Democracy is in a sorry state. It turns out to be outdated news. In Plato’s State, democracy has no high status. Among the five options he describes for forming a state, democracy is the second lowest. Lower is only tyranny. In fact, democracy is already on its way to becoming a tyranny.
Is it something we recognize? Some would argue, that we are already there.
The five forms of government
Plato’s ideal state is an aristocracy. It is ruled by wise men, aristos, or guardians. It was not people who had sought power, it was their duty. They were not allowed to own anything, so their rule was not for money. Therefore they could not be corrupted, their office was both a duty, a sacrifice and an honor. How far are we from that ideal of statesmanship today? How many real statesmen are out there now? We see a lot of career politicians trying to earn a living by being corrupt.
The next best form of government was timocracy. If a state was threatened from outside by enemies, the government was taken over by people with the power to make exceptions and rule via a hierarchy. That it has nothing to do with a fascist military government, after a coup today, is quite clear. It was something that was elected, and the people who governed had the people’s powers to do so. Plato actually describes the way in which the Greek city-state, Sparta, was governed. There are examples or the military taking over a country, when leadership has become so corrupt, that the population is threatened. Right now (revising this article) we see this in the Sahel region of Africa. French military and corrupt leaders loyal to the French have raped the country of its assetts as a neo-colonial power, and people are sick an tired of it. These countries like Niger, Chad, Mali should be wealthy but are poor-poor. When the colonial period officially ended, it was just a show, because the colonial power remained in the structure and has never let go. The countries in the central and western Sahel have been forced into a colonial-era currency, so that the money is sucked out of their system and they have no self-control over their economy.
The third best, or third worst, if you like, is oligarchy. A banker’s or merchant’s empire. Another name, or rather an even more inbred form, is plutocracy. This state is run by people whose sole justification for decisions is money. We see a particularly blunted version of this form of government in the corporatist plutocracy of our time, where the West and most of the world is ruled by spineless bankers who aggrandize themselves at the expense of the people. A combination of oligarchy and tyranny. I wonder, whether Plato would think the same, if he saw what have become of this.
But it is worth noticing, that although oligarchy is down the list with Plato, things can get even worse. The second worst is democracy. It is the tyranny of the majority. Or you could say tyranny of the few elected by the many to trash the rest. Plato had seen this democracy execute his mentor, Socrates, who is, incidentally, the speaking voice for Plato in the dialogues that make up the ten books of The State. A democracy is incapable of making wise decisions, because the people do not know this wisdom, but live for themselves in the present. And they may do that in an aristocracy, but in democracy they are totally left to themselves and their ignorance, like chickens without heads. For Plato, anarchy would be unthinkable.
Democracy in its ugliest version is a lynch mob, a hanging society, a gathering of people with physical power to take down minorities or people they don’t like. A republic is – or should be – a compensation for this weakness of democracy, guaranteeing the minority protection against the majority. The American Constitution in its original form is like that, but after the revision, when the British and the bankers crept back in, it is weakened. And today the government just piss on the Constitution in even the weakened version.
The lowest and most undesirable form of government was with Plato and for his posterity tyranny. For obvious reasons, one might think, but let’s summarize anyway: The tyrant possesses neither wisdom, foresight, warrior ethics, sense of economy, compassion for the people, nor does he have any legitimacy among these. He has simply seized power to serve his own interests. And the military power is used internally as an apparatus of repression and not as a defense against external enemies.
In the Greek city-states it was perhaps possible to talk about these forms of government in isolation. It is no longer possible. However, it is still remarkable how deeply Plato looks and how eternally valid his analysis of the State is. There is a standing remark in philosophy that all philosophy is merely footnotes to Plato.
His state forms do not exist in their pure form. Nor did they in his own time, but his State was a description of the ideal state with its deviations. Today, the described forms are only found in ‘dirty/impure’ forms. The only form of government that is largely absent is the aristocracy. The ‘philosophical kings’ that Plato extols are not on the field these days. The rest is found in an unsightly swamp, to say the least, a hybrid mass, and mostly under fake product names. Philosophical and wise advisors to enlightened leaders, regents, presidents or kings are not in high demand. They seem to be almost totally absent. Hence the low rate of these regents. We truly have bad leadership and bad management of the state these days.
The weakness and bankruptcy of democracy
The form of government in the West calls itself democracy. We pay tribute to people’s rule. But people’s government has a fierce Achilles heel. There is a poisonous snake biting its heel. The sum of stupidity and disinformation. The people are seductive. There are seducers of the people, demagogues. While the people think they govern themselves, they are being governed from behind, from above and from the side. And from a dark room somewhere, that they cannot identify. The reason democracy is the second worst form of government is that it is an illusion. In fact, it should be described today as the worst form of government because it is dishonest with itself. At least the tyranny is honest about what it is.
A minimal defense for democracy could of course be that it and we have become victims of the new speak that has corrupted the concepts. When we talk about the people who rule, we mean the people who are ruled. The term People’s Government refers to the possibilities available to govern the people. The concept of democracy is in our time a new linguistic term.
Democracy as a concept is a scam. How can one claim, that it is the people that control globalized banking, deep-state policy and neo-feudal social engineering? Is there anything like popular government about the EU, NATO, IMF, ECB, WTO, UN, BIS, WEF – that is, all the truly global governing bodies? In other words, we don’t have the democracy they sing hymns about, we have something else, and what should we call it? Or should we simply state that Plato was right 2,500 years ago that democracy was nothing to cheer about?
In any case, we must state that democracy is heavily over-advertised, is not even what it pretends to be, because the people rule nothing, and that it should be sued for false advertising.
We have demagoguery, bureaucracy, technocracy, oligarchy, plutocracy, tyranny, kleptocracy, mediocracy, mafiocracy, militocracy, corpocracy, corruptocracy, pornocracy.
We have usurer rule, genocidal rule, pirate rule, whore rule, shame rule, guilt rule, fear rule.
We have deep state, secrecy, toilet aggreements, political assassinations – characterwise and physical – state terrorism, organized lying.
And stupidity, lots of stupidity. That such a vulnerable and corruptible form of government has been so praised and has existed for so long means that those who believe in the great illusion of the people ruling have become stupider and stupider as the illusion becomes more and more shrill . You either have to be downright stupid or downright hypnotized to maintain belief in this illusion.
If, as a passivated TV masturbator, one day you with your flat ass sunken into the couch hear about how the USA has good-heartedly intended to bring democracy to the Middle East at the same time as they completely smash the entire area and create chaos, smoking ruins and millions of homeless people – and still believe that the word democracy means that the people’s voice is heard and that the people’s interests will be taken care of, then there is something decisively wrong up between the ears of the TV masturbator.
If, like a brain-dead TV cocaine wreck, one day you listen to politicians talk about recovery, growth, welfare and everything else they promise to care about, and the next day you hear that they have sold the state-owned energy company to one of the world’s leading financial fraud syndicates, has passed a law to prevent access to documents on political decisions and is in the process of approving a transatlantic treaty that gives global syndicates and cartels the right to sue the state if it decides to make the same environmental demands or impose them tax in the same way as local companies … and still believe that these politicians represent them and are not service bodies for the globalist sharks, then the diagnosis of brain damage must be made. Or it could be some kind of syphilis epidemic due to TV masturbation.
There are, of course, reasons for this widespread stupidity and blind faith in a form of government that has already reached its sell-by date during its short life. It is simply in the playbook of the globalists, who have twisted their arms around the form of government which, despite obvious flaws and shortcomings, offered popular influence on a number of points which they thought were harmless or unimportant to the deep state they had in the meantime installed behind the curtain.
Let us then remind ourselves that democracy as, shall we say: social-political experiment, is not more than a few hundred years old in its current version, and that the experiment in its original form in the Greek city-states has not been continuous, since the whole of Late Antiquity, the middle ages, the renaissance offered feudalism, monarchies, clerical rule, usury rule. We have to go all the way to the 1800s before the idea catches on.
Were people happier in a democracy. There is certainly nothing to indicate that. Together with democracy, which is essentially a liberal project, the new feudalism in the shape of industrialism, was installed. A working class emerged in the monster machine hatched by the British industrialists. An almost unimaginable side-shot arose as an attempt to create the ultimate slave society, the socialist totalitarian state. Western industrialists and financiers created this monster as a gigantic social experiment. It cost the lives of more than a quarter of a billion people in the great genocide of the 20th century + the misery and and oppression of a billion more. And since the same industrialists and financial sharks also created the world wars and all their hundreds of spinoffs and afterburners, the total holocaust will be the REAL holocaust, and not the Zionist diversionary maneuver. So the people who created democracy basically didn’t believe in it themselves! To them it was just another tool in their macabre toolbox.
The reason democracy is the favored form of government for tyrants and oligarchs is that it is the perfect front cover. The opaqueness means that we cannot see what is going on behind the curtain. It is the perfect smoke screen for covert maneuvers and nefarious business. It is the reverse of ‘render to Caesar what is Caesar’s’. Here you give the people what the people like: a toy, a pacifier for children. It’s about the feeling of participation, and it requires nothing more than to put a greasy cross on a piece of paper every four years, and then, by the way, watch television for the rest. ‘In the Colosseum’, sings Tom Waitts. It has to be entertaining, and what’s more entertaining than people being eaten by lions and impaled by gladiator swords? A media circus is part of the ritual. ‘Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.’, sings Leonard Cohen, with bittersweet irony.
Democracy can be manipulated at all ends and corners – without enough people discovering it. It can be bought for petty mammon. Much can be said about the behaviorists, the social engineers, the technocrat spirits in power, but they knew a great deal about what they are doing.
Could a democracy work?
Of course it could work. Partly, because it was never meant to work completely, the idea is too weak and ill thought out for that. Precisely for this reason, we always see democracy, as Plato was aware, drifting in the direction of tyranny. But tyrants are also lazy and pragmatic, so they’d rather keep a facade so they don’t have to march with boots on and physically smash people to get them right, which they know could backfire, so that they themselves would end up dangling from a lamp post. Hence the right-liberal and the left-liberal model of democracy. Or Hollywood democracy, cartoon democracy, the American parody of democracy, TV-democracy.
The Swiss model, with direct democracy, where the people are actually asked about a number of things that relate to their daily lives, is working far and wide as intended. However, we can be sure that there are certain matters that the people are not asked about in a country that houses the global financial mafia and its institutions. The model is of course always shot down by the cultural radicals (who aren’t a tiny bit radical anymore and haven’t been for half a century), whereby they reveal that they are anti-democratic every time it comes down to it. Socialism as conceived always leads to totalitarian state and tyranny.
Local democracy can work. In the nature of the matter, and as the word says, it will only be possible in a close environment in a limited forum of people. It will also only be possible in a homogenous group of people and not in a multicultural society where everything has to be negotiated all the time and where nothing can be taken for granted and where traditions are destroyed and have to be reinvented – which takes hundreds of years and several generations, if at all possible. You can see it in certain island communities or urban communities. But lo-and-behold, in those communities certain individuals have more influence than others, you will find certain power structures here too. Question is: does it cross the line, where oppression takes place?
Democracy is not a Greek invention, by the way. Our Nordic ancestors had a form of democracy that was possibly more well thought out than the Greek. We can see the symbolic and archaeological remains of it in the Icelandic Alting, the open air parliament and courthouse with the round circle. Here everyone could bring forward their cases and concerns, and everyone was heard. Of course, children did not have the right to speak, but a young man who could hold a sword and a young woman who could give birth to a child were considered adults and thus people with the right to speak. The words of the elderly had more weight, because life experience was respected. The aristocratic thought that Plato calls for was built into the Nordic Alting. It met the criterion of size, because those who arrived at the courthouse were known to each other. We can even experience remnants of its very spirit today, where the Icelanders as a homogenous population group, and despite tremendous pressure, have been able to put an end to the global predatory capitalism that was in full swing destroying the country’s economy. For a while at least. They actually threw a bunch of bankers in prison for the pig streak, something that is almost unthinkable elsewhere, even though several thousand prison cells should be reserved worldwide.
Therefore, we also understand why the ruling class in the West today agitates so violently for the heterogeneous society, multiculturalism. It simply completely weakens people’s ability to make their voice heard. It’s demographically divide-and-conquer. Instead, the ruling class cultivates their mega-institutions, which float somewhere up there like giant unmanageable containment balloons. The fact that you even allow yourself to call the EU a democratic institution is just to shut up and screw it up. There is absolutely nothing democratic – if we are to take the term literally on today’s occasion at all – about a stack of financial and business oligarchs in an unelected commission and a giant bureaucratic technocracy that mass manufactures monstrous legal complexes that no one knows or understands.
However, people have begun to understand the incomprehensible, the intentionally encrypted, or at least understand so much that this monster, like a Kronos eats its own children, and absolutely does not work in the interests of the people, but has its own exclusive agenda. There is an exit movement underway in the West. It lacks head and tail, because it senses what it wants, but not where it is going, because it has not identified the real problem, the global deep state, from which one cannot easily run. When it is generally identified and comes into the light, we can begin to talk about it. People have allowed themselves to be corrupted, and with Exit there must be a Detoxit, a detoxification of the deadly, apathetic nerve poison that has seeped into our culture everywhere: in the language, in the education, in the dissemination of knowledge, in everything that has been banned to put it into words, systematic cultural terror.
Democracy has developed a variation of the Soviet model, the Soviet state 2.0. Or the slave state 3.0, if Soviet socialism was the reinvention of the slave state in the era of industrialism. One took notes, even though this monster was doomed. Aha! they said, we must not repeat these obvious things. There was nothing wrong with our model, we just have to be smarter this time. What was learned from both the International Socialists and the National Socialists were effective propaganda methods and manipulation techniques. Think tanks such as the Frankfurt School, the Tavistock Institute and the Rand Corporation developed a host of sophisticated techniques for crowd control, and we see them step in whenever there is movement away from the global stranglehold machine. They have unlimited financial resources at their disposal, for the entire economy of the globe is milked daily by their principals, and the black budget, which is over half of the floating finances that exist in the world, and which never sees the light of day, is at their disposal to the extent that they need it. They form the megaparasite’s immune system, with anything that escapes its control, and the parasite is willing to spend gigantic sums of money to sustain itself. In other words, money is not something you talk about here, but something that just arrives on time. Until the day, it suddently does not arrive anymore = latest development august 2023.
What has been said here about corruptible democracy could easily be said about other forms of government. And all the while democracy is not really a democracy anymore, we have already said that. The same could be said of monarchy, socialism, oligarchy, timocracy, theocracy, dictatorship, classical fascism, anarchy (not in the pop sense: chaos) and their various hybrids. All have their working state in a non-corrupted version. A jumping-off point, a bottom line must absolutely be: legitimacy. Can these forms of government legitimize themselves? Without legitimacy, no support. A government without legitimacy among the people is a blank check, and must decay to the lowest: tyranny, the only form of government that will never work, but must use open violence to prevent its own departure by Death.
My contention is that this has already taken place in the West. Our society, which we call democracy, is ruled by forces that do not identify themselves as tyranny, but which nevertheless operate with the mindset of tyranny and with the methods of tyranny, even though these methods are today so sophisticated that they appear – via the built-in and enveloping new language – as the opposite. New language is hypnotic, it is verbal black magic. When crap is called cake without batting an eye, we have lost the ability to understand the world and reality. Or as one CIA director said: The day people believe the opposite of what is real, we have won. Thus from the horse’s own mouth.
Since this article was written some years ago, all hell of tyranny broke lose and showed its ugly face in democracies. 2020 the globalist control state implemented its long due plan of what they believed to be the final power grab of humanity. They released their laboratory thing, and the world was locked down in what could only be described as military emergency state. Every law and protection of the people can be cancelled with a claim, that it is … for the protection of people! And holy moly! did the legislators, politicians, rulers come out of the closet and showed themselves as the wannabe-tyrants they always were. And they loved it! They were drooling with joy of their new unlimited power.
I hear a chorus of protests against the fact that anything other than the highly sung almost canonized democracy works, and even works better than the bastard that lies and moans when you peel off the halo. The chorus compels me to exemplify the whole strip above. Fair enough, I’ll take the challenge, please be kind and polite to refute it with facts and substance, and remember that fanfare doesn’t count and a form of government is not illegitimate just because you don’t like it. At the same time, you can appropriately ask yourself the question: Why don’t I like it? So, is it because I have understood, analysed, worked through the homework, seen-heard-read – or is it because I have subscribed to an ideology, a prefabricated mindset that has whispered or honked in my ears that this and that is evil-evil and should be spoken of with contempt and hatred? In other words: luxuriously and spiritually lazy can be rejected without knowing what it is that I am rejecting? And remember, you don’t have to sing in my choir, just remember to check your own hymns.
It’s hard to be a royalist today when you look at bastards like the British royal house or the Belgian or even the Scandinavian light version of it. At the very highest level, this is corruption in one degree or another. One of the problems of the monarchy or the nobility in general is degeneration via inbreeding. Their mental syphilis is, to say the least: pronounced. Instead, let’s look at the Russian Tsardom. There was a reason why the ruling classes in England and the United States saw it as their prime dirty job to overthrow the Tsar via a revolution (read: a coup d’état masquerading as a popular uprising). This was because the tsarism had a high degree of legitimacy for a long time. Russia was a serious competitor to the West, and therefore their leadership and form of society had to be overthrown. It was simply a benevolent monarchy/empire. There was prosperity, there was a lot of progress, even in the decadent Western sense. Russia, which included Ukraine, was Europe’s granary. The farmers had full freedom/autonomy. Therefore, it was one of the main points of the dirty, genocidal revolution that the peasants should either be mass murdered or enslaved, and that agriculture should be industrialized. Peasants were far too unruly, independent, traditional and self-sufficient = independent of being fed by the big machine and the state, that they had to be coddled. Millions of Russian and Chinese peasants – to name just two nationalities – had to die a cruel death or be incorporated into the machine. Result: an agriculture that was as inefficient and dysfunctional/unsustainable as Russian industrial society, which would never have survived without ongoing subsidies from the West. Which, by the way, completely denies the mythology of the Cold War. How can you be at war with a society that you yourself have created and pay for daily? But the West needed the image of the enemy for internal reasons – read: to scare the life out of their own populations so that they stayed in their skins. Does it bring reminders of the Catholic Church’s terror of people’s lives by preaching about the devil, sin and perdition? If so, we are on the right track.
All this was known to and respected by the traditionalist Tzardom and therefore it had to be overthrown.
This leads us directly to the placebo that the West created and then called its opposite. All in all a huge scam.
It is difficult and almost impossible to be a socialist today, unless you live in a 20th century backwater/hangover and have not discovered yet that the wall has fallen. Well we know of cource, that it fell, but we never realized, that it meant. Due to mental inertia, this is unfortunately the case. There are still plenty of people walking around who, even though the rug has finally been pulled from under their designer ideology, still call themselves socialists. Nor have they discovered that in the meantime socialism has jumped out of the closet and professes warmongering, totalitarianism, predatory capitalism and post-democracy … in short: everything that their ideological subscription described as its opposite. Interesting and very dialectical, isn’t it? Of course, we assume that socialists have understood what dialectics is 😉 They obviously don’t.
But there was one man in a country who had ‘misunderstood’ socialism and who realized what the socialists said, repeat: said they aspired to. His name was Marshal Tito and his country was Yugoslavia. Unlike the Soviet Socialists, he actually cared about the workers. They said, repeat: said they cared about the so-called working class, but Tito actually cared about the working people. The way he organized society showed this with great clarity. There was pronounced autonomy in companies and local communities. People had something to say. There was no question of democracy, but nevertheless determined people. Hooray, democracy! We will leave out the darker sides of Marchall Tito, that have come out lately, and for that you may want to read the newer series of 8 articles called The World Game. It turns out, that the man didn’t die in 1980 …
Like the Russian Tsardom, this society had to be destroyed. The Empire does not tolerate measures where their own false statements or pseudo-ideals are taken at face value and where their pretense is realized. It makes them appear for what they are: the emperor’s new clothes in bare ass and wicklers. So: Well, well, what we said we wanted wasn’t meant to be taken literally, it was just meant to stick up people’s asses, like a feel-good dildo, or hit them in the head. In the West, the entire left overflowed with diarrhoea of the mouth about solidarity with the working class, especially the student and academic-bourgeois breed who had never set their foot in a factory. Desk and West Coast and champagne socialism had its heyday. But when NATO, CIA, IMF decided to destroy Yugoslavia, the baby boomers clapped their little greasy hands and sang along. So much for their solidarity with the working class.
Again, read the articles of The World Game, where you will learn, that the non-dead marshall had something to do with the dismantling of his own lifes work from his prolonged life in the shadows.
I have a confession. When this shenanigans took place in the early 90s, I sang along to the unholy chorus because I had no idea what was going on. I was just a stupid and naive student at a music conservatory who played the violin and later sang in a choir – quite literally. That’s how powerful the Great Deception was in the 20th century. We simply believed in the Cold War, we believed in the enemy images, we believed in the narrative of the good guys and the bad guys in the world wars, we believed in the sacred democracy, we believed in the blissful consumerism, Disney, Hollywood, Coca Cola, the European Common Market , social democracy, the resurrection of materialism and eternal life and free us from pain and suffering and give us our daily course of gravy and potatoes with canned beer. Amen.
In the traumatized moment, the relief at the apparent end of World War II, the social engineers had inserted a surrogate, a new world view, based on a blunt description of those on the other side of the wall – who could not answer again, when the wall stood in the way.
Classic fascism/national socialism
It is difficult to be a Nazi or a fascist today. It is also not desirable. On the other hand, it is highly desirable that we are completely aware of what it was in this enemy image that pissed off the Empire in the West.
Both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were financed by Jewish Wall Street oligarchs, Schiff, Warburg, Rockefeller and others. We have all the names and connections, and all transactions and company formations from the period have been reviewed piece by piece. Although no one succeeded in refuting Prof. Anthony Sutton’s research on the subject, however, has kept this out of mainstream historiography. But the Nazis turned their backs on the bankers in 1933, and Stalin partly after 1945. But then both empires had long since been smashed, the Nazis had become a Hollywoodized propaganda cliché, and the Communists had become the new convenient fake enemy image of the Cold War, so the Americans and Europeans could still be properly frightened and willing to pay for the maintenance of an overgrown and greedily devouring war apparatus completely out of proportion. We know today that the Soviet threat was a grotesque and deliberate exaggeration.
But the most interesting question is: what was it about Nazism as a form of government that was a thorn in its side? This was because they broke the etiquette, so to speak, and disregarded the international central banking system, and for a number of years abolished its usurer business. And as a direct admission that international Jewry was intimately connected with this parasitic enterprise—an ancient recognition which all nations from Europe down to China had made since the Middle Ages—there arrived in 1933 a formal declaration of war from a self-postulated ‘state ‘, an organization that signed itself ‘Judea’. They did so in a newspaper advertisement. Nevertheless, in the following five years, Germany experienced an economic recovery unparalleled in European history.
The Allied historians who wrote the well-known history of the victors explain it away by saying that it was simply because Germany rearmed. Don’t mention the economic recovery due to interest-free financing. It had to be stopped at all costs, so that other nations, who by the way had a particularly good eye and admiration for the Germans, got the idea that they should also try it. The Spanish, Italians, Croatians and Austrians did so, the latter therefore voting with a 98% majority for an Anschluss with Germany. Like it or not, but take a stand on the facts. In the baby-Bush era there was a joke: What is the diffence between Hitler and Bush? His was elected, Bush was not.
The US, NATO and their good friends in ISIS waged war with two of the Middle East’s benevolent dictators. Both have ensured stability and prosperity and great tolerance in their countries. Both had/have support in their country. It concerns Libya and Syria and their dictators, Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar al Assad. Gaddafi had huge support, more than 90% of his people loved him. Bashar had moderate-normal support, but after the ISIS attack, where he defended hist
First, let’s look at the infamous dictatorship state and its infamous dictator, Gaddafi. With a dash under reputation. Rumors are not necessarily the same as reality and truth, because the reality for Libyans years ago, before the country was left in ruins and overrun by US, NATO and Saudi-funded mercenaries with cryptic abbreviations such as IS, ISIL, ISIS, or Da’esh, was the country in the Middle East and North Africa with the highest standard of living for people. Gaddafi had almost total support from his people, but it only took one smear campaign, with full media coverage in the West, before everyone suddenly thought that the man was absolutely terrible and deserved to … have his brain blown out? They didn’t dare to say it outright, but babbled in flowery phrases about regime change, bringing the benevolent democracy to the poor oppressed Libyans, who were so oppressed that they loved their president. Afterwards, they talked about responsibility to protect the red lines in the sand, no boots on the ground and no-fly zone. After this, Libya was bombed to pieces, Gaddafi murdered, two million Libyans made state- and homeless, the country flooded with terrorists, the Libyan desert made uninhabitable for the foreseeable future with dirty NATO bombs containing depleted uranium – we fucking nuked them!! In addition, the Libyan gold reserves were stolen and the country was made a shipping point for weapons for the next planned war in Syria. That all these wars were planned, we know from the horse’s own mouth. general Wesley Clark, former commander of NATO in a moment of … well, what do you mean, peasant remorse or moral quackery? Or had he, as a soldier, also been exposed to the character assassinations that are so frequent in the inflamed world? Or was he just trying to wash his bloody hands, after the dirty action in relation to ex-Yugoslavia? We cannot know. One can probably be way up at the top of the system without ever realizing it.
The Libyan president’s next sin was to work for a new African dinar based on Libya’s gold reserves, with the aim of making the semi-impoverished countries of the Maghreb independent of the petro-dollar. Just say the name p-e-t-r-o-d-o-l-l-a-r, and you might be shaking in the depths of your underpants! Next, he insulted the Saudi despotic family – unlike his rule, utterly unscrupulous and cynical tyrants and notorious state terrorists – by calling their oil king a traitor to a brotherly people and member of the Arab League by allowing the US to invade that country, Iraq . Finally, he wanted to present his neighbors with the amazing water technology that the Libyans had developed called the Man Made Project.
After the whole hog streak and the destruction of the country, Mrs. Clinton cackling her tasteless ‘We came, we saw and we killed’ after she had been one of the main players in creating and funding ISIS as the denied boots on the ground – just as al Qaeda, which she openly admitted, was entirely a CIA invention. We know what awaits the world if this psychopath is elected president of the country that, by the way, has assassinated four of its own presidents: Lincoln, Garfield, Mckinley and Kennedy (and attempted murder on even more) – all to stand up to the bankers and the debt giant. A long and noble tradition…
Do you now also have to deserve to be head of state?
It is heard all the time, as a messing mantra, that China is a communist country and that they are a shame they are not democratic and add to it! You can sometimes feel like simply asking directly into the heads of people who stand out with their clichés:
What does it matter to you how a country on the other side of the world, with a different culture, chooses to govern? And by what right do you think that your opinion on that matter has any relevance to that culture, with those people? Besides, who has given you the impression that your ideals and opinions on governance are worth five sour pots of piss, just because you can express your contempt and your condemnations? Who says that people out there in the fringe world are the least bit interested in our rotten democracy and who told you that one size fits it all?
China, for one thing, is not a communist country anymore, even though they still formally have a communist ruling party in name. They are today more capitalist than any country in the West, where we have now moved to a totalitarian Soviet-style five-year plan economy. The same applies to Russia, but the thoroughly confused people and media in the West have not yet discovered that the Russians are not communists anymore, nor that the EU has become the new Soviet called the EUSSR, with a planned economy and commissar rule.
China has quietly returned to an updated version of its ancient Confucian tradition of meritocracy, i.e. position and office by merit. This means that in order to achieve a position at the top of Chinese politics and administration, one must have served a long and reliable military service as a successful leader at village level, provincial city level, metropolitan level with catchment area and district administration before even being considered as top politician, not to mention head of government. In contrast, one can become president of the United States as a total nitwit, with no political experience or talent whatsoever, as long as one is willing to perform blowjobs on the banking elite, the military industry, and the Jewish lobby and meet the criteria of being a typecast controllable bobblehead, who can read from a teleprompter and can express the politically correct positions on command. Hmm, who can I have in mind here..?
You can say other things about the Chines state, that are not very nice. Lately there has been a backlash, and China has turned into a totalitarian state. There is an internal struggle going on, that we know very little about since China has closed itself off from the rest of the world. China too has its deep state structure, and its even more powerful than in the West.
For the understanding of The Hundred Years Plan and The Non-Compete Plan, that promised China deep state total dominance in the world by 2023, read The World Game.
We formally do not like a country ruled by military people. But any country that has to go to war to defend itself against an attacking enemy becomes by its very nature a timocracy. When Vietnam was invaded by the US between 1955-75, they transitioned to a state of emergency and military leadership, with command center, task force, hierarchical structure, clear top-down chain of command, a people’s army dedicated to defending itself tooth and nail. And it may be that they did it effectively, because the US actually lost the Vietnam War. In the meantime, the CIA then brought tons of heroin home from the Golden Triangle to fund their black, shady projects, so you could say the US Deep State won their part of the war.
Vietnam was probably the turning point for the feel-good-come-happy-1-2-3-hooray wave of Americana that followed unconsciously in the wake of World War II, which was, as you know, ‘the good war’, where the good guys were oh-so -the good and the bad were monsters in a heap. Here the halo was tampered with, and a certain stench escaped from the skeletons in the closet. Before that, the halo was dented by the British Empire, which went down with the dance and lost morale, and itself as an Empire, by losing its crown jewel, India. Thanks to the psychopath Churchill and the project he was set up for by his backstage handlers.
Syria today is a timocracy, as everything in Syrian society during the ISIS/CIA was geared to defend itself against hordes of terrorists, professional mercenaries with paychecks in their pockets from Saudi Arabia, weapons from NATO stolen in Libya and financed by opium production in Afghanistan backed up by the Israeli army and Mossad/CIA. For every day this country managed to resist the enormous pressure placed on them, one became more and more speechless. Yes, they had their strong allies in the form of Russia, but it was still the Syrians who took the toll and the trash, and the Syrian people who endured these inhuman sufferings. The Syrian refugees were doubly abused in that their villages were first razed to the ground, and that they were subsequently made, along with hordes of subsistence African rapists, to be a demographic weapon of mass destruction to balkanize Europe.
What’s that all about? And why should God be involved in state formation? Isn’t it something about god-kings in Egyptian and Babylonian captivity? And no, I’m not going to portray the Vatican as a model state, God forbid! As danish priest and psalmist Grundtvig wrote in a hymn: The seat of Satan in Rome. Was he thinking of the Jesuit general’s armchair?
No, I am thinking of a modern theocracy that has successfully governed a very large country without colossal pressure from foreign parasitic and murderous forces. We’re getting into something politically incorrect here, because we’re talking about the Iranian clerical regime. Without knowing the history of Persia/Iran for at least the 20th century, one cannot understand the phenomenon far better than the rumor spread by its enemies.
First we must understand that Iran is an ancient and highly refined culture. As the British rose to prominence in India, they also rose to prominence in Persia. The Iranian genocide of 1917-19 was until recently a well-kept secret. Half the population was murdered by the British by artificial famine, a tactic they had used in India and Ireland. After this, a puppet government was installed with Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran’s father. This phantom puppet regime continued, interrupted only by the democratic era of the 1950s, after which the British, along with the Americans, saw fit to overthrow the democratically elected president, Mossadeq, in 1956, when he believed that Iran’s oil must belong to Iran and not British Petroleum. The anti-democratic coup installed the puppet’s puppet son as shah. Many Iranians who later fled from clerical rule have not understood their own history, but fell for the allure that a shah – doesn’t it sound old and noble – was the leader. Because what do the CIA, Mossad and MI5 do, when their puppets no longer nod in time with their puppetry? They depose them and insert a new nod doll. The next time he was called Ayatollah Khomeini. The man was an MI5 agent. Please note how in his creepiness he resembles historical role models, all fundamentalist scoundrels invented by British intelligence to further the cause of the Empire. Abdul Wahab-types with long beards and turbans and burning fanatical eyes, as if stepped out of Lawrence of Arabia in cinemascope. To understand Islamic fundamentalism and its political background, it is necessary to know the tactics of British intelligence. And how liberating it would be if Muslims would take the trouble and homework to familiarize themselves with the corrupt part of Islam’s history, in order to bring themselves up to date with reality and not continue to be arseholed, like a she-camel in desert. Far too many have fallen into the trap that you cannot criticize Islam – not even when it advances in a corrupt Wahhabi version and breaks all the strict rules for decent warfare – when it has to be – that can be read in the Koran.
Read: The Dying God and Kabbalah in order to be able to participate in an informed discussion.
But then: Khomeini is installed in Iran. However, there are those who have smelled the fuse and make sure that he … comes off days. An old man, yes, but did he die a completely natural death? The same is going to happen when the CIA accessory, Fetulah Gülen is no longer useful in relation to Turkey. It gave way to one of the most colorful and fantastic figures in world politics, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. A genuine theocrat. He could stand up in the UN General Assembly and start by talking for 10 minutes about God, after which he took the blade from his mouth and blasted US imperialism, Israel, Saudi Arabia and all their deeds and all their being – without fear and without shame. He was probably forced to resign because he was too outspoken. But make no mistake, he was held in the utmost respect by the orthodox, hat-and-snake-curled Jews who, like him, did not believe that the State of Israel had any legitimacy and that the Holocaust mythology was a lame hoax. Howdy! we rewind right here: the most hardcore orthodox Jews do not believe that the state of Israel is legitimate, that the Holocaust took place and that Zionism is worth writing home about! And then they think the former theocratic president of Iran is cool!
Don’t get it wrong here. Iran needs to move on. The theocracy has developed into a theocratic dictatorship, and people of Iran are longing for better times. But this can only happen, when the Iranians decide to do it. Any, I mean ANY foreign intervention will prevent them from that and just prolong the process.
Oligarchs have a tarnished reputation, to say the least. Just think of the Jewish oligarchs who were booted out of Russia at the start of the Putin era. They even called themselves the oligarcs with pride. Russian oil sheiks and financial sharks, basically mafiosi, who thought now was the time to rise and shine. The Yeltsin era ushered in a veritable parasite attack on the ex-Soviet Union. There was a period of time when the weakened Soviet state was completely free from all kinds of abuse from the global oligarchy.
But wait a minute … Vlad Tepech … I mean Vlad-imir Putin is an oligarch himself. He just doesn’t operate on standard oligarchy terms, because he has his own arch-Russian agenda. He is a timocrat, because he is a former soldier and KGB man, with full insight into … all the bullshit! He is also a theocrat as he is an Orthodox Christian of the very traditionalist Old Believers faith and nationalist. He is more of a democrat than the hypocritical democrats in the West, as he believes in – and practices! – the Russians’ right to popular, national self-determination. Some call him a new tsar, full of indignation in their voice. What’s your their problem here? Tsarist Russia was a blessing to the Russians. The Soviet state was a 70-year nightmare, without equal! The fact that the media and politicians of the West have a pain in the ass over a real statesman shows their own lack of format and the thief who thinks everyone steals. They are simply afraid of his past as a KGB man, because it means that he – unlike the presidents of the West – has direct insight into what happened during the Cold War, the scam intended to carry out state terror against the inhabitants of the West. On the contrary, it makes him a highly qualified president. Contrary to his American colleagues, whose past consists of regular mafia business. Bill Clinton was involved in the CIA’s cocaine shipments to Arkansas. He paved the way for the wave of financial crimes in 2008. On the other hand, he has 100 rapes lurking around the corner. The Clinton Foundation is a money laundering and charity fraud syndicate. And his wife is a story of her own. Mass murderer is only one term for this unsightly phenomenon.
An-archos, non-rule. Can it even be done?
Of course it can be done. But we have to get the ball rolling here. Nation-states as anarchies – forget it! Believing in such things is utopianism, castles in the air, phantasmagorgasms. A state requires leadership, not anti-leadership.
Anarchy as a practiced form of society requires enlightened, independent people, with maximum insight into their own life and its possibilities, people who can think rationally. A totally beautiful thought, I love it!! I wish it were so. It just isn’t.
Anarchy is for communities. But fool me: when anarchy has announced its arrival, the whole range of forms of government follows in its wake. The petty little wannabe-tyrants sneak into the back door.
Anarchism’s (Bakunin’s) problem is that it is a tailspin to socialism, utopianism, collectivism, communism. Anarchism is the premature release of primitive communism. And what is primitive communism? It is a utopian primitive Christianity, a dream of a return to the way the Christian underground groups lived in opposition to the Roman Empire, their survival modes of sharing everything, owning nothing, total sacrifice for an abstract cause, etc. Christian collectivism became social collectivism. And Moses turned into fat philosophers with full beards – like Karl, you know.
Anarchism is like democracy. If the given group is not homogeneous, agreed and completely ready for the project, there will immediately be abusers who prey on the common goods. After this, people will have to put up with the anarchism that became anarchy, after which something similar to and later becoming a state will happen. You hire a militia to keep down the rocker gang that has just arrived. And so on.
On the other hand, there is some evidence that the presence of incompetent authorities is worse than their absence. In the city of Acapulco, citizens fired their police. When they disappeared, crime dropped significantly. Surprise! In an American city, all citizens own firearms. So does that mean they go around – as their cowardly government claims – shooting off the heads of each other and any passers-by? Of course not, and as you’ve probably guessed, the crime rate in this city is: zero! The arms ban, which is loudly called for in the United States by the leftist governments, has completely different reasons. The don’t want an armed population being able to defend itself agains the govenment. And the first thing, a totalitarian government usually does, is to disarm its population. So, the people would be left defendeless, but would all the criminals be without weapons then. Of course not. Problem for the US fascist state is, that there are so many weapons
So, people locally, when they agree on the rules of the game, are fully capable of taking care of themselves. The experiment would be very interesting to cultivate to a much greater extent. Of course, anarchism does not mean a lack of government, because a government will always arise. There are always people who take the initiative and take the lead. It is one of the great distortions of reality that socialists and self-confessed anarchists make that people must be leveled and equal. It’s as far-fetched as anything can be, and unattractive at that. The same people happily talk about diversity, but one of their mouths does not know what the other is saying. Of course, equality does not apply the day they get money themselves – just look at the baby boomers who became champagne socialists when they had taken all the cool jobs in the happy 70-80s, got a big house and two cars. They behave as spoiled bratts and commissar-like as the little pampered class in the Soviet Union, who lived on stolen bourgeois money, with Swiss bank accounts, Russian champagne and caviar. Lenin and Trotsky and their ilk had billionaire account in Swiss banks.
The term is provisional because there is no official name for it. Not long ago I was made aware that there was once an advanced form of government among our Nordic ancestors. Everything was apparently only their ‘general assembly’, a convention, an assembly, behind and during the rest five self-governing and yet interdependent forms of government had formed.
Before I describe this complex of forms of government as I understand it (thanks to my friend P.O. and his knowledge from authentic sources, with deep roots in our past, for acquainting me with this), I would like to mention that our Nordic ancestors and -mothers cannot be understood independently of a global civilization whose extent has been Eurasia, Europe as we call it today extended into Asia, or should we rather say: Europe known today was an appendage to Asia, a large peninsula of the huge Asian continent. In this continuum we find the concept of caste.
Here we already run into translation problems, for the Indian caste system today is a highly degenerate version of what we must strongly assume was an intact and harmonious spiritual society where people were divided according to their level of development. We can also call it a druidic (dravidic) system of governance, and we find these rishis, druids or ‘philosophical kings’, as Plato calls them, precisely in these historical-cultural contexts. It is interesting that in this system there were five forms of government, just as Plato names five forms of government in his time, where they have separated into monoforms in periods or in different city-states. In the original system, which is far older than Plato, they existed simultaneously within the same society.
Suspicion of a caste system is therefore justified today, but in the distant past it was an ideal system of distributed government, and Plato’s theoretical attempt to rethink it originates from this. What is it about? Let’s get to the point. Terminology that originates from the old Nordic language will be used, and it will be compared with the political philosophy of posterity.
The first estate, caste or class were the slaves. Again a heavily loaded term, as in e.g. Roman terminology it was a subjugated, unfree man stemming from the Empire’s conquest of other peoples. Originally a slave was just a worker. The workers had a form of government where everyone was equal. It can be compared to socialism in its theoretical, ideal form. We already encounter here how difficult it is to talk about, because so much water has flowed from the stream into the sea since then, where the words have become ideologically charged. Equality was not forced, it was built in. You are born a slave, which means that you do not decide what to do, because you are not capable of that. You depend on others to tell you what to do, and you are perfectly content with that. Likewise, your efforts in society are fully respected, and your abilities as a worker are indispensable.
The second estate/class was the craftsmen, the skilled, the artisans, because craft and art were not different from each other. It is a great art to make a proper chair. I have just participated in Copenhagen Skills from the sidelines, and I can only say that some of what the boys and girls from the vocational programs performed was huge art in my eyes, far greater art than some supposed distorted happening-event modernist or conceptual art work . Art and Skill were/are inseparable, but modernism has totally fucked it up, so that today you don’t need to master a craft, but can content yourself with presenting a smarty-farty design show-off. A medieval master mason, a Renaissance painter, a baroque woodcarver, a classicist composer, or a romantic sculptor all had to master their respective craft.
The craftsmen were oriented towards exchanging their creations. They were both craftsmen and merchants. Today we also see these subjects as separate. But just imagine a blacksmith from the Middle Ages. When people came to him to have a horseshoe made and put it on the horse, they made a deal. I need so-and-so, what can you make it for? I have to use so-and-so, and it takes so-and-so time, which is why it costs so much. You cannot separate production from sales, and some companies today contain both. Any one-person company knows that both parts need to fall into place before it works.
Today we would call the craftsmen-traders system of governance capitalism, again a highly compromised word. Capitalism in its original form is the right of every man to trade with another man, without interference from other corporations, governments, legislators, or organizations. Such intervention, which is constantly taking place at the time of writing, would be corpocracy, jurisprudence, bureaucracy, predatory capitalism or globalism (reverse fascism). We no longer have capitalism, but they did in the autonomous rule of the craftsmen.
Read: Capitalism – really?
The third estate/caste/class were the warriors. What does it take to wage a war? First, a proper training in handling weapons, martial arts and exercising strategy is required. I myself live in a place in South Zealand called Jungshoved – press the first syllable, please! One of the foremost warrior figures in the 17th century, who mastered all aspects of his craft, lived on this beautiful peninsula with a view across the Baltic Sea up to Stevns and down to Møn. His name was Svend Poulsen Gjønge. We are back at the end of the 30 Years’ War and the Swedish Wars, and the Göngers or Snaphans were the guerilla groups of the time who made sure that the Swedes got the fight to the line and eventually had to leave the country. His people came from Halland and Skåne = Denmark back then, and people there today still feel Danish in many ways, one way being that they absolutely do not like the arrogant government people from Stockholm, and this is an old thing. Svend was honored by the Danish king for his genious.
What characterizes the warriors’ form of government? Hierarchy, a strictly top-down chain of command. No war can be won without top management, hierarchy and obedience. No war in the history of the world has been won through round table discussions, symposia, mutual negotiations (we are talking about peace in that case). The warring system is therefore a dictatorship. Discipline is a strict necessity, severe discipline from above or self-discipline. It is the caste that is most clearly recognizable in Plato’s State as Timocracy, the city-state of Sparta.
Let’s just take a short break here.
What is the difference between Plato’s city-state forms of government and the original complex or complementary system of government, which I have called caste autocracy on occasion? The difference is function and dysfunction. When one caste’s form of government is imposed on the others, the tyrannical element arrives. The egalitarian rule of the workers cannot be imposed on the rest of society without the dictatorship of the proletariat. Thus, an unproductive, extremely oppressive leveling and erasure of natural differences takes place, and where a narrow all-powerful vanguard or pampered elite is elevated above the masses. We know it from the Soviet state and Maoist China. Genocide always takes place in the aftermath. What was good as an autonomous system of governance among workers was imposed on the rest of society and as far as possible – which was the intention – the whole world.
If, on the other hand, the internal self-government of the journeymen/workers was imposed on the whole society, we would have an oligarchy, an industrial, merchant or banker’s rule. Today it is called corpocracy. The oligarchs rule according to their own interests.
It begins to become clear that Plato describes unbalanced forms of government, where the particular form of government created for one estate, one class, one caste is imposed on everyone else by force and power. This results in a slave state, predatory capitalism, military dictatorship, clerical rule or monarchy. All five forms of government could be beautiful and respectful in themselves, but the historical perversions are all sad examples of the degeneration and dominance of one power over the others. A kind of caste coup d’état.
End of the short break.
The fourth estate/caste are the thinkers, the intellectuals. It corresponds to the Brahmins of India, where we find the remains of the Vedic and ancient caste system. What is their form of government? That is our ideological concept, anarchy. The slaves have an egalitarian agreement. The merchants and craftsmen have an agreement based on negotiation. The warriors have an agreement based on dictation from above. The thinkers have an agreement and a form of government based on the fact that they can actually think for themselves. They therefore do not receive orders like the workers, because they do not need it. They don’t have a chain of command, like the warriors, because they don’t need that either. They do not negotiate, like the merchants and craftsmen, because their world is based on tradition. Their form of government is anarchy. No one decides over them.
We have no examples of anarchy as a form of government in our time. We have examples of priestly rule, theocracy. The Iranian clergy actually works. Then you can be angry about it, outraged, ideologically boiled or believe that a country cannot afford to do, like shogun-ruled Japan until the beginning of the last century: to completely close itself off to protect itself from outsiders invasion of cultures. And Iran is not even closed, everyone can travel freely, after the decidedly ugly period under the MI5 agent, Khomeini. It is the Iranians who have experienced unfreedom vis-à-vis the West via sanctions. We always forget when we claim that clerical governments are evil (= we should not like it by definition) that the Vatican is the epitome of a clerical government, as it is a state and not just a main church. Here the anarchy analogy no longer holds, as this corporation – because it is a corporation – is extremely hierarchically structured, and their Gestapo/secret police, the Jesuit Order, is a military unit and one of the world’s oldest, still fully active intelligence agencies. And remember further that the name intelligence is a gross euphemism, since both the CIA’s and the Jesuits’ foremost task is to control and manipulate via all imaginable methods, of which intelligence is only a tool. They have been doing this since 1540, and therefore have the most imaginable experience in staying under the radar. And now their husband sits as a new Caesar/Pope in these strange times for our planet.
The fifth estate/caste is the kings. The original caste system is spiritual. You are born slave, journeyman, warrior, thinker or king. Therefore, the system is not rigid. If, for example, you are born a slave, but achieve a high degree of skill, then you become a craftsman, a merchant. If you, as a thinking individual, have supreme leadership qualities and an understanding of the fate, spirit and welfare of the entire nation, then perhaps you are king.
Kings were traditionally recruited from both the warrior and thinker castes. In ancient Russia (before Kievan Rus) there were two kinds of princes (prince = the first, principe = the first). There was the prince in peacetime and the prince in wartime. A wartime prince could never rule in peacetime. The principality was non-hereditary, you were hired as a prince based on qualifications, by merits. The system, which worked excellently and justly in its original version, has in later times degenerated. The same monarchs who waged war were allowed to rule in peacetime, with blood on their hands, a huge national debt to the bankers, a deep infiltration of the military-industrial complex, and their privileges inherited, which too often has led to despotism (due to inbreeding). A responsible king/emperor might well pass the inheritance on to a totally inept son. One of the Roman emperors whose format as a leader stands above the others was Marcus Aurelius, at the same time a famous Stoic philosopher. In his letters he shows himself as a true philosophical king in the Platonic sense. His son was an inept nitwit who destroyed everything his father had created.
So, if the priests or the intellectuals (eg in Bolshevism) impose their rule on society, it gets ugly. It becomes a mono-caste tyranny instead of a caste autocracy, and the difference is crippling.
Golden time and rotten time
Just as Plato’s ideal state, his aristocracy, no longer existed in his time, so the old caste society in its healthy form no longer exists. The number of casteless, the outcast in India testifies that it is only a reminiscence of the golden age of the Vedas. When the British Empire arrived and saw the degenerated caste system, they instantly thought: ahaa! This is just like our concept of a class system.
We have the government we deserve. The more one ponders why things are so bad with our forms of government and in particular democracy in our time, the more likely it seems that the accounts of a golden age are true. People were generally more enlightened and less – far less! – fucked up. There has been a higher mental and spiritual energy, and the leaders of the people have been of a format to be longed for today. We are still living in the womb of the Kali Yuga, although according to the most reliable calculations we are out of it. A certain inertia is detected, it hangs a bit on its ass.
But at least the evil and corruption are so uber-clear that there is hope that the cat can’t be locked in the bag again. We are actually in the middle of the Apocalypse, which in Greek means the fall of the veil (not Armageddon, as Hollywood imagines). Doomsday is not Ragnarok, but as it says: doomsday. The day, where the soul will be weighed on scales and judged by its actual deeds.