Planet of the Humans Cum Zionazis

[Richard Stanley]

This new film, produced by Michael Moore, brings up some very disturbing questions about the entire green movement. In the two weeks since it premiered it has sparked some severe backlash by some in the movement. No wonder, because most of these are forced to confront that 'they are all Al Gore now'.

The following is one of the critiques of Planet of the Humans, which seems like pretty weak tea, that solar panels are somewhat more efficient today than when the relevant footage was taken.

 

[gilius]

 

[gilius]

Strategically placed in-between single words:

 

[Jerry Russell]

This new film, produced by Michael Moore, brings up some very disturbing questions about the entire green movement.

The questions are only disturbing if you come from the neo-Malthusian perspective of finite limits to growth, and from a green perspective that environmental quality is important, right? If you're into cornucopianism, there shouldn't be any problem at all with burning too many trees, or mining too much lithium, wouldn't you agree?

I was very surprised by the film's claim that the vast majority of growth in the "alternative energy" field is actually biomass. In the film, this is further depicted as a voracious bottomless pit, clearcutting vast forests and burning the wood in power plants.

I wasn't able to fully verify these claims. The explosive growth shown in the film isn't visible in energy statistics from the eia, which show primary energy production from biomass growing by only about 12% from 2009 to 2019. During the same time period, solar energy production is up a factor of thirteen.

There's a wood biomass plant in my neighborhood, and it was built and promoted on the basis that only scraps from lumber production would be burned. If they're burning clearcuts, there's been a massive betrayal. And I'm not saying it hasn't happened: to the contrary, I've heard rumors that they're having to go far beyond the originally expressed intent, to get fuel for that plant.

It should be obvious that burning whole trees is no way to get ahead of the CO2/global warming problem. The CO2 is released immediately into the atmosphere, and only re-absorbed by growing forests very slowly, perhaps decades later. If at all: clearcutting can easily lead to desertification, and turn forest into wasteland.

In the credits, we're informed that in response to the film, Sierra Club came out against biomass, and Bill McKibben said he was wrong about biomass. So the film has had some impact already, we'll see what happens down the road.

When it comes to solar, wind, and energy storage, the film's evaluation is not up to date. But it's certainly true that these "alternate energy" sources require tremendous resources to build, and that extracting these resources from the earth has its own impact. To minimize that impact, solar and wind plants should be built to last many decades, and the systems need to be designed from the ground up, for recovery and recycling of raw materials. "Green" industrialists aren't doing those things, which shows that they aren't really serious.

From the ultimate neo-Malthusian perspective, it's pretty unrealistic to expect that "green technology" should allow us to continue with the present overpopulated and over-polluted situation, much less go right on multiplying the enterprise of civilization without any limit. World population has almost doubled since 1974, and Gross World Economic Product is estimated up more than 5 times since then. Do we think the world is going to do it again in the next 50 years, with solar and wind power? It's not happening. On the contrary, we are looking at a collapse that can be mitigated with solar & wind energy, at best.

 

[Claude Badley]

Disturbing questions indeed, Jerry - but it is only the film or Richard too who is disturbing?

But let us see the supposedly un-Malthusiastic replies below!

The questions are only disturbing if you come from the neo-Malthusian perspective of finite limits to growth, and from a green perspective that environmental quality is important, right? If you're into cornucopianism, there shouldn't be any problem at all with burning too many trees, or mining too much lithium, wouldn't you agree?

Other than radioactive elements, they are indestructible, the only problem being the energy for recycling. But cornucopianism ignores the fact that the Earth itself has limits to growth, irrespective of Malthus, so is THE major threat to our future, being the further development of the Whig model of endless growth. I'd think even a jerry-mandered two-faced Einsteinian like Bertrand Russell would concede that point!

I was very surprised by the film's claim that the vast majority of growth in the "alternative energy" field is actually biomass. In the film, this is further depicted as a voracious bottomless pit, clearcutting vast forests and burning the wood in power plants.

Biomass recycling is major worldwide; it is not as bad as hydrocarbons since it can usually be recycled through tree growth. Nevertheless its mere existence reveals the FACT of modern science's failure to invent nuclear fusion.

I wasn't able to fully verify these claims. The explosive growth shown in the film isn't visible in energy statistics from the eia, which show primary energy production from biomass growing by only about 12% from 2009 to 2019. During the same time period, solar energy production is up a factor of thirteen.

Solar is growing for sure - but one thing that Richard mentioned to me that the film does not touch on was "valley fever", the nasty fungal infection called Coccidiodomycosis. It is endemic to the Americas - and I will remember being ticked off by my medical tutor for mentioning it in discussion of TB X-rays, since the disease has not been recorded in Australia.

The problem here is that solar panels will allow for dry shaded areas where the Coccidioid fungal mycelae can grow, the desert winds spreading the abundant spores everywhere. This is a major solar negative as the disease is hard to cure.

There's a wood biomass plant in my neighborhood, and it was built and promoted on the basis that only scraps from lumber production would be burned. If they're burning clearcuts, there's been a massive betrayal. And I'm not saying it hasn't happened: to the contrary, I've heard rumors that they're having to go far beyond the originally expressed intent, to get fuel for that plant.

When I remind myself that Jerry lives in Oregon, chosen home of the Bhagwan and his Orange-people communes, I can only conclude that corruption and stupidity are endemic there too (not just in my state which hosted the Bhagwan majority in my country), meaning that this biomass plant is probably getting more than lumber scraps - though perhaps only in winter when it is needed.

It should be obvious that burning whole trees is no way to get ahead of the CO2/global warming problem. The CO2 is released immediately into the atmosphere, and only re-absorbed by growing forests very slowly, perhaps decades later. If at all: clearcutting can easily lead to desertification, and turn forest into wasteland.

In the credits, we're informed that in response to the film, Sierra Club came out against biomass, and Bill McKibben said he was wrong about biomass. So the film has had some impact already, we'll see what happens down the road.

When it comes to solar, wind, and energy storage, the film's evaluation is not up to date. But it's certainly true that these "alternate energy" sources require tremendous resources to build, and that extracting these resources from the earth has its own impact. To minimize that impact, solar and wind plants should be built to last many decades, and the systems need to be designed from the ground up, for recovery and recycling of raw materials. "Green" industrialists aren't doing those things, which shows that they aren't really serious.

Can't disagree there!

From the ultimate neo-Malthusian perspective, it's pretty unrealistic to expect that "green technology" should allow us to continue with the present overpopulated and over-polluted situation, much less go right on multiplying the enterprise of civilization without any limit.

Note that Aldous Huxley in "Brave New World Revisited" (1957) devoted a considerable section to overpopulation (when the human population was not yet 3 billion). The damning of humanity as unwanted excess is just the sort of justification that the Frankfurt School wants to justify the cultural degradation peculiar to its teachings.

World population has almost doubled since 1974, and Gross World Economic Product is estimated up more than 5 times since then. Do we think the world is going to do it again in the next 50 years, with solar and wind power? It's not happening. On the contrary, we are looking at a collapse that can be mitigated with solar & wind energy, at best.

Very true, you born-again Adorno-and-Marcuse-worshipping neo-Malthusiast, but people are also curbing population increase voluntarily - average ages of populations is rising rapidly, even in the 3rd world.

The present drop in oil prices is temporary - with the ultimate crisis of falling fracking production and polluted underground water (ask John Fenton of Pavillion, Wyoming). Solar and wind will not resolve the crisis, only mitigate it. To get effective nuclear fusion, we have to discard Einstein's teachings - and those who support it , such as those who have a BA (hons) in the Philosophy of Science, as well as the jerry-built theorizers utilizing the crack-brained logic of Bertrand Russell and other Einstein groupies. Here's hoping Richard will distinguish himself from the Einstein-rabble too, and so agree with my words here - especially as when I met him last year I didn't know what he meant by "valley fever"!

Yours faithfully
Claude

PS: There's a nasty story behind the underlined section.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Earth itself has limits to growth, irrespective of Malthus, so is THE major threat to our future, being the further development of the Whig model of endless growth.

The damning of humanity as unwanted excess is just the sort of justification that the Frankfurt School wants to justify the cultural degradation peculiar to its teachings.

There seems to be a contradiction here. Do we accept that there are limits to endless growth on the planet Earth, regardless of whether we call such limits "Malthusian" or not? And if we accept the idea of limits, how is this different from "damning humanity as unwanted excess"? A hundred billion as yet unrealized human eggs and sperm await your answer. Do you damn these future beings as unwanted excess?

 

[Claude Badley]

I wrote two phrases, yet JR seems to think that they refute one another as he calls them a "contradiction".

Earth itself has limits to growth, irrespective of Malthus, so is THE major threat to our future, being the further development of the Whig model of endless growth.

****

The damning of humanity as unwanted excess is just the sort of justification that the Frankfurt School wants to justify the cultural degradation peculiar to its teachings.

There seems to be a contradiction here. Do we accept that there are limits to endless growth on the planet Earth, regardless of whether we call such limits "Malthusian" or not?

Of course. Earth is finite therefore its economic growth is finite. Only if interstellar and intergalactic travel is achieved is this restriction broken - but you, you dedicated Einstein-worshipper, can only dream of Einsteinian spacetime warps and wormholes and other science fiction schlock, since you deny that man can ever travel faster than light!

I.e. Einstein's relativity teachings are the physics equivalent of the Frankfurt School - the unleashed passions of sexual excess (Wilhelm Reich, Adorno & Marcuse) find their physics counterpart in the unleashed speculative passions of Einstein relativity's logically paradoxical labyrinth of time dilation and length contraction (TD&LC) and the associated absurd, impractical and anti-scientific implications. Each of them a prodigious waste of time leading, respectively, to mental degradation and physical exhaustion.

And if we accept the idea of limits,...

We have to since they are imposed by nature.

...how is this different from "damning humanity as unwanted excess"? A hundred billion as yet unrealized human eggs and sperm await your answer. Do you damn these future beings as unwanted excess?

This depends on whether adult humans become conscious of the environmental collapse due to human technology and other activities - and want to do something intelligent about it. Cornucopianism in contrast ignores the negative and preaches only the positive from development - it is an inherently Jewish idea as it is blindly optimistic and manipulative. The unstated implication of cornucopianism is that the majority who do not benefit from it (due to unemployment, chump wages etc.) are to be lured into Marcusean fantasies of e.g. "exploring their infant sexuality", ensuring their ultimate degradation and destruction in a "kindly" Malthusiastic manner.

Conversely, those humans to be damned as "an unwanted excess" (along with their hundred billion eggs and sperm) are those who cling to Judaeo-Christianity (i.e. Zionist types), especially the Christians who are happy to destroy the environment since "Jesus is a-comin' and schucks, can restore all the environment you want" (paraphrasing James Watt here). With an Israel-engendered WW3, any survivors will make favorable reference to Hitler while eradicating the Zio remnants.

It's an ideological struggle, Jerry. Joe sees this but you are blinded by your egalitarian democratic prejudices, which deny the Führerprinzip (the leader principle, the core implication of essential human inequality) and try to reduce people to a levelled stupidity and credulity. As Nietzsche said: "Inequality of rights is the precondition for any rights at all."

So the question is: what are the fundamental philosophical principles that need to be understood first?

Yours faithfully
Claude

 

[Jerry Russell]

Ahaha. You have resolved the contradiction quite boldly, by admitting you too are comfortable with the "damning of humanity", as long as you get to choose the losers. But...

Only if interstellar and intergalactic travel is achieved is this restriction broken

Claude, haven't you watched Star Trek? Of course it's just a matter of time before warp drive is achieved. The cultural success of the series is proof positive that even Einsteinians can have dreams. But I'm talking about the limits imposed by technology that's either currently existing, or could be implemented without dramatic breakthroughs.

If you have the secret to implementing nuclear fusion, please get on with it!! Don't dally around here preaching to the semi converted.

With an Israel-engendered WW3, any survivors will make favorable reference to Hitler while eradicating the Zio remnants.

You are making a bold assumption here, that there will be any survivors at all. Not to mention the idea that the few & the brave survivors will be a bunch of Nazis.

It's an ideological struggle, Jerry.

Agreed that it's an ideological struggle. But the goal here is to convert all those Judaeo-Christians and Zionists into Postflavians! And sadly, the time to accomplish this is short.... before too many of those hundreds of billions of potential Judaeo-Christians and Zionists come into being.

But as to their "eradication", I find myself lacking in Malthusiasm...

 

[Richard Stanley]

Nice one Jerry!! -- Malthusiasm

With an Israel-engendered WW3, any survivors will make favorable reference to Hitler while eradicating the Zio remnants.

You are making a bold assumption here, that there will be any survivors at all. Not to mention the idea that the few & the brave survivors will be a bunch of Nazis.

So the question is: what are the fundamental philosophical principles that need to be understood first?

Claude is still having problems with both Pre-Machaivelli and Post-Machiavelli Machiavellian thinking, blindly accepting mainstream surface narrative about his Nazi heroes. But, then he's an avowed Nazi true believer, .... or so he says. Divide and Conquer, in certain contexts, doesn't work if the target audience understands that both sides have the same employer.

It's an ideological struggle, Jerry. Joe sees this but you are blinded by your egalitarian democratic prejudices, which deny the Führerprinzip (the leader principle, the core implication of essential human inequality) and try to reduce people to a levelled stupidity and credulity. As Nietzsche said: "Inequality of rights is the precondition for any rights at all."

The obvious implication of this is that you believe that perverse and licentious Lifetime Actors (to employs Joe's favorite expression) like Hitler and Trump have natural license to pretend to be stupid in the pursuit of leading their variously infected cannon fodder over their respective cliffs. Sorry about the mixed metaphors, but the Populist Freedom Zealots back in the day were the same infected pigs of Gadara according to Joe.

Now, Joe is complaining that people should have the (American) Constitutional right to infect other people, so what the hell are you and he talking about, at least, coherently that is?

I suppose that you can honestly argue that geni-ass Hitler et al actually won the war (otherwise he was a drug addled, sexually perverse, imbecile of the highest order. Sound familiar today?), but if so, he was operating on a basis that you're not addressing here, and apparently refusing to. Why? Are you actually a crypto Zionazi?

 

[Claude Badley]

Ahaha. You have resolved the contradiction quite boldly, by admitting you too are comfortable with the "damning of humanity", as long as you get to choose the losers. But...

The losers choose themselves by adopting a hypocritical and deceitful ideology e.g. Freemasonry and its offspring Judaeo-Christianity.

They also choose to believe in Einstein so believe in paradoxical nonsense such as spacetime warps and cosmic wormholes to escape disaster on Earth. But Doctor Schlock replies.

Claude, haven't you watched Star Trek? Of course it's just a matter of time before warp drive is achieved. The cultural success of the series is proof positive that even Einsteinians can have dreams.

The cultural success of BS is a commonplace, as our various religions reveal - look at your own Oregon-based Bhagwan whose supporters once greatly outnumbered the Postflavians today - hence the escalating conflict coupled with protestations of wanting peace for mankind.

But I'm talking about the limits imposed by technology that's either currently existing, or could be implemented without dramatic breakthroughs.

So even you exclude the Star Trek fantasies while yet hypocritically dangling them in front of the chumps as mankind's ultimate hope.

The point is: if Star Trek is a true picture of humanity's future then equally so is Lost in Space! Hence I find it hard not to exclaim like Dr Zachary Smith: "Oh the pain, the pain of having to listen to the robotically optimistic phrases of modernity - you pointy-eared fugitive from a Zombie Apocalypse!"

If you have the secret to implementing nuclear fusion, please get on with it!! Don't dally around here preaching to the semi converted.

I'm getting on with it - but Eric Lerner (author of the Big Bang Never Happened and leading boron-hydrogen fusion pioneer) is not quite at the position to start experimenting with it.

I also like to be optimistic....

You are making a bold assumption here, that there will be any survivors at all. Not to mention the idea that the few & the brave survivors will be a bunch of Nazis.

...since at least Nazis cared for the environment, when one compares them to the Freemasonic, Evangelist-Christian types touting cornucopianism. And that is NOT an assumption since even Australia's Liberal Party accused the Greens in Australia of being like the Nazis, because the Nazis were caring for the environment, or at least trying to before Hitler got them into fighting the Soviet Union in a race war!

Agreed that it's an ideological struggle. But the goal here is to convert all those Judaeo-Christians and Zionists into Postflavians!

A pleasant thought, but that you think you can convert the majority in time reveals that you do not understand the deeper motivations that maintain these prejudices in peoples' minds - notably the complacency and befuddlement produced in people when they believe the Einsteinian propaganda bombarded upon them by both the pop-media and by authorities claiming to be scientific (e.g. mixing up Star Trek with scientific research).

And as sound proof for that I can only point to your (former I hope) exculpation of the Frankfurt School e.g. "exploring one's infant sexuality". As E Michael Jones (EMJ) saw in his book on Heisenberg (Beyond the Bomb, Fidelity, South Bend, Indiana 2019), it was cultural Marxist Jewish researchers such as Wilhelm Reich who concocted the falsehood that Fascism arose from psychological repression.

While EMJ merely wishes to restore Catholic bigotry he has nevertheless uncovered the plan to render the masses helpless through psychoanalysis, while promoting pornography and hyperindividualism. Pity he believes in Einstein's relativity - so could not and cannot understand that the massive ideological control, which he revealed, exerted over society by Jewish-engendered modernity, is now rendered overwhelming by its combination with Einstein's paradoxical and thus passivity-inducing theories. All this too is underpinned by the Protestant hypocrisy anchoring modernity to cultural Marxism plus Einsteinian philosophy, corrupting Western humanity for a century or more now. This is why it has taken a determined Roman Catholic like EMJ to reveal it - even though only in part, i.e. the part without Einstein.

And sadly, the time to accomplish this is short.... before too many of those hundreds of billions of potential Judaeo-Christians and Zionists come into being.

True - in the sense that the leading Evangelists and Jewish Zionists breed up faster than the befuddled masses - and now I even find that Joe was right about vaccinations, since in a well-publicized video...

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...A8FF9295AADC317E6206A8FF9295AADC&&FORM=VDRVRV

...Bill Gates highlights their use in population reduction, indicating to me that they are trying to make people infertile by tainting vaccines so as to destroy their minds and bodies. (Until I saw that video I thought Joe was grossly exaggerating the negative role of vaccines).

But as to their "eradication", I find myself lacking in Malthusiasm...

The arrogance of the Jewish Zionist and Zio Evangelical are matched only by the cranks of ISIS and the Taliban - the Earth treated as disposable since for them it is only one's immortal soul (Christianity & Islam) or the dominance of the Chosen People (Jews) that matter. And as for what "Einsteinians dream" - they too are predominantly Zionists, just like Einstein himself!

Preserving Earth's environment is more important than preserving the lives of religious ratbags like that! So yes, even the Nazis are superior to the Judaeo-Christian types - because, relatively speaking, they care for our Earth and its environment!

Yours faithfully
Claude

 

[Claude Badley]

Good to see you two being nice to each other...

Nice one Jerry!! -- Malthusiasm.

...for a change, and not clawing badly at one another. Or is this only a brief Malthusiastic moment of peace?

Claude is still having problems with both Pre-Machiavelli and Post-Machiavelli Machiavellian thinking, blindly accepting mainstream surface narrative about his Nazi heroes. But, then he's an avowed Nazi true believer, .... or so he says. Divide and Conquer, in certain contexts, doesn't work if the target audience understands that both sides have the same employer.

How true, as Joe found the Divide & Conquer through Blavatsky who helped engender Zionism and her disciple Sebottendorf who created the Thule Society etc. What Richard avoids though is the question of leadership - the fact that one cannot guarantee majority democratic support, especially when the secret societies have so many outlets for their agenda and so many willing purveyors.

The obvious implication of this is that you believe that perverse and licentious Lifetime Actors (to employs Joe's favorite expression) like Hitler and Trump have natural license to pretend to be stupid in the pursuit of leading their variously infected cannon fodder over their respective cliffs. Sorry about the mixed metaphors, but the Populist Freedom Zealots back in the day were the same infected pigs of Gadara according to Joe.

Many must die before good sense ever prevails - ask the surviving former-believers in the ISIS regime and see when and whether they could ever change. A very difficult process.

Now, Joe is complaining that people should have the (American) Constitutional right to infect other people, so what the hell are you and he talking about, at least, coherently that is?

You can always listen to his videos and podcasts - as they are not YET illegal.

I suppose that you can honestly argue that [that] geni-ass Hitler et al actually won the war (otherwise he was a drug addled, sexually perverse, imbecile of the highest order. Sound familiar today?), but if so, he was operating on a basis that you're not addressing here, and apparently refusing to. Why? Are you actually a crypto Zionazi?

In what sense did Hitler et al win the war (presumably WW2)???? Myself I could not definitively answer that to your satisfaction, but Yuri Slezkine can!

"Jewish" and "Russian" were - back in 1932 [at the height of forced collectivization - CB] - virtually interchangeable (both inside and outside of the Russian Republic). (p. 285) … [Russia] the most Jewish of states since the Second Temple (pp. 359-360).

While Stalin did not wake up to the Zio threat until after the establishment of Israel in 1948 as a decidedly capitalist pro-Western state, Hitler's actual victory was of another kind, as Slezkine reveals.

As the Soviet Army rolled westward [in later WW2], the demands for a specifically Jewish answer to the specifically Jewish suffering became one "insistent subterranean call." Soviet Jews were writing to the Anti-Fascist Committee asking for help in burying and commemorating the dead, chronicling Jewish martyrdom and heroism, regaining access to prewar homes, and combating growing anti-Semitism. (pp. 292-3)

Zios of course use the term "anti-Semitism" to render all anti-Jewish discourse the same - but the fact of Slezkine's revelation here remains. I.e. that Hitler had - despite persecuting the very same Slavs - rekindled the conquered peoples' traditional hatred of Jews which the Communist regime, so much run by prominent Jews, had tried and were trying to suppress.

I.e. Hitler's victory resides in revealing the shallowness of Communism and the latter's dependence upon the perversities of modern Jewish thought - the perversity revealed by the Soviet collapse in 1991. Happily though, Russia now having divested itself of Communism and most of its Jewish population, is relatively tolerant of the remaining Jewish Russians under the Putin regime, the tolerance towards Jews especially revealed by younger Russians (Slezkine p. 361).

However, when Israel strikes at Iran, precipitating WW3, don't expect Russians to remain that way.

Yours faithfully
Claude

 

[Richard Stanley]

So, you don't deny being a Zionazi. In any case, I'm going to ask Jerry to fork this conversation to a new thread or the previous fascist thread. It seems like most all of our threads you're on are getting polluted with you agenda.

No, your invoking these quotes of YS do not in any way address what I'm referring to here and have discussed elsewhere. At a minimum you need to ask yourself why the Nazis were spending so many efforts and resources, while being financed by elements in the Allies, to quietly spread themselves globally, beyond the conventional theaters of the war (a war they were sure to lose), and that this legacy yet persists (hence you, for one).

But, what continues to piss me off is that I have discussed the clear involvement of 'noble' others in fomenting all this, long before Hitler was an illegitimate gleem in the vesicles of Rothschild's testicles. And I have done so consistent with my (correct) Biblical interpretation of Ephraim and Judah, and despite your pattern of making nice about pertinent ethnic issues, you always devolve into traditional Nazi kant, built upon mainstream conventions of whom was doing what to whom and why.

 

[Claude Badley]

So, you don't deny being a Zionazi. In any case, I'm going to ask Jerry to fork this conversation to a new thread or the previous fascist thread. It seems like most all of our threads you're on are getting polluted with you agenda.

I don't even know what the term 'Zionazi' means since the Nazis, or the bulk of them, were not consciously working to destroy themselves to fulfil Anglo-American manipulation. The term 'Zionazi' for me could only be the result of Joe's revelation about the influence of Blavatsky, Crowley & co. setting up racial fantasies among Jews and Germans, such fantasies already indulged in by the British themselves (as Docherty and MacGregor in Hidden History, have revealed). Rather, the Nazis had been severely deluded and self-deluded at various levels, mainly by following their racist agenda instead of supporting the Ukrainians and Vlasov etc.
So if by Zionazi you meant that I am covertly supporting the Freemasonic Anglo-American agenda - no, because that Zionist Freemasonic group is the financial oligarchy of the West that I oppose.

No, your invoking these quotes of YS do not in any way address what I'm referring to here and have discussed elsewhere. At a minimum you need to ask yourself why the Nazis were spending so many efforts and resources, while being financed by elements in the Allies, to quietly spread themselves globally, beyond the conventional theaters of the war (a war they were sure to lose), and that this legacy yet persists (hence you, for one).

But I do not oppose an oligarchy of a non-financial kind, i.e. it is implicit in the word Fuehrerprinzip, rule by a few with the most conscious one as leader. I think that is perhaps what you mean by "quietly spread" Nazism after WW2 - since I do not mean the traditional racist kind. IOW the Fascist/Nazi idea that the financial oligarchy (Jewish but also Anglo-American) has to be broken ultimately - and that Communism or traditional Leftism of any kind did not and will not ever succeed in this, because of the egalitarian democratic prejudice which constitutes the Left's fundamental rabble-rousing principles! Hence YES, I do support the Fascist/Nazi idea here since it makes a helluva lot of sense!

The basic issue is radical differential human personality and its fundamental disordering role in human relations. The Nazis believed it to be hereditary, hence their adoption of racism - and their idea failed. But radical differential human personality is not based in racial differences and is not even hereditary but idiosyncratic. The Left however will not even recognize the radically different nature of individual human personalities, hence they try to decry the leader principle and babble about "egalitarian levelling democracy" as the goal of humanity - the agenda of Antifa and anarchism. This is the no: 1 political threat to us today, since it enables the Left to be manipulated by Judaeo-Christian forces, the Left rendered helpless at best or more usually counterproductive in its actions.

But, what continues to piss me off is that I have discussed the clear involvement of 'noble' others in fomenting all this, long before Hitler was an illegitimate gleem in the vesicles of Rothschild's testicles.

You mean Roman 'nobility' and that of various Middle Eastern groups for example, these trying to hold onto their rule by various means, e.g. Knights Templars?

And I have done so consistent with my (correct) Biblical interpretation of Ephraim and Judah, and despite your pattern of making nice about pertinent ethnic issues,* you always devolve into traditional Nazi kant, built upon mainstream conventions of whom was doing what to whom and why.

Your ideas thus based upon Ralph Ellis's thoughts??? Jews too have to come to terms with the hidden features of culture, their own and others', but I am puzzled as to the significance you attach to 'Ephraim'. As opposed to Manasseh? I wonder what conscious actions you are attributing to certain of the leading ancients here? In more recent times, even the Freemasons have been thwarted by national differences - those in the English-speaking world victorious and powerful in the West only because the English-speaking world was victorious in WW2.

I get the impression that you, like Joe, tend to disparage the Roman rulers, especially the emperors, completely. Nevertheless I have some respect for Vespasian in that he had been an honest governor in Africa, this being the keystone to his seizing the crown. Hereditary Roman rulers after that, notably Domitian, proved a disaster. The Romans then learned NOT to have hereditary rulers, choosing emperors by acclamation instead (a similar and more enduring situation being found with the Papacy). Had the Nazis won WW3, Hitler being childless - assured by radiation damage from atomic weapons - the victorious Nazis too would have to choose a new Fuehrer, someone capable of both ruling Germany and holding down revolts in conquered England and broken-up North America for example.

The question of leadership, i.e. a ruling oligarchy of some sort (not necessarily financial as Plato originally implied) and differential human character will NEVER go away - and the Planet of Us Humans will have to accept that fact, especially as your posting of Michael Moore's film, despite some flaws in it, highlights our desperate situation.

Yours faithfully
Claude

*Your important phrase highlighted by me in red, presumably is referring to significant cultural issues that lead to conflicts between nations and cultures.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Now, Joe is complaining that people should have the (American) Constitutional right to infect other people,

In fairness to Joe, his position is that the virus is not particularly dangerous to most people, aside from the elderly and those with serious pre-existing conditions. I think it's too early to know what the long-term consequences might be.

A pleasant thought, but that you think you can convert the majority in time...

Surely you realize that my comment was partly in jest! I am under no illusions that the majority is going to be converted, or that there is going to be any near-term salvation for humanity's predicament.

...reveals that you do not understand the deeper motivations that maintain these prejudices in peoples' minds - notably the complacency and befuddlement produced in people when they believe the Einsteinian propaganda bombarded upon them by both the pop-media and by authorities claiming to be scientific (e.g. mixing up Star Trek with scientific research).

Star Trek is not scientific research, but I offer it as evidence that cultural imagination is not inhibited by Einsteinian realism. As for "deeper motivations", complacency and befuddlement, surely that didn't start with Einstein? What about Vespasian and Titus?

I have some respect for Vespasian in that he had been an honest governor in Africa...

Perhaps we would have more respect, if he had continued this alleged policy of honesty as Emperor, rather than going on to covertly invent Christianity.

 

[Richard Stanley]

I don't even know what the term 'Zionazi' means since the Nazis, or the bulk of them, were not consciously working to destroy themselves to fulfil Anglo-American manipulation. The term 'Zionazi' for me could only be the result of Joe's revelation about the influence of Blavatsky, Crowley & co. setting up racial fantasies among Jews and Germans, such fantasies already indulged in by the British themselves (as Docherty and MacGregor in Hidden History, have revealed). Rather, the Nazis had been severely deluded and self-deluded at various levels, mainly by following their racist agenda instead of supporting the Ukrainians and Vlasov etc.
So if by Zionazi you meant that I am covertly supporting the Freemasonic Anglo-American agenda - no, because that Zionist Freemasonic group is the financial oligarchy of the West that I oppose.

The red highlighted text would indicate that you're admitting that you are a Useful Idiot, as were the German sheep, the new Chosen, led to their apocalyptic deaths in their delusional cause, by their respective, but intimately related, 'Ephraims' with their select sheepdogs of supposedly Judah.

It's good that you have evolved to the idiosyncratic approach, but the racial fantasies of then and now were not invented by them, but rather existed in the foundational and Catholic, formal, theological and ecclesiastical basis of the man-made Jew versus goyim dialectic, all ultimately run by the gentil aristocratic shepherds. The latter of which you unwittingly are yet working for.

To wit, amongst other things I have discussed elsewhere:

• Carroll's discussion (Constantine's Sword) of consistent Catholic dialectic theology and policy since Augustine
• Bernal's discussion (Black Athena Vol 1) of Hanoverian (England's George II) sponsorship of the racist Romantic Movement, the proximal basis for core Nazi ideology. This was the very first intellectual academic product of the new modern university system at the U of Gottingen. This served to justify what later euphemistically became known as The White Man's Burden. The better to fulfil the globalist agenda explicitely espoused 200 times in the Bible.
• The Prussian aristocratic employments of Marx (socialist dialectical co-optation) and Rothschild (Bauer/Bayer, from Bavaria -- like Trump), the red shield front's spawn also latter employed by the Vatican
• The ferment created by Kaiser Wilhelm, both domestically (later blamed on the Jews) and in instigating global Islamic Jihad, via his tool Oppenheim and the last of the Ottomans. The Nazis would help perpetuate Islamic radicalism before, during, and after the war till today.
• I only learned yesterday that Acharya S had once (correctly) proclaimed the pope to be the Freemasonic leader (their hidden imam), which is consistent with 'narrative' Jesus being the presumably master tekton of his new 'universal' religion of amalgamated paganism and butchered Judaism.
• And the prior is Saussy's 'connect the dots' analysis (Rulers of Evil), where IMO 'Israel', then and now, is just a catalyst for the global agenda. And per Ellis, Zion is Zoan. And thus John XXIII tells the Jews kissing his feet that he is still their 'Joseph', his office have just covertly supported the poor Lost Cause of its sacrificial lamb, Führerprinzip Liddle Adolf. Yet another messiah that didn't die as claimed, aka Fake News (which Liddle Donald Trump most certainly did not invent as he claimed).
• That the hidden imams of Euro monarchy paradoxiacally sponsored the 'anarchist', Neoliberal libertarian economic model of the Austrian School. Cui bono?

Which reveals an elite cabal surrounding what zounds remarkably like your fascist Führerprinzip. Zo why are you komplaining? But in any case, yes, you are doing their bidding, a CounterPostflavian Zionazi. Perhaps you might prefer 'Zoanazi' instead, another Rome by another name?

Perhaps we would have more respect, if he had continued this alleged policy of honesty as Emperor, rather than going on to covertly invent Christianity.

Yes, and the Flavians employed(?) that gentil Hasmonian/Maccabee guy. What's his name? Osarseph Flava Flav?

 

[Jerry Russell]

The red highlighted text would indicate that you're admitting that you are a Useful Idiot

Did he admit that? After having said he doesn't know what a Zionazi is, he gave a reasonably good definition. He said that "the Nazis were not consciously working to fulfill Anglo-American manipulation" -- which seems to be an admission that's exactly what they were doing. And isn't Claude exactly correct when he said that the Nazis were "severely deluded and self-deluded at various levels, mainly by following their racist agenda"?

Badley went on to say that he opposes the "Freemasonic Anglo-American agenda" and Zionistic Freemasons. Which sounds more or less like the ragtag crew in your bulleted list. Except that he didn't specifically mention Catholics, Prussians or hidden imams. So what. He's basically opposed to the same amorphous and mysterious entity that we are.

I keep feeling that Claude wants to be on our Team. Except that he thinks we need to find our Fuhrerprinzip, and go seize power, rather than waiting for world public opinion to bestow our rightful place of honor upon us. And oh, by the way, he wants us to dump Einstein.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Claude wants to hop from one kaleidoscopic branch of the 'Trees' (of Knowledge and Jesse I guess) to another, not gnowing that all the branches come off the same trunk. His historical Führerprinzips were all tools of others in pursuit of the big agenda, supposedly created by beings that Claude has thankfully (to us) admitted are merely their own 'social construct'.

As such, his ideal Kinder Gentler Fascism (which George W. Bush proffered) will be managed overtly or covertly by the same power brokers, as with the fake Democracy we currently employ. As such, how does the advocate of one honestly critique the other, without being deluded?

And oh, by the way, he wants us to dump Einstein.

As Pogo said, "I don't give a fig for ol' Newton", similarly I don't give a figging damn about Einstein, at least regarding our major terrestrial interests.

I have heard that the GPS system does not employ Einstein's transforms (for maintaining positioning accuracy adjustments), but rather those of his mentor's (whose name I can never remember - Lauritzen?). I don't have the time or energy to research and verify this claim.

I have problems with the Big Bang, but it is quite interesting how the sequence of the 7 'phases' of Creation otherwise track fairly well with such as Evolution and such. Who gnew?

I'm not sure if either Pogo or Fig Newtons are known in Australia.

 

[Claude Badley]

Richard interprets my words as evidence for my being a "Useful Idiot", presumably useful to the hidden rulers of our planet or at least the Western world.

Did he [Claude] admit that? After having said he doesn't know what a Zionazi is, he gave a reasonably good definition. He said that "the Nazis were not consciously working to fulfill Anglo-American manipulation" -- which seems to be an admission that's exactly what they were doing. And isn't Claude exactly correct when he said that the Nazis were "severely deluded and self-deluded at various levels, mainly by following their racist agenda"?

Badley went on to say that he opposes the "Freemasonic Anglo-American agenda" and Zionistic Freemasons. Which sounds more or less like the ragtag crew in your bulleted list.

To which I could only add that if the majority of Nazis (meaning Party members) became aware of being deluded and self-deluded, the movement would have collapsed rapidly during WW2. And some Germans were of this type, manifesting for example in Stauffenberg's bomb plot of 1944; also Admiral Canaris and the Red Orchestra.

Except that Claude didn't specifically mention Catholics, Prussians or hidden imams. So what. He's basically opposed to the same amorphous and mysterious entity that we are.

By "hidden imams" you imply Shia Islam, but the real danger is of course the Saudi and Gulf State leaders selling out e.g. Palestinians to Western interests, as the Zio West needs a comprador bourgeois elite in the Islamic world. The Prussians nowadays don't really matter as an ethnic identity, having swallowed up other German-speakers (bar Catholic Austria) to become the Second Reich in the 19th century. The Prussians were Protestant, but such that Lutherans were not philo-Semitic, i.e. not Zionist like the Anglican leadership. After WW1 the Lutherans became bit players; as Hitler wrote of their pastors: "Insignificant men who sweat with embarrassment when you speak to them." Any traditional religious fervor among Lutherans was only reconstituted by the Swiss Lutheran Karl Barth after WW2.

As for the RockChoppers (Roman Catholics), the whole religion was based upon NOT converting or expelling all the Jews (Spain the exception because of its Islamic history; e.g. priests in Spain can be married before ordination, unlike Catholic celibacy elsewhere). The Jews were absolutely essential to play the 'dirty' role of moneylenders in Christendom. Jesus Christ was invented to control them when the Jews got out of hand. As Arabia was only just emerging into civilization - with written Arabic - in Muhamad's time, he did not need the Jews (given their economic monopoly in a declining physical environment) so finally drove them out of Mecca and Medina. After his death as Islam expanded they came across Jewish communities, but by this time Islam was the clear religion of the masters, Jews becoming willing servants to them - but usury being prohibited by both groups, and by the Christians in Islamic lands, a situation totally unlike Feudal Christendom. Hence the vital economic role played by Jews in the West was not part of traditional Islam as its leaders had not thought about the economic basis of running an empire - and so we have things like "Islamic banking" today to try to get around the usury question in Islamic lands.

This is also why Protestantism - after Calvin - proved ultimately to be a disaster all round. It believes the BS of Jesus literally, not realizing Jesus' fundamental and essential role in curbing Jewish dominance through usury - the result? Judaeo-Christianity as the hegemonic ideology of the West. Hence under Protestant hegemony the Jews rose to the top in the English-speaking world and Holland. This ultimately became the case in France and Germany (post-French Revolution) too, despite the efforts of Catholicism in the former - and so the destruction of the environment as "progress" increased. This is why we have EMJ working to expose the situation, since the Protestants, Jews and especially the Freemasons do not want the truth uncovered.

I keep feeling that Claude wants to be on our Team.

But the team is in search of the correct principles.

Except that he thinks we need to find our Fuhrerprinzip,

Acceptance of the Fuehrerprinzip comes from understanding then accepting the correct principle of radical fundamental human difference, a principle itself derived from the fundamental fact of disorder being primary in the universe. Freemasons, Jews and Protestants absolutely deny this, since being monotheists they fancy God in complete control - the Great Architect of the Masons - such that the universe is deterministic, a harmonious whole whose disharmony is simply the result of Divinely-permitted human (or demonic) action.* Hence the arrogant stupidity of modern science, polluted by Western philosophy and espoused by such as Einstein and his severe absolute determinism where the natural world of plants and animals demonstrates a mere "fixed necessity" as opposed to the "living" nature of religion (e.g. his Zionist prejudices as revealed in Ideas & Opinions "Science and Religion" pp. 47-48), paradoxical too as Einstein's "living religion" specifically denies a personal God.

... and go seize power, rather than waiting for world public opinion to bestow our rightful place of honor upon us. And oh, by the way, he wants us to dump Einstein.

The seizure of power will come as enough people realize the extent of Judaeo-Christian propaganda AND the need for a correct philosophy of science - i.e. not be the "wood-duck" naives they are at present (and as a member of a Palestine/Palestinian advocacy group in my home state of Australia we have indeed been played as "wood-ducks", literally!). That is, public opinion has to corrode first - but does not do so because of mass sentimentality towards egalitarian democracy as the fundamental principle!

And oh, by the way, who is an Einsteinian? There are different varieties of Einsteinian. Richard, like Joe, is not an Einsteinian, but honestly admits his agnosticism towards it because he has not studied it, so does not fall into the classification below - and I respect both of them for that.

There are philosopher- or propaganda-Einsteinians like Karl Popper, Isaiah Berlin (!)** and George Soros. They understand the real agenda.

There are nerdy mathematician-Einsteinians who love and preach the maths, and related physicist-Einsteinians who progandize for it naively since, philosophically pig-ignorant, they think it to be real science, merely love the logical paradoxes and think that Einstein's paradoxical nonsense is THE fundamental mystery of the universe.

Then there are the majority of Einsteinians, the worst kind, the chump-Einsteinians, the ones who wholeheartedly accept, preach and teach the Einsteinian nonsense using the simplistic phrases and concepts propagandized by the popular and 'educated' media, without any grasp of what they are doing, let alone the implications. And YOU know what type of Einsteinian you are Jerry! You believe it with religious fervor, accepting it as fundamental to your understanding - despite the fact that you admit, in the relevant threads, that you don't really understand it in depth!

Yours faithfully
Claude

*Catholicism could never quite accept this POV. Thomas Aquinas's frank adoption of Aristotelianism, which fits in with the deterministic viewpoint, led to the Church condemning Aristotle in 1277 (see Crombie, Augustine to Galileo 2: Science in the Later Middle Ages pp. 49-50), since the Church had to accept original sin (a decidedly disorderly principle!) to explain human actions. This condemnation, by freeing up thought in physics, led ultimately to Galileo's discoveries which have since been discarded, denied and misrepresented by the Einsteinians!

** I give Isaiah Berlin an exclamation mark because he is a proponent of free will, emotionally opposing determinism in most of his works. However, being an Einsteinian he is inconsistent, so is laughed at by Western elites, being derided as a second-rate philosopher.

 

[Claude Badley]

So now the "Useful Idiot" has to tackle Richard's issues point by point!

To wit, amongst other things I have discussed elsewhere:

• Carroll's discussion (Constantine's Sword) of consistent Catholic dialectic theology and policy since Augustine

James Carroll merely interprets things in the Western manner, attributing eliminationist anti-Semitism to the RCs, as if the RCs wanted to convert all Jews. A fundamentally modern misconception!

[*]Bernal's discussion (Black Athena Vol 1) of Hanoverian (England's George II) sponsorship of the racist Romantic Movement, the proximal basis for core Nazi ideology. This was the very first intellectual academic product of the new modern university system at the U of Gottingen. This served to justify what later euphemistically became known as The White Man's Burden. The better to fulfil the globalist agenda explicitely espoused 200 times in the Bible.

Martin Bernal is son of Stalinist J Desmond Bernal and is of Jewish background. It is part of the attempt to attribute Nazism to exclusively German origins, rather than e.g. seeing the effect of the Secret Elite Milner Group and Freemasonry based in England - whose influence culminated in WW1! His main thrust is linguistic, but e.g. his claim that Linear A in Crete is Semitic is not yet proven - even though there is some Mandaean hints that it may be true.

[*]The Prussian aristocratic employments of Marx (socialist dialectical co-optation) and Rothschild (Bauer/Bayer, from Bavaria -- like Trump), the red shield front's spawn also latter employed by the Vatican.

Well it is certainly true that they used Marx and would later use Marxism - most effectively though via the Frankfurt School, the Cultural Marxist Clown College (CMCC).

[*]The ferment created by Kaiser Wilhelm, both domestically (later blamed on the Jews) and in instigating global Islamic Jihad, via his tool Oppenheim and the last of the Ottomans. The Nazis would help perpetuate Islamic radicalism before, during, and after the war till today.

Nazism here is a secondary effect. The ferment was not created by Wilhelm II but by the Milner Group surrounding Germany by getting Tsarist Russia into a war with Austria-Hungary. The basic cause of Islamic Jihadism today is in reaction to Anglo-American interference - and this includes oil so is not just the Zio state. German interference in the Ottomans before WW1 was minor by comparison.

[*]I only learned yesterday that Acharya S had once (correctly) proclaimed the pope to be the Freemasonic leader (their hidden imam), which is consistent with 'narrative' Jesus being the presumably master tekton of his new 'universal' religion of amalgamated paganism and butchered Judaism.

This is more allegorical since any RC Freemasonry is of lesser extent than Protestant Freemasonry, as the former realized the Freemason threat. For the Protestants, Freemasonry is their leader, a religion which denies the label, a religion containing all the richer Protestant leaders - effectively another religion standing atop Protestantism and controlling it from above. After all, my state of WA is the RC state of Australia, and two days ago I was pondering whether there was also Freemasonic aged care in my state as in other Australian states. I stopped at the T intersection traffic lights at Lawson St. and Manning Road at Karawarra - and so help me, right in front of me over the road were the Masonic Nursing Care homes. I had never noticed them before! Hence you are using 'Freemasonic' in a broader sense, but I am not denying its partial legitimacy here.

[*]And the prior is Saussy's 'connect the dots' analysis (Rulers of Evil), where IMO 'Israel', then and now, is just a catalyst for the global agenda. And per Ellis, Zion is Zoan. And thus John XXIII tells the Jews kissing his feet that he is still their 'Joseph', his office have just covertly supported the poor Lost Cause of its sacrificial lamb, Führerprinzip Liddle Adolf. Yet another messiah that didn't die as claimed, aka Fake News (which Liddle Donald Trump most certainly did not invent as he claimed).

Clearly I have some reading to do about Saussy and Zoan!

[*]That the hidden imams of Euro monarchy paradoxically sponsored the 'anarchist', Neoliberal libertarian economic model of the Austrian School. Cui bono?

Answer: the financial 'monarchs' of course.

Which reveals an elite cabal surrounding what zounds remarkably like your fascist Führerprinzip. Zo why are you komplaining? But in any case, yes, you are doing their bidding, a CounterPostflavian Zionazi. Perhaps you might prefer 'Zoanazi' instead, another Rome by another name?

No, because the elite cabal of Freemasons and bankers espouse an ideology embracing absolute atheistic determinism (Sam Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and Daniel Dennett) or religious monotheistic absolutism where God knows the future absolutely - spiced up by the seemingly opposed situation where unpredictable uncaused accidents intervene unaccountably in the world (Popper*), but being uncaused, cannot be investigated scientifically.

These implications are the opposite to those of Fascism/Nazism, which instead asserts, as I do too, the fundamental DISORDER of the universe, while holding to causality, that the universe can still be investigated productively by science. (The disparaging of science by some Fascists/Nazis is paralleled today by creationists in the West so does not demonstrate an essential anti-science bent in Fascism/Nazism. Read for example the works of Alan Beyerchen. Marxists however have an inbuilt attraction to simplistic pseudo-science e.g. Einsteinism and the teachings of Wilhelm Reich.)

Which reminds me, Richard: have you ever met Dr Schlock? He was prominent in the 1960s. Not only did he 'elucidate', or rather 'expound upon' Einsteinian pseudo-profundities on Star Trek but he also set himself up as a child-rearing expert, particularly advocating the Marcusean doctrine about exploring "infant sexuality". Beware if his friends approach you though - they just might be wanting bail money!

Yours faithfully
Claude

*Popper is of course evasive on the question of uncaused accidents, attributing the idea to quantum theory, to Bohr-Heisenberg type C theorizing, i.e. the Copenhagen Interpretation. Acausal accidents which seem to 'refute' determinism are invoked by Popper under the name 'absolute chance' (The Open Universe "Determinism & Indeterminism in Physics" p. 125) being "elementary physical processes which are not further analyzable in terms of causal chains but which consist of so-called 'quantum jumps'." In this way science comes to an end, type C quantum theory, a.k.a. Complementarity, reducing it to magic and make believe, hence Popper refers to use a vaguer more ambiguous term - indeterminism as well as the well-known but mistranslated "uncertainty principle" (Unschärfrelation) which covers the same type of thinking.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Well, at least there was one apropos mention of the environment. Thank Dogod I changed the thread title, but I may have to change it once more if this continues.

Did he admit that? After having said he doesn't know what a Zionazi is, he gave a reasonably good definition. He said that "the Nazis were not consciously working to fulfill Anglo-American manipulation" -- which seems to be an admission that's exactly what they were doing. And isn't Claude exactly correct when he said that the Nazis were "severely deluded and self-deluded at various levels, mainly by following their racist agenda"?

Anglo-American manipulation? WTF? Even ol Loren Hough RIP would wince at that, hims gnowing that the RockChoppers and the Reformers were yet another contrived dialectic, which even the Bavarian Trump would call a hoax, at least to his friends.

Hence, the assertions that the Pope is a Hidden Imam, not some excuse to divert us by waxing on higher branches of the same tree. (My bad for bringing up the Hidden One, even though it was an apt analogy IMO.) These branches forming useful social constructs (albeit cynical), just as the Jews of yore and lore had been.

By "hidden imams" you [meaning Jerry] imply Shia Islam,

I was merely employing this as a device to suggest that the papal overarching role was in plain sight to some and hidden to other flocks.

This is also why Protestantism - after Calvin - proved ultimately to be a disaster all round. It believes the BS of Jesus literally, not realizing Jesus' fundamental and essential role in curbing Jewish dominance through usury - the result?

Which Protestants are you talking about? Not all are fundamentalists, and most fundamentalists are fundamentally not fond of Science. Even the Pope has his own Science panel, with real scientists on it. But, like traditional Catholics will you tell me that the Mother Church has been taken over?

Just as SMOM Knights of Malta play a role in Catholic society today, so did their ancestors of the Hospitallers and Templars. Usury? The Templars invented modern banking, which ultimately had to be turned over to the Jews, consonant with their traditional, legally prescribed (by the Vatican) role in Christian society as the 'professional' and monopoly merchant class (also the convenient scapegoat, buffer class).

But the team is in search of the correct principles.

With some exceptions to pedestrian Logic and such, Materialism's Cause and Effect, or the lack of it, plays rather little in our revisionist, metanarrative, historical analysis. I would not change my mind on this even if you told me that Time folds back on itself, is circular, or whatever.

Plato was suggesting wise, so-called philosopher-kings, not the craven ones of history including fascism. I'm dubious that he would agree to your norms of succession to the throne. Oh, I forgot, you've reverted to Election by the 'worthy' Electors (not the rabble of the demos). Are these from the 12 tribes of Hebrews circled around the Sun king's throne and the 24 elders? This described in the last book of the Christian canon?

Nicholas De Vere would inform you that his clan were indeed of superior quality and virtue, a literally distinct and exalted gens, and that it was a nobles duty to be noble to his lessers, in the conventional gentlemanly gentle context. But alas the besmearched charges against Edward's repute.