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!
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
