct policies. She doesn't even admit this but continues to embrace democratic 'lovey-dovey' options.

As for Noam Chomsky and his chumps. He only peddles the idea of State Capitalism as capitalism, that the US (and other) governments are the primary offenders - and not the actual, relatively obscure financiers and business leaders. Chomsky's blame-the-government-primarily is nonsense; rather, business owns the government as we see from the US Federal Reserve. Chomsky's BS exculpates the wealthy Judaeo-Christians who run the banks and in turn the government, since these wealthy cannot even be identified. Instead we just get a few front men like Bill Gates who are happy to fulfil these populist roles, just like the politicians, as well as Chomsky carping on about obvious long-standing swindles like pharmaceutical patents. But no one can act against such companies since any effective opposition to such companies and government requires organization, authoritarian organization which Chomsky will always decry as undemocratic, elitist, populist, Leninist, bureaucratic, fascist etc., in effect ensuring that NOTHING will ever be done, thus reaffirming the status quo. No wonder Joe calls him a "lifetime actor"!

When I have to listen to the empty gestures of Noam Chomsky I like to hear approaching jackboots in step - ones that will crush this piece of Schweindreck into oblivion.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
[This other thread, where this has been copied from] is about the general concept of Neoliberalism, which I hope to comment on more. It is not, and as is my general policy otherwise, not an endorsement of the messenger(s), certainly not you.

Sadly, most 'citizens' on either the American Right or Left are aware unaware of the nuances between the respective 'neo' variants of their political leanings, or that the national strata of their party leaderships are essentially a crypto-monoparty. Hence, there was no reason for you to get excited one way or the other, nor ever was there.

596

At one point you had explained to us that you were going to deatil for us a kinder and gentler Fascism, but instead you are revealing ever more fangs.
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
The thread is about the general concept of Neoliberalism, which I hope to comment on more. It is not, and as is my general policy otherwise, not an endorsement of the messenger(s), certainly not you.
That's a great relief to hear!
Sadly, most 'citizens' on either the American Right or Left are aware of the nuances between the respective neo variants of their political leanings, or that the national strata of their party leaderships are essentially a crypto-monoparty. Hence, there was no reason for you to get excited one way or the other, nor ever was there.
Though you do have to remember that I am not an American, so such subtleties I often, even usually, miss.

At one point you had explained to us that you were going to deatil for us a kinder and gentler Fascism, but instead you are revealing ever more fangs.
Which is the big point. There will always be leaders and hierarchical systems since the Leninist Communism of his "State and Revolution" is impossible due to human character differences - meaning too that the Anarchist ideal is even less possible, as the Spanish Civil War demonstrated. Remember that I'd come to a more benign appreciation of Franco before I had even heard of Joe Atwill - so when he came up with the same position from his own work on Freemasonry and Financial Oligarchy, a path very different from mine - I was pleasantly surprised.

At present I'm reading Wilhelm Reich's "The Mass Psychology of Fascism". It explains why Sex'n'Drugs'nR&R cultural debasement was unleashed in the first place. His work from 1944 predates Adorno's "Dialectics of Enlightenment" and "The Authoritarian Personality" and heralds the disastrous line that they would take - by using Stalin's regime as the evidence for corrupted socialism such that they needed it as the primary negative example, they then used it as the debased baseline for 'how to correct' Communism through sexual libertinism. The copy on the internet has been scanned but I'll try to upload it here.

I'm also reading EMJ's "Barren Metal". This is his definitive work, but I'm barely past page 200 in this 1,360 page work! For me the most important material seems to be around page 500. As Joe had told me directly - EMJ is the definitive thinker in our day and age so I have to deal with EMJ if I am to make any headway at all on the bigger issue of philosophy, anti-Judaism and the persistence of usury.

Yours faithfully
Claude

PS: Edited section underlined since after reading Richard's post below I think the poorly worded section may have misled him, as the original wording could imply that I'm supporting Stalin's 1930s regime.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The copy on the internet has been scanned but I'll try to upload it here.
Do not upload it on this thread.

Though you do have to remember that I am not an American, so such subtleties I often, even usually, miss.
After a certain point of obstinance, I insist that members either learn my POV or stop making arguments here. To wit, unless your arguments deal with the notion of a contiguous thread of Western development where the USA is currently the disguised imperial tip of the old Roman spear (and what led up to the latter) then your polemics are likely a waste of my time. As such, there was and is no real 'democracy' or republic for you to rail against in favor of fascism, which is clearly just a disguised stepping stone back to some form of monarchic caste system (in this case it will be global, Genesis 47 revisited), which you have already explicitly endorsed. Buy some popcorn, kick up your feet, and enjoy your bloody show.

For whatever reason, Joe and you want to continue to play inside the contrived false dialectic(s), while I insist that the 'degradation' is induced by the very assholes that you want to worship as your emperor. The good shepherd lovingly attends to his flock so that, when the time is ripe, he can lead them to be butchered or fleeced.
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Do not upload it on this thread.
OK
After a certain point of obstinance, I insist that members either learn my POV or stop making arguments here. To wit, unless your arguments deal with the notion of a contiguous thread of Western development where the USA is currently the disguised imperial tip of the old Roman spear (and what led up to the latter) then your polemics are likely a waste of my time. As such, there was and is no real 'democracy' or republic for you to rail against in favor of fascism, which is clearly just a disguised stepping stone back to some form of monarchic caste system (in this case it will be global, Genesis 47 revisited), which you have already explicitly endorsed. Buy some popcorn, kick up your feet, and enjoy your bloody show.
I do deal with the contiguous thread of Western Development from Rome to USA - except that the change from Catholicism to Protestantism (where Freemasonry etc. have free rein) is a vital transformation separating Christianizing Rome from Renaissance-based modernity. And one thing I have learnt in life is that the Catholic and Protestant traditions are extremely different in POV, even though most people try to paste it over most of the time. I had an Anglican background - so to see into the Catholic tradition has been difficult for me and others too (Nietzsche for example criticized Richard Wagner, of Protestant background, for hankering back to Catholicism).
For whatever reason, Joe and you want to continue to play inside the contrived false dialectic(s), while I insist that the 'degradation' is induced by the very assholes that you want to worship as your emperor. The good shepherd lovingly attends to his flock so that, when the time is ripe, he can lead them to be butchered or fleeced.
I can't speak for Joe, but I haven't indicated a particular emperor, only that some sort of hierarchy, including personal leadership, is necessary for future human societal development, as opposed to the anarchist-egalitarian-"socialistic" Left tradition, which, as I think you would admit, is fading away today.

There are other imperial traditions and each had their good and bad points. However, most of the rest of the world has, for over 100 years, adopted the Western tradition uncritically - the result being that humanity is headed for disaster on multiple fronts. If it weren't the case, I think we'd all be kicking up our feet to watch some sitcoms now and not bother with discussion forums.:)

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
When I have to listen to the empty gestures of Noam Chomsky I like to hear approaching jackboots in step - ones that will crush this piece of Schweindreck into oblivion.
a mixed economy has to have someone at the top, a really effective caste of rulers, a just Fuehrerprinzip with police to make the tax collection work through correct policies.
Remember that I'd come to a more benign appreciation of Franco
EMJ is the definitive thinker in our day and age
Fangs coming out indeed. Badley is clearly stating here that he is an unrepentant fascist, not fuzzy about it at all. And he hasn't really learned anything from the fiasco of 20th century fascism.

At present I'm reading Wilhelm Reich's "The Mass Psychology of Fascism"....
The full text of the book is available from the Wilhelm Reich Trust.

But no one can act against such companies since any effective opposition to such companies and government requires organization, authoritarian organization which Chomsky will always decry as undemocratic, elitist, populist, Leninist, bureaucratic, fascist etc., in effect ensuring that NOTHING will ever be done, thus reaffirming the status quo. No wonder Joe calls him a "lifetime actor"!
No: opposition to fascism requires effective, democratic organization, which is what Chomsky always advocates. Joe calls Chomsky a "lifetime actor" because he's disappointed that Chomsky has not taken a strong stand about the JFK assassination and 9/11 conspiracies. And I think Joe is jumping to conclusions about this, because it's possible that Chomsky is honestly mistaken in his positions, or that he consciously or unconsciously resists the marginalization that has been the fate of all conspiracy theorists.

as opposed to the anarchist-egalitarian-"socialistic" Left tradition, which, as I think you would admit, is fading away today.
You left out the democratic aspect of this Left tradition. Whether it's fading away or not, is beside the point. This is what we advocate here.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Sadly, most 'citizens' on either the American Right or Left are aware of the nuances between the respective neo variants of their political leanings, or that the national strata of their party leaderships are essentially a crypto-monoparty.
This confuses me. I'm under the impression that many if not most Americans are still trapped in the two-party system dialectic, and that they strongly support one party or the other. The idea that there is a "crypto-monoparty" is some pretty advanced analysis, which the vast majority haven't caught on to.

there was and is no real 'democracy' or republic
While the American system might never have been a "real" democracy, my position is that it had been a significant step in that direction, and away from pure royalist feudalism. And I don't think it's fair to piss on progressive historical changes, just because they don't live up to some abstract ideal of perfection.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
This confuses me. I'm under the impression that many if not most Americans are still trapped in the two-party system dialectic, and that they strongly support one party or the other. The idea that there is a "crypto-monoparty" is some pretty advanced analysis, which the vast majority haven't caught on to.
Oops, I need an editor. I meant to say, "unaware" of the 'neo' variants. Fixed, except for Claude's reference to it:
Though you do have to remember that I am not an American, so such subtleties I often, even usually, miss.
That said, of course many of the 'populist' left and right do indeed understand that the DNC and the RNC may as well be one. And with Trump being yet another fake populist the RNC is probably still actually the same as it always was, under corporate thrall along with the DNC.

While the American system might never have been a "real" democracy, my position is that it had been a significant step in that direction, and away from pure royalist feudalism. And I don't think it's fair to piss on progressive historical changes, just because they don't live up to some abstract ideal of perfection.
Yes, that's fine with me, as long as we 'progress' to elimination of the various swamps, making corporations our slaves not our masters, getting rid of lobbying, normalizing the cost of an education (1,000,000+ owe more than $100K, many over $200K), etc..
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
After a certain point of obstinance, I insist that members either learn my POV or stop making arguments here. To wit, unless your arguments deal with the notion of a contiguous thread of Western development where the USA is currently the disguised imperial tip of the old Roman spear (and what led up to the latter)
In the light of that statement, could "Peoples of the Flavian Book" be considered sort of your "Manifesto" for this site, an introductory reading for newcomers, although it looks as though no threads have been started on that topic? As mentioned previously, I have read Saussy's "Rulers of Evil", with the US/Rome connection that you talk about, but as far as the Old Testament goes, Saussy only seems to talk about Cain in depth, while you start much later in time, with Abraham, and work your way down to the present USA.
 
Last edited:

Seeker

Well-Known Member
I had an Anglican background - so to see into the Catholic tradition has been difficult for me and others too
At the opposite end of the scale, and I am thinking of this solely because his canonization was this past Sunday, St. John Henry Newman converted to Catholicism from Anglicanism after twenty years as a priest of the Church of England, but at great personal cost to him.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
In the light of that statement, could "Peoples of the Flavian Book" be considered sort of your "Manifesto" for this site, an introductory reading for newcomers, although it looks as though no threads have been started on that topic? As mentioned previously, I have read Saussy's "Rulers of Evil", with the US/Rome connection that you talk about, but as far as the Old Testament goes, Saussy only seems to talk about Cain in depth, while you start much later in time, with Abraham, and work your way down to the present USA.
Generally, yes. I should probably look at seeing if it needs some updating.

I do deal with the contiguous thread of Western Development from Rome to USA - except that the change from Catholicism to Protestantism (where Freemasonry etc. have free rein) is a vital transformation separating Christianizing Rome from Renaissance-based modernity. And one thing I have learnt in life is that the Catholic and Protestant traditions are extremely different in POV, even though most people try to paste it over most of the time. I had an Anglican background - so to see into the Catholic tradition has been difficult for me and others too (Nietzsche for example criticized Richard Wagner, of Protestant background, for hankering back to Catholicism).
Absolutely the Catholic and the Protestant have a different POV, else why would they exist? But, both being based upon the Nicene Creed, I argue (elsewhere) that the Reformation(s) was one of the finer moments of the Divide and Conquer stratagem. But beyond that one might also argue that the Protestant outlook was more amenable to the Northern European mindset and such as its more Arrian (non-trinitarian) path to normative Christianity, as opposed to the cultural corruption inherent to Catholicism and its caesaro-papism (hence Claude's inherent retrograde attraction to fascism). These different flocks made for a better race to conquer global real estate (which helps steer us back on on topic). Now the conquest and colonial periods are over and the Mother Church is ecumenically re-absorbing its bastard Children one at a time.

Just as one must create an enemy if there is not one present, as a variant one must create an agent to deflect blame upon for certain deeds, e.g. the agents of usury and such. This is built into the Roman Catholic cake, since at least the time of St. Augustine in the Xian context, but it goes all the way back to the synthetic Mosaic Cultural Inversion.

OMG!!!! Cultural Degradation ---- Cultural Inversion Whaaaaaaaaaat? Claude's head is exploding, but the universal Church wants what the universal Church wants, and they created this crap (in all of their theology) so that both their naives and knaves could kvetch about. If everyone is Happy, then there is no basis for a new order. So, someone needs to make enough people Unhappy so that a solution can be provided, by a Savior of course, preferably from Outer Space or seeming to be.

Last go round fake Jesus saved us from the money changers, and this time we have to deal with .... the Neoliberal moneychangers. All fingers point to Rome (and London, and Wall Street). This is just advanced shepherding.
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Thank you for the Wilhelm Reich link, Jerry - it is a photographic version better than mine.
Fangs coming out indeed. Badley is clearly stating here that he is an unrepentant fascist, not fuzzy about it at all. And he hasn't really learned anything from the fiasco of 20th century fascism.
Because I grew up in the democratic tradition - and have seen it fail absolutely in my lifetime, whether in its Far Left incarnation or the standard liberalism (libertarian and New Deal types) of the West. Remember first and foremost that Fascism arose directly and essentially in response to the Leninist threat of class-war!

Has it not occurred to you that if post-WW1 Fascism had never existed in organized form at all - meaning that not only Mussolini, Hitler and Franco but a whole host of substitutes would have had to "fall under a bus" i.e. a series of accidents preventing it from developing - we would have had Leninist, Stalinist and even Trotsky-type regimes (after initial confused violent Anarchism and massive civil war) all over Europe if not worldwide?

When I pointed out (as EMJ does even more forcefully) that capitalism is a hierarchic structure against which egalitarian democratic organizations are doomed to fail, you reply (making the link that Fascism required capitalist support to ever be established).
No: opposition to fascism requires effective, democratic organization, which is what Chomsky always advocates.
Such democratic organization always has funding behind it if it is to be effective - so it never is effective because it has neither the funds nor the proper organization. I.e. the post-WW2 boom was due to Keynesian economics, not political democracy, the masses being happy with the system during times of prosperity. ("Economic democracy" is a jargon term, merely another name for free market capitalism such as that of Lenin's NEP after the failure of War Communism to maintain the Soviet economy after the civil war.)

Besides, the same democratic forces, dominating Western politics, have installed idiots and crooks as our leaders. Democracy is philosophically shallow because it treats people as equal when they are not equal. It completely disregards human character so when applied in its most genuine form it is mere mob rule - no surprise because this is what the words demos and kratos really mean.

More to the point: This is why you have scrawny beggars on US streets; capitalism and democracy have effectively destroyed the masses' capacity to think and to organize - particularly through cultural debasement (Sex'n'Drugs'n'R&R) since it is those debased types who can be relied upon to prevent effective organization by the masses since the masses, even the majority, have been seduced and debased by the agenda outlined in "The Authoritian Personality". I.e. when Joe's podcasts (with you as well as TM Kelly and others) opened my eyes to this (notably 'Elvis Was a Mind-Control Slave') I realized the anti-democratic implications of this more than Joe, making me more fascistic than Joe I guess!:D By this I mean that democracy is not merely futile but counterproductive when exercised by the majority in the West today (particularly the USA but also Australia) since the majority are either dumbed down and debased themselves OR full of "shock jock" moralizing cant about the scrawny beggars e.g. "Lazy so-&-so's don't want to work; buncha druggies; defective genes; defecating in the streets polluting our precious waterways etc. etc. etc.". As an even better proof of this, consider California Proposition #13!

Democracy has been pushed down our neck by the West for over 200 years in order to flatter the masses (Nietzsche's words) to make them think they are making a meaningful contribution or actually deciding on the issues. You see for yourself that full communism could not and cannot be applied since all you do is replace capitalists with bureaucrats - the ultimate result of successful class war, decidedly NOT a step forward.

For all his Catholic bigotry, notably the Jesus-Logos nonsense, EMJ still is the definitive thinker of our age*, (though a giant Rock to be overcome) because, as he said of the French Revolution: "When you overthrow Christianity [in favour of unstable revolutionary systems which then revert to usury-based regimes of indirect rule] you end up being run by the Jews." When I heard his words I knew instantly that he was correct - since Georges Sorel (in his Reflections on Violence) saw that that had happened by the 1890s, and he later realized that socialism wasn't up to the mark at ever taking over the government of society. But he wished Lenin well in 1920 since Lenin was standing up, however crudely and stupidly, to capitalist rule!

But then you'll tell me that Jean Paul Sartre called Sorel a "fascist" - which indeed he did - but given Sartre's ridiculous denunciation and misrepresentation of the "anti-Semite" (see his Réflections sur la question juive) such perversions from this existentialist can only be expected.
Joe calls Chomsky a "lifetime actor" because he's disappointed that Chomsky has not taken a strong stand about the JFK assassination and 9/11 conspiracies.
That's what Joe actually said, but Chomsky's deceits are clear from the work of Daniel Everett - who went from Chomsky groupie to seeing that Chomsky's linguistic theories were nonsense disguising a deterministic agenda (e.g. "carburettor" being a concept pre-built into the supposed genetic basis, Universal Generative Grammar, of human language) - and Chris Knight (Decoding Chomsky - revealing his "mindless activism" etc.). Despite the democratic "full speed ahead" agenda preached by Chomsky, "go-slow" Joe has only struck a glancing blow at the intellectual Chomsky-iceberg - but realizes that most of this monster lies beneath the water of objectivity!
And I think Joe is jumping to conclusions about this, because it's possible that Chomsky is honestly mistaken in his positions, or that he consciously or unconsciously resists the marginalization that has been the fate of all conspiracy theorists.
A too charitable view which you will see to be quite wrong. Chomsky is NO naïve dumbcluck as Chris Knight's book reveals.
You left out the democratic aspect of this Left tradition. Whether it's fading away or not, is beside the point. This is what we advocate here.
The "democratic aspect" of the Leftist tradition is almost sine qua non. When one decries democracy as did the socialist Sorel, one is labelled a fascist - but I'm happy to wear the label because the democratic leftist tradition has dominated political opposition to capitalism from the late 19th century. Your underlined words are also why I haven't contributed to your thread on why Postflaviana has not grown in contributors and membership. Such "democratic socialist" forces have been around for over a century in all sorts of manifestations; but the very democratic and socialist types who have been peddling their wares for so long are now demoralized. They are looking for something else, the Left-inclined falling for Antifa or bizarre religious cults (such people not Postflaviana contributors at all), the more intelligent moving rightward but in an anti-capitalist way. This is why EMJ is progressive (relative to the Leftish democratic hogwash) but of course EMJ has not broken from Catholic bigotry.

The ultimate goal here is to break philosophically entirely from Christianity and from other religions - this is why I target Einstein, because relativity, in preaching a FINITE universe, bolsters - indeed it underpins - religion, o_O because religions have an INFINITE god or INFINITE divine realm, rendering science, the Earth's environment and the universe itself trivial and secondary issues - and thus human endeavour futile - leading the masses away from genuine science (Galileo etc.) in search of gurus to believe in, those gurus preaching democracy clearly favoured of course.:D:D:D

Joe has broken from (and is essentially immune to) Catholic bigotry but he has also seen that the Left and its democratic posturing offers no particular hope for improvement - though he seems inconsistent here given his oft-stated aspiration to "restore American [and other] democracy" and his support for "Socratic rationality" without realizing what this entails (see Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy). His words here I also guess are just conventional "motherhood statements" to reassure confused listeners, since he has been accused of racism and anti-Semitism, false charges in both cases.

Democracy is useful in small groups and small governments of course - classically in Athens where men had to keep the non-voters down (i.e. women and slaves) - but has limited application in large scale complex societies in which today we are all forced to live. But to advocate democracy as the general rule to govern large societies is to paint yourselves into an egalitarian-democratic corner, prohibiting yourselves from thinking out the deeper issues while being reduced to merely moralizing against the general moralizing of "middle-class dominated" society!

Yours faithfully
Claude

* At least in the English language. (Joe emphasized to me the key significance of EMJ, but not in as strong a terminology as I use here).
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Has it not occurred to you that if post-WW1 Fascism had never existed in organized form at all - meaning that not only Mussolini, Hitler and Franco but a whole host of substitutes would have had to "fall under a bus" i.e. a series of accidents preventing it from developing - we would have had Leninist, Stalinist and even Trotsky-type regimes (after initial confused violent Anarchism and massive civil war) all over Europe if not worldwide?
I disagree. More likely, we would have had Roosevelt-style (New Deal) social democracies all over Europe, including in Spain and Germany.

Your underlined words are also why I haven't contributed to your thread on why Postflaviana has not grown in contributors and membership.
So you are not supportive of our aims here. I can only assume that when you said, with reference to Noam Chomsky: "I like to hear approaching jackboots in step - ones that will crush this piece of Schweindreck into oblivion" that you are including us as well.

EMJ still is the definitive thinker of our age*, (though a giant Rock to be overcome) because, as he said of the French Revolution: "When you overthrow Christianity [in favour of unstable revolutionary systems which then revert to usury-based regimes of indirect rule] you end up being run by the Jews."
And you're handing out Nobel prizes for best anti-Semitic canard.

I'm merging this discussion into the old thread about "how to improve democracy".
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I really think this tranche of posts should be in a thread discussing fascism and not on how to fix democracy.

In any case, Claude's critique of 18th century democracy still contains the problem that I have recently complained about, that he is not constructing his argument within the context of our understanding, hence he is pissing into the wind ... and completely wasting our time. Like 'collectivist' peddling his crypto-Catholic propaganda here, if he is authentic he would obtain his own free blog account. Instead, he wants to use our platform to further his bowel movements.

The American Revolution and the Constitution contained the seeds of its own destruction, privileging a small class of elites, while advertising something else, and it has only gotten worse over time. Because that is the way the system was designed, no different than placing Washington D.C (New Rome on the New Tiber) in the one Catholic colony/state of Mary Land.

The problem we have with such as Claude and Joe is their sclerotic binary thinking which leads them to retrograde solutions, rather than taking an engineering approach which calls for constant improving of the design.

Democracy fails for numerous reasons (a shortlist below):
  • a failure to properly educate the electorate (which is not expensive)
  • the public, religious, and private secular education is riddled with propaganda
  • the largest media is riddled with corporate agendas
  • The corporate media is a handmaiden to the 'Deep State' (which should make Claude happy, because that is Fascism 101)
  • American democracy was saddled with the Electoral College, designed to make the slave states happy (and which Trump et al exploited by losing the popular vote by 3,000,000 plus)
  • American corporations are superhuman since 1886
  • Both major parties have bought into the Libertarian provoked current strata of Neoliberalism beginning with Reagan (this is where you can see the contiguous, linear destruction of the middle class on a graph) and continuing with Trump
There have been numerous prior instances here where Claude might have gained some insights into just how fucked up his obsessive, binary mind is, yet he has always demonstrated his obsessions to stick with the Hidden Hand that has got ahold of him. He happily repeats everything that I discussed about in my Nazi eschatology thread, and he is merely left searching for the Fuhrer, Trump apparently not having performed down to par .... yet.

Seemingly not being aware of the American political scene (except for all that I have already explained) he seemingly doesn't realize the extent to which its democracy has been a rhetorical sham (when it matters), therefore he feels justified in ignoring facts that are inconvenient to his binary obsession.

An identical mirror to the American experience is that of the formation of the Nazi experience, which Wilhelm and his royal relatives set in play, yet his ignorant analysis presumes that everything is authentic, rather than epistemologically superficial, and that he can draw his neoCatholic propagandic conclusions from. We are only left to wonder whether he himself is witting or a useful idiot.

As I have explained to him before, the USA was only superficially Protestant, and now is explicitly Catholic as witnessed by the various stranglehold of Catholics in the three branches of federal government -- including all the Georgetown (Jesuit) alumni in the White House and as deep actors in such as Russiagate (Manafort and Podestas ...).

Claude is correct that the global sheep are unhappy with liberalism and democracy, but this is because of the machinations of the elites, the shepherds and their sheepdogs. So, Claude's solution is to find a good shepherd and kill the sheepdogs. Good luck with that.

I am not so optimistic that our views will win in any short term, including into the coming new age. A coherent analysis of the Bible is that the sheep will become convinced to return to ethnic nations, but they will be bound to one master. This is the inherent duality of the nationalist / globalist phenomenon which Claude champions perhaps unwittingly.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I really think this tranche of posts should be in a thread discussing fascism and not on how to fix democracy.
I suppose we could also put it back in Claude's "Weaponizing Sex'n'Drugs'n'Rock&Roll????" thread, which really has little or nothing to do with sex, drugs or rock'n'roll.

But, I'm bored with talking about fascism. If Claude wants to post here, he's going to have to talk about how to fix democracy. (And if he wants to go back to that earlier thread, I'd much rather talk about sex. Or drugs. Or rock'n'roll. I can't think of a less edifying topic, than the restoration of fascism.)

Perhaps Claude could bring himself to talk about democracy through the following framework. If some amount of hierarchy is inevitable in human society -- then how can we make sure that the upper classes and top individuals are servants to the peoples' needs, rather than merely a parasitic, murderous affliction on humanity? Or, if the top individual is in fact a fascist (by definition, a parasitic, murderous affliction on humanity) then how can the rest of us minimize the damage?
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Remember when I warned:
...sometimes I edit the titles of threads, to conform to the actual content of the thread. This one is likely to get renamed, something like "Postflavians' Guide to Why Fascism is a Really Bad Idea".
Well, it just happened.

Also, just recently, Seeker started a new discussion about Rock'n'Roll, of all things, on Claude's old fascism advocacy thread. And coincidentally, Richard also just started a thread on Drugs & Rock'n'Roll! So I shuffled those items around.

Here's the new Drugs & Rock'n'Roll thread, where Claude just complained about "perverse and debased sexual matters" too.

https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/drugs-as-weapons-against-us.2545/
 
Last edited:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
What informative replies. When I wrote of what would happen had Fascism not emerged after WW1 due to an improbable series of accidents:
I disagree. More likely, we would have had Roosevelt-style (New Deal) social democracies all over Europe, including in Spain and Germany.
Not only does this ignore the Leninist "replace capitalism by bureaucracy" threat, but the Roosevelt "New Deal" liberalism arose in the wake of the Great Depression, not WW1, hence a European victory by Leninists in war-torn Europe would create a situation, very unstable but whose results would be difficult to predict. The resulting depression and chaos could have brought Franco or the like to power early in Spain, though the French Leninists may have attacked such a Fascist state which could only rely upon Anglo-American support (Franco's victory, like Hitler's, arose from the effects of the Great Depression, not specifically from WW1).

More to the point, the Social-democrats did come to power after the fall of the Kaiser, under Friedrich Ebert, who deputized Noske to wipe out the Spartacist Communists under Liebknecht and Luxemburg. Let us now imagine that the Social-democrats suddenly faltered here! Had Leninism other supporters in Germany they would have fought the Social Democrats, bringing the Leninist class war into Germany and Europe - the ONLY option then to bring in the Army (though the Social Democrats had already done so, wiping out the Sparts in the first place). The point is: Leninist class war in Europe was and would have been opposed by Social Democrat types anyway (the emerging Fascists having collapsed due to the aforementioned accidents), leading to civil wars much more prolonged and savage than the brief periods of violence leading to Fascist then Nazi hegemony. You forget that Europe in 1919 was still substantially middle class and Leninism its essential opponent - and the savagery of the Russian Civil War whose ultimate result was Lenin's NEP, bringing back free market capitalism under another name! The slaughter all for nothing - as became clearer in 1991.

Hence the claim of "social-democracies" is wishful thinking as a way to either combat or absorb the Leninist threat. Remember that Hungary and Bavaria had "Soviet Republics" and Joe in particular has emphasized Georgy Lukacz in the former!
So you are not supportive of our aims here. I can only assume that when you said, with reference to Noam Chomsky: "I like to hear approaching jackboots in step - ones that will crush this piece of Schweindreck into oblivion" that you are including us as well.
If you wish to support his agenda, YES I am NOT supportive! But you do not understand Chomsky's agenda as you have not read the two books I have mentioned. You just listen to his MSM-repeated "motherhood statements" and commonplace support for victims (e.g. Palestinians, Julian Assange); but when you combine the two books' evidence you will see a different Chomsky, the true Chomsky, emerge!

Indeed, Chomsky is the Einstein of linguistics (as writers have hinted) - just as Einstein is the Chomsky of modern physics!

As various books and media have revealed, Noam Chomsky is the most quoted living intellectual of our day - as if this is a good thing for mankind. Joe's assessment of him as a lifetime actor is rather charitable, but when you read Chris Knight's and Daniel Everett's books you will realize that Chomsky is one hellish con-artist. So if you want me to support Chomsky's egalitarian-democratic anarchism, count me out, because his notions there have disempowered and disarmed the masses across the world - not just the scrawny beggars - filling them with false hopes of a better future.

You need to read those books and learn what a cunning and vicious manipulator Chomsky really is - since his real agenda is to deny us even the ability to think!
And you're handing out Nobel prizes for best anti-Semitic canard.

I'm merging this discussion into the old thread about "how to improve democracy".
By these words, serving the Zionist agenda by merging anti-Judaism with the racist concept of anti-Semitism invented by disaffected 1848 revolutionary Wilhelm Marr (but a good idea putting it in "how to improve democracy")!

As far as I can tell, having only read 240 pages of the 1,360 page work, EMJ's message, reconfigured here through the brilliant insights of Joe, who has removed the religious aura of EMJ writings - by which I mean the traditional tale of Jesus Christ - is this.

In his book ... Forgive Them Their Debts, Michael Hudson showed that debts must be remitted for ordinary people because their impoverishment brings about the collapse of a society due to foreign invasion (or internal strife) as the debtors welcome and even help the invader in the hope of relief from their debt.

Caught in this dilemma by the Egyptian invasion of Palestine, Judaism emerged by condemning usury (moneylending for profit) between Jews, thus setting up the nucleus of a stable community. With the Roman-Jewish Wars, the Caesars realized that the Jews could become a stable asset for Rome if they could be tamed, such that they could become moneylenders to non-Jews in the Roman world.

Romans hated moneylenders too. Rich usurers such as Marcus Brutus, JC's killer, would lend money to towns and small cities. If they could not pay up, he would recoup his losses not only by selling off the land and houses but selling off the people, individually and collectively, as slaves. (See Bertrand Russell, Unpopular Essays p. 152 chapter 9: "Ideas that have helped Mankind"). With this as the Pagan standard of moneylending, no wonder we have Christianity.

Appreciating the ideal outlined by Jewish principles, Roman leaders, even before becoming explicitly Christian themselves, continually had to deal with both Pagan and Christian moneylenders. The Christian moneylenders were as bad as the Pagan ones, because, sharing the same mass prejudice, they could readily lure the masses into unpayable debts. Jewish moneylenders however were more honest and reliable than Christian ones - and you can tell me why as you read on!

The solution lay in the separation of powers, the legal power of the Roman state as opposed to the moneylending power granted as a special privilege to the Jews, some of the moneylenders' profits being distributed to poorer Jews to keep that community together. But how would the Jews be controlled so that Jewish moneylenders not come to exercise complete financial rule over Rome itself and impoverish the mass of Pagans>Christians?

Solving the Usury Question under Christendom.

Enter the Hero of the Hour - Jesus Christ! When Matthew's Gospel (5:43) curses the Jews as the enemies of mankind, the reader knows that this is because Jesus knows that He is to be crucified or at least killed by them. In First Thessalonians (2:15), it is merely said that the Jews drove the Christians out after killing Jesus - but that text predates the Four Gospels. In the Four Gospels it is the Romans themselves who perform the actual crucifixion, whereas the Jews only demand that the Romans do this, Pontius Pilate washing his hands of the crime.

IOW what seems to be an irrelevant story about Jesus when we are dealing with usury in Rome, is vitally relevant. The control over the Jews in the Roman Empire would be exercised by the preaching of the message of Jesus Christ, later church fathers like Augustine of Hippo always emphasizing the need to tolerate the Jews' presence. Why? Because the Jews were the moneylenders; they had to be the moneylenders because Christian ones would easily become too corrupt and powerful, causing the masses to turn against Christianity. When however the Jews became too powerful from their moneylending, the religious and civil authorities could remind the population that the Jews killed Jesus - the resulting pogroms destroying the poorer Jews and cancelling the Christians' debts to the Jewish creditors as the latter fled the prince's realm in fear of their lives.

Thus Catholicism, an entirely cynical setup (that had me rolling around on the floor laughing when I finally cottoned onto it), really worked all through the Middle Ages - because it exercised a balance between Jews as usurers and Jews as Christ-killers. In some parts of Christendom there were no Jews, but Jewish moneylenders were favoured by Christians who would then invest in them, abandoning them only when it was decided to unleash pogroms on the Jews in order to free the ruler, and the overtaxed masses, of their debt burden. After some centuries Jews would return and the cycle start once more. Certain nations ended up with large Jewish populations - notably Hungary, because the Hungarians themselves were different to the peoples around them, so welcomed Jews & Gypsies, and Poland, where the Jews became the Middle Class in general, mediating between the downtrodden peasants and the democratic alliance of the Polish princes, who knew how to stick to a profitable arrangement.

The Protestant Reformation Liberates the Jews.

Martin Luther objected to all the works, the rules and regulations of Catholicism, but the princes supported him because of the draining of their finances to support the Papacy, inflated to great power with the Renaissance. Not only Peter's Pence but the Selling of Indulgences proved a limitless source of funds based upon prepaid forgiveness for sins not yet committed. Luther's objections led to his movement being highly individualistic, the princes supporting his movement and defending its principles against Catholicism, the Lutheran movement spreading out in all directions, Luther initially supporting Jews until he found they were indifferent to him, then he turned against them with traditional Christian teachings.

Not so Jean Calvin and Huldreich Zwingli in Switzerland. They reconceptualized Christianity as a prosperity gospel, laying aside traditional teachings on usury or redefining them into irrelevance. Instead, they treated the interest from moneylending as an external sign of God's favour - this in the wake of their turning sin into irrelevance by claiming that God's Predestination predetermines everything, therefore whatever came into the leaders' heads was put there by God. Calvin merely took Luther a step further. Where Luther pessimistically affirmed predestination from man's enslaved will, embodied in "salvation by [blind] faith alone", Calvin optimistically affirmed human success on earth through business, success in business being the external sign of God's grace - hence his welcoming of Jews and Judaism as partners in this process, rather than Christ-killers-&-moneylenders to be blessed then cursed from one moment to the next.

This led to the emergence of untrammelled capitalism and thus the great Jewish banking houses which finally relocated to England and later the USA, becoming the monstrous moneylending organization of today. How did they do it? The coming of Protestantism weakened controls over secret societies, hence the formation of Freemasonry in Anglican England after Henry VIII's "conversion" to Protestantism (in contrast, Catholicism was traditionally anti-Freemason - so we see why Franco wanted to wipe out Freemasons, Communists and Jews from Spain during their civil war). Following the religious wars, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 gave Jews and Anglicans joint rule over the British Empire and the world. Hence the colonization and ultimate subjugation (or extermination) of colonized peoples and European nations through moneylending - Judaeo-Christians blessed usury and its compound interest, a situation where the money can never be paid back.

The Marxist Inadequacy

Marx & Engels were inadequate here as they did not see the primary role of usury and the power of Judaeo-Christianity with Freemasonry to subjugate the whole world through usury. The stupid egalitarian notion of communism, everyone living equally in communes as the communist ideal - appropriate only for small communities and tribes - ignores the fact that capitalism is essentially hierarchical, with the usurers, the bankers on top, various private and government functionaries beneath them, and the bulk of the capitalists and middle class actually trapped by debt to the former. Marx focused too much on boss & worker so did not appreciate the hierarchical structure of capitalism well enough to see that capitalism would destroy the poor - and then the middle class as they too fell away into debt and poverty to become the new poor, and so on. We live in this mess today, Marx instead lived at a time of dynamic capitalist growth.

Hence egalitarian democratic notions and organizations cannot even appreciate let alone combat this situation - but the Germans certainly learnt it from 1919-1923 and that's why they would ultimately vote for Hitler, since they saw, as anyone can who bothers to investigate Judaeo-Christianity further, that "Judaeo-Protestantism" lies at the heart of modern moneylending - the bulk of wealthy Catholics cynically going along with it. In fact, there are even a few Catholic Zionists, but I suspect their motivation is merely to try to destroy Islam so as to herd the broken masses of the Islamic world back to Freakin' Jesus!o_O

Underneath these issues is the question of human character and whether it is genetic or environmental, including cultural in origin. This is the most difficult question of human existence, so I stop here to let you catch your breath.

So yes, democracy can be improved for sure - but the most important thing is human character differences and the need to emphasize this differential situation - to explain it philosophically and understand it as a material process rather than sin or demonic possession. Furthermore, recognizing human character differences as fundamental means to proscribe and restrict democracy on this basis to ensure that the best human characters come to rule, i.e. those who discipline themselves rather than running off into sexual escapism as Herbert Marcuse and his cultural Marxists would advise!

Yours faithfully
Claude Badder than Ever
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
So yes, democracy can be improved for sure
Glad to hear it.

The thread started off with "Sortition" as an alternative form of democracy.

And here's another: a form known as "Sociocracy", or "Dynamic Governance".

The basic idea is to organize a society into small working groups called "Circles". Each circle might contain anywhere from three to sixty people, and it's conceivable that a single person could belong to several of these circles. The people within each circle are tied together by some common element: a common goal or task or profession, a common location, or whatever.

But, each circle is small enough that everybody knows everyone else.

Within each circle, and within its frame of responsibility, the circle puts a high premium on achieving as much consensus as possible.

Each circle elects a member to go to a higher circle in a hierarchical structure. The second-level circles have a broader purview than the bottom-level circles. They resolve any disputes that occur among the members of the lower circles. And again, all the members in a second-level circle get to know each other.

The second level circles elect a representative up to a third level. And so forth, until you reach an uppermost circle. Because of the magic of exponentials, six to eight levels of circles should theoretically be able to encompass everyone on the planet.

The first known experiment in sociocratic organization was at a school in the Netherlands, operated by pacifist educator Kees Boeke. Here's his essay on the topic:

http://worldteacher.faithweb.com/sociocracy.htm

Everything depends on a new spirit breaking through among men. May it be that, after the many centuries of fear, suspicion and hate, more and more a spirit of reconciliation and mutual trust will spread abroad. The constant practice of the art of sociocracy and of the education necessary for it seem to be the best way in which to further this spirit, upon which the real solution of all world problems depends.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
That's generally describing the governance of the Presbyterian Church, going from an immediate church's elders and their committees, then a regional presbytery, to a wider synod, and onto the General Assembly.
 
Last edited:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
As Richard points out above, democracy is the fundamental principle of truly Protestant churches like the Presbyterians. When at primary school I met a clever boy whose father was a surgeon and a Presbyterian elder, I was struck by their lack of hierarchy (no distinction between clergy and laity), as my grandfather was instead an Anglican minister, whose position required education in the church as well as acceptance of Anglican doctrines: after this he was appointed to his ministerial role by the Anglican bishops, all very definitely appointed positions NOT voted upon by the local laity of churchgoers!

Like other forms of democracy, especially participatory democracy, sortition is dependent upon a strict belief in a fundamental equality between the participants...
The thread started off with "Sortition" as an alternative form of democracy.

And here's another: a form known as "Sociocracy", or "Dynamic Governance".

The basic idea is to organize a society into small working groups called "Circles". Each circle might contain anywhere from three to sixty people, and it's conceivable that a single person could belong to several of these circles. The people within each circle are tied together by some common element: a common goal or task or profession, a common location, or whatever.

But, each circle is small enough that everybody knows everyone else.

Within each circle, and within its frame of responsibility, the circle puts a high premium on achieving as much consensus as possible.


Each circle elects a member to go to a higher circle in a hierarchical structure. The second-level circles have a broader purview than the bottom-level circles. They resolve any disputes that occur among the members of the lower circles. And again, all the members in a second-level circle get to know each other.

The second level circles elect a representative up to a third level. And so forth, until you reach an uppermost circle. Because of the magic of exponentials, six to eight levels of circles should theoretically be able to encompass everyone on the planet.

The first known experiment in sociocratic organization was at a school in the Netherlands, operated by pacifist educator Kees Boeke. Here's his essay on the topic:

http://worldteacher.faithweb.com/sociocracy.htm

Everything depends on a new spirit breaking through among men. May it be that, after the many centuries of fear, suspicion and hate, more and more a spirit of reconciliation and mutual trust will spread abroad. The constant practice of the art of sociocracy and of the education necessary for it seem to be the best way in which to further this spirit, upon which the real solution of all world problems depends.
...as opposed to a mere notional or numerical equality between individuals. The highlighted words above reflect this. The second and higher levels above this are thus threatened by the infamous anarchist/socialist principle of "instant recall of delegates", something that forever threatens to delegitimate the higher levels of government.

Hierarchicalism in contrast, recognizes fundamental human differences - that some are more egalitarian, some merely capitalistic and acquisitive (encouraged by Jewish culture), some as egoistic and solipsistic like Max Stirner (author of: The Ego and His Own) and Albert Einstein, some more hierarchically inclined (Catholic as against Protestant culture) and some easygoing and adaptable etc. etc. It also recognizes that future politics cannot be based on the blind democratic principles of sortition. If you read Engels' Principles of Communism, written at the time of the Communist Manifesto, you will realize its fundamental inanity - and why Engels never completed it, as he was passing beyond its understanding, having learnt his communism originally from Moses Hess (yes, Jews again!!!!).
=========
But now I'm mixed up. I clicked on an email link expecting to reply to material on Chomsky, but ended up here?

I'll be offline until November 4th when I return from Sydney.

Auf wiedersehen
Colone...er… Claude

PS: Over a decade ago, becoming more confused about Chomsky, I bought Chomsky for Beginners, a work approved by the head honcho himself. Finally after reading the book repeatedly and feeling frustrated I read p. 44 more critically. It compares Chomsky's thinking with Skinnerian behaviorism, supposedly showing the superiority of the former. It is an allegory of a spaceship travelling to the Moon. In the Skinner imagery, behaviorism-trained pigeons tell the reader that "we pigeons are trained to peck at the screen whenever … the moon slips off the field of vision. Peck, peck - this restores the Moon to the center of the screen."

In the Chomsky image the spaceship itself speaks: "I incorporate a theory about the stars and the planets." When I took the words seriously I suddenly realized that Chomsky is not uncovering the basis of language but is indulging in mystification - as if a talking pigeon explains less about language then an all-controlling Hal-type spaceship. I.e.

Chomsky 2001 - a spacetime oddity hiding a monster indeed! And if language is mystified - so is all human understanding, since if someone disagrees with the Socratic construct agreed by the manipulators then one's brain must be medically diseased. This is the true danger of Chomsky - he rationalizes the disastrous nature of Western decline while appearing to oppose its leaders and its systems, rendering the chumpskies (i.e. those idiot-leftists who believe him) constitutionally and forever unable to work out the inner philosophical and social paradoxes that he has obscured, only able to avoid becoming scrawny beggars themselves by becoming academic ivory-tower nerds affirming Chomsky's debasement of language and all the perverse thought that arises therefrom.
 
Last edited:
Top