Fixing Democracy

Richard Stanley

Administrator
...since most in the West, and even on this website, are fixated on mob rule as the answer to everything political - and so only welcome that sort of limited and prejudicial thinking, which, as I show above, leads absolutely nowhere under a Liberal system, however embedded it might be.:cool: Luckily as people mature from bitter experience they come to realize the fundamental importance of differential human character - and the need for a deeper philosophical understanding to match this.
It is hard to have a sincere and fruitful dialogue with someone who refuses to deviate from superficial interpretations of reality. There has never been mob rule in the USA, and the discussions here on the forum and blog are about the realities, not the rhetorical appearance.

As such, it appears strongly to me that your only real desire is to press your now revealed agenda, which as I have strongly hinted at, may as well be that of a Traditionalist Roman Catholic (merely shorn of the mystical trappings). They would absolutely love your worldwide fascist hierarchicalism -- except for that you yet have no means for managing successions beyond massive bloodshed. But some people like that as well.
 
I did not intend the word as a mere joke, Jerry!

You might be offended by this word, but I am offended by the fact that Judeo-Christianity is soon to plunge us into WW3. (At least Donald Trump has been trying to avoid this outcome, despite the urging of his Zio backers) What could be more offensive than the Judaeo-Christian agenda???? Our environment destroyed by religious fanatics covering and justifying the plunder of the world by primarily Jewish and Christian capitalists - especially now that the Frankfurt School has been unmasked, proving substantially the suspicions about Jews and their Christian backers that the Nazis and others had already revealed to the world.
Der F* leader principle?? I can't overstate how offensive this is. Do I have to explain why? No, I shouldn't have to waste my time. It should be perfectly obvious.
It might be to you, but what is even more obvious to me is the absolute danger of Judaeo-Christianity - and its crazed notion that the outbreak of WW3 will herald the second coming of Jesus Whose second coming will be in the nick of time to prevent massive nuclear annihilation (e.g. BS modern Christian literature like "the Late Great Planet Earth" which deprecate the natural environment in favour of Jesus)!
I apologize for having been distracted the last few days, and unable to police this website. But, this passage had to go.

I had to delete one other highly offensive "joke" from Mr. Badley recently. This is Strike Two.
But the issue of F* is absolutely essential to proper and effective human understanding and so cannot be bullied aside by (Orwell, Essays, Journalism, Letters Vol. 2 "The Lion and the Unicorn" p. 106) "the idea of human equality - the 'Jewish' or 'Judaeo-Christian' principle of human equality - that Hitler came into the world to destroy." We have had this egalitarian crap rule our world since 1945 and the mess it has created just gets worse and worse, and this includes the rise in CO2 from fossil fuel use!
Claude: If you want to keep advocating "hierarchicalism", or fascism, or whatever you call it: you are going to have to answer our repeated questions about how this is to be implemented. If we choose "hierarchicalism" as our system of government, how are we going to prevent such as Herr Hitler from rising to power and carrying out exterminationist programs against the less favored? We are here to have a real discussion, not to provide a platform for endless ranting.
A Hitler will never rise again on any substantial basis because of Hitler's crude racism; any successful dictator will have to think through the situation better than that - and right-wing groups are doing this today, since they too want to influence the masses, hence their turn to "culture".

The implementation of inegalitarian principles will be through the horror that the mass of people experience as the war breaks out - changing their attitudes completely as they look for an earthly savior rather than the discredited Heavenly Savior. The mass destruction and death that will result from Judaeo-Christianity's efforts to subjugate Iran, Russia and China will lead intelligent people in the West to realize that mob rule (democracy) is a mere con-job and has to be replaced with a very different setup! And so the bulk of Westerners (and others) will then want to join in and create this new system!

As a result of WW3 there will be large scale exterminations - both from the war itself and subsequently as the need to wipe out the ideologies and believers that created and upheld it in the first place, Judaeo-Christianity being the number one offender. The new power-holders will have to set up a new system for governance, nationally and internationally, among the shell-shocked population. Mass assent to this will be needed - but not the unworkable egalitarian democracy of the Left.

You don't realize this, thinking instead that egalitarian Leftist reform (not necessarily of the Democrat/Labor Party form) or anarchistic "organization by the masses" (Leninism now discredited I guess) is somehow going to win over a hungry broken mass of demoralized humans - the terminal legacy of capitalism, a system now faltering and crumbling worldwide, making WW3 more likely as the Western elites seek to blame Putin*, China and Iran for their own economic woes. As for the "less favored" - these constitute the sort of people that would cling to Judaeo-Christianity come what may, and so their eradication in the wake of WW3 (i.e. WW3 having been the logical implementation of the Judaeo-Christian agenda) will be mandatory since nothing can be done with them as they would make unreliable slaves, requiring severe discipline otherwise as they were 'recruited' to became the nuclear fallout cleanup crew (a.k.a. the Lumpenproletariat).

The protection of the Earth and its environment comes first - and ranks above human rights, and certainly over Liberal (Libertarian) rights of "equality before the law" - meaning the right of individual entrepreneurial and usurious endeavors to profit, this having subjugated humanity to moneylenders and their invented cockamamie ideologies to subvert culture (Huxley, Einstein etc.).

Can you not see from what I had written in post #57 that it is Protestantism that created Judaeo-Christianity by giving equal rights to the Jews when Catholic hegemony was overthrown, handing economic hegemony to people who by their culture will rise to the top as usurers, striving to take over the whole world through moneylending? The end result being the impoverishment of the mass of people, moralized over by arrogant Judaeo-Christians as is already clear in the USA today! Judaeo-Christianity has to be exposed for its hidden agenda: this is the key practical step that I am proposing - or will you call it part of an "endless rant"?

The hopeless corruption of the Roman moneylending system led to usury being handed over wholesale to the Jews - with Jesus Christ (and His fantasized death at Jewish/Roman hands) being the policeman of the situation. This idiotic situation arose because the Romans did not consider the caste question - that everyone is NOT the same underneath (i.e. fundamentally unequal) - and that while the separation of usury from political power is obviously a positive step, this part-positive step in the West was utterly destroyed by the arrival of Protestantism which turned Jesus from an effective "fascistic" policeman into, ultimately, a "Sensitive New Age Guy" preaching the drivel of the Frankfurt School in order to disarm the masses by sex, drugs, artistic distractions, gambling and general dissipation while moralizing against the fundamental fact of human inequality demonstrated by the trashing of the Leader Principle (der Fuehrerprinzip) in works like "The Authoritarian Personality", sponsored by the American Jewish Committee, a book which really opened my eyes to the true Western (Judaeo-Christian) agenda.

When enough people understand this, authoritarian people will unite to decide upon an agenda, and when there are enough such people they will implement this anti-Frankfurtian authoritarian agenda - with force when necessary!

Yours faithfully
Claude

*And you yourself have been quite uncritically condemnatory of Putin, as are many Western books published today!

PS:
Or better still, let's talk about ancient gnosticism for awhile, since that's an academic specialty of yours that's much more relevant to this website.
Very good, but I have to read Ralph Ellis's "Jesus King of Edessa" to tie in the details firmly to Mandaeism. For example, in the video supplied here recently, Ellis the ever-insightful indicates that Queen Helena of Adiabene was actually the wife of Abgar king of Edessa, though Adiabene supposedly does not cover the city of Edessa.
 
Last edited:
Yes, Putin claims to be many things - not a surprise when one has to balance competing interests!
I almost let this slide. Russia, a fascist dictator's paradise? Really?

We've extensively discussed the actual situation in Russia, here at this thread, and it's far too much to summarize here. But there's certainly no open and widespread rejection of the "Liberal system" there. On the contrary, Putin claims to be a democratically elected leader of a liberal (capitalist) system, albeit rejecting Western views of cultural and gender pluralism.
The best expose on the change in Russian thought in the 20th century is Yuri Slezkine's The Jewish Century, since the Russian Empire had the largest Jewish population in 1900. There are less than 250,000 Jews there today, since the failures of Communism made the people realize that Jews, with whom Russians fully identified in the earlier 20th century, were manipulating them - having learnt this not only from the Nazi invasion but especially from the Soviet support for the establishment of Israel.

Although the book is written from a pro-Jewish perspective, reading between the lines you can see the Russians gradually waking up to the Judaeo-Christian system, though there is still some way to go!

So, yes, Putin is often called a fascistic dictator - as he has to control the Liberal system there, established by Boris Yeltsin and the West, not destroy it as Lenin did. But so what, as this point is obvious! You seem to forget that economic prosperity was the hallmark of Nazi Germany in the late 1930s, ensuring Hitler's very genuine popularity, Liberal attitudes embedded in that system too.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:
Very true, Richard.
It is hard to have a sincere and fruitful dialogue with someone who refuses to deviate from superficial interpretations of reality.
But are you using the term "mob rule" below as I use the term? - meaning democracy in a general sense.
There has never been mob rule in the USA, and the discussions here on the forum and blog are about the realities, not the rhetorical appearance.
Democracy is an ideal of course, but the USA does hold, however superficially or inconsistently, to some sort of representative democracy - as shown by elections. And there was popular democracy (not just in the USA) in earlier times e.g. when pioneers got together democratically to slaughter an Indian tribe or when frenzied Whites gathered for a lynching - things which Jerry would rightly stigmatize as "mob rule". I.e. 'democracy' is a slippery and hypocritical term at best!
As such, it appears strongly to me that your only real desire is to press your now revealed agenda, which as I have strongly hinted at, may as well be that of a Traditionalist Roman Catholic (merely shorn of the mystical trappings). They would absolutely love your worldwide fascist hierarchicalism -- except for that you yet have no means for managing successions beyond massive bloodshed. But some people like that as well.
The best feature of the Roman Catholic church was and is the hierarchy, that the rabble do not vote for the Pope but only the cardinals. That the world will have to be governed hierarchically arises inevitably from fundamental human inequality - the fact that modern ideas specifically deny in favor of egalitarian democracy.

However, don't conclude that I deride Protestantism completely!

The good side of Protestantism came essentially from later Lutheranism (but not from its Evangelization post-Napoleon) and its search for truth - the Higher or German Criticism arising from the work of Johann Semler in the 1770s where he uncovered the fact that the first part of Genesis was a knitting together of two separate texts - one Yahwist (from Judah based in Jerusalem), one Elohist (from the 'Northern' Kingdom of Aram called "Israel"). Only in the 21st century are these discoveries bearing fruit in a practical sense.

The superficial interpretations of reality are those of democracy and egalitarianism because inner human differences of character (personality) are reduced to triviality (since they can hardly be denied outright, except by Leninists). The proper study of science on the human brain, mind and genome is to uncover the basis of these differences - rather than deny them as trivial - since there is NO heritable basis for such differences in any meaningful sense - very destabilizing for any hereditary regime as has long been clear from good kings being superseded by halfwitted, malicious and incompetent sons.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The proper study of science on the human brain, mind and genome is to uncover the basis of these differences - rather than deny them as trivial - since there is NO heritable basis for such differences in any meaningful sense - very destabilizing for any hereditary regime as has long been clear from good kings being superseded by halfwitted, malicious and incompetent sons.
Can I take that as an answer to my question about how "hierarchicalism" should be implemented? You are calling for some sort of scientific meritocracy based on genetic testing, that would sort people from birth into their allotted caste in society so as to optimize the fit between individual capacities and social requirements? You would identify the individuals who are most highly qualified to rule, based on their genetic characteristics? Presumably the individuals would then be sorted into educational tracks based on their genetically assessed destiny, thus magnifying the original differences?

A brave new world indeed :)

As a result of WW3 there will be large scale exterminations - both from the war itself and subsequently as the need to wipe out the ideologies and believers that created and upheld it in the first place, Judaeo-Christianity being the number one offender. The new power-holders will have to set up a new system for governance, nationally and internationally, among the shell-shocked population. Mass assent to this will be needed - but not the unworkable egalitarian democracy of the Left.
This is, perhaps, a different answer about how the "hierarchicalist" system will be implemented? After WW3, "new power holders will have to set up a new system for governance"? And who would these new power holders be? The elite billionaires who were prescient enough to set themselves up in underground bunkers and tunnels, with abundant supplies stored away to survive nuclear winter? As well as conventional weapons stockpiles sufficient to subdue the "shell shocked population"? Yes, I suppose the masses would have little option but to give their assent at gunpoint.

But personally, I wouldn't bet on the idea that there will be any survivors at all.
 
Can I take that as an answer to my question about how "hierarchicalism" should be implemented? You are calling for some sort of scientific meritocracy based on genetic testing, that would sort people from birth into their allotted caste in society so as to optimize the fit between individual capacities and social requirements? You would identify the individuals who are most highly qualified to rule, based on their genetic characteristics? Presumably the individuals would then be sorted into educational tracks based on their genetically assessed destiny, thus magnifying the original differences?

A brave new world indeed :)
Well I can't deny that in a general sense, even though I deny Thomas and Aldous Huxley!

By genetic differences of relevance to caste I mean mutations that would harm longevity in people or cause impairment in thinking, not racially-variable differences such as skin color (which are essentially trivial). Examples of such non-trivial genetic differences and mutations would be Downs Syndrome, X-linked mental retardation and progeria as well as subtle syndromes and mutations not yet clearly recognized. (In fact I only mention genetic differences because people are puzzled about the origin of differential human character, often trying, like my mother for example, to blame it onto hereditary characteristics of outsiders, as if one's [sub]culture could LITERALLY be imprinted on one's DNA).

Much more important however is the social interaction among young people allowing people to sort themselves out by character and be chosen and self-chosen for one or other particular caste role. Most people would tend to be neutral in such tendencies. The task here is to pay manual occupations better, abolishing beggary among otherwise healthy work-capable people, so that people can earn good money for unskilled work and so support the aged and injured. Rule by capitalism has to be crushed, but without eradicating capitalism itself. This supreme task is that of the supreme caste - of course - since they have to neutralize the modern ideological threat.
This is, perhaps, a different answer about how the "hierarchicalist" system will be implemented? After WW3, "new power holders will have to set up a new system for governance"? And who would these new power holders be? The elite billionaires who were prescient enough to set themselves up in underground bunkers and tunnels, with abundant supplies stored away to survive nuclear winter? As well as conventional weapons stockpiles sufficient to subdue the "shell shocked population"? Yes, I suppose the masses would have little option but to give their assent at gunpoint.

But personally, I wouldn't bet on the idea that there will be any survivors at all.
Your last words evade the issue of course but what you have yet to realize, yet to think about deeply as if you were already in it, is the global horror that will break out when nuclear weapons are resorted to. You remember the horror of S-11 (9/11), the greatest horror of my lifetime (and yours too I guess). Nuclear weapon strikes will greatly exceed this in horror - and reveal even to many Christians that the world they knew is rapidly coming to an end; even many presently hardline Zionists will rethink their ideas as whole nations and governments collapse under the onslaught.

As for "elite billionaires" - the leading ones, Judaeo-Christians, are the ones wanting the nuclear strikes, they will want them because masses of people are starting to wake up to the fact of their being manipulated. My point is that nuclear strikes will cause more people to wake up, rendering the Judaeo-Christian billionaires' rule ever more shaky and tenuous - especially if the US military is already committed to a Vietnam style invasion of, e.g., Iran, unable to suppress the Iranian supporters of the Iranian regime who would be supplied with weapons by Russia and China.

I do not deny however that some billionaires will dissent from the Judaeo-Christian consensus - and that civil war between the elites will be a ferocious conflict indeed, the issue being who and what hierarchical principles will rule!

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
what you have yet to realize, yet to think about deeply as if you were already in it, is the global horror that will break out when nuclear weapons are resorted to.
I believe this has been very much on my mind since my elementary school days, when all the children in my class were required to do duck-and-cover exercises on a regular basis. The teachers taught us to hide under our desks, in hopes of surviving nuclear war. But nobody could explain how this was supposed to save us.

I was six years old when my parents and grandparents told me about their anxieties during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That, and the JFK assassination, are some of my earliest memories.

Your last words evade the issue of course
Perhaps so. But, the living (if any) will envy the dead, as the undeniable cliche says. It's true I don't spend much time or energy thinking about, or planning for, living in a world devastated by nuclear war.

The name of our website, postflaviana.org, is mysterious and obscure. This has both its pros and cons. I often wonder if we'd be better off with a clearer URL, like "against-apocalypse.org". Because that's what it's about, for me.

I do not deny however that some billionaires will dissent from the Judaeo-Christian consensus - and that civil war between the elites will be a ferocious conflict indeed, the issue being who and what hierarchical principles will rule!
FWIW, I believe that Richard would deny this. He believes that the "Judaeo-Christians" and the Catholics are one and the same, and that any semblance of a difference is purely contrived for appearance's sake. In his view, "The Elect" are indeed organized according to a hierarchical principal, a worldwide conspiracy under the rule of some hidden single ruler.

For me, this is a stretch. I see too much evidence of factionalism, even among elite billionaires and the world's most powerful politicians.
 
You are almost as old as me, Jerry as I turned 7 during the Cuban Missile Crisis - the event being more fearful for Americans than Australians due to the hemispheric separation of the atmospheres (meaning greater fallout in the Northern Hemisphere come what may). Hence the "no survivors" option looms much larger in your mind.
Perhaps so. But, the living (if any) will envy the dead, as the undeniable cliche says. It's true I don't spend much time or energy thinking about, or planning for, living in a world devastated by nuclear war.

The name of our website, postflaviana.org, is mysterious and obscure. This has both its pros and cons. I often wonder if we'd be better off with a clearer URL, like "against-apocalypse.org". Because that's what it's about, for me.
A good thought - but Postflaviana reminds us that the big issue here is the intimate connections between war, politics and religions.

Where I wrote of a falling out among the billionaire elites, I was thinking internationally, not just of the USA. (And implicitly of non-Judaeo-Christian elites who, in many cases, are fellow travellers with them)
FWIW, I believe that Richard would deny this. He believes that the "Judaeo-Christians" and the Catholics are one and the same, and that any semblance of a difference is purely contrived for appearance's sake. In his view, "The Elect" are indeed organized according to a hierarchical principal, a worldwide conspiracy under the rule of some hidden single ruler.
Richard gives me that impression too - but I'll let him disagree with and correct me if my shared impression is wrong.:D
For me, this is a stretch. I see too much evidence of factionalism, even among elite billionaires and the world's most powerful politicians.
The issue then is what the billionaire elites will quarrel about significantly!

The most important single event in the last 25 years in this regard in my opinion is the ascent of Vladimir Putin. It is clear that he was promoted to replace Yeltsin with the latter's assent by the leading Russian Jewish oligarch Boris Berezovsky. Now I'll bet that Putin joined the Freemasons and was probably introduced to it by Berezovsky or one of his cronies - and that Putin seemed to fall for it hook line and sinker i.e. Berezovsky & Co. thought they had their clever-enough chump prepared.

My point is however: Putin has a KGB background; he does not have, as Yuri Bezmenov would say to G Edward Griffin, "bananas stuck in his ears" but, as part of his KGB heritage, has researched and understood Communist ideology thoroughly and seen its negativity compared with nationalism and even traditional Orthodoxy. Hence when he became president, he exercised real power - power of a sort that Berezovsky decried since he was clearly no longer a puppet of the oligarchs, including Berezovsky himself. Hence, if perchance, you or Richard would like to argue some moral equivalence between a cleverer (i.e. not Georgie boy) US president and Putin, as a young Communist Russian argued to me two years ago, you will have to try to find some justification for this assertion. With these words he revealed the complete dead end of socialism - whether Communist, anarchist or reformist, the last also having collapsed completely with Jeremy Corbyn's recent defeat in the UK elections (remember here that I know an in-law of Corbyn's and she and a now deceased good friend of mine had been arguing his case to me for 8 years, long before he became BLP leader). I.e. the socialist Left has no answer to Judaeo-Christianity, socialism's egalitarian-democratic swamp merely encouraging its hapless and ineffectual swamp critters into paroxysms of moral indignation!

In contrast, Putin for example wants to keep the peace with Israel (to create a peaceful resolution with Palestinians) but does not elevate Zionism to supreme importance as do the Western elites - proven by his intervention to help Assad in Syria (so compare pro-Assad Ralph Ellis who does NOT understand this situation, to Joe Atwill who does). I.e. Putin is NOT a Judaeo-Christian though he will be happy to appear so to engender some peaceful advantages. What a contrast to Tsar Nicholas II, whom every source I have ever consulted said that he did NOT want WW1 but was pushed into it "by external forces." The contrast between Putin and Tsar Nick could not be greater, showing how much the Russians have learnt in a century (as Yuri Slezkine also underscores in his work, though naturally he treats Russia's emerging understanding towards anti-Judaism as entirely negative)!

And given the Zio lobby's power, Trump (like Obama) is so much closer to Tsar Nicholas II on this scale - lacking the Tsar's sovereignty, he can be tossed out in elections, enabling the Judaeo-Christians to ensure the election of the most suitable Presidential H[a/e]il-to-the-Chump for their global hegemonic agenda. And furthermore, were it not for China Putin could not stand up to the West - and nobody can call China 'Judaeo-Christian' though no doubt some businessmen there would be fellow-travelers with that Liberal (Libertarian) ideology.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hence, if perchance, you or Richard would like to argue some moral equivalence between a cleverer (i.e. not Georgie boy) US president and Putin, as a young Communist Russian argued to me two years ago, you will have to try to find some justification for this assertion.
Richard has argued for this moral equivalence of the US presidents and Putin, indeed I have the impression he thinks that Putin is somehow worse. And furthermore, he believes that Putin is "controlled opposition", and ultimately just another cog in the Catholic + Judaeo-Christian empire. Whereas I tend to agree with you, that Putin seems to be charting an independent path.

socialism's egalitarian-democratic swamp merely encouraging its hapless and ineffectual swamp critters into paroxysms of moral indignation!
LOL! Paroxysms of moral indignation R us, here at this website!
 
Difficult to disagree with you here, Jerry.
LOL! Paroxysms of moral indignation R us, here at this website!
But you have to admit that paroxysms of moral indignation are a specialty of Zionism - and they have perfected the art to the fine degree. This is why Postflaviana is not noticed as it should be - it is not offering a clear alternative or a "non-paroxysmal" process that could lead to one!:confused:

I'll be offline for about a month as I have to drive to Sydney today to deal with my mother's illness - she's being assessed in a hospital there at the moment. So have a happy Xmas and New Year, y'aaalll.

Yours faithfully
Claude Badley
 
Claude, I've been struggling to follow your discourse, mainly because I'm having trouble locking in on what you mean by "Judaeo-Christian." It sounds like some sort of conspiracy of elites. Or is it a doctrine? Maybe some examples would help.
 
Dear Charles, look first at post #57 here.
Claude, I've been struggling to follow your discourse, mainly because I'm having trouble locking in on what you mean by "Judaeo-Christian." It sounds like some sort of conspiracy of elites. Or is it a doctrine? Maybe some examples would help.
The point is that Judaism and Christianity are two entirely different religions. In fact, Christianity's doctrines arose from Gnosticism, a religion that itself arose from people turning to Judaism in disgust at Roman and other ancient religions' hypocrisy. These people hankered for egalitarianism - and found it in Judaism, without realizing that Jewish egalitarianism implies manipulation and subjugation of others, necessarily. However, as they came to experience Judaism at a deeper level, they were repulsed at its inner ideas, rewriting the Bible from an anti-Jewish perspective - hence Sethian, then Marcionite and Valentinian Gnosticism.

Judaeo-Christianity is a hypocritical combination of the two separate religions. Traditional Christianity is supersessionist, meaning that God's promise to the Jews was negated with the coming of Christianity - with the advice that Jews could and should convert to the true faith. Judaeo-Christianity (more Judaeo-Protestantism) is the notion that Christianity should instead support the Jews in their specific and colonial endeavors (Ignoring the Jesus story where the Jews lobby to kill Him); hence Judaeo-Christianity has led to anti-Semitism being redefined as including criticism of Israel. When you follow Joe Atwill's works, here and in the podcasts in more detail he fills out these differences, indicating the extreme hypocrisy required for Christians to actually support a Jewish nation in the hope that it will induce Christ to return in the nick of time to stop nuclear war!

Christians and Jews are also vastly different in their teachings, only the former having specific teachings about the afterlife. Sincere Jews can also be atheists - which is impossible for a sincere Christian (read the philosophy of Spinoza to find out why). Christians believe that God can read human thoughts and feelings directly - the Jewish God cannot, this being a way in which I can detect whether someone is a Jew only pretending to be a Christian.

Hence Judaeo-Christianity is indeed a "conspiracy of elites" and "a doctrine", being the underlying philosophical rationale for Zionism - and it was the Freemasons who brought Jews and Christians together to form Judaeo-Christianity. For example, Salinger's "Catcher in the Rye" is not only a homage to Freemasonry (as Joe found) but also to Zionism. The trick here is to see that although set in New York, the text is actually referring to the city which was the first to provide money for Zionist settlement in the Middle East - the Australian city of Melbourne. When I return from Sydney I will post the relevant material here.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Yet another thread that has been cuckolded.

Democracy is an ideal of course, but the USA does hold, however superficially or inconsistently, to some sort of representative democracy - as shown by elections. And there was popular democracy (not just in the USA) in earlier times e.g. when pioneers got together democratically to slaughter an Indian tribe or when frenzied Whites gathered for a lynching - things which Jerry would rightly stigmatize as "mob rule". I.e. 'democracy' is a slippery and hypocritical term at best!
Once again, .......................................... we're dealing with idiotic surface narrative and analysis. Pretty much everybody in the middle between the two social extremes understands that elites have always run America's, at least, 'republican' democracy, all rhetoric to the contrary aside. Hence, there is, and never was, 'mob rule'.

The vast majority of slaughter of American Indians was ran by the US Army, exceptions to the rule being the justification delivered by their religion. Of which, and the justification for the whole Catholic / Protestant colonial enterprise writ globally, was that of Divine Providence to the new Promised Lands. Who launched these colonial enterprises? The Catholic and Protestant crowns of Europe, with the imprimatur and blessing of the Church (whose OT and NT canon is explicitly globalist in expression).

As for the lynchings of American blacks, you argue that such occurs in a vacuum, but the evidence shows that there was an organized network of elite agency that more than encouraged such reactions, in addition to the OT and NT endorsed slave culture, as well as the latter day Romantic movement sponsored by the royal House of Windsor (nee Hanover) in the 1730's (the University of Gottingen) that served to reinforce the religious underpinnings, via Blood and Soil. There are your shitty genes.

For the Putophiles here (because you will otherwise get confused: 'Chef' below is to be taken for 'Chief' not 'Cook':

...
In fact, the film is so popular that the actual name of a character in the film, Mikhail Ivanovich the police officer, a Captain later promoted to Major, shifted to the wicked smugglers' ring-leader, the Chef. It must be thanks to the scene, when one of the gangsters disguised as a cab driver, learns that the police are on their trail and rushes off to call the Chef.
'You mean, Mikhail Ivanovich?' asks the main character.
'Yes, yes, him!'
This is how 'Mikhail Ivanovich' travelled from the Bear to the Boss. ...

What Mikhail Ivanovich understood, from his KGB role in turning Western businessmen like Trump, is that the system is all about money. As the referenced show has it, "The money is Mikhail Ivanovich's." This is the common bond between Ivanovich and the Painted Orange One (POO), at least on the surface level. That you mistake either of these two as heroes is telling about your level(s?) of discernment. But, in any case they do share some parallels of note.

And, at some level there certainly was a dossier on Trump, long before the infamous Mr. Steele(s) (the British and the American) which Mikhail Ivanovich would have garnered from his FSB/KGB sources including the vassal Czech service who listened intently to Ivana Trump's calls to home. And whose father was detailed to be the main reporting source to them. And which, the 'Deep State' would have been well aware of.

The Boss Bear and the Poo Bear. Did the Boss Bear Pee on the Poo Bear? Yet today the Poo Bear says that Boss Bear told him that the Kievan Rus assaulted our democracy, not those other Rus. And Poo Bear says that he believes Boss Bear.

"Watch out where the huskies go, don't you eat that yellow (orange) snow".

It is abundantly clear that the lofty cuckoo has refused to engage with the central premises of what I discuss here, instead seeking this space as a platform to advance his neoCatholic fascist passions into the coming age, which it appears that everyone here agrees is coming. Even Mikhail Ivanovich does.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The name of our website, postflaviana.org, is mysterious and obscure. This has both its pros and cons. I often wonder if we'd be better off with a clearer URL, like "against-apocalypse.org". Because that's what it's about, for me.
For me, this effort has only been an extension of an intellectual pursuit of mine, my vision quest. Such 'value' cannot be expected to extend to others. And thank you for having enabled the conversations and the writing/research efforts which have furthered my understanding. As such, I take no offense in your doing whatever you want, and it appears that my possible objections will be moot sooner than later, thanks to my visiting hordes -- who are loving their new cold climate at my expense. My Omega is yet nearer.

In any case, it is certain that a transition of ages will occur, one way or another, so it seems ridiculous to be against something that will inevitably happen, like climate change. Instead, one (and their society) must learn to adapt, instead of being traditionally more fragile, as Mr. Badley desires.
FWIW, I believe that Richard would deny this. He believes that the "Judaeo-Christians" and the Catholics are one and the same, and that any semblance of a difference is purely contrived for appearance's sake. In his view, "The Elect" are indeed organized according to a hierarchical principal, a worldwide conspiracy under the rule of some hidden single ruler.

For me, this is a stretch. I see too much evidence of factionalism, even among elite billionaires and the world's most powerful politicians.
Yes, I would deny that, and that such memetic religious distinctions are only for the various 'factional' camps of rubes, like True Believers. Else, there is no reason for the notion of Shepherds, Sheepdogs, and Sheep. And no raison d'etre for any of this effort.

And, I have NEVER stated that there is "some hidden single ruler".

When you do redirect this effort, as you are the capitalist owner of the intellectual rights, please remove either my name or endorsement from any such reworked content.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Yet another thread that has been cuckolded.
I am not sure. Badley mentioned that he approved of the election of the Pope by the cardinals, which seems to be a democratic process, albeit only accessible to the Elect. He says that his new government will need "mass assent", although he doesn't seem to have much to say about how that will be obtained or measured. And the name "hierarchicalism" is broad enough that it could cover the Sociocratic idea of "Dynamic Governance" that I mentioned above in this thread, https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/fixing-democracy.2493/post-13677, that you said was similar to the organization of the Presbyterian Church.

Badley made an excellent point above, that as democracy deteriorates, it eventually gives rise to fascism. Hitler was one case in point, Trump seems to be another. How this happens, and why, and what to do about it, seems a reasonable topic for this thread. Although when the discussion here devolves into outright advocacy for anti-democratic, authoritarian aspects of fascism, it belongs in that other thread about why fascism is a Bad(ley) idea.

Besides, if we're going to have a discussion forum, we have to accept that visitors who agree with what we're saying are going to be few and far between.

And thank you for having enabled the conversations and the writing/research efforts which have furthered my understanding.
You're welcome :)

it appears that my possible objections will be moot sooner than later, thanks to my visiting hordes -- who are loving their new cold climate at my expense. My Omega is yet nearer.
Every day is a gift.

In any case, it is certain that a transition of ages will occur, one way or another, so it seems ridiculous to be against something that will inevitably happen, like climate change.
Transition may be inevitable, but I'm not sure that nuclear apocalypse is. Even if a nuclear exchange gets started, one can hope that it could stop sooner rather than later, perhaps because of unexpected breakdowns of command & control. Hopefully, all that expensive, sophisticated and largely untested hardware isn't going to work as well as planned.

And, I have NEVER stated that there is "some hidden single ruler".
That's true, you've never made that statement, but I've felt that it is strongly implied. I can't think of a single political or religious institution of any significance, that doesn't raise up some individual to the top of the hierarchy.

Why would the shadowy entity that you postulate, be any different? How do you think it works, if not by means of direction from the top?
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I'm not sure that this question is any more germane to the topic as well.

There is no declared emperor, king, or president of the world, unless one counts Jesus, but supposedly he's lounging around in Heaven yet. And, even he seems to be a man-made avatar for elites that wield an unofficial and vast network of sub rosa secular and religious organizations, as if an off-the-books transnational corporation. Its leadership akin to the organizations of the Roma, the Travellers and La Cosa Nostra, but you might argue that this implies a capo di tutti capi. Drug cartels seem to all have one such figure, but are these individuals operating on their own, or as part of a larger construct, hence their relative impunity.

It is easy to see the corporate (and other interest groups') financial impact on 'democratic' politicians, and perhaps what we need to focus on here is eliminating such impact that we can. People have resisted public financing of political campaigns, but I think this stems from the same people not actually seeing themselves as the owners of the government. They see the government as inherently there to oppress them, controlled by various elites with other agendas, and there is good reason to think this. All this has to change, realities first -- so that perceptions can follow.

Note the mafia connections of so many of our politicians: Trump, Bill and Hillary, Dick Nixon, the Kennedys, etc.. Is this coincidence? No more than the mafia connections to the Vatican.
 

Seeker

Active Member
I recall from memory, years ago, reading that if a global catastrophe ever struck the world, it could rebuild itself most efficiently using the model of the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy (priest, bishop, archbishop, cardinal, Pope, something like that), with the "territory" that each would control. So not only are you "Fixing Democracy", but everything else to what it was planned for from the beginning.
 
Top