Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Socialist or Conservative?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2015

    Socialist or Conservative?


    Words and definitions are always subject to a number of factors. When you are looking at historical circumstances which were far different than they are today it would be hard to use the same word. For example in the early 20th Century when my grandfather was a top official for the Garment Worker's Union he had to drag scabs across the picket line to stop the owners from e=getting out the product. Was he a hired goon like the Pinkerton's or government cops and army types who forced open the gates to plants so they could continue to enslave workers. Was he any better than the politicians who were still doing the bidding of mine owners who would not protect their employees who died in massive numbers do to unsafe working conditions? Was he part of a Communist intrusion upon Canadian people? Was he working with the Mafia who were involved with the unions? Were the scabs to blame for trying to feed their families in this depression era state of affairs such as you see in Cinderella Man documenting the life of boxer James Braddock who I heard my father talk glowingly about as I grew up?

    My grandfather bought homes and fed people out of his own money, and was a very good man, but he was not fully or even reasonably aware of the political intrigues which saw Stalinists take over any kind of good that communism might have intended. I know he knew the Mafia people and later in life I met the enforcer for Jimmy Hoffa and I learned how the Mafia played a decent role in what happened in the early union days.

    If you went further back in history you would say a person who did not whip his galley slaves was kind-hearted, especially if he rotated them and had medical care available, even though they were slaves and permanently shackled. Let us say as an example that the largest mine owner during the time we call 'of Christ' was the father-in-law of Jesus (Yeshua actually, Jesus is a myth amalgam and fiction to blame the Jews for what Rome was doing crucifying zealots and freedom fighters). His name was Joseph of Arimathaea and he was also the Roman Minister of Mines plus a member of the Sanhedrin which employed Paul/Saul to assassinate, stone or otherwise to thwart the efforts of Yeshua and his family. In his mines I think he was far kinder than most mine owners and it was not possible for him to make other mine owners behave in a moral fashion anymore than it would have been possible for him to get Rome out of Judaea.

    Am I trying to equate my grandfather who got paid well enough to buy five or more houses at Depression era prices when few others had a decent wage, with Joseph of Arimathaea? You can do that if you wish. My grandfather said he believed every word in the Bible and if it were not for the fact that the Catholic Church ex-communicated him after he married another woman when his first wife died, I think he never word have said a bad word about the Church. I doubt that is true for Joseph of Arimathaea. I am sure he and other powerful and moneyed families knew what was going on everywhere and they can be seen as far less than my grandfather. It did not really matter what party you voted for if they could not get into the position to cause a change in the laws for either my grandfather or Joseph. Popularity contests are still our lot but we now have many legal social programs in place thanks to people like my grandfather and even Jimmy Hoffa who had to use dynamite and do worse things, you would probably find detestable.

    Almost every country is socialist today.


    Most 'isms' are immoral Hegelian deceits to play this demographic against other demographics for the benefit of those pulling the strings but blaming others who they put in charge of the charade.

    If we say communism is a political agreement of all people who are entitled merely by nature of citizenship in a group or country who wish to share the rewards of their work collectively and for each other's benefit I would think most people would agree - it has not been a national system any of use knows about. Outside of nations I can think of communes and kibbutz type of agreements which fit the description I gave. But I want people to think about how Porto Allegre, Brazil got rid of all the professionals and financial wizards which had been running their city of over a million people, and gave every person the right to vote on every expenditure. Critics (especially those who would not want this to succeed or spread) said it was Anarchy. Is it communistic to merely allow everyone an equal opportunity? Not as I see it, but that is part of the ideology. I will call it extreme socialism because it was partially inspired by Che Guevara, and it was formed with the idea of making the city a great place for all residents. As they get more wealth in the city it is likely it will be able to do more for each individual but it is also likely that capitalists and business owners will enjoy such a system because it will be efficient and there will be less fraud and corrupt waste. I could call it progressive and I could use many other descriptors depending on how successful it becomes. The Head of the Club of Rome described it after fifteen years of operation as a success.

    On the other end of the spectrum I put conservatism because fascism and Nazism really are not quite pure or refined in conceptualization or implementation. Perhaps there has been such a state of government you could say existed but all the ones I can think of are forms of dictatorships except perhaps in meritocracies that might have existed in a few city states of Greece or a rare era of good government by a beneficial dictator type like Asoka. The closest I can think of is Singapore but I think it is just efficient capitalism rather than a meritocracy. I could be wrong but I have not heard it tries to uplift people's souls or address any real disciplines along that line such as the Qumranite commune where Pythagorean Therapeutae ideals flourished. But it could be argued that is not important in governing people as long as people are protected from religious scams, cults and abuses. Obviously you will not see a politician talking about protecting people from religion although it is possible that some discussion might happen on taxing these ventures if they continue being so anti-social and illegally covering it up.

    So in my continuum we have the bookends with some thickness established in those bookends. There are degrees of capitalism including a reduction in bureaucracy in favor of productivity. Creativity should be encouraged in every form of government and we could allow cities to have different approaches inside a nation or province just as futurists Alvin Toffler and his wife said in The Third Wave a couple of decades ago. There are degrees of degrees of socialism that should try to provide greater economic wealth through technology rather than forced employment and wages through unions. With the present technology we could produce more money per citizen in far less work hours, and this has been the case for decades, but soon will be so true that we can seriously talk about no work as long as the individual does no crime against others. Work should provide a sense of value and purpose for the individual's ego and soulful well-being. It can be apportioned in any way a society thinks is right and people can choose to do work for higher pay which they otherwise might not choose to do. If you read Walden Two you probably understand that concept.


    The need to arm oneself against their government might actually have existed and if people could actually get together with a plan it still might make sense, but a gang of uninformed constituents who insist on inalienable rights is not good government as the American form of a Republic illustrates. It is at best a representative democracy' and it certainly has not protected democracy in this world - though it will be heard coming forth from the moths of talking-heads, professors and pulpit-pounders or militarists every day in the great bastion of freedom they tell us their country (based on genocidal rip-offs using WMDs on so-called Indians or redskins) has been. Colonialism is not as necessary today as it was when the US waged war in the Philippines or Cuba, and do not forget the middle east meddling and de-stabilization which gave access to resources for corporations or what David Korten calls Corpserists. The US assassinations inside and outside it's borders is enough to wonder if their mouthpieces talking about Banana Republics ever knew what they were saying.

    If they cannot get a real majority to vote and decide on what platform will produce results rather than the senseless pet projects like teaching creation, and why to bomb or otherwise eliminate family planning and the attendant Cycle of Violence I doubt we will find a real democracy there. I hope that will continue to be the case because they need checks and balances to stop the likes of Evangelicals including the Shrub. Harper was not much better in Canada as I see it. Without true thinking being taught at every grade level in school - it will not change in time, I fear. Thus many people are right to think we need the transhumanist option to prevail.

    Is Thomas More relevant today? I think thinkers are always worth considering even though a guaranteed minimum income was not even a glint in the eye of any politico as far as I know.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 02-29-2016 at 11:26 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    From Mr. Wood in the link above, we have.

    "Utopia (published in 1516) attempts to offer a practical response to the crises of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries by carefully defining an ideal republic. Unlike Plato's Republic, a largely abstract dialogue about justice, Utopia focuses on politics and social organization in stark detail. The books begin a conversation between Thomas More and Raphael (Hebrew for 'God has healed'). Raphael is a traveler who has seen much of the world yet is impressed by little of it. Even monsters are hardly worthy of concern. After all, "There is never any shortage of horrible creatures who prey on human beings, snatch away their food, or devour whole populations; but examples of wise social planning are not so easy to find" (p. 40). [Note: throughout this essay, I cite from the Turner translation.]

    Before long, it becomes clear that Raphael offers shrewd analysis of various communities around the globe - and that he finds most of them to be faulty in some way. Even Tudor England offers little in the form of civilization. Raphael illustrates this rebuke by noting that thieves in English society are executed when, instead, they should be pitied and helped. The seizure of land by oligarchs, the maintenance of a wasteful standing army, the practice of gambling and gratuitous ornamentation - all of these social ills lead to a sick society, according to Raphael. Moreover, these ills produce a subjugated people: "you create thieves, and then punish them for stealing" (p. 49)!

    Of course, Raphael remains an outsider to civilization - despite his wisdom. When More asks if he might serve as counselor to some king, Raphael responds that no king or court would tolerate a counselor who might challenge their strongly (and wrongly) held assumptions. Referring to Plato's Republic, Raphael notes that the likelihood of a king acting as a philosopher, or merely tolerating one, is coincidental at best: "I'd be promptly thrown out, or merely treated as a figure of fun" (p. 57). More responds that social reform is a pleasant ideal, but that conservatism is more appropriate to these precarious days: "what you can't put right you must try to make as little wrong as possible. For things will never be perfect, until human beings are perfect - which I don't expect them to be for quite a number of years" (p. 64)! Raphael concludes Book One of Utopia by responding that cures for social ills demand systematic healing of the body politic. No improvement in public life can occur without the elimination of social illness at its deepest level. This is not mere fancy, Raphael reminds his friend; the good life can be realized, if it can be visualized. Throughout the second book, Raphael helps More visualize the perfected story by sketching his recollection of a distant island: Utopia. I've chosen to organize his narrative according to four principles:

    • elimination of private property

    • universal labor

    • moderated pleasure

    • family as microcosm of state"

    People who read my stuff often wonder if I am or ever was a Mason or part of some cult. I am what my name says and that is plenty enough, I learn more all the time, about questioning authority like the Bairds did in pre-Roman cultures. These Bairds sold out in many cases when a bounty was put on the heads of Druids, they justified their actions and rationalized by saying what can we do, or we can effect change from within. I would not be welcome in a neo-Druidic group of the present I think. Those who have tried to get me on their side find I am not forgiving or forgetful of the sell out. Besides that I am no longer even remotely into ritual or the power which comes with it. I have investigated many other belief systems and I am open to some level of people in almost every one I know about.

    To Pythagoras money and secular power was at most a nuisance as he strove for a larger and more important Providence. In this regard he found open minds among many people rich and poor including the family of Jesus or Seneca. It is a battle for the soul and choices are made by most people every day, which reflect upon or become their Karma.

    Mr. Draper says Pythagoras founded an elite order to protect elites. I say he founded an elite order willing to make all who wished to become potentiated as full humans with divine potential to achieve their birthright rather than a nepotistic hierarchy which Plato had to conceive due to his ethical or social pressures. Pythagoras like Socrates later could have gone to nearby Sparta which was more hierarchical without the spiritual under-pinning, they both chose other options. In any event Mr. Draper is not part of the spiritual continuum and I am. If Pythagoras was welcomed by the Sybarites who his people actually fought with later, then maybe the argument could be made about elite or effete greedy people. Before Pythagoras arrived in Croton or Bruttium (in Latin) they had already fought the Sybarites who are part of the Milesian Trojan War people, Sybaris had already fought Bruttium twice including when they were on the side of the Etruscans in the Battle of Alalia (in my memory) as well as shortly thereafter at the Battle of Sybaris when they lost because the people of Croton/Bruttium protected average people fleeing Sybaritic elite dominion.

    I often find people writing about things they know little about and yet place current ideological definitions upon as if they know something. It gets especially tiresome when (Unlike Michael Grant in Rise of the Greeks who admits he cannot judge Pythagoras the Druid, because he does not know what the system of esotericism is all about.) we see sweeping generalizations which don't even have common or accepted meaning such as the word 'communism' being employed by Mr. Draper.

    The Gracchi are part of a continuum of socialism back to the Druids including Pythagoras. Mr. Draper has a hard time with reality and making a real government function when you begin a new system inside a culture of slave and master - and I agree with Kautsky. More importantly I see Draper putting terms and definitions on the work of people like Plutarch who lived in the era - and I dare say Plutarch knew better what was happening in Toto. I could post this under Cultural Marxism but I think that was a dead horse when stupid people pronounced it had some egis or origin with the Frankfurt School to begin with.

    "1. Some Socialist “Ancestors”

    Karl Kautsky, the leading theoretician of the Second International, began his book on Thomas More with the observation that the two great figures inaugurating the history of socialism are More and Münzer, and that both of them “follow the long line of Socialists, from Lycurgus and Pythagoras to Plato, the Gracchi, Cataline, Christ ...”

    This is a very impressive list of early “socialists,” and considering his position Kautsky should certainly have been able to recognize a socialist when he saw one. What is most fascinating about this list is the way it falls apart under examination into two quite different groups.

    Plutarch’s life of Lycurgus led the early socialists to adopt him as the founder of Spartan “communism” – this is why Kautsky lists him. But as described by Plutarch, the Spartan system was based on equal division of land under private ownership; it was in no way socialistic. The “collectivist” feeling one may get from a description of the Spartan regime comes from a different direction: the way of life of the Spartan ruling class itself, which was organized as a permanent disciplined garrison in a state of siege; and to this add the terroristic regime imposed over the helots (slaves). I do not see how a modern socialist can read of the Lycurgan regime without feeling that he is meeting not an ancestor of socialism but a forerunner of fascism. There is quite a difference! But how is it that it did not impress itself on the leading theoretician of social-democracy?

    Pythagoras founded an elite order which acted as the political arm of the landed aristocracy against the plebeian-democratic movement; he and his party were finally overthrown and expelled by a popular revolutionary rising. Kautsky seems to be on the wrong side of the barricades! But besides, inside the Pythagorean order a regime of total authoritarianism and regimentation prevailed. In spite of this, Kautsky chose to regard Pythagoras as a socialist ancestor because of the belief that the organized Pythagoreans practised communal consumption. Even if this were true (and Kautsky found out later it was not) {Again a matter of who defines what is or is not a managed society that has a goal to create spiritual disciplines and has a hierarchy of adepts who know how people must go through stages of growth before having any luxuries - see Erickson's hierarchy of needs.) this would have made the Pythagorean order exactly as communistic as any monastery. Chalk up a second ancestor of totalitarianism on Kautsky’s list."
    Last edited by R_Baird; 02-29-2016 at 11:27 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    It goes without saying that we have addressed broader impacts of words and Hegelian Dialectics under many threads. Here is a little from We Can Change the World a small book I made available for free at places like Philip Gardiner's website over a decade ago. I also sent a copy to Richard Branson recommending he aid in creating a Council of Elders in line with the ancient Keltoi system headed by Isis and Osiris. He did it, and included two I recommended, Jimmy Carter and Mandela. You should check out Mandela and Castro to see more on the ambiguity of words like Communist.

    A history of the Rockefeller/Rothschild connection back to the Benjaminites and up to the founding of the Federal Reserve Board is a most intriguing study. The key word is 'intrigue'. We will have occasion to mention them some more but this particular insight seemed hard enough evidence of the things we speculate about with other evidence in the field of mind-control devices, Black Ops, the Opium War(s) and a great deal that everyone should know in order to try to make the future of their children as positive as possible. There is so much more I could include in this book but perhaps this is enough for now.


    It was not until after the Nuremberg Trials that the rest of the world put the kinds of protections in place that had already been in place for a long time in Germany but we are found accusing Germans of the heinous crimes we actually lead. It is just like Mackenzie King in Canada who was backing Hitler and his programs in many areas, along with other blue bloods like the Bushes and their bosses the Merovingians.

    “Beginning in 1907, with legislation passed in Indiana, forced sterilization on the basis of eugenic doctrine began spreading across the United States, with finally thirty states having such laws on the books. In this century, upwards of 50,000 Americans have been sterilized by order of the state. {Today we have drugs that reduce the libido or sex drive and potency of the less fortunate and victimized masses. These drugs and lobotomies which are still performed in Canada serve the same purposes.} The constitutionality of such compulsion was upheld in 1927, when the case Buck vs. Bell went before the Supreme Court. With only one dissent, the court said, in a majority opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes:

    ‘It is better for the world, if instead of waiting to execute offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.’

    The court, in other words, went beyond saying that a person is guilty until proven innocent; it declared that hypothetical persons were presumed guilty of criminal intent even before being conceived and may not be brought into existence. The 1927 decision has never been overturned, and is still a part of the law of the land.

    After World War II, German lawyers defending those accused of being Nazi war criminals for having forcibly sterilized two million people as a part of Nazi racial doctrine pointed to the sterilization laws in America and the 1927 Supreme Court decision as justification for their clients' conduct.

    In his recent book, The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism and National Socialism, Stefan Kühl traces the relationships between the Nazi racial theorists and members of the American eugenics movement in the 1930s. American eugenicists and German advocates of "racial hygiene" were already communicating and sharing ''scientific'' information before the First World War. The conflict in Europe, and particularly American entry into the war against Germany, broke off all such ties. But shortly after the war's end, contacts began to reemerge, with their American colleagues being especially helpful in getting German eugenicists accepted back into their community of scholars.

    Throughout the 1920s, the German proponents of racial sterilization drew upon the arguments of their American counterparts, using data the American eugenicists had collected to justify the case for distinguishing between "superior" and "inferior" racial types; they also made the case that America was more enlightened and progressive in its racial policies, since numerous American states had passed sterilization laws, while German law was "backward" in its narrow defense of individual rights that frustrated equivalent German legislation.

    With Hitler's coming to power in 1933, Germany's racial hygienists came into their own, with institutes for race science and research being established or expanded. They solicited articles by many of the leading American eugenicists for their "scholarly" journals, translated many of their works into German, and gave them wide distribution. The Nazis used these American books and articles to demonstrate that they were not alone in the world in advocating compulsory racial improvement and purity.

    A number of American eugenicists happily cooperated. Harry L. Laughlin, who authored the "model" sterilization law for Virginia that was then copied by several other states, saw his proposals explicitly implemented in Germany's 1933 Hereditary Health Law, that prohibited racial intermarriage and codified forced sterilization in the new Germany. As a tribute, the University of Heidelberg awarded Laughlin an honorary degree in 1936, which he enthusiastically accepted.

    Even in the late 1930s and early 1940s Science Articles, some American eugenics publications refused to criticize Nazi race policy in general or legal persecution of the Jews in particular. Some of the leading eugenicists argued that to do so would be to unjustifiably mix science with politics.” (4)

    The leader of the House Un-American Activities lynching was John Stennis who kept the real Holocaust(s) alive in his words ‘They Killed our Savior’ long after Nuremberg where the Nazis were not allowed to mount certain Synarchy defenses that might have educated the world about the truth of what happened in Germany (and Russia).

    In a book on Goethe and revolution we have many secret societies documented in heated conflict even though they might all be part of the Masonic octopus. I hope you read it (or what the look in provides). Remember as you see Paine's book selling well in England and not well on the continent that French Masons of this era did not accept the proposition of the soul's existence. The Royals of England and their cousins on the continent had long engaged in war, and up until this time and Napoleon they would cease activities of war to share tea and ladies or whatever fun - at night. Thus it is extremely difficult to say the Jacobins or Jacobites and Johannites and Rosicrucians were really committed to any present cause. The Hibernians of Paine and Blake who influenced Thomas Carlyle along with Goethe seem an exception, their commitment to the Rights of Man and The Age of Reason is paramount. Jefferson credited Paine (who was a member of the American Rosicrucian Council of Three with Franklin, who we saw was in Goethe's group or research) with the Declaration of Independence. So all in all I say anyone railing against Illuminism is biting the hand that fed them.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-01-2016 at 11:30 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    It is not the people who listen to me who cannot see some of the issues our world or society face. But I do not blame banking or bankers as much as I blame the ignorant who will not go deeper into the issues and problems. I can assure you the Rothschilds have supported real change before (Gracchi, Cathar, Enlightenment Experiment etc.) and they have been destroyed or almost eradicated for trying. A site titled Forbidden Knowledge may get a little correct but do they know the whole story?

    "The Second World War

    Through the 1920s and '30s, loans from Wall Street financed German rearmament and the rise of Hitler. One German company which benefited substantially from these loans was I.G. Farben which by 1939 had become the biggest chemical manufacturer in the world, and enabled Germany to become self-sufficient in rubber, petrol, oil and explosives. (This company used the inmates of Auschwitz as slave labour at their massive chemical plant during the war and are estimated to have worked at least 25,000 inmates to death; others were killed in their drug testing program. In the Nuremberg Trials after the war twelve of I.G. Farben/Germany's top executives were sentenced to minor terms of imprisonment for slavery and mistreatment offences whilst many others were acquitted. None of the Americans who also sat on the same board as the convicted were ever tried as a war criminal). On the supervising board of I.G. Farben was Max Warburg and on the board of American I.G. Farben were US and German bankers, friends of Roosevelt and members of Nazi intelligence. Rockefeller's Standard Oil assisted I.G. Farben's programme of research into making oil from coal (which Germany had a plentiful supply of). I.G. Farben were Hitler's major financial backers along with US money channelled through the German subsidiaries of General Electric Company (GEC), International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT) and Ford.

    Having supplied the loans to rearm Germany, repayment was demanded in cash causing the German economy to crash, ensuring Hitler could seize power with popular support of his economic solution. In the same year, 1933, Franklin Roosevelt took the American Presidency in a remarkably similar situation, offering a 'New Deal' type solution in the wake of serious economic depression. Both Hitler and Roosevelt were advised by people connected with the American-German cartels and the Bank of International Settlements.

    Meanwhile, Britain had adopted a policy of appeasing Germany. This was promoted by the PM Neville Chamberlain as advised by Round Table members such as Lord Halifax, Lord Lothian, Leopold Amery and the Astors (who owned The Times). In order to be self-sufficient through a lengthy war, Hitler's Germany needed the resources of Czechoslovakia, so the British government continued promoting appeasement until Austria and then Czechoslovakia were taken in 1939. The Bank of England then relinquished the £6 million of Czech gold deposited in London to the conquering Nazis. The erstwhile appeasers (Milner, Lothian, Astor and Amery) turned on Chamberlain and on the ensuing wave of pro-war opinion Churchill swept to power. There is evidence to suggest that before Churchill became Prime Minister coded messages passed between him and Roosevelt which confirm that the war was a premeditated set-up. On taking office Churchill immediately appointed Victor Rothschild to implement 'Regulation 18b' to imprison, without trial, anyone suspected of opposing the war.

    Thus, the protagonists were in place – Roosevelt, otherwise known as the Knight of Pythias, a 33rd degree mason and member of the Ancient Arabic Order of Nobles of the Mystic Shrine; Churchill, a freemason {And member of an Older origin thereof - Druids.} who had several meetings with the esoteric guru Aleister Crowley; and Hitler {Member of an organization denied to be Masonic by some Masons called the Freemasonic Order of the Golden Centurion.} who, with Himmler, Goering and Hess, were steeped in the esoteric traditions of groups such as the Thule Society, the Vril Society and the Edelweiss Society, all of which preached anti-Semitism {Yet, in reality playing into the hands of the elite Benjaminites.} and a Master Race. Occult symbolism and ritual pervaded Nazi Germany from the swastika to the Nuremberg rallies and the organisation of the SS."

    I just watched the movie Remains of the Day. It addresses meetings taking place in the years before the invasion of Czechoslovakia between various British Lords including one named Spencer, Lord Darlington (in whose home the story takes place), Lord Halifax and others mentioned above. It makes it clear these men met with German operatives and the German Ambassador and told Neville Chamberlain lies he wanted to hear. There was an American there before the fateful night that Chamberlain gave up Czechoslovakia and the money and resources needed to fight the war. I know Churchill was sent a letter by the German Military High Command saying they would get rid of Hitler if Chamberlain would honor the Treaty with Czechoslovakia. I am pretty sure Churchill told Chamberlain. The American had told Darlington he was out of his league and naïve in 1935. I will not confirm the suggestion Roosevelt backed these negotiations as the above says. I have far more facts which suggest otherwise including having been in the Regiment that took care of Camp X and having met people who were OSS top people of that war. I would say that after the declaration of War Roosevelt and Churchill communicated through Camp X and Stephenson (Man Called Intrepid) on a very regular basis.

    If you watch the subtle dialogue in the movie and still regard oligarchy or Nazism in the light of Peace and productivity - I say you are insane! I especially liked the religious issues backing anti-Semitism but you will have to pay close attention or you will miss it. It also makes it clear that average people have higher morals than political players, Lords and the men who rule rather than govern with compassion and spiritual guidance and true insight.

    There might be a way for me to state how Roosevelt was a pawn of others who arranged the war - if you read the thread on Gurdjieff, you might see it. I do agree he was handled once the war was in progress and certain people including Baruch and House were involved. In fact it is much deeper a use of the occult than the authors of the Forbidden Knowledge article know about. I am near to certain Hitler was run in a similar way by some of the same people or those using the same techniques. So what the authors are saying ends up in a nearly same place. But I am not convinced they know the why or the who.

    Economics ends up as the final arbiter in so many arguments about how to plan for our future. If we don`t know our past how can we go forward. History is, as some wise man said - prologue to the present. We are lied to incessantly by high-falutin talking heads and we need a new broom or maybe a hammer. Not the expensive hammer that might cost thousands of bucks as the Golden Fleece award done by US Senator William Proxmire used to tell us about. Just a simple whack a mole mallet might even do. A good debate was held between C. H. Douglas and many dismal economists including John Maynard Keynes. I recommend it highly.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-01-2016 at 11:37 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    If you think you are free, does that mean you are free? B. F. Skinner wrote about positive reinforcers that encourage real freedom and one could say taxes are a negative reinforcer. Thus a feudal form of governance would be characterized as free if you only had to give up your daughter when the Duke felt motivated (just kidding - a little) and there was no war for him to use you as cannon fodder in. You might also get some plunder in such a war so if your Duke or whatever, was usually able to get a good thing going - you might actually never have a real tax at all. But your medical insurance and other infrastructure was extremely limited.

    Your choices are not as free as you think, in all probability. Our political scientists make it even harder to figure out what is going on with a plethora of terms and definitions based on assumptions you should challenge anyway. If you think authoritarianism does not exist in every political ideology we are probably at a crossroads in our ability to communicate. Then you have to try to figure out which of them are correct if they disagree - which is the norm.

    "1. Two Concepts of Liberty

    Imagine you are driving a car through town, and you come to a fork in the road. You turn left, but no one was forcing you to go one way or the other. Next you come to a crossroads. You turn right, but no one was preventing you from going left or straight on. There is no traffic to speak of and there are no diversions or police roadblocks. So you seem, as a driver, to be completely free. But this picture of your situation might change quite dramatically if we consider that the reason you went left and then right is that you're addicted to cigarettes and you're desperate to get to the tobacconists before it closes. Rather than driving, you feel you are being driven, as your urge to smoke leads you uncontrollably to turn the wheel first to the left and then to the right. Moreover, you're perfectly aware that your turning right at the crossroads means you'll probably miss a train that was to take you to an appointment you care about very much. You long to be free of this irrational desire that is not only threatening your longevity but is also stopping you right now from doing what you think you ought to be doing.

    This story gives us two contrasting ways of thinking of liberty. On the one hand, one can think of liberty as the absence of obstacles external to the agent. You are free if no one is stopping you from doing whatever you might want to do. In the above story you appear, in this sense, to be free. On the other hand, one can think of liberty as the presence of control on the part of the agent. To be free, you must be self-determined, which is to say that you must be able to control your own destiny in your own interests. In the above story you appear, in this sense, to be unfree: you are not in control of your own destiny, as you are failing to control a passion that you yourself would rather be rid of and which is preventing you from realizing what you recognize to be your true interests. One might say that while on the first view liberty is simply about how many doors are open to the agent, on the second view it is more about going through the right doors for the right reasons.

    In a famous essay first published in 1958, Isaiah Berlin called these two concepts of liberty negative and positive respectively (Berlin 1969).[1] The reason for using these labels is that in the first case liberty seems to be a mere absence of something (i.e. of obstacles, barriers, constraints or interference from others), whereas in the second case it seems to require the presence of something (i.e. of control, self-mastery, self-determination or self-realization). In Berlin's words, we use the negative concept of liberty in attempting to answer the question “What is the area within which the subject — a person or group of persons — is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons?”, whereas we use the positive concept in attempting to answer the question “What, or who, is the source of control or interference that can determine someone to do, or be, this rather than that?” (1969, pp. 121–22).

    It is useful to think of the difference between the two concepts in terms of the difference between factors that are external and factors that are internal to the agent. While theorists of negative freedom are primarily interested in the degree to which individuals or groups suffer interference from external bodies, theorists of positive freedom are more attentive to the internal factors affecting the degree to which individuals or groups act autonomously. Given this difference, one might be tempted to think that a political philosopher should concentrate exclusively on negative freedom, a concern with positive freedom being more relevant to psychology or individual morality than to political and social institutions. This, however, would be premature, for among the most hotly debated issues in political philosophy are the following: Is the positive concept of freedom a political concept? Can individuals or groups achieve positive freedom through political action? Is it possible for the state to promote the positive freedom of citizens on their behalf? And if so, is it desirable for the state to do so? The classic texts in the history of western political thought are divided over how these questions should be answered: theorists in the classical liberal tradition, like Constant, Humboldt, Spencer and Mill, are typically classed as answering ‘no’ and therefore as defending a negative concept of political freedom; theorists that are critical of this tradition, like Rousseau, Hegel, Marx and T.H. Green, are typically classed as answering ‘yes’ and as defending a positive concept of political freedom.

    In its political form, positive freedom has often been thought of as necessarily achieved through a collectivity. Perhaps the clearest case is that of Rousseau's theory of freedom, according to which individual freedom is achieved through participation in the process whereby one's community exercises collective control over its own affairs in accordance with the ‘general will’. Put in the simplest terms, one might say that a democratic society is a free society because it is a self-determined society, and that a member of that society is free to the extent that he or she participates in its democratic process. But there are also individualist applications of the concept of positive freedom. For example, it is sometimes said that a government should aim actively to create the conditions necessary for individuals to be self-sufficient or to achieve self-realization. The negative concept of freedom, on the other hand, is most commonly assumed in liberal defences of the constitutional liberties typical of liberal-democratic societies, such as freedom of movement, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, and in arguments against paternalist or moralist state intervention. It is also often invoked in defences of the right to private property, although some have contested the claim that private property necessarily enhances negative liberty (Cohen, 1991, 1995).

    After Berlin, the most widely cited and best developed analyses of the negative concept of liberty include Hayek (1960), Day (1971), Oppenheim (1981), Miller (1983) and Steiner (1994). Among the most prominent contemporary analyses of the positive concept of liberty are Milne (1968), Gibbs (1976), C. Taylor (1979) and Christman (1991, 2005)"

    Clearly I am a political activist who could be called an anarchistic democratic progressive or an elitist pedagogue and even a communistic so and so. I have been called many things. I see good for what it is, and I see bad for what it is, no matter whose mouth is uttering the words. My youthful heroes who I never lost faith in include Jean Valjean and Robin Hood. My older brother has laughed about my horse looking like Rosinate and many are they who comment about my attacking windmills like La Man of La Mancha.

    At least I am not prone to being one of the Four Horsemen even though I occasionally warn about apocalyptic potentials. Do not put me in the Libertarian camp - they are a Physiocratic front, even though they do not know it, and usually do not even know what a Physiocrat is, even after looking it up.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-02-2016 at 02:56 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    You have heard the slogan and you know not from whence it came. It is the sort of double talk which makes you think the perps are hard done by, it seems all the more true today when bureaucrats drive people into wreck and ruin while giving themselves the best pensions and perks.

    "the government that governs least governs best".

    It is a catchy phrase and you should know anything written about the Physiocrats and Adam Smith as being the first economic school of thought is utter nonsense. The monopolists and oligarchs including the family of Pierre Dupont de Nemours who authored some of the French Physiocratic writings have always understood and managed the Wealth of Nations. His family wrote the Hebrew Bible in 600 BCE and gave his fellow family members, the Benjaminites, the monopoly on usury. Keep this in mind as you read what I have excerpted herewith from a book on the web addressing Smith's book The Wealth of Nations. Or just read the last sentence.

    "The Physiocrats, on their part, clearly laid down and steadily contended that nothing that did not have material existence, or was not produced from land, could be included in the category of the wealth of society. Adam Smith, however, with seeming inadvertence, has fallen in places into the inconsistency of classing personal qualities and obligations as wealth. This is probably attributable to the fact that what it seemed to him possible to accomplish was much less than the Physiocrats aimed at. The task to which he set himself, that in the main of showing the absurdity and impolicy of the mercantile or protective system, was sufficiently difficult to make him comparatively regardless of speculations that led far beyond it. With the disproval of the current notion that the wealth of nations consists of the precious metals, his care as to what is and what is not a part of that wealth relaxed. He went with the Physiocrats in their condemnation of the attempts of governments to check commerce, but stopped both where they had carried the idea of freeing all production from tax or restraint to the point of a practical proposition, and where they had fallen into obvious error. He neither proposed the single tax, nor did he fall into that mistake of declaring agriculture the only productive occupation. That there is a natural order he saw; and that to this natural order our perceptions of justice conform, he also saw. But that involved in this natural order is a provision for the material needs of advancing society he seems never to have seen.

    There are passages in the Wealth of Nations where Adam Smith checks his inquiry with a suddenness that shows an indisposition to venture on ground that the possessing classes would deem dangerous."

    The very term "Physiocrat" is an invention of Pierre Dupont de Nemours. He sold weapons to both sides of all conflicts in his time, before moving his family to Delaware where they continued playing both ends against the middle (Hegelian Dialectic) and benefitting from what became the Military Industrial Complex. I know the serious thinker will see what I quote next about only taxing land, meant he wanted no taxes on his income, and he wanted rents on land to carry the full burden of government. What a master-stroke of deceit he achieved when he got economics to follow this path of reasoning - and then came Keynesian nonsense and building weapons which would never be used (Even giving a complete air force to the Russians shortly before saying they were not to be trusted and therefore we must increase military spending during Peacetime.) just to make work.

    "As land is the only source of wealth, then the burden of all taxes ultimately bears down on the landowner. So instead of levying a complicated collection of scattered taxes (which are difficult to administer and can cause temporary distortions), it is most efficient to just go to the root and tax land rents directly.

    However practical many of the Physiocrats' policy measures were, they wrapped their arguments in metaphysical clouds. They differentiated between the ordre naturel (natural order, or the social order dictated by nature's laws) and the ordre positif (positive order, or the social order dictated by human ideals). They charged that social philosophers had gotten both of these mixed up. The ordre positif was wholly about man-made conventions. It was about how society should be organized to conform to some human-constructed ideal. This, they argued, was what the "natural law" and "social contract" philosophers, like Locke and Rousseau, were concerned with. However, there was, the Physiocrats argued, nothing "natural" in them at all -- and so these theories ought to be dumped. In contrast, the ordre naturel were the laws of nature, which were God-given and unalterable by human construct. They believed that the only choice humans had was either to structure their polity, economy and society in conformity with the ordre naturel or to go against it."

    The Physiocrats were a group of French Enlightenment thinkers of the 1760s that .... The term "Physiocracy" itself (introduced by Dupont de Nemours (1767)) ...
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-02-2016 at 03:24 PM.

  7. #7
    Socialism has a really wide spectrum. Very broadly it opposes the appropriation of resources and power by the few and seeks to share them equally among the population, mostly connected with the disenfranchised worker movements, which resulted from the industrial revolution.

    How this 'equality' is achieved ranges from anarchy, over revolution(communism), to working within the system(social democrats, often referred to in this context as 'the socialists').

    In the years after the First World War, which saw a lot of poverty and misery, socialism became a very powerful force.

    Conservatism had a bit of an issue in the years between the wars, because the established order of the monarchy was irrevocably gone. It had more or less lost direction. There was nothing to 'conserve'. So they turned towards authoritarian rule as an alternative.

    Each of these major categories was, however, hopelessly fragmented and the political process suffered as a result. The whole thing stabilised after a few years but was thrown off the rails completely with the crash of 1929. Hitler's rise happened in the wake of this and he replaced what he considered a 'dysfunctional political system' with a one-party state.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Dear Leonardo

    You say communism was "over revolutionary" if I read you correctly. If that is what you mean I would say you are talking about the Russian experience which was not Communism.

    You say socialism "opposes the appropriation of resources and power by the few and seeks to share them equally among the population". That is communism whereas socialism is more a left of center political philosophy which allows the rich to flourish according to what they contribute to the whole - like capitalism. However, it does show compassion and seek equality of potential and even tries to improve the ability of workers to produce better products and make the corporations able to earn more profit by doing research, having tax incentives and better means of operation. It will privatize key industries when necessary as well. The area where it gets hard to differentiate from what communism could be (If people got a real vote as in anarchy) is when you get most of the production run by the government. But even that is not communism (see China) and we are calling this a command economy.

    Hitler had to pay industry and re-arm due to many factors you have not even come close to mentioning. He did what the corporations wanted. It was called many things - and it was none of those things. At one point you could even argue it was a beneficent dictatorship before he started invading his neighbors. It was the best run nation on Earth and the Prime Minister of Canada said so two weeks before declaring war - you can look at photo shoots of them. He eventually carried out the request of his true directors and achieved his goal of unifying Europe but that is still in process even after the Treaty of Lisbon was signed without a vote of the people and we see the borders coming down. Napoleon and Prince Metternich and many others had known it was necessary (even if it required all the wars).

    I do not follow what you mean by conservatism between the wars. I say these words are malleable and should be taken in context of what the conditions were, but I would not say it was conservative to force people to be slaves or repress unions and all so many other ways the quality of life has increased due to better and more productive approaches than what was running the game then - I would call that (in Britain and it's commonwealth) a form of Synarchy or a Class oriented Oligarchy.

    The crash of 1929 was engineered by corrupt people like Old Joe Kennedy who also backed Eugenics (not a necessarily bad thing except as it was carried out) and along with others, they backed Hitler. The actual history of de-population planning is long and arduous to explain but there are threads here that broach the subject. After the crash Kennedy (the fox) was made head of the SEC because he knew how to rig the system best (Which is still the case today) and it was said that would make it possible for him to make real changes (the henhouse) to stop what he had done.

    But I notice you are selling a skin care product and I would ask you to take your crap somewhere else.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-03-2016 at 02:06 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    If you are available intellectually - you will have a hard time not seeing the sense in what some people who are not intellectually available will call nonsense or identify you as a system minion.

    [COLOR="#0000CD"]"The Ontological Status of Conspiracy Theory

    by Hakim Bey

    (for Kevin Coogan)

    Is conspiracy theory a delusion of the Right which has infected the Left as well? Leftist Conspiracy Theorists sometimes make uncritical use of the texts of Rightest Conspiracy Theorists-delving into the work of the Liberty Lobby for JFK Assassination tidbits, picking up Birchist notions about the CFR/Bilderberg/Rockefeller "liberal" internationalists, etc., etc. Since anti-semitism can be found on the Left as well as the Right, echoes of the Protocols may be heard from both directions. Even some anarchists are attracted to "Historical Revisionism". Anticapitalism or economic populism on the Right has its counterpoint on the Left in "Red Fascism", which broke the surface of History in the Hitler/Stalin Pact, and has come back to haunt us in the bizarre European "Third Wave" amalgamation of Right and Left extremism, a phenomenon which emerges in the USA in the libertine nihilism and "satanism" of anarcho-fascist groups like Amok Press and Radio Werewolf -- and conspiracy theory plays a big role in all these ideologies.

    If conspiracy theory is essentially right wing, it can only be so because it posits a view of History as the work of individuals rather than groups. According to this argument, a Mae Brussel-type theory (she believed that Nazis had penetrated American Intelligence and Government at policy level) may appear Leftist but in fact provides no sustenance for genuine dialectical analysis, since it ignores economics and class struggle as causal forces, and instead traces all events to the machinations of "hidden" individuals. Even the anti-authoritarian Left may sometimes adopt this low opinion of conspiracy theory, despite the fact that it is not bound by any dogmatic belief in economic determinism. Such anarchists would agree that to believe in conspiracy theory is to believe that elites can influence History. Anarchism posits that elites are simply carried by the flow of History and that their belief in their own power or agency is pure illusion. If one were to believe otherwise, such anarchists argue, then Marx and Lenin would be correct, and conspiratorial vanguardism would be the best strategy for the "movement of the social". (The existence of vanguardism proves that the Left-or at least the authoritarian Left -- has not merely been tainted accidentally with conspiracy theory: vanguardism IS conspiracy!) The Leninists say the state is a conspiracy, either of Right or Left-take your choice. The anarchists argue that the state does not "have" power in any absolute or essential sense, but that it merely usurps the power which, in essence, "belongs" to each individual, or to society en masse. The state's apparently conspiratorial aspect is therefore illusory-mere ideological wanking on the part of politicians, spies, bankers and other scum, blindly serving the interests of their class. Conspiracy Theory is therefore of interest only as a kind of sociology of culture, a tracking of the delusory fantasies of certain in-groups and out-groups-but conspiracy theory itself has no ontological status.

    This is an interesting theory with a great deal of merit, especially as a critical tool. However, as an ideology , it suffers from the same flaw as any other ideology. It constructs an absolute Idea, then explains reality in terms of absolutes. The authoritarian Right and Left share a view of the ontological status of elites or vanguards in History; the anti-authoritarian response is to shift the ontological-Historical weight to individuals or groups; but neither theory has bothered to question the ontological status of History, or for that matter of ontology itself.

    In order either to confirm or deny conspiracy theory categorically one must believe in the category of "History". But since the 19th century "History" has fragmented into dozens of conceptual shards- ethno-history, psycho-history, social history, history of things and ideas and mentalities, cliometrics, micro-history-these are not competing ideologies of History, but simply a multiplicity of histories. The notion that History is made by "great men", or that History is the outcome of blind struggle between economic interests, or that History "IS" anything specific at all, cannot really survive this fragmentation into an infinity of narratives. The productive approach to such a complex is not ontological but epistemological; i.e., we now ask not what "History" "is", but rather what and how we can know of and from the many many stories, erasures, appearances and disappearances, palimpsests and fragments of the multiple discourses and multiple histories of the inextricably tangled complexities of human becoming.

    Thus we might posit (as an epistemological exercise if nothing else) the notion that although human beings are carried along or moved by class interests, economic forces, etc., we can also accept the possibility of a feedback mechanism, whereby the ideologies and actions of both individuals and groups can modify the very "forces" which produce them.

    In fact it seems to me that as anarchists of one sort or another we must adopt some such view of matters, or else accept that our agitation, education, propaganda, forms of organization, uprisings, etc., are essentially futile, and that only "evolution" can or will bring about any significant change in the fabric of society and life. This may or may not be true of the long duree of human becoming, but it is manifestly not true on the level of individual experience of everyday life. Here a kind of rough existentialism prevails, such that we must act as if our actions could be effective, or else suffer in ourselves a poverty of becoming. Without the will to self-expression in action, we are reduced to precisely nothing. This is unacceptable. Therefore, even if one could prove that all action is illusion (and I do not believe that any such proof is available), we would still face the problem of desire. Paradoxically we are forced (on pain of utter negation) to act as if we freely choose to act, and as if action can bring about change.

    On this basis it seems possible to construct a non-authoritarian theory of conspiracy theory which neither denies it altogether nor elevates it to the status of an ideology. In its literal sense of "breathing together", conspiracy may even be thought of as a natural principle of anarchist organization. Face to face, unmediated by any control, together we construct our social reality for ourselves. If we must do so clandestinely, in order to avoid the mechanisms of mediation and control, then we have perpetrated a kind of conspiracy. But more: we can also see that other groups may organize clandestinely not to avoid control but to attempt to impose it. It's pointless to pretend that such attempts are always futile, because even if they fail to influence "History" (whatever that is), they can certainly intersect with and impact upon our everyday lives. To take one example, anyone who denies the reality of conspiracy must face a difficult task indeed when attempting to explain away the activities of certain elements within Intelligence and the Republican Party in the USA over the last few decades. Never mind the Kennedy Assassination, that spectacular boondoggle; forget the remnants of the Gehlen Org who were lurking around Dallas; but how can one even begin to discuss Nixon's plumbers, Iran/Contra, the S&L "crisis", the show-wars against Libya, Grenada, Panama, and Iraq, without some recourse to the concept of "conspiracy"? And even if we believe that the conspirators were acting as agents of blind forces, etc., etc., can we deny that their actions have actually produced ramifications on the level of our own everyday lives? The Republicans launched an open "War on Drugs", for example, while secretly using cocaine money to finance right wing insurgency in Latin America. Did anyone you know die in Nicaragua? Did anyone you know get caught up in the hypocritical "war" on marijuana? Did anyone you know fall into the misery of crack addiction? (Let's not even mention the CIA's heroin dealing in Southeast Asia and Afghanistan.)

    As Carl Oglesby points out, sophisticated conspiracy theory posits no single, all-powerful, over-riding cabal in charge of "History". That would indeed be a form of stupid paranoia, whether of the Left or the Right. Conspiracies rise and fall, spring up and decay, migrate from one group to another, compete, collude, collide, implode, explode, fail, succeed, erase, forge, forget, vanish. Conspiracies are symptoms of the great "blind forces" (and hence useful as metaphors if nothing else), but they also feed back into those forces and sometimes even affect or effect or infect them. Conspiracies, in effect, are not THE way history is made, but are rather parts of the vast complex of myriads of ways in which our multiple stories are constructed. Conspiracy Theory cannot explain everything but it can explain something. If it has no ontological status, nevertheless it does have its epistemological uses."

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2015

    "Here's a hypothesis:

    History (small "h") is a kind of chaos. Within history are embedded other chaoses, if one can use such a term. Late "democratic" Capitalism is one such chaos, in which power and control have become exceedingly subtle, almost alchemical, hard to locate, perhaps impossible to define. The writings of Debord, Foucault, and Baudrillard, have broached the possibility that "power itself" is empty, "disappeared", and been replaced by the mere violence of the spectacle. But if history is a chaos the spectacle can only be seen as a "strange attractor" rather than as some sort of causative force. The idea of "force" belongs to classical physics and has little role to play in chaos theory. And if capitalism is a chaos and the spectacle is a strange attractor, then the metaphor can be extended: -- we can say that the "Republican" conspiracies are like the actual patterns generated by the strange attractor. The conspiracies are not causal- but, then, nothing is really "causal" in the old classical sense of the term.

    One useful way in which we can, so to speak, see into the chaos that is history, is to look through the lens provided by the conspiracies. We may or may not believe that conspiracies are mere simulations of power, mere symptoms of the spectacle-but we cannot dismiss them as empty of all significance.

    Rather than speak of conspiracy theory we might instead try to construct a poetics of conspiracy. A conspiracy would be treated like an aesthetic construct, or a language-construct, and could be analyzed like a text. Robert Anton Wilson has done this with his vast and playful "Illuminati" fantasy. We can also use conspiracy theory as a weapon of agit-prop. Conspiracies of "power" make use of sheer disinformation; the least we can do in retaliation is to trace it to its source. Indeed we should avoid the mystique of conspiracy theory, the fantasy that conspiracy is all-powerful. Conspiracies can be blown. They can even be defeated. But I fear they cannot simply be ignored. The refusal to admit any validity to conspiracy theory is itself a form of spectacular delusion-blind belief in the liberal, rational, daylight world in which we all have "rights", in which "the system works", in which "democratic values will prevail in the long run" because Nature has so decreed it.

    History is a big mess. Maybe conspiracies don't work. But we have to act as if they do work. In fact the non-authoritarian movement not only needs its own conspiracy theory, it needs its own conspiracies. Whether they "work" or not. Either we all breath together or we each suffocate on our own. "They " are conspiring, never doubt it, those sinister clowns. Not only should we arm ourselves with conspiracy theory, we should have our own conspiracies-our TAZ's-our ontological guerilla commando hit-squads-our Poetic Terrorists- our chaos cabals-our secret societies. Proudhor said so. Bakunin said so. Malatesta said so. It's anarchist tradition."
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-05-2016 at 01:32 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts